Moulton blocked on WV by Jimbo, !!! Options

[Ottava]

Nobody has to be blocked blatantly. Believing that such is necessary belies an unhealthy love of wielding power over others.

Well, I have yet to discover a way to block someone without any record of it.

[Abd]

My apologies for the length, and I must leave now, I'm a rug merchant on Sundays.... Hand-knotted Persian tribal rugs anyone? I really wish that there was something like WP collapse here, I could later re-organize this.

A better Buddhist story:

Two monks were walking along a path one day until they came upon a river. By the river was a woman who couldn't get across. The older of the two monks picked her up and carried her as they crossed. On the other side of the river, he let her go and the two monks went on their way.

Later, the younger monk turned to the older monk and said, "Why did you carry that woman across the water? You know that carrying her would be against our rules."

The older monk turned to the younger monk and said, "I only carried her across the water. You've been carrying her since the river."

The lesson there is two fold: 1. what is right is not always what is written down as being right and 2. be willing to let the past go.

How deep was the river?

These old teaching stories generally have multiple levels of meaning. They do not have "lessons" like that, these are often superimposed by someone who doesn't discern the deep meanings. Hint: the "morals" make assumptions about rightness and the state of someone being advised. "Be willing!" is advice for the benefit of whom? And from whom?

Absolutely, for the benefit of the individual, letting go of what cannot be changed (such as the past) is a course that will lead to increased happiness. For the individual. What about for the society? What is good advice for those on the path of the bodhisattva, who surrender their personal happiness, which they know is in detachment and removal from involvement with the world, in favor of liberating all sentient beings?

One of my teachers, one of the greatest, sent me a message that to explain a metaphor is to kill it. I did not ask him to explain, even though I hadn't been explaining any metaphor, I had coined one. I think the servant taking the comment to him had taken his own understanding of what I'd said, not my words. It was all a metaphor, indeed, this is all a metaphor.

Moulton, your understanding and your wisdom could be of great benefit to the world, perhaps are already, elsewhere. In a functional Wikipedia/Wikiversity community, they would be given due respect, and if you fell into behavioral problems, as most of us do from time to time, you would be guided through them, not expelled. You do understand what communities need, but you did not know how to bring this about, reliably, on WikiVersity, and I'm not familiar with your Wikipedia history, I only know your present condition and what you have pointed to in your old writing.

But your story is the story of many. SB Johnny regrets that there had not been more academic and expert input. There was lots of it. It was buried in the noise and rejected. Wisdom and knowledge do not automatically come to the surface, except under certain conditions; the wiki vision was defective, fooled by the chaotic existence of conditions that do produce improvement with little structure.

What happens on Wikipedia when an expert shows up? First of all, a real expert is accustomed to some kind of deference, after all, they paid their dues. Their credentials mean nothing on Wikipedia. However, they could still be effective, if they are truly expert, and if all editors received respect according to the cogency of their arguments and how what they present can be found in strong sources. I argued before ArbComm that all those claiming to be expert should be treated as COI, and this was absolutely not understood. It does mean a restriction, but it also means freedom. A COI editor is expected to be biased toward a point of view, but is allowed to present this point of view in Talk. When that breaks down, when points of view are excluded from Talk, experts are helpless if the expert point of view somehow is unpopular. Even more so if the expert is in a minority in the field.

So, meeting opposition, what does the expert do? The expert knows that the opposition is stupid and ignorant (as one possibility). Somehow we expect experts to not be human, I think there was a naive assumption that if someone gets angry, they must not be professional. That's true. But none of these experts were being paid to edit Wikipedia! And they found it completely frustrating to meet revert-warring over what was obvious to them. Had they been warned not to edit articles contentiously, but to advise the community, and then protected against attack for giving advice (good or bad!), we'd have a very different situation. Instead, the expert sooner or later burst out with the obvious, he was dealing with a bunch of idiots, and so he is blocked and sometimes banned if the idiots were administrators or knew one.

Democratic societies, which are the strongest in the long run, together with oligarchies or autocracies while they operate within certain limits, learned long ago to rigorously protect minority opinion, for, if they do not, they become rigid and unable to change. WikiVersity, because of the heavy tradition of academic freedom, may be, in fact, a golden opportunity to reform the entire WikiMedia system.

Can WikiVersity put together, with all the tools available and within reach, a genuine self-governing system that could take over from the WMF? Jimbo is clearly ambivalent about this. He wants the wikis to be self-governing, I think he's sincere about that. But somehow they aren't doing it. He may be incorrect about where they err, but he knows that something is wrong. He just doesn't know how to fix it, so he falls back on the old autocratic/oligarchical models. Which do work better than raw mob rule. Except not for true academic freedom (WikiVersity) or real NPOV (Wikipedia).

Wikipedia could be, sort of, NPOV if controlled by a traditional top-down structure that somehow was dedicated to finding the consensus of the knowledgeable (which is what consensus should really mean). But I don't know, at all, that it has access to this. It could mean abandoning the Wikipedia line of experiment and moving toward the Citizendium model, which would not be a terrible outcome.

But not as interesting to me as fixing the Wikipedia approach by adding in what it needs: genuine consensus process.

I have this MYOB ban which prevents me from commenting on disputes between other editors. It was based on some vague notion that this had been the problem. It wasn't. As to actual intervention in personal disputes between editors, I was pretty good at resolving them. A young editor and a professor of economics were having at it. I saw this from some beginnings of process, sooner or later one or both of them were going to be blocked. So I asked them if they were willing for me to mediate, showing sympathy for both. They accepted. I set up a page in my user space to explore the dispute. It was amazing how little it took, and they were happily cooperating, and I've seen that it continued. I don't consider myself a true expert at this, but there are people who are. Where are they? Why are they not immediately called in when there is a dispute getting out of hand?

Carcharoth is beginning to notice that there is some disruption going on, that it's not all coming from me. Brilliant. Now what? ArbComm had an opportunity to explore the roots of disputes, but elected, instead, to sit back and make judgments based on how many editors were on one side (lots supporting WMC and a handful supporting my position, which ArbComm actually supported!) and how many words were written by the sides (more against me, but that was two dozen editors, and it always takes more words to clean up mudslinging than to toss it. I actually stopped responding, as many would advise. It didn't work.)

The Arbitration Committee is supposed to be the top level dispute resolution process, but it doesn't generally resolve disputes; instead it attempts to bury them. Carcharoth is concerned about the pile of stuff on ArbComm's "desk." I've suggested how it could easily handle that. All it takes is some structure. Bureaucracy, you could call it, except that it could be done ad-hoc with minimal formal structure. But some. Each arbitrator should have personal clerks or investigators, trusted by the arbitrator to investigate situations and compile reports, and responsible to the arbitrator. Whenever a matter rises to ArbComm, it should be neutrally investigated. Instead, ArbComm sits back and looks at what the parties present, which is usually cherry-picked and biased, so usually that when they see something different, they don't recognize it. They assume bias, and they tend to pick the bias that is most comfortable for them.

In RfAr/Abd and JzG, I had previously presented all the necessary evidence, clearly and succinctly, in RfC/JzG 3. In the end, what swung that case was that an arbitrator wrote a tool to do what I'd done manually, and presented the same evidence. Suddenly it was not possible to deny. Now, I'd presented carefully compiled diffs, not cherry-picked. They were complete records of edits to Cold fusion by JzG, showing length and depth of involvement. Any personal comments of mine were clearly kept separately identifiable. Yet many had assumed that JzG's edit summaries were my comments!

(In that RfAr, ArbComm suggested that I thoroughly document issues before proceeding up the DR ladder. That's exactly what I'd done! Don't they realize that "thorough documentation" takes more than snippy comments? I was very careful and thorough with DR, and that's why I was effective. And that I was effective is exactly why I was attacked. In the recent flap, there were no "walls of text." Yet many still seem to think that was the problem. It's knee-jerk thinking that doesn't look at present evidence, doesn't even think it needs it.)

Lack of neutral investigation, lack of careful formal process that establishes evidence first, and only proceeds to interpretation and conclusions later, lack of noise control (anyone can edit!), this makes neutral and cogent decision-making impossible. "Anyone can edit" should become "anyone can generate input for the editorial process, through efficient and rigorously fair filtering." How can that be done? Isn't that an interesting question?

So set it up, in a place where it cannot be disrupted. In order for it to be rigorously neutral, it must be rigorously independent, and it must be possible for there to be multiple processes. That each one might have some bias is only a problem if it's presumed to be artificially exclusive and not balanced by another independent process. Because it is off-wiki, it has no power except the power to advise. Which can be huge. If anyone is paying attention, and these processes can, if nothing else, advise their participants. But it they do their work well, they will do far more than that.

The open forum model can't do it (but it can be useful for developing community). The wiki model could, with some appropriate options, but it's a heavy administrative responsibility to run a wiki that is as open as these processes must be. I find mailing lists to be ideal, particularly if they have associated resources; I use yahoogroups lists, which seem to have better tools than googlegroups. I advise against using private domains, because it should be possible for anyone to quickly set up one of these lists, with settings that will work for purpose, just follow a model. I'll do it for anyone who asks, and retain ownership as a trustee for the group consensus, or turn it over as requested by a majority, under certain conditions (I'll lay all of that out formally, but, bottom line, there is no way I could abusively control these groups, they can snatch themselves away from my control, trivially and easily, and I end up controlling only my own ravings, all the essential function having moved itself elsewhere.)

(There is a domain, beyondpolitics.org, and a wiki, that could be used. The purpose of BP is encouraging the formation of Free Associations with Delegable Proxy (FA/DP), and, because of my work with Wikipedia, it's been badly neglected. I do have attention deficit disorder, my weakness and my strength.)

The biggest objection probably is based on a concept that this would be cumbersome and boring. That's probably based on experience with cumbersome, boring, repetitive discussions that go nowhere, the norm for many years in open fora. This is actually something different, though, without discipline of some kind, any list can become that. And such lists will die, generally. Natural consequences.

Imagine a mailing list with a "chair" and something like Robert's Rules of Order. That would be more like it. And committees (sublists) to deal with particular issues. Top-level list traffic is, when the scale gets large, heavily filtered through sublists. But the key point to remember is Rules of Order, things like not debating motions that aren't seconded, referring to committee if investigation is required, and, when scale is large, estimation of consensus through representation. Because these structures will not be making binding decisions -- except about their own process -- and because they will naturally seek consensus (divisive advice being *really stupid* and a waste of everyone's time), there is no need to worry greatly about sock puppetry, which, in such structures, will mostly waste the time of the puppet master. (Yeah, so the puppet master seconds his own motion. But nobody else really wants to waste time on it. Refer to Committee. The puppet master then debates with himself and comes up with a recommendation. Committee report. Motion to reject. Motion to close debate. Rejection passes, because there was nothing there but the ravings of the puppet master. Puppet master makes new motion and seconds. Objection to Consideration of the Question, passes. Motion to Censure Puppet Master. Passes. Puppet Master is now on moderation on the list, with the original second prohibited frmo seconding.

Suppose this happens abusively. Alleged Puppet Master and real independent editor suspected of being sock form their own list. Can they attract participation? Does it really matter? If they can convince any other member of the original list to present an idea, they can get it considered. If they can't, well, it was still a waste of time. Delegable proxy would enable even those banned to be represented, at least. You can't warp such a community by banning direct participation, unless you truly do ban a majority. Sock allegations get old fast when they are used, in fact, to exclude ideas.

This post has been edited by Abd: Sun 21st March 2010, 3:17pm

[Moulton]

Nobody has to be blocked blatantly. Believing that such is necessary belies an unhealthy love of wielding power over others.

Well, I have yet to discover a way to block someone without any record of it.

Look up the story of how Odysseus blocked the Siren's Song by putting wax in his ears.

The antidote to Freedom of Speech is the Freedom to Not Listen.

Similarly, the antidote to Freedom to Learn is the Freedom to Remain Ignorant.

In the long run, it is futile to try to block the learning process among those who truly wish to learn.

[Ottava]

These old teaching stories generally have multiple levels of meaning. They do not have "lessons" like that, these lessons is superimposed by someone who doesn't discern the deep meanings.

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end. I also have some Zen Buddhist texts with the same.

Confucius also tended to give brief synopsis at the end of his stories.

One of my teachers, one of the greatest, sent me a message that to explain a metaphor is to kill it.

Then I guess he wasn't a great teacher as he was never able to answer any of the student's questions. Putting forth an answer does not make it the only one, and humans are only capable of coming up with so many answers based on their own limited perspective. We need to pool our ideas together to come up with a more complete view.

[SB_Johnny]

These old teaching stories generally have multiple levels of meaning. They do not have "lessons" like that, these lessons is superimposed by someone who doesn't discern the deep meanings.

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end. I also have some Zen Buddhist texts with the same.

Confucius also tended to give brief synopsis at the end of his stories.

One of my teachers, one of the greatest, sent me a message that to explain a metaphor is to kill it.

Then I guess he wasn't a great teacher as he was never able to answer any of the student's questions. Putting forth an answer does not make it the only one, and humans are only capable of coming up with so many answers based on their own limited perspective. We need to pool our ideas together to come up with a more complete view.

Anyone else suddenly thinking about Rocky and Bullwinkle?

[Ottava]

Anyone else suddenly thinking about Rocky and Bullwinkle?

Well, you always have reminded me of Dudley Do-Right.

[Moulton]

Moulton, your understanding and your wisdom could be of great benefit to the world, perhaps are already, elsewhere. In a functional Wikipedia/Wikiversity community, they would be given due respect, and if you fell into behavioral problems, as most of us do from time to time, you would be guided through them, not expelled. You do understand what communities need, but you did not know how to bring this about, reliably, on WikiVersity, and I'm not familiar with your Wikipedia history, I only know your present condition and what you have pointed to in your old writing.

But your story is the story of many. SB Johnny regrets that there had not been more academic and expert input. There was lots of it. It was buried in the noise and rejected. Wisdom and knowledge do not automatically come to the surface, except under certain conditions; the wiki vision was defective, fooled by the chaotic existence of conditions that do produce improvement with little structure.

It didn't take me very long to diagnose the problems in Wikipedia, but solving them proved impossible, for reasons that many have sought to analyze over the past few years.

From the outset, Wikiculture was not structured along the lines of an academic enterprise. Instead it was structured along the lines of a game which attracted power players who were not obliged to operate within the normative bounds of scholarly ethics.

[CharlotteWebb]

[03:13] *** Quits: Abd (Excess Flood)

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end.

Must be the guy who wrote The Art of War [and Peace].

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

[03:13] *** Quits: Abd (Excess Flood)

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end.

Must be the guy who wrote The Art of War [and Peace].

You're thinking of Sun Tzu.
Lao Tzu was more concerned with the art of peace.

[Lar]

Nobody has to be blocked blatantly. Believing that such is necessary belies an unhealthy love of wielding power over others.

Well, I have yet to discover a way to block someone without any record of it.

While that's true, there are also degrees of PR around an event.

[Moulton]

I don't have a good vantage point from which to assess the negative PR associated with cases of interest here, but I do note that Jimbo has long expressed his worry about such negative PR that "brings the project into disrepute."

[Ottava]

While that's true, there are also degrees of PR around an event.

Well, the only PR the one time was Moulton complaining that he had to spend a long time traveling in order to find an IP address that I didn't block. It was after I wished him a Merry Christmas.

[Abd]

It didn't take me very long to diagnose the problems in Wikipedia, but solving them proved impossible, for reasons that many have sought to analyze over the past few years.

From the outset, Wikiculture was not structured along the lines of an academic enterprise. Instead it was structured along the lines of a game which attracted power players who were not obliged to operate within the normative bounds of scholarly ethics.

Yes.

I followed the link in this WR post by Moulton and looked at the letter from Jimbo. Perhaps I should say "alleged letter," but I'm not feeling like an attorney today, nor a journalist. It's becoming clear where the culture of maniacal administrators comes from. The Founder never has to apologize. Jimbo wrote:

I am not aware that Alison is your counsel. Stop being a jackass. This is not a legal negotiation, this is me asking you a favor.

Don't waste my time with bullshit or I will just personally block you at wikiversity and that will be that. At that point, I can assure you that your lawyer can talk to Mike Godwin if that's the way you want to play this.

Or, you can just knock off the bullshit.

This was because Moulton had cc'd Alison, explaining that he needed "counsel." He did not use the word "lawyer" with respect to himself. I get the impression, increasingly, of someone in way over his head. I suspect Jimbo literally did not understand Moulton and wasn't willing to give it the time it would take. Quite simply, Jimbo was unable to communicate with very bright people (unless perhaps they were suitably deferential, all I can see is places where it broke down.)

So, Jimbo threatened Moulton with a block on Wikiversity. That he will do it "personally." This was male ego, strutting, browbeating, bullying, not allowing Moulton the courtesy that is necessary for mature communication. So, now, is it any wonder that Wikipedia is so much a collection of Jimbo clones in this respect? At what point will the WMF Board realize that the project cannot move beyond this while it leaves the Founder with the keys? How far will the project have to collapse?

The mission of Wikipedia is unrealizable by the Founder and those who think like him; by allowing the unrestrained rampage of unthinking mob rule, where a core of highly involved admins rip apart the intelligence of the community, unrecoverable damage may have been done.

Now, Moulton cites the Wikipedia ban discussion. I didn't recognize it as that, he'd simply called it the "Spammish Inquisition," but I happened to follow it, the link to RfC/Moulton. Arrgh.

This was about when I was starting to become active on Wikipedia. I am struck, reading it, how there are a group of editors who believe that their view of what Wikipedia is the only correct view, and it's clear that they did not understand Moulton, but were quite certain of his bad faith. What particularly hit me was the comment by Filll, which accused Moulton of pretending to be a supporter of evolution when he was not, citing a series of posts by Moulton which allegedly showed this. Filll did not state how he derived his conclusion from the posts, but it's clear to me that he didn't understand the posts.

The theory behind RfC has not been for it to be a ban discussion, but it became that.

Shame on the community for not (1) firmly telling Moulton to shut up, and (2) protecting him at the same time as it firmly guided him.

This "core" of the community, too active in that RfC, (it isn't the heart of it, more like a cancer) expects editors whom it has insulted, lied about, and abused, to be contrite. If the editor is not apologetic, but defiant, as is quite likely for anyone with a decent level of self-respect, that is proof, to them, that the editor is not suited for a collaborative project. Maybe, but it may be, instead, that a non-collaborative adhocratic project is not suitable for intelligent editors.

In real consensus process, differences are explored, pains are taken to make sure that communication is complete, that the parties understand each other, and the basis for disagreements is laid out. It takes time, and it takes patience, and it takes skill.

There is a vast difference between ejecting a person from a meeting for disruptive behavior and banning the person from the organization. blame and pressure behind it, that turns the responsibility over to the editor to decide when the editor will be unblocked. Blocks should simply mean "stop." Not "Game Over," as one editor wrote on the Talk page for the RfC. Communities have a right to control their own process, but a community which has, as its purpose, the compilation and editing of neutral content must follow much more sophisticated and thorough process than the norm. And Wikipedia is instead much worse than the norm, as far as I've seen. No business could long run as Wikipedia runs. No local voluntary organization could be nearly as abusive.

The problem with mob rule is that a mob will assume that if many people are upset with someone, the person must be a criminal or a troll. Mob rule works that way because it is possibly more often right than wrong, and a mob does not have time to investigate. Anyone like Moulton, or certain others, should come to know that they can inspire this kind of response, and be responsive to those who would help.

Did Moulton respond badly to the RfC and sequelae? Probably. But few people will respond well to what he went through. When one is abused by a mob, there is some tendency to assume that justice and sanity will eventually prevail, and if the mob cannot actually lynch you, courage seems in order, refusal to be dominated.

But justice and sanity will not prevail as long as the mob is running the place. When things settle down, maybe things might get better, but if there is no structure to bring out the best in people instead of the worst, and given the insulation from the requirements of ordinary civility, face to face, that on-line communication provides, structure is even more necessary.

So if Moulton is upsetting many editors, it's pretty clear that something should change. But by blaming Moulton, instead of the interaction, the solution becomes "Get Rid of Moulton," when it's the interaction that should change.

It can happen, also, and it is a hazard that the very intelligent can run afoul of, especially, that an editor is convinced that everyone else is a fool, and while this is not exactly an error, necessarily, it's a loss of perspective. The intelligent have no rights over the rest; and, indeed, I was raised in a culture where if you are smarter, you have more responsibility to care for everyone else. Or if you are more capable in any way, including bigger and stronger, you have that responsibility.

It's easy to understand how the highly educated, professors, etc., might imagine that they should have superior rights in an encyclopedia project. But there is another way to look at it. Who should control the project, the intellectual elite, or the readership? (Or someone or something else?) The average editor, in a sense, represents the general public, not experts. But shouldn't the general public value the knowledge and opinion of experts? Of course they should.

That's why repairing the interaction between editors, instead of fixing blame, would be so important. If one wants a functional and reliable encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

I came across an edit war between a professor of economics, and a young editor, they were battling it out. I warned them that they could both be blocked if they continued, but I didn't stop with that. I invited them to discuss their differences in my user space. I asked them some questions, inviting them to explain what they disagreed about. I didn't have to do much. Something about the process changed both of them, and they turned into collaborators. I could, instead, have decided that one of them was "worse" than the other, or was "provoking" the other. I could have decided, perhaps, that the professor was more valuable to the project than this young editor. If I'd had a block button, I could have blocked one or both. But it wasn't necessary.

Wikipedia should have a corps of editors with skills in dispute resolution. They should not carry guns, i.e., block buttons. But, provided that they do their work without abuse, they should be protected. Instead, try it, folks, if a dispute involves an administrator and you aren't one. Or don't, if you value your account. Two non-admins with some skilled intervention, it can be relatively easy. But a dispute between an editor and an administrator can be very difficult, because no matter what is said about "no big deal," it's a big deal. Recusal policy should make it very clear: if you are in a dispute with an editor, you are just like everyone else, no special privileges. But admins back each other up, instinctively, in ways that they do not protect other editors. (When they aren't busy savaging each other.)

There is no mechanism for reform. That could be fixed, in theory. In practice? That's an open question, to my mind, but it looks pretty grim.

This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 12th April 2010, 1:37am

[Abd]

These old teaching stories generally have multiple levels of meaning. They do not have "lessons" like that, these lessons is superimposed by someone who doesn't discern the deep meanings.

Then I doubt you'd like my copy of Lao Tzu, which is Daoist but has many similar stories and always has a brief explanation at the end. I also have some Zen Buddhist texts with the same.

Yeah, later generations eventually decide they should explain stuff.

One of my teachers, one of the greatest, sent me a message that to explain a metaphor is to kill it.

Then I guess he wasn't a great teacher as he was never able to answer any of the student's questions.

Ottava, am I twice your age or three times it?

He was telling me about a metaphor (my metaphor) that had been reported to him as having been explained by me. I don't think I did explain it, I think it was the messenger who took it upon himself to explain what I was saying. You mistook his comment for him justifying his own refusal to explain. Error.

But should a teacher explain a metaphor? It depends on what is being taught! When one is teaching a discipline that moves beyond the sphere of "explanation," an explanation can, indeed, kill the metaphor, destroy what might otherwise be communicated, by creating an illusion of understanding when the necessary insight is missing.

Putting forth an answer does not make it the only one, and humans are only capable of coming up with so many answers based on their own limited perspective. We need to pool our ideas together to come up with a more complete view.

The way I put it is this:

What do you get when you can see things from more than one point of view?

First answer: Depth Perception.

More recent answer: Banned.

[Moulton]

There is no mechanism for reform. That could be fixed, in theory. In practice? That's an open question, to my mind, but it looks pretty grim.

A few of us sought to craft a mechanism for reform, beginning with a workshop on Managerial Ethics at Wikiversity. We began with the core theory. Then Hillgentleman said we should apply the theory to case studies from Wikipedia, to see what Best Practices are suggested by the underlying theory. But the minute we began to construct the case studies, all hell broke loose; Wikiversity was invaded by a horde of corrupt editors from Wikipedia, who utterly trashed the project.

[GlassBeadGame]

There is no mechanism for reform. That could be fixed, in theory. In practice? That's an open question, to my mind, but it looks pretty grim.

A few of us sought to craft a mechanism for reform, beginning with a workshop on Managerial Ethics at Wikiversity. We began with the core theory. Then Hillgentleman said we should apply the theory to case studies from Wikipedia, to see what Best Practices are suggested by the underlying theory. But the minute we began to construct the case studies, all hell broke loose; Wikiversity was invaded by a horde of corrupt editors from Wikipedia, who utterly trashed the project.

I don't think reform of a the curriculum of a "university" should center on a class about the university itself. A would encourage you to look to the various language learning websites websites as models. They make extensive use of various social media tools (discussion forums, skype, voice chat, text chat) and actually have a "communities" that are interested in acquiring knowledge and helping others do the same, not just "community" as an entitlement to tell other what to do. Most of these sites have no user overhead at all in terms of governance. The only reason for users to show up is to learn and to help other users learn. I've looked at some of the language material on WV and it is pathetic in comparison to LiveMocha or Babel. More time is spent complaining about competing systems of "enrollment" than learning at WV.

Also not a Wiki in sight at those language learning sites.

[pietkuip]

I don't think reform of a the curriculum of a "university" should center on a class about the university itself.
...
I've looked at some of the language material on WV and it is pathetic in comparison to LiveMocha or Babel. More time is spent complaining about competing systems of "enrollment" than learning at WV.

Also not a Wiki in sight at those language learning sites.

Interesting links.

I am trying to get my university to join iTunes University; it reaches a much larger crowd than WV, and the level is much higher.

[Moulton]

I dunno if Adambro has taken the time to read this thread, which Rootology started a year and a half ago, but it demonstrates that when Jimbo intervenes in Wikiversity with a highly irregular out-of-process block, the ramifications can reverberate for a long time.

[Zoloft]

I dunno if Adambro has taken the time to read this thread, which Rootology started a year and a half ago, but it demonstrates that when Jimbo intervenes in Wikiversity with a highly irregular out-of-process block, the ramifications can reverberate for a long time.

Lives of petty men remind us
We can seek our fools sublime
And regretting, leave behind us
Buttprints on the sands of time

[Milton Roe]

But should a teacher explain a metaphor?

No!! Teachers should only be permitted to explain similes. Metaphors they should always leave to stand undefended, as obvious lies which are also true.

For education's sake.