Archive:Wikimedia Ethics/Brainstorming - Revision history

wikademia>Wikademia: moved Wikimedia Ethics/Brainstorming to Archive:Wikimedia Ethics/Brainstorming

2009-06-08T18:00:01Z

moved Wikimedia Ethics/Brainstorming to Archive:Wikimedia Ethics/Brainstorming

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:00, 8 June 2009
(No difference)

wikademia>Wikademia at 01:49, 26 April 2009

2009-04-26T01:49:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 26 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Ethics data gathering==		==Ethics data gathering==
			{{ntnes}}
	≈		≈
	{{cquote\|We are creating a learning resource at WikiVersity.		{{cquote\|We are creating a learning resource at WikiVersity.

wikademia>Wikademia: Text replace - 'w:' to 'Wikipedia:'

2009-04-11T18:19:35Z

Text replace - 'w:' to 'Wikipedia:'

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:19, 11 April 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:
	===Distinct ethical standards/guides for distinct roles===		===Distinct ethical standards/guides for distinct roles===

	* Craft and/or gather links to existing distinct ethical guidelines for distinct roles and functions —- Jimbo, Foundation Board, Foundation staff, Arbitrators, Checkusers, Admins, [[w:User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem\|Biographers]], [[n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/17#Code_of_Ethics\|News Journalists]], [[w:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_Purpose\|Non-Admin Editors]], [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/WR-Down.html Wikipedia Outcasts].		* Craft and/or gather links to existing distinct ethical guidelines for distinct roles and functions —- Jimbo, Foundation Board, Foundation staff, Arbitrators, Checkusers, Admins, [[Wikipedia:User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem\|Biographers]], [[n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/17#Code_of_Ethics\|News Journalists]], [[Wikipedia:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_Purpose\|Non-Admin Editors]], [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/WR-Down.html Wikipedia Outcasts].

	::This seems to me to ignore the central fact that each project already has its own governance. Any guidelines finding consensus here will carry no weight at other projects. If you want to discuss each project's governance that discussion should be taking place at that project, not Wikademia. [[User:Centaur of attention\|Centaur of attention]] 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		::This seems to me to ignore the central fact that each project already has its own governance. Any guidelines finding consensus here will carry no weight at other projects. If you want to discuss each project's governance that discussion should be taking place at that project, not Wikademia. [[User:Centaur of attention\|Centaur of attention]] 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 32:		Line 32:
	===Links to Existing Wikimedia Project Ethical Guidelines Related to Above===		===Links to Existing Wikimedia Project Ethical Guidelines Related to Above===

	* [[w:WP:ETHICS\|Wikipedia]] (Index of Essays and Guidelines)		* [[Wikipedia:WP:ETHICS\|Wikipedia]] (Index of Essays and Guidelines)
	* [[n:WN:ETHICS\|Wikinews]] (Unratified and Unadopted Draft Ethics)		* [[n:WN:ETHICS\|Wikinews]] (Unratified and Unadopted Draft Ethics)
	* [[foundation:Policies\|Wikimedia Foundation]] (Policies)		* [[foundation:Policies\|Wikimedia Foundation]] (Policies)
Line 45:		Line 45:
	I'm just now beginning to see in my head the mechanisms by which this can provide a positive impact. A major current problem is with teenagers simply trying to "level up" as if this were a game. By deliberately aiming to make passing a course or test or whatever here a badge of honor, a leveling up in itself, the current wikipedia culture can be used to self-correct. We will need to be able to provide a prestgious title and a series of internal leveling up within this project; not for its creators and teachers but for its students. At some point we will need to come up with cool labels/titles, badges and barnstars. See Durova's activities for this sort of social engineering. Hmmm. Maybe she would be willing to help set up such a thing. She's like you - sometimes hard to deal with, but all heart and means well. [[User:WAS 4.250\|WAS 4.250]] 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)		I'm just now beginning to see in my head the mechanisms by which this can provide a positive impact. A major current problem is with teenagers simply trying to "level up" as if this were a game. By deliberately aiming to make passing a course or test or whatever here a badge of honor, a leveling up in itself, the current wikipedia culture can be used to self-correct. We will need to be able to provide a prestgious title and a series of internal leveling up within this project; not for its creators and teachers but for its students. At some point we will need to come up with cool labels/titles, badges and barnstars. See Durova's activities for this sort of social engineering. Hmmm. Maybe she would be willing to help set up such a thing. She's like you - sometimes hard to deal with, but all heart and means well. [[User:WAS 4.250\|WAS 4.250]] 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

	:The first thing that comes to mind is helping a student of ethics figure out where he or she is currently operating on the [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/Kohlberg-Gilligan.html Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Moral and Ethical Reasoning]. Moving up a rung is actually a major milestone in life, so we might want to work out some more fine-grained exercises, along the lines of [[w:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge\|Filll's AGF Challenge exercises]], or along the lines that we [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/WCE/Conundrum.html traditionally employed with the youngsters on MicroMuse] back in the golden age of online communities. —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		:The first thing that comes to mind is helping a student of ethics figure out where he or she is currently operating on the [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/Kohlberg-Gilligan.html Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Moral and Ethical Reasoning]. Moving up a rung is actually a major milestone in life, so we might want to work out some more fine-grained exercises, along the lines of [[Wikipedia:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge\|Filll's AGF Challenge exercises]], or along the lines that we [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/WCE/Conundrum.html traditionally employed with the youngsters on MicroMuse] back in the golden age of online communities. —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

	::It seems extremely clear to me that the cause of the majority of the ethical issues on English WP is due to misunderstanding of the core principles and how they should be applied. If they were applied (sources for every bit of information in a BLP, understanding of what NPOV is, understanding of the implications of NOR etc), I believe that most of these issues would disappear. So educating users as to what they are and what they imply seems to be an important part of the solution. [[User:The Fieryangel\|The Fieryangel]] 08:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		::It seems extremely clear to me that the cause of the majority of the ethical issues on English WP is due to misunderstanding of the core principles and how they should be applied. If they were applied (sources for every bit of information in a BLP, understanding of what NPOV is, understanding of the implications of NOR etc), I believe that most of these issues would disappear. So educating users as to what they are and what they imply seems to be an important part of the solution. [[User:The Fieryangel\|The Fieryangel]] 08:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

wikademia>Wikademia: Text replace - 'Wikiversity' to 'Wikademia'

2009-04-11T05:19:03Z

Text replace - 'Wikiversity' to 'Wikademia'

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:19, 11 April 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* Craft and/or gather links to existing distinct ethical guidelines for distinct roles and functions —- Jimbo, Foundation Board, Foundation staff, Arbitrators, Checkusers, Admins, [[w:User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem\|Biographers]], [[n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/17#Code_of_Ethics\|News Journalists]], [[w:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_Purpose\|Non-Admin Editors]], [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/WR-Down.html Wikipedia Outcasts].		* Craft and/or gather links to existing distinct ethical guidelines for distinct roles and functions —- Jimbo, Foundation Board, Foundation staff, Arbitrators, Checkusers, Admins, [[w:User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem\|Biographers]], [[n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/17#Code_of_Ethics\|News Journalists]], [[w:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_Purpose\|Non-Admin Editors]], [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/WR-Down.html Wikipedia Outcasts].

	::This seems to me to ignore the central fact that each project already has its own governance. Any guidelines finding consensus here will carry no weight at other projects. If you want to discuss each project's governance that discussion should be taking place at that project, not ~~Wikiversity~~. [[User:Centaur of attention\|Centaur of attention]] 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		::This seems to me to ignore the central fact that each project already has its own governance. Any guidelines finding consensus here will carry no weight at other projects. If you want to discuss each project's governance that discussion should be taking place at that project, not Wikademia. [[User:Centaur of attention\|Centaur of attention]] 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

	This project is about providing ''[[open educational resources]]'' for those who are becoming engaged in governance issues on various projects sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation. No one is obliged to become educated in subjects they have no interest in. But for those who have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about best ethical practices, this project seeks to serve their needs.		This project is about providing ''[[open educational resources]]'' for those who are becoming engaged in governance issues on various projects sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation. No one is obliged to become educated in subjects they have no interest in. But for those who have expressed a sincere desire to learn more about best ethical practices, this project seeks to serve their needs.
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:Among the ideas on the table to solve the BLP problem (as defined by Doc Glasgow and others) is to limit BLP authorship to those who have demonstrated competence in crafting biographical material that rises to a reasonable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media. The way things stand now, on the English Wikipedia, is that more often than not, "BLP" stands for "Blasphemies of Living People." —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		:Among the ideas on the table to solve the BLP problem (as defined by Doc Glasgow and others) is to limit BLP authorship to those who have demonstrated competence in crafting biographical material that rises to a reasonable level of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online media. The way things stand now, on the English Wikipedia, is that more often than not, "BLP" stands for "Blasphemies of Living People." —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

	::Limiting editing on BLPs to editors who have "demonstrated competence" violates the core concept and spirit of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And it creates a system open to gaming and abuse, determining exactly who is competent enough to edit BLPs. It's never going to be adopted by the Wikipedia community. Which brings up a bigger issue: Exactly what do you think you are going to accomplish here? Any guidelines finding consensus here will carry no weight at Wikipedia. If you want to discuss Wikipedia's governance that discussion should be taking place at Wikipedia, not ~~Wikiversity~~. [[User:Centaur of attention\|Centaur of attention]] 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		::Limiting editing on BLPs to editors who have "demonstrated competence" violates the core concept and spirit of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And it creates a system open to gaming and abuse, determining exactly who is competent enough to edit BLPs. It's never going to be adopted by the Wikipedia community. Which brings up a bigger issue: Exactly what do you think you are going to accomplish here? Any guidelines finding consensus here will carry no weight at Wikipedia. If you want to discuss Wikipedia's governance that discussion should be taking place at Wikipedia, not Wikademia. [[User:Centaur of attention\|Centaur of attention]] 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

	:::Centaur, the problem as we are seeing it is that Wikipedia is already "a system open to gaming and abuse" and not focused on generation of content. Kelly Martin makes some statements [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18827&view=findpost&p=109055 about this issue over at Wikipedia Review] in the context of a BLP situation where the photo of a living person was used to illustrate the article of "Twink" (a young, attractive homosexual) without the person specifically giving permission to do so. Her take on this issue is that most "editors" do not have any idea of what the rules are and haven't even considered what the core policies might mean. If one follows them, then this type of situation does not exist. However, people don't.		:::Centaur, the problem as we are seeing it is that Wikipedia is already "a system open to gaming and abuse" and not focused on generation of content. Kelly Martin makes some statements [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18827&view=findpost&p=109055 about this issue over at Wikipedia Review] in the context of a BLP situation where the photo of a living person was used to illustrate the article of "Twink" (a young, attractive homosexual) without the person specifically giving permission to do so. Her take on this issue is that most "editors" do not have any idea of what the rules are and haven't even considered what the core policies might mean. If one follows them, then this type of situation does not exist. However, people don't.

wikademia>Wikademia: 70 revisions

2009-04-10T20:05:46Z

70 revisions

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:05, 10 April 2009
(No difference)

wikademia>Dzonatas: Wikipedia Ethics/Brainstorming moved to Wikimedia Ethics/Brainstorming: per consensus: Talk:Wikimedia_Ethics#Project_name

2008-10-10T14:26:52Z

Wikipedia Ethics/Brainstorming moved to Wikimedia Ethics/Brainstorming: per consensus: Talk:Wikimedia_Ethics#Project_name

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:26, 10 October 2008
(No difference)

wikademia>Darklama: Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Brainstorming moved to Wikipedia Ethics/Brainstorming: lets begin clean up with a shorter name

2008-09-15T18:41:07Z

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Brainstorming moved to Wikipedia Ethics/Brainstorming: lets begin clean up with a shorter name

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:41, 15 September 2008
(No difference)

wikademia>Sxeptomaniac: /* Some other ideas */ reply. accountability is very limited, but not necessarily eliminated.

2008-08-30T17:43:39Z

Some other ideas: reply. accountability is very limited, but not necessarily eliminated.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 30 August 2008
Line 95:		Line 95:

	:I agree with accountability. But consider that accountability means identifying the editor. And that means no disposable avatars. —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 00:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)		:I agree with accountability. But consider that accountability means identifying the editor. And that means no disposable avatars. —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 00:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

			::I would partly disagree. Few things are truly all-or-nothing. It's definitely true that WP's commitment to allowing anonymous and pseudonymous editing severely limits the ability to enforce accountability. I believe the question is, what would an ethical editor do to remain accountable within those constraints? [[User:Sxeptomaniac\|Sχeptomaniac]]<sup>[[User talk:Sxeptomaniac\|χαιρετε]]</sup> 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

	[[Category:Brainstorming]]		[[Category:Brainstorming]]
	[[Category:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia]]		[[Category:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia]]

wikademia>Moulton: /* Some other ideas */ There cannot be accountability without identity.

2008-08-30T00:13:23Z

Some other ideas: There cannot be accountability without identity.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 30 August 2008
Line 93:		Line 93:
	*Be accountable		*Be accountable
	Each of those certainly would apply to WP, even if we might have to interpret them differently for the context. [[User:Sxeptomaniac\|Sχeptomaniac]]<sup>[[User talk:Sxeptomaniac\|χαιρετε]]</sup> 19:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)		Each of those certainly would apply to WP, even if we might have to interpret them differently for the context. [[User:Sxeptomaniac\|Sχeptomaniac]]<sup>[[User talk:Sxeptomaniac\|χαιρετε]]</sup> 19:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

			:I agree with accountability. But consider that accountability means identifying the editor. And that means no disposable avatars. —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 00:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

	[[Category:Brainstorming]]		[[Category:Brainstorming]]
	[[Category:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia]]		[[Category:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia]]

wikademia>Moulton: /* Analysis of ethics on Wikinews */ The prospects look dim for a Wikinews Code of Ethics

2008-08-21T05:38:45Z

Analysis of ethics on Wikinews: The prospects look dim for a Wikinews Code of Ethics

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:38, 21 August 2008
Line 74:		Line 74:
	===Analysis of ethics on Wikinews===		===Analysis of ethics on Wikinews===
	What can an open content journalism site such as Wikinews do to ensure that articles maintain a high ethical standard. How can contributers to sites such as Wikinews be encouraged to maintain a high ethical standard. How can one ensure that all [[n:WN:OR\|original reporting]] follows the appropriate ethical guidelines? Although I know this is not directly related to the English Language Wikipedia, I believe it has a place on this resource. [[User:Anonymous101\|Anonymous101]] 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)		What can an open content journalism site such as Wikinews do to ensure that articles maintain a high ethical standard. How can contributers to sites such as Wikinews be encouraged to maintain a high ethical standard. How can one ensure that all [[n:WN:OR\|original reporting]] follows the appropriate ethical guidelines? Although I know this is not directly related to the English Language Wikipedia, I believe it has a place on this resource. [[User:Anonymous101\|Anonymous101]] 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

			:Wikinews has resisted the view that the site has any obligation to adopt or live up to a professional code of ethics. It occurs to me that a journalistic enterprise that fails to embrace a code of ethics doesn't have much of a future. —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 05:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

	===Some other ideas===		===Some other ideas===

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:19, 11 April 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:
	===Distinct ethical standards/guides for distinct roles===		===Distinct ethical standards/guides for distinct roles===

	* Craft and/or gather links to existing distinct ethical guidelines for distinct roles and functions —- Jimbo, Foundation Board, Foundation staff, Arbitrators, Checkusers, Admins, [[w:User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem\|Biographers]], [[n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/17#Code_of_Ethics\|News Journalists]], [[w:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_Purpose\|Non-Admin Editors]], [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/WR-Down.html Wikipedia Outcasts].		* Craft and/or gather links to existing distinct ethical guidelines for distinct roles and functions —- Jimbo, Foundation Board, Foundation staff, Arbitrators, Checkusers, Admins, [[Wikipedia:User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem\|Biographers]], [[n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/17#Code_of_Ethics\|News Journalists]], [[Wikipedia:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge_Purpose\|Non-Admin Editors]], [http://newscafe.ansci.usu.edu/~bkort/WR-Down.html Wikipedia Outcasts].

	::This seems to me to ignore the central fact that each project already has its own governance. Any guidelines finding consensus here will carry no weight at other projects. If you want to discuss each project's governance that discussion should be taking place at that project, not Wikademia. [[User:Centaur of attention\|Centaur of attention]] 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		::This seems to me to ignore the central fact that each project already has its own governance. Any guidelines finding consensus here will carry no weight at other projects. If you want to discuss each project's governance that discussion should be taking place at that project, not Wikademia. [[User:Centaur of attention\|Centaur of attention]] 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 32:		Line 32:
	===Links to Existing Wikimedia Project Ethical Guidelines Related to Above===		===Links to Existing Wikimedia Project Ethical Guidelines Related to Above===

	* [[w:WP:ETHICS\|Wikipedia]] (Index of Essays and Guidelines)		* [[Wikipedia:WP:ETHICS\|Wikipedia]] (Index of Essays and Guidelines)
	* [[n:WN:ETHICS\|Wikinews]] (Unratified and Unadopted Draft Ethics)		* [[n:WN:ETHICS\|Wikinews]] (Unratified and Unadopted Draft Ethics)
	* [[foundation:Policies\|Wikimedia Foundation]] (Policies)		* [[foundation:Policies\|Wikimedia Foundation]] (Policies)
Line 45:		Line 45:
	I'm just now beginning to see in my head the mechanisms by which this can provide a positive impact. A major current problem is with teenagers simply trying to "level up" as if this were a game. By deliberately aiming to make passing a course or test or whatever here a badge of honor, a leveling up in itself, the current wikipedia culture can be used to self-correct. We will need to be able to provide a prestgious title and a series of internal leveling up within this project; not for its creators and teachers but for its students. At some point we will need to come up with cool labels/titles, badges and barnstars. See Durova's activities for this sort of social engineering. Hmmm. Maybe she would be willing to help set up such a thing. She's like you - sometimes hard to deal with, but all heart and means well. [[User:WAS 4.250\|WAS 4.250]] 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)		I'm just now beginning to see in my head the mechanisms by which this can provide a positive impact. A major current problem is with teenagers simply trying to "level up" as if this were a game. By deliberately aiming to make passing a course or test or whatever here a badge of honor, a leveling up in itself, the current wikipedia culture can be used to self-correct. We will need to be able to provide a prestgious title and a series of internal leveling up within this project; not for its creators and teachers but for its students. At some point we will need to come up with cool labels/titles, badges and barnstars. See Durova's activities for this sort of social engineering. Hmmm. Maybe she would be willing to help set up such a thing. She's like you - sometimes hard to deal with, but all heart and means well. [[User:WAS 4.250\|WAS 4.250]] 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

	:The first thing that comes to mind is helping a student of ethics figure out where he or she is currently operating on the [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/Kohlberg-Gilligan.html Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Moral and Ethical Reasoning]. Moving up a rung is actually a major milestone in life, so we might want to work out some more fine-grained exercises, along the lines of [[w:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge\|Filll's AGF Challenge exercises]], or along the lines that we [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/WCE/Conundrum.html traditionally employed with the youngsters on MicroMuse] back in the golden age of online communities. —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		:The first thing that comes to mind is helping a student of ethics figure out where he or she is currently operating on the [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/Kohlberg-Gilligan.html Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder of Moral and Ethical Reasoning]. Moving up a rung is actually a major milestone in life, so we might want to work out some more fine-grained exercises, along the lines of [[Wikipedia:User:Filll/AGF_Challenge\|Filll's AGF Challenge exercises]], or along the lines that we [http://underground.musenet.org:8080/WCE/Conundrum.html traditionally employed with the youngsters on MicroMuse] back in the golden age of online communities. —[[User:Moulton\|Moulton]] 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

	::It seems extremely clear to me that the cause of the majority of the ethical issues on English WP is due to misunderstanding of the core principles and how they should be applied. If they were applied (sources for every bit of information in a BLP, understanding of what NPOV is, understanding of the implications of NOR etc), I believe that most of these issues would disappear. So educating users as to what they are and what they imply seems to be an important part of the solution. [[User:The Fieryangel\|The Fieryangel]] 08:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)		::It seems extremely clear to me that the cause of the majority of the ethical issues on English WP is due to misunderstanding of the core principles and how they should be applied. If they were applied (sources for every bit of information in a BLP, understanding of what NPOV is, understanding of the implications of NOR etc), I believe that most of these issues would disappear. So educating users as to what they are and what they imply seems to be an important part of the solution. [[User:The Fieryangel\|The Fieryangel]] 08:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)