User:JWSchmidt/Parody as an educational tool

Why Parody?

"A better approach would be to contact the stewards privately" <-- Is there evidence to support that claim? The actions of Stewards should be transparent.

What I posted on my user page (for anyone who wants to see it) included copies of my discussions of steward actions with stewards. During those discussions, stewards made false claims about the basis for their actions and invented excuses for their non-transparent methods. Rather than discuss his concerns, and apparently without bothering to read what I posted to my user talk page, a steward subjected me to a bad block and performed an emergency desysop when there was no emergency. A second steward, apparently without bothering to read what I posted to my user talk page here, revision deleted it. When I went to meta to discuss the situation with stewards, I was blocked, without warning or chance to appeal, with the absurd "reason" given as "Your failure to understand basic policies seems to be a violation of policy".

"Why does it belong here?" <-- Misguided actions by stewards have long disrupted Wikiversity, including Jimbo's intervention in 2008. I tried to make use of my user page as a way to discuss the disruption of Wikiversity by stewards with my fellow honest Wikiversity community members. SB Johnny, do you know who said, "..... the idea here is to also host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things. We're also going to be hosting and fostering research into how these kinds of things can be used more effectively." I study how misguided Wikimedia Functionaries disrupt the educational mission of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikiversity. By such study, the Wikiversity community learns how to protect itself from misguided Wikimedia Functionaries and learns how to better use wiki technology to advance the Wikiversity mission.

Parody has long been an educational tool within oppressive cultures where free and open discussion of cultural problems is not allowed. If the goal is to promote community discussion then this list is not adequate. Here are some suggestions for how to improve discussion at Wikiversity:

• 7) discuss problems rather than impose bans
• 8) discuss problems rather than revert good-faith edits as if they were vandalism
• 9) click "edit" and discuss how to improve pages rather than delete them
• 10) don't hold secret off-wiki discussions where decisions are made about Wikiversity
• 11) allow study and open discussion of problems at Wikimedia wiki projects

"stewards who were simply trying to do the right thing". <-- How can a steward "do the right thing" when he deletes wiki content without reading it and then makes false claims about the content of what was deleted? How can an objective observer conclude that stewards are trying to "do the right thing" when they operate in secret, off-wiki, and indef block someone who is asking them to explain their actions and correct an error?

"Posting the parody could readily be interpreted as jeering at the stewards" <-- Insecure Wikimedia Functionaries who are overly defensive often interpret any challenge to their authority as being incivility. Parody does not happen at random like casual vandalism. Parodies are created by thoughtful people who are being creative, often with good faith intentions that the parody will make people think and will lead to repair of an existing injustice. Parody is often a last resort, when there is no other way of righting a wrong. History teaches that those who produce parodies often do so anonymously so as to protect themselves from autocrats who do not want their mistakes and abuses to be examined. The Wikiversity community should have an open discussion of Wikimedia Functionaries who think that censorship is the way to create a community of collaborating learners. Honest Wikimedia Functionaries welcome examination of their actions and can laugh at a parody. Wikimedia Functionaries who misuse their positions of trust and responsibility and who cover-up their past behavior with bad blocks and bans are likely to do anything they can to prevent examination of their past actions, including impose a ban on parody.

"it paints the person you disagree with in a negative light to the point where it's difficult for them to respond" <-- SB Johnny, the sequence of cause and effect is more complex than that. Parodies like what I created are produced after someone fails to respond honestly. For example, last Summer I wrote a song parody about a misguided Wikimedia Functionary who refused to discuss his actions, actions that even included his violation of the WMF privacy policy. Rather than discuss his misuse of tools, the misguided Wikimedia Functionary tried to ban me from participating at Wikiversity. Of course, that misguided Wikimedia Functionary was allowed to terrorize Wikiversity in a sickening and disgraceful manner while I had to resort to writing a song that parodied his abuses of power. The failure of the misguided Wikimedia Functionary to respond to questions about his actions is what led to the parody. In this most recent case, there is a long history of disruption of Wikiversity by misguided stewards, disruption that has been facilitated by misguided Wikiversity sysops who fail to participate in community discussion of their actions.

Perhaps what's needed is more reassurance from you that you will discontinue following that sort of strategy." <-- There would be no parodies if the misguided Wikimedia Functionaries would stop disrupting Wikiversity and allow it to return to the peaceful community of collaborating learners that existed here before 2008. SB Johnny, perhaps what's needed is reassurance from you that you will discontinue the strategy of ending discussions with bad bans and blocks. SB Johnny, why do you even have the power to ban someone from #wikiversity? Who gave Darklama his instructions about who to block? As a show of good faith, I call upon you to undo the emergency desysops that have taken place at Wikiversity when there was no emergency. SB Johnny, show that there is no longer a need for parodies and the parodies will stop. SB Johnny, put down the banhammer and help Wikiversity return to the peaceful learning community that it once was.

"posting parodies of people you disagree with actually is the same issue as your edits to the Privacy Policy (which was why you were blocked in the first place), in that it paints the person you disagree with in a negative light to the point where it's difficult for them to respond" <-- SB Johnny, please explain how a good faith edit like this makes it difficult for someone to respond. "the person you disagree with" <-- When I edited that page, was there anyone who disagreed with what I wrote? I don't understand the idea that my parody about the stewards (or my parody from last Summer about bad blocks at Wikiversity) makes it hard for someone to respond. As I explained, the parodies were made because the subjects of the parodies had already failed to respond to me. Such parodies are mostly for the honest wiki community members who look on with astonishment at the behavior of misguided Wikimedia Functionaries. The parodies are an educational tool aimed at making people think about existing problems that have been imposed on the Wikiversity community. Remove the problems and there will be no need for parodies. --JWSchmidt 20:41, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Parodies worthy of redaction prove their worth with snerkish traction.

D00d, we gotsta rework that into an exmple of a light parody about why parodies are important in theraepuetic and remedial edutainment. —Moulton 13:36, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if satire is the form of edutainment that I am looking for. I could create a "character" who shows all the symptoms of Wikipedia Disease. --JWSchmidt 13:43, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. You have many to choose from. DarkoDrekko or Fr33K00lAid would do nicely. They just have to be caricatures of Cluster/B/Phr33ks who act out like Barney Fife or the Keystone Cops. —Moulton 17:30, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising

“

Every Sunday, mourning, over WVBD ... B&D s’fargenigen. B&D s’men ken a bootkick krigen. A schnook, a Kort, a drama queen. Brengt areyn dayn klenem zing. Cut speech.

”

[Source: Red Buttons via The Barton Brothers' Borscht Belt comedy schtick "Joe and Paul" with Klezmer music accompaniment by Sholom Secunda, courtesy of the NPR Yiddish Radio Project.]