The following request for comments is closed.

We, the undersigned, believe that Wikiversity has no clearly defined mission[1]; that Wikiversity has become a haven for users banned from other Wikimedia projects; and that recent behavior emanating from that project has damaged the credibility of other Wikimedia wikis. We believe that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees should shut down Wikiversity.

Signatories

It is long past time to shut it down. Raul654 23:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Sure, I'm not sure if it's useful, anyway. Kayau 10:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC) They need a workable mission and they don;t have one. They're talking about research without even getting to the stage where they can educate. Perhaps something in the way of a distributed reference desk/mentor system with links to learning resources could be made to work but they've just got communal chat rooms. Dmcq 13:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The users of Wikiversity (and its admins) have shown time and again that they do not take the educational goals of the project seriously. Writing a new mission statement won't solve that. It has become a haven for trolls and users expelled from other projects. Even the "legitimate content" of the project seems to be limited to half-implemented ideas, content dumps, bizarre pet projects, and navel gazing. Kaldari 14:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC) This is not the first time Wikiversity has been used to try to do an end-run round foundational goals, and it has become a happy home for grudge-bearing and self-referential "research" into supposed Wikipedia abuses. Most Wikipedians barely know the place exists so the result can be very heavily skewed. In the absence of a tangible commitment to pursuing proper standards of academic rigour, as the name implies, I think it is a net detriment to the goals of the Foundation. I would be very happy if they were able to clean up their act and engage in something rather closer to the goal as I originally understood it, which was to pursue original and reputable academic research in a collaborative environment. JzG 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Vote Newlyexist26 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The above entry was from a user who made it on his first edit anywhere on an WMF project and appears to be a test edit. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Oddly enough, I just came here to denounce "Wikimedia Ethics". I don't know this place well enough to propose an AfD, but even as (as you know) an unrepentant inclusionist, I don't see the use of most of the stuff in that article - though certainly it should be possible for a teacher in the field to come up with some sort of useful lecture about Wikimedia ethics, I don't think this article as presented is seriously worthy of study. But if you give up on making this project fix the problem, would any successor? Should Wikimedia just give up on applying its resources to education in the public interest? Wnt 18:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Whatever Wikiversity's original aims were, it seems to have failed them. It doesn't serve an obvious purpose, and doesn't have a sufficiently unique scope that would distinguish it from other, better WikiMedia projects. Given the general low value of much of its content and the potential it provides for disruption and unethical behaviour, I think we'd overall be better off without it. Robofish 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Wikiversity should provide a sequence of learning carefully graded from introductory to more advanced topics, unlike Wikipedia which unabashedly (and correctly) will throw quantum physics and number theory at you until you crawl away in abject humility. Wikiversity should provide tests to allow users to self-rate their knowledge, and concise study guides to allow them to run through their knowledge and "cram" it in so that they can answer such questions. It should provide estimates of the amount of classroom time needed to cover a section. It should recommend other free resources and even (carefully) consider advising readers about the copyrighted books and other paid resources that are popular with educators or students. It should include laboratory exercises and lists for field study. It should include ways for student end-users to get their questions and confusions all the way back to the guy writing the textbook, so he can make it better. And that's just what I thought of in ten minutes. Wnt 18:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Un-signatories

Discussion

Does this proposal refer to all language Wikiversities and also betaversity? -- Jtneill - Talk 00:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this a petition to shut down Wikiversity in all languages or English Wikiversity in particular? If this is about English Wikiversity in particular, Wikiversity has Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? Before criticizing Wikiversity for lack of a clear mission statement you may want to consider reading what Wikipedia:Mission[2] has to say on the subject. -- dark lama 00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this a petition to shut down Wikiversity in all languages or English Wikiversity in particular - I'm don't know if all of them are as dysfunctional as the english Wikiversity. If they are, then yes, this petition is for them too. But that's ultimately a decision for the board. As for pointing out that Wikipedia:Mission doesn't exist, that's a trite response. Wikipedia's mission is spelled out at the top of every page - it is a free encyclopedia project. To wit: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. In addition to that clear and concise definition, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not goes on to list 45 similar things that Wikipedia does not do, including dictionary entries, original research, opinion pieces, and memorials. In short, Wikipedia does a very good job of defining what it does do, and what it does not do. By contrast, Wikiversity:Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not is 240 words long, and lists exactly 5 things, including true-but-unhelpful statements like "What Wikiversity is not a degree-granting institution," "What Wikiversity is not a post-secondary institution," and the almost-vacuous "Wikiversity is not a static project." Really, the only useful item listed at Wikiversity:Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not is "Other Wikimedia projects" - so Wikiversity is essentially defining itself by doing anything that other WMF projects don't -- which covers a lot of ground. Raul654 01:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC) That covering-a-lot-of-ground can be either a strength or weakness. One should look at the outcome of the project to decide which it is. — mikelifeguard@ meta :~$ Using Wikiversity as a launch-pad for vandalizing other wikis is hardly an outcome conducive to keeping it open. Raul654 04:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Raul, what is your evidence and reasoning to support your thesis that Wikiversity is being used "as a launch-pad for vandalizing other wikis"? Can you give any specific examples where it was used in that manner? —Moulton 06:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Evidence besides the how-to guide to sockpuppeting that was posted there and the "research project" into "ethical breaching experiments"? Raul654 06:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I deleted the "how-to" guide 42 minutes after it was posted following a note in the Wikiversity IRC room and discussing the matter with multiple Stewards. The how-to guide was based on the guide put together by MzMcBride and was mentioned in an ArbCom case that concluded prior to Privatemusings's posting. He was warned not to post anything similar to it again. I offered my resignation to the WMF board if they felt that I did not delete the material fast enough or that they felt that me merely warning and not blocking was not a strong enough response. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I think an encyclopedia is obviously not a dictionary or a textbook, but none the less Wikipedia felt a need to spell it out. I imagine there is some historical reasons why such obvious statements are in place. There are reasons why obvious statements are in place in what Wikiversity is not too. Schools, colleges, universities, they all cover a lot of ground too. Wikiversity defines itself by what it is more than by what it is not. -- dark lama

Note - Learning materials cannot apply to Wikipedia as that is only for encyclopedic content and does not allow for original research, thus "learning" cannot happen (as learning is an active process). Wikisource is for GFDL allowable printed material that was published already, and does not encompass what can be learning material. Wikibooks only allows for the creation of books, whereas most learning material is not such. Jimbo has already stated that Wikiversity has the potential to be the strongest project because of its connection to learning and education. We already have many projects run by dozens of teachers that not only have online classes but also bring their real life students into the Wiki environment, allowing for a cross relationship between WMF and universities. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I am pretty sure that Wikibooks would like people reading its textbooks to learn something and would consider good textbooks to be "learning materials". The real distinction is that Wikibooks teaches through textbooks while Wikiversity teaches through classes (as well as permitting original research). And I've learned several things from Wikipedia as well. I think the other projects would be well offended at the implication that they don't offer learning opportunities. And yet "learning materials" is in the mission statement for Wikiversity. I don't agree with the proposal to close Wikiversity, but I do agree that the mission statement needs to be less ambiguous. -- Adrignola 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC) A text book outside of a classroom is just a reference book. "Learning" is a process that requires interaction by definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to ask that any Wikiversity users please not enter into hostilities regarding this matter, turn this into a dispute, or anything else that is similar. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Too late for that. It appears that darklama has blocked me from Wikiversity for having the gall to criticize it. Kaldari 18:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)



Wouldn't it be more productive to just block/ban the people who aren't "playing well with other children"? We wouldn't shut a library just because some of the staff were incompetent or wasting resources. Fire them, and move on. They'll raise a private stink, which everyone can happily ignore, much like we do the stink raised by the people banned from Wikipedia. Don't cut off the face to spite the nose, is all I'm saying. Discriminate response required. (I'm here from the mailing list notice, and am only passingly acquainted with the problematic issue itself.) Quiddity 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The problem, in this case, is that the inmates are running the asylum. None of the admins on Wikiversity is willing to stick their neck out and clean up the place. Indeed, many of them are the most vocal supporters of the editors who are disrupting other projects. Kaldari 20:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Wikiversity is likely to listen if shown some empirical data. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough. If the editors are blocked from other projects as has been said how can they still be disrupting the other projects? Any support is due to lack of empirical data. Speculation does not demonstrate a correlation. Interpretation does not demonstrate a correlation. Where's the proof? -- dark lama (Moving my comments out of #unsignatories section, as I don't have time to investigate anywhere near thoroughly enough). Well, as a suggestion, with no pussyfooting, anyone who consistently supports blatant crap. E.g. I'm baffled as to how Wikiversity:Wikiversity:RFD#Russian Roulette (Drinking Game) resulted in no consensus.

Regarding "the issue" itself, the whole thing is bizarre. Of course an open-wiki can be vandalized, with subtlety. Structuring it as an "ethical investigation" seems like a really feeble attempt at pretending that it's not directly counter to the principles of "don't game the system" and "don't make a mess in order to prove a point".

Now, I can't read it, so don't know exact details (no, please don't point me to an offsite mirror), but it smells distinctly like young philosophy students who "mean well", but are trying to achieve an end (something-BLP-something-something at Wikipedia) by any means possible. (Yay! Ethics!). No.

Quiddity 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC) You can see from the discussion that I wanted the page deleted. I also deleted Privatemusing's "how to" page which was the only page that promoted cross wiki socking. I immediately warned him about it here. I have blocked people who have crossed the line, I have chastised people who have acted out, and I have made it clear when things get too far out of hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The "ethical investigation" structure you speak of is one of many possible interpretations. Some people have said they believe the project was about breaking ethics rather than an ethical investigation. Some people have said they believe the project was about a means for achieving some end. Some people have said they believe the work was philosophical. Some people have said the project means well and is not about achieving some end. Some people have said the project was a thought experiment. Some people have said the work is about researching any means that is ethical. There is simply not enough empirical data for Wikiversity to conclude a line was crossed. Additionally the author of the work has shown a willingness to accept whatever line in the sand Wikiversity decides to make, which means a block is not needed for prevention. -- dark lama So if some people have said all kinds of things, why did you block Kaldari for trolling while defending people that encourage it? If you can't be objective, don't try. Keegan 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Are you suggesting people who encourage trolling should be blocked as well? Making a call on whether person A encouraged person B is even less objective. Wikiversity wanting empirical data is not the same as defending people. A jury can say a person is not guilty due to reasonable doubt while still believing that the person committed the crime, because the burden of proof and evidence was not enough to remove all doubt. -- dark lama Raul654's post below mine is adequate, but I should reply to you anyway. Yes, people that encourage trolling should be blocked. What it trolling? It is intentional disruption within the confines of process with malicious intent. This is what makes trolling different from criticism. Kaldari was providing constructive criticism, even if it means that xyer opinion is to take the project out back and shoot it. This is not a blockable offense especially considering it was a rational consideration about the WMF hosting content that intends to disrupt. I notice a minority of WV contributors participating in this discussion, and it would be quite pleasant to get non-objective eyes from that project engaged here. Darklama, your block was unjustified, your reasons are unfounded and rely on weasel words like "empirical" (when that's not a proven concept in social media) to put aside the naysayers. And you block naysayers. Step away from the keyboard and think about the social construct the the WV environment has built, and how it has lead you to do things like block a good faith contributor. Keegan 20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I do not agree. Person A should only be blocked if and when they troll, and not because person B trolled. Person B is not Person A's responsibility. How pray tell, do you tell when someone has a malicious intent? How do yo tell when disruption is intentional? How do you tell the difference between constructive criticism and trolling? If I was blocking people just for being naysayers a lot more people would be blocked. Empirical data is an important concept in academics, Wikiversity is about academics, and Wikiversity consists of mostly academics. Even if I step back some by saying that objective reasoning is required there is still problems because its about interpreting facts. There has been no proof to backup people's interpretations of the facts. I believe I know already what has lead to an environment where blocking of potentially good faith contributors takes place, the introduction of the trolling concept into an academic environment where it probably does not make sense objectively. If WV administrators are told to not put up with trolling than the potential loss of good faith contributors seems unavoidable. I have only blocked twice for trolling, both are very recent developments I might add. -- dark lama I'll bite, this is an interesting discourse. First off, you have failed to justify your block of Kaldari based on "empirical evidence". Second, the world of science runs on empirical evidence. The world of the arts does not, it is solely based on intellectual reason. Your excuse of an academic community is the cause for this rift fails with that point. Third, if WV can construct itself with an outlined mission statement that can convince academics to work together (something that the sciences encourage, the arts don't) then we can start a debate about the merits of an academic environment and how to properly shape and format it. You made a bad block, I don't hate you for it, I would just like to see WV administrators (custodians) bite the bullet and admit there are problems and work to fix them. Simple as that. OTOH, academics (and yes, I know more than a bit about the internal aspects of academia while not participating myself) have trouble doing this. WV must find the medium, or it's doomed to become troll heaven. I don't think you want that, and I don't think blocking Kaldari as a troll is constructive to the end which you wish to achieve. Keegan 03:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I wasn't trying to bait you, I'm glad you find it an interesting discourse. Wikiversity custodians (sysops) are more or less expected to act impartial when making decisions that involve the us of the tools separate from any personal opinions they might have. I think acting on empirical evidence is a good idea, but that isn't what custodians were told to do. I think you could call it a conflict or a dilemma right now because Wikiversity expects custodians to do one thing and other people are expecting custodians to do something else. I think WV does already convinces academics to work together, even if it isn't exactly in the current mission statement WV tries to work that way and encourages it. You can see a list of brick and motor universities collaborations aka real universities that have contribute to the various language editions of Wikiversity on Beta. Art vs science maybe that is where the rift in this discourse resides? Of course there are problems, including an inability to always agree on what the problems are. I blocked Kaldari for 24 hours, that block has already expired. I agree that blocking people for trolling in general is not constructive to Wikiversity's goals as a community that attracts academics. I am just trying to deal with the cards that has been dealt to us as best I can, and I hope that either clarification can happen or people can respect that blocking for trolling is not conductive for Wikiversity. There has to be a happy medium (I hope) that allows Wikiversity to continue to work with a "prevention through education" model of dealing with problems, over taking a "prevention through blocking" model whenever possible. Recent events have contributed to a conflict between those two models of prevention, and Wikiversity participants are not happy about it. -- dark lama You can put your hands over your ears and shout "NA NA NA YOUR EVIDENCE IS ANECDOTAL SO I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as loud as you want It's not a particularly effective argument, nor does it at all rebut the mountain of evidence that WV is a failed project and a haven for banned users. I count at least five(!) users banned from other wikis involved in the current goings on: Privatemusings, who started the breaching experiments project, Ottava who tried to deal with it; Jon Awbry, who signed the letter; Moulton, who has already edited this petition; and MisterWiki, who was banned from no less than three projects for uploading copyvios and sockpuppetry). If the editors are blocked from other projects as has been said how can they still be disrupting the other projects? - gee, perhaps people are upset with Wikiversity because Wikiverity tolerates banned users who go there to start projects that involve vandalizing other wikis? Worse, the WV community actively protest that the Foundation had to clean up the mess they created. Are you getting it yet? Raul654 05:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) "Wikiversity is likely to listen if shown some empirical data. ... Any support is due to lack of empirical data." - see my comment above, re: putting your hands in your ears and shouting that you can't hear anyone. Your whole response here - essentially, to deny that there's a problem when anyone with two eyes can see otherwise (and, at the same time, your abusive 24 hour block of Kaldari) - is yet more evidence for why WV should be shuttered. The inmates have clearly taken over the asylum. Raul654 05:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC) For those who have asked how it came to be that Jimbo site-banned me, Jimbo gave his reasons here. —Moulton 06:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC) How mature of you to compare people that don't share your POV to immature children. How is such a comparison an effective argument? Are you trying to be effective by encouraging an emotional response? What is the mountain of evidence that you keep speaking of? -- dark lama "How mature of you to compare people that don't share your POV to immature children" - I wasn't comparing all the people who I disagree wtih to children. I was comparing you, Darklama, personally, to children who do that, owing to your repeated posts here wherein you blithely dismiss all the evidence because you think it is anecdotal. It's not, and your repeated insistence of such simply proves that your comments here cannot be taken seriously. How is such a comparison an effective argument? - ironically, that's *exactly* the point I was making. Dismissing the evidence against WV because you incorrectly claim it anecodatal is not a defense of WV. It is simply an argument that serves to waste everyone's time. Are you trying to be effective by encouraging an emotional response? - I am pointing out the gaping holes in your argument by aptly comparing them to the immature "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" sort that children use. What is the mountain of evidence that you keep speaking of? - let's see: (A) the numerous banned users involved in this current episode (stated above) (B) WV's lack of any mission or project goals (stated above) (C) the near-complete lack of any meaningful content on WV (stated by others here) (D) The use of WV as a launchpad for damaging other Wikis (stated above) (E) The intransigence of the WV community when confronted with these realities (ala, the petition and the comments here) while simultaneously decrying Foundation-level "interference." Raul654 21:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I was not dismissing reasons people have mentioned here as anecdotal. I am saying that the reasons people gave at Wikiversity for supporting the deletion of the ethics project was considered anecdotal by the Wikiversity community, an interpretation of the events there. I may be blind, but I am not deaf. It is not about dismissing or refusing to see it, I just do not see a problem where other people do. The problems others see is not obvious to me. I think this is also true for many of the people coming from Wikiversity. If I had a problem with acknowledging that other people see a problem where I see none, I would not be here scratching my head, I would just ignore it. A) How is numerous banned users involvement a problem? B) As I said before Wikiversity does have a mission. Wikiversity's mission can be found at Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity. I have not noticed any further response to that. C) You can find a lot of meaningful content on WV. Try going through Wikiversity:Browse. I can agree that finding the good stuff is hard, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. As I have said in Talk:Requests for comment/Improve Wikiversity, Wikiversity does need to improve how it organizes things. D) I haven't seen a convincing argument or proof for that yet. E) There hasn't been any offers to compromise on anyone's part yet, because nobody has made it clear that there is any room for compromise. So for the situation has more or less been "this is the way it must be". I think Requests for comment/Improve Wikiversity probably shows that there may be room for compromise. I think the letter was an attempt to get clarification, because compromise thus far has looked like an impossibility. If you hadn't noticed I don't support the open letter. Even this RFC makes compromise look like an impossibility. -- dark lama

After reviewing some content on the discussed website, using the random page approach, i have to agree that some of the material needs supervision, there is questionable material, and for a site that advertises it is a resource for learning, and may, in particular attract children, which need reliable information or else the learning process is undermined. Such pages are: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/3.0_Neural_networks , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John_%28CBS%29/Week_3 , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/David_Generelo_Miranda , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Empathy_Model/Predatory_economics , as well as many unfinished pages. There are useful pages, but considering the amount of non useful pages i have to agree that something must be done. While i will not support shutting down the wiki at this time, there has to some sort of supervision of this wiki. For instance many pages consist of outside links http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Genetics . P.S I used 25 random pages, about 5 were questionable and 3 were stubs/templates. 124.182.239.232 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

After some more searches i came on a wealth of information about nonkilling, written by the the school of nonkilling studies (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/School:Nonkilling_studies). Apparently Leo tolstoy or Martin luther king support this concept, and there are articles suggesting so. There are also hundreds of Cristian articles, although the muslim pages can be counted on one hand. Buddism is nonpresent, surprisingly no nonkilling supporter thought to give buddha credit for that as well. There is a nonkilling and voodoo page, though. The article http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Chronic_Disease_Self-Management points out that "80% of heart disease, stroke and Type II diabetes would be prevented and 40% of cancer would be prevented if risk factors were reduced. Ultimately, we have control over chronic disease. If someone engages in risk factors like smoking, not wearing sunscreen, eating too much junk food, not exercising, and drinking too much alcohol, he or she will greatly increase the risk of chronic disease." well, obviously it is too late. And the school of nonkilling studies logo appears on the wikipedia page nonkilling[2]. I am a bit suspicious of that image. I don´t actively participate in Wikiversity because my native language is not English: However, this page's proposal seems to involve all the languages in which the project is developed. I don´t understand the meaning of the statistics that the IP develops above. This project is not a corporate or commercial product whose viability can be analyzed based on the quality of certain pages or articles, but a project developed by a community of volunteers. If entries remain wrong, that only proves that still no one with enough will or commitment has found it and corrected. What has this to do with closing Wikiversity?.--Antur - Talk/Discusión 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This petition refers to the english version. I don't know where the "risk factors" come in to this, but it is worth noting (w:sunscreen controversy) that sunscreen does not protect against the hardest UV radiation and so can lull the user into catching a melanoma. Likewise "fat but fit" people have no reduction in lifespan, and moderate drinking actually reduces the yearly risk of death substantially in older people. So if any of this is related to ethics (or wikiversity) consider what side you may be on. Wnt 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If banned users from other projects with a low edit count and a high drama ratio are not being dealt with appropriately on Wikiversity, it would seem to make a hell of a lot more sense to deal with the users involved than treat the project as failed and try to have it shut down. The notion of global WM blocks should probably be more utilised than it is to deal with such things - applying as it would to probably half a dozen individuals at most. Orderinchaos 02:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)





Alternate Suggestion

Probationary status. As Wikiversity has welcomed and enabled trolls, vandals, and ethically questionable practices - as someone said above, "the inmates are running the asylum" - perhaps a top-down approach is necessary to reinvent the community, with a strong emphasis on ethics and focused projects. Currently many, if not most, of the projects seem to fall into one of three categories: inactive or nearly so; Random bs from someone who has done little or no serious research (also Pushing Pet Fringe Views); and ill-conceived and unethical projects such as the one which led to Moulton's banning and the one which led to this Rfc, which are nothing more than stirring up trouble and causing problems under a very thin and implausible veneer of "study". I can poke sticks at small children and call it "study", too, but that doesn't make it a legitimate field nor an ethical approach. Under the probation, all current admins' status will be revoked without prejudice; a committee of probationary admins would be installed by the Wikimedia Foundation (details of selection to be discussed) and consensus would be secondary to the rulings of the committee. KillerChihuahua 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, it would be a *very* good idea to explicitly prohibit WV projects involving the WMF and WMF-run projects. That might make WV a less-suitable environment for trolls who want to rehash the reasons they got booted. Raul654 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I've refrained from getting involved in the hope that people would see the absurdity of this proposal and let it die. I understand your frustrations about the way Wikiversity works, but neither project termination or probation will solve the issues. We are a community of academics who try to solve our problems through careful reasoned discussion. I've heard many cries for reform and change, but no one has provided us with concrete examples of things to work on. Don't just tell us it's broken, help us fix it by providing clear examples and proposals. You may think we're a bunch of trolls, or children, or idiots, but we actually will listen to your concerns. We see the humanity and value of all human beings, and respect your opinions for the insights they provide, even if we don't always see eye to eye.

I am respectfully urging you to end this talk of closure or probation, and instead provide us with a list of things that you would like to see fixed. This will go a long way towards towards allowing us to see where the problems are specifically, allowing us to change them. Geoff Plourde 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You state "probation will [not] solve the issues" and then ask, what are the issues? I presume no comment is needed fro me regarding the absurdity of that. You state "We are a community of academics..." I beg to differ. You may be largely a community of academics. But I know of no such community where a scheme to intentionally disrupt and vandalize and cause problems at a sister project, one run by the same foundation, would not have been shot down in flames well before it reached planning states. At least some of your "academics" are ethically challenged - and your admins and "leaders" are proving ineffectual in curbing this kind of behavior. This is not the first problem. This is merely the last straw for many. You assert that you'll fix it - why haven't you fixed it already? I suspect it is because you either do not see the problems or you do not care. KillerChihuahua 11:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Killer Chihuahua, one of the problems we have run into is that we keep hearing cries for change, but no one will provide us with suggestions as to specific actions we can take to remediate the problems. Instead of simply saying we have problems, provide us with suggestions on how to fix it. With regards to the ethical breaching project, I think the magnitude's been highly exaggerated. A custodian deleted it shortly after it became a problem, and matters were well under control. I remain confident that we can all work for a permanent resolution of the issues. Geoff Plourde 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Geoff: 1) After I pointed out your apparent conflict of interest at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agape World Fellowship, you told me that you were "a leader and former board member for the organization". That seems troublesome. 2) the page you built at wikiversity:Topic:Agape World Fellowship, links to "Rights and Rules - AWF official rules that all visitors and members must abide by". So, anyone interested in your course has to agree to Agape World Fellowship's user policies? That seems troublesome. 3) the page you built at wikiversity:Mere Christianity (CBL) links to what appear to be copyright violations, as its primary Resources. That seems troublesome. 4) I don't even know where to begin with wikiversity:Topic:North American History/Intro and wikiversity:Gospel of John (CBS)/Week 10/Essay. So, to be discourteously blunt, I'd say one of the problems (theEnglish) Wikiversity has, is teenagers trying to be university professors. I don't know why you turned up to play mediator on March 20, after a 6 month absence from Wikiversity. Way back in 2006 I suggested to you that trying to assume positions of authority without knowing the ins-and-outs of a community, wasn't a good idea; it still isn't. [Plus, How is your time not already all taken up by being an admin at Conservapedia??] You surely mean well, but I strongly believe that neither pages you create at Wikiversity, nor your input in this rfc process, is actually very helpful. Quiddity 13:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. I'm not sure how (1) is applicable here, so I'll address the other points you made. I've gone ahead and more clearly defined the annotation for Rights and Rules (2). No one is required to use the virtual world, which will be addressed on each course page. Some websites (3) get special permission to use copies of Christian books. I don't see a specific statement either way so I've removed it while I email the site that's hosting it. If you don't like the pages in (4), you are free to edit the page or start a post on the talk page. Please keep in mind that I am working with a religious school, not Oxford. I am at a loss how this would make me a university professor. Any problems with the courses I create will be addressed during the upcoming review and approval process. I also don't have or want any positions of authority at Wikiversity. I simply want to see peace, rather than strife. Geoff Plourde 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Notes

↑ "help Wikiversity by adding your ideas about what Wikiversity should become, or what it should do." That this plea is necessary on a project that has existed for 4 years speaks volumes about the project's lack of mission. Wikiversity's nebulous mission statement , "the creation and use of free learning materials and activities", could apply to almost any other Wikimedia project, including Wikipedia, Wikisource, and Wikibooks. Even more telling, it includes a plea for editors toThat this plea is necessary on a project that has existed for 4 years speaks volumes about the project's lack of mission. ↑ Wikipedia doesn't have a mission statement either. There is WP:MISSION though which says to avoid mission statements.

Areas for Improvements

Please post the problems you see on Wikiversity and suggestions for improvement below. Geoff Plourde 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity is not English Wikiversity

It would be dangerous precedent if griefing on one language could shut down all other languages in a project. This is something Raul654 should address head-on, rather than passing the ball to the foundation to decide how far to raze, if it does decide to do so.

I can tell quite affirmatively for instance that the Finnish Wikiversity has an impressive list of institutes of higher learning who have opted in to work within it, perhaps most notably the high visibility Aalto-instituutti, which is branding itself as "Educational Institution 2.0". Kudos for this, I think, goes to Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board Member Teemu Leinonen.

Personally I would have preferred to ignore the closure petition, but it is important to note that as it stands, its scope is hugely overblown. -- Cimon Avaro 01:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)





Key en.wikiversity statistics

I have complied a page of en.wikiversity statistics at User:A. B./Sandbox 1 (permanent link)

This includes:

List of 418 accounts active in the last 30 days

List of active en.wikiversity editors that have blocks recorded on en.wikipedia

List of en.wikiversity custodians (admins) and bureaucrats and their en.wikipedia records

Total en.wikiversity pages, revisions to date

Daily number of en.wikiversity revisions

Most heavily edited en.wikiversity content pages (i.e., articles)

Disclaimer: I have an account on en.wikiversity as part of my cross-wiki spam cleanup.

-- A. B. (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC closure

Comments are beginning to taper off. I intend to close and archive this discussion in 7 days unless I see a compelling consensus to keep it open or I see a sudden flood of useful comments. -- A. B. (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This Request for comment ("RfC") is now closed as unsuccessful. The discussion has been winding down and it is time to close it. Comments:

-- A. B. (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)