Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
Directory:Wikiversity/Wikimedia Ethics/The Ethics of Breaching Experiment (view source)
Revision as of 12:17, 20 March 2010
, 12:17, 20 March 2010Copied from Wikiversity, available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
Why do people execute '''breaching experiments'''? How do they do it? On
this page we discuss, analyze, explore, and study why and how people
execute '''breaching experiments''' - in particular whether it's
possible to conduct one ethically, and if so, how they might be designed
and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects. People
who have formally executed breaching experiments may be asked to provide
some insight as to why and how they did it for the purpose of better
understanding what motivates people to do it.
==Participants==
''please do sign up below''
* [[User:Privatemusings|
Privatemusings]] 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
== What is a breaching experiment? ==
Please have a go at your own definition below;
# '''ethical breaching experiment''': An experiment which causes no harm in its execution, whilst yielding results useful for the greater good, or which inspire positive change, but which uses methods which may violate the letter or spirit of the guideline [[w:Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#State_your_point.3B_do_not_prove_it_experimentally|'Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point']]
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
== Wikimedia examples ==
* [[w:Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_Criteria_for_speedy_deletion|'WP:NEWT']]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&oldid=338464991#Vandalizing_BLPs Provision of a list of unwatched biographical articles with the intention of some sort of experiment occurring] see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&oldid=338641888#Request here] for list of biographies, many of which feature 'breaching' edits in their history. The project appears to have been halted by admin. and arbcom involvement.
==='On Wikipedia' Documents the Dr. Handel debacle===
[http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-handel-or-how-i-learned-to-stop.html
The Dr. Handel debacle]
[[/Mike Handel breach/|Wikiversity case study on the Mike Handel
situation.]]
===Report from Limey ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216251 link])===
''I have two lovely fake biographies on Wikipedia that have been there
over 6 months. They've both been edited by other people, and contain
fairly outlandish statements that anyone with an internet connection
should know to be false. If they ever get removed, I'll write it all up
at [http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/ On Wikipedia], but they may perhaps
remain forever and gradually become a part of history.''
===Report from Herschelkrustofsky ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216255 link])===
''Plausible-sounding but fictitious references exist in
[[w:Little_Roger_and_the_Goosebumps|Little Roger and the Goosebumps]],
but no effort has been made to remove them''
===Report from Tarantino ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216258 link])===
''[http://webcitation.org/5fpmjrc7T This article] on the Himalayan Panda
was created on April Fools Day and lasted nearly 6 months before it was
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Himalayan_Panda
deleted]. The reference and external link seemed to support it if you
didn't read them carefully.
It still lives on in a similar form on
[http://www.webcitation.org/5mrbgqDo2 Persianne's user page].
''
==Hoaxes not apparently related to 'breaching experiments'==
* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211/its-the-casting-director-lee-dennison-story/ The Lee Dennison story]
==Suggestions / Ideas from others==
===Suggestions from Gomi ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216250 link])===
# Add citations to plausible-sounding but fictitious references to BLPs
and/or health/medical articles. Inserting no actual defamation or
misinformation, but supporting statements with fake references will show
how open to abuse the Wiki model is;
# Create articles on non-existent people and companies. This will be
difficult, but if carefully checked to be non-existent, the harm done
here is minimal;
# Create fake articles on (non-existent) latin-named plants and animals,
similar to #2, above;
==related studies, non 'breaching'==
* [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study Wikipedia Vandalism Study] - concerning US Senator articles on the english
wikipedia.
==Possible areas of research==
'''''Feel free to make suggestions below - you may even be able to make
a point while you're at it! (see no.s 5 and 6 below ;-)'''''
# Comparing classes of articles - eg. how is unsourced information
treated when added by editors of similar reputation in different classes
of articles
# Copyright concerns
# Academic honesty / plagiarism
#"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -Isaac Asimov
##from [[w:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] to [[User:Moulton|Moulton]]:
Wikimedia's war against academic scholars
##the destruction of content by Wikimedia's deletionists
##censorship, bad blocks and bad bans imposed by Wikimedia's abusive
administrators
#Studying the effect on Wikiversity/Wikipedia relations - are
experimental pursuits into Wikipedia space, amid possible claims that
this workshop encouraged, which it certainly did for some time in its
initial months, going to result in a polaristation from which
participants in Wikiversity are seen as experimental saboteurs, sneaking
into the encyclopaedia to damage? Will Wikiversity seem as a hideaway
which cannot be reached in which disruptions are plotted and recruits
employed? Will Wikipedia editors find themselves imposed upon as
unwilling test subjects by this workshop?
# Egregious [[:w:Begging the question|question-begging]] in Wikiversity
projects
==Questions==
'''''Feel free to answer (please sign with four tildas) below;'''''
*If an organization is so dysfunctional in correcting its defects that
people are driven to perform "breaching experiments", then is there
really any reason to hope that "breaching experiments" could lead to
positive outcomes? If an organization cannot correct its problems
through conventional means, then won't attempts to use unconventional
means simply be crushed/ignored by the people in the organization who
already prevent conventional methods from correcting existing problems?
::Hopefully not - the understanding gained from considering such
approaches may be valuable regardless, I think.
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
*Should any Wikimedia website be permitted to examine, and thereby
provide a staging ground, for testing anothers rules by breaking them?
::A difficult one - probably worth looking deeper into [[w:Quality
control]] and things like that to see how other organisations deal with
such things. Short answer from me is I don't know.
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
*Is this a matter of a playful grey area?
::It does seem grey, and it's probably possible to learn from play (as a
principle) but I don't feel this is ''just'' a playful grey area, no.
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
*Are the links to previous hoaxers etc. a hall of fame, intentionally or
not?
::They don't seem to me to have that efect.
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
==Reactions==
* I have seen your posts on Wikipedia Review and Wikiversity regarding
the subject of "ethical breaching experiments." These generally are not
permissible, and your involvement would be particularly unhelpful in
light of prior history. Please refrain from engaging in, or inducing
others to engage in, this practice. [[w:User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]]
([[w:User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(newyorkbrad is a member of the english wikipedia's 'arbcom')
* The only thing I'd personally like to see regarding "breaching
experiments", especially that those that deliberately insert bad/false
information into articles is: "Don't do them.", personally. They violate
WP:POINT in a way that cannot easily be reconciled with further editing.
[[w:User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[w:User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 01:47,
19 January 2010 (UTC) (sirfozzie is a member of the english wikipedia's
'arbcom')
* The Dept of Fatherland Security runs deliberate tests of the airport
security system, by having agents see if they can get stuff past the
screeners, who are (supposedly) left out of the loop. It's very
important QC instrument. But suppose they were total doofuses who
weren't doing this AT ALL. And suppose some citizens decided to take it
upon themselves, using harmless toy mockups and so forth. Can you
imagine the shitstorm? That's rather what we have at Wikipedia. They
won't do it themselves, and they won't let anybody else do it, either. -
'Milton Roe'
([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216244
link])
* This page was deleted, and undeleted, leading to
[[Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments|this]]
review.
this page we discuss, analyze, explore, and study why and how people
execute '''breaching experiments''' - in particular whether it's
possible to conduct one ethically, and if so, how they might be designed
and executed to best inform policy and practice on WMF projects. People
who have formally executed breaching experiments may be asked to provide
some insight as to why and how they did it for the purpose of better
understanding what motivates people to do it.
==Participants==
''please do sign up below''
* [[User:Privatemusings|
Privatemusings]] 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
== What is a breaching experiment? ==
Please have a go at your own definition below;
# '''ethical breaching experiment''': An experiment which causes no harm in its execution, whilst yielding results useful for the greater good, or which inspire positive change, but which uses methods which may violate the letter or spirit of the guideline [[w:Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#State_your_point.3B_do_not_prove_it_experimentally|'Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point']]
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
== Wikimedia examples ==
* [[w:Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_Criteria_for_speedy_deletion|'WP:NEWT']]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&oldid=338464991#Vandalizing_BLPs Provision of a list of unwatched biographical articles with the intention of some sort of experiment occurring] see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MZMcBride&oldid=338641888#Request here] for list of biographies, many of which feature 'breaching' edits in their history. The project appears to have been halted by admin. and arbcom involvement.
==='On Wikipedia' Documents the Dr. Handel debacle===
[http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-handel-or-how-i-learned-to-stop.html
The Dr. Handel debacle]
[[/Mike Handel breach/|Wikiversity case study on the Mike Handel
situation.]]
===Report from Limey ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216251 link])===
''I have two lovely fake biographies on Wikipedia that have been there
over 6 months. They've both been edited by other people, and contain
fairly outlandish statements that anyone with an internet connection
should know to be false. If they ever get removed, I'll write it all up
at [http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/ On Wikipedia], but they may perhaps
remain forever and gradually become a part of history.''
===Report from Herschelkrustofsky ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216255 link])===
''Plausible-sounding but fictitious references exist in
[[w:Little_Roger_and_the_Goosebumps|Little Roger and the Goosebumps]],
but no effort has been made to remove them''
===Report from Tarantino ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216258 link])===
''[http://webcitation.org/5fpmjrc7T This article] on the Himalayan Panda
was created on April Fools Day and lasted nearly 6 months before it was
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Himalayan_Panda
deleted]. The reference and external link seemed to support it if you
didn't read them carefully.
It still lives on in a similar form on
[http://www.webcitation.org/5mrbgqDo2 Persianne's user page].
''
==Hoaxes not apparently related to 'breaching experiments'==
* [http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211/its-the-casting-director-lee-dennison-story/ The Lee Dennison story]
==Suggestions / Ideas from others==
===Suggestions from Gomi ([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216250 link])===
# Add citations to plausible-sounding but fictitious references to BLPs
and/or health/medical articles. Inserting no actual defamation or
misinformation, but supporting statements with fake references will show
how open to abuse the Wiki model is;
# Create articles on non-existent people and companies. This will be
difficult, but if carefully checked to be non-existent, the harm done
here is minimal;
# Create fake articles on (non-existent) latin-named plants and animals,
similar to #2, above;
==related studies, non 'breaching'==
* [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study Wikipedia Vandalism Study] - concerning US Senator articles on the english
wikipedia.
==Possible areas of research==
'''''Feel free to make suggestions below - you may even be able to make
a point while you're at it! (see no.s 5 and 6 below ;-)'''''
# Comparing classes of articles - eg. how is unsourced information
treated when added by editors of similar reputation in different classes
of articles
# Copyright concerns
# Academic honesty / plagiarism
#"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -Isaac Asimov
##from [[w:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] to [[User:Moulton|Moulton]]:
Wikimedia's war against academic scholars
##the destruction of content by Wikimedia's deletionists
##censorship, bad blocks and bad bans imposed by Wikimedia's abusive
administrators
#Studying the effect on Wikiversity/Wikipedia relations - are
experimental pursuits into Wikipedia space, amid possible claims that
this workshop encouraged, which it certainly did for some time in its
initial months, going to result in a polaristation from which
participants in Wikiversity are seen as experimental saboteurs, sneaking
into the encyclopaedia to damage? Will Wikiversity seem as a hideaway
which cannot be reached in which disruptions are plotted and recruits
employed? Will Wikipedia editors find themselves imposed upon as
unwilling test subjects by this workshop?
# Egregious [[:w:Begging the question|question-begging]] in Wikiversity
projects
==Questions==
'''''Feel free to answer (please sign with four tildas) below;'''''
*If an organization is so dysfunctional in correcting its defects that
people are driven to perform "breaching experiments", then is there
really any reason to hope that "breaching experiments" could lead to
positive outcomes? If an organization cannot correct its problems
through conventional means, then won't attempts to use unconventional
means simply be crushed/ignored by the people in the organization who
already prevent conventional methods from correcting existing problems?
::Hopefully not - the understanding gained from considering such
approaches may be valuable regardless, I think.
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
*Should any Wikimedia website be permitted to examine, and thereby
provide a staging ground, for testing anothers rules by breaking them?
::A difficult one - probably worth looking deeper into [[w:Quality
control]] and things like that to see how other organisations deal with
such things. Short answer from me is I don't know.
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
*Is this a matter of a playful grey area?
::It does seem grey, and it's probably possible to learn from play (as a
principle) but I don't feel this is ''just'' a playful grey area, no.
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
*Are the links to previous hoaxers etc. a hall of fame, intentionally or
not?
::They don't seem to me to have that efect.
[[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
==Reactions==
* I have seen your posts on Wikipedia Review and Wikiversity regarding
the subject of "ethical breaching experiments." These generally are not
permissible, and your involvement would be particularly unhelpful in
light of prior history. Please refrain from engaging in, or inducing
others to engage in, this practice. [[w:User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]]
([[w:User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(newyorkbrad is a member of the english wikipedia's 'arbcom')
* The only thing I'd personally like to see regarding "breaching
experiments", especially that those that deliberately insert bad/false
information into articles is: "Don't do them.", personally. They violate
WP:POINT in a way that cannot easily be reconciled with further editing.
[[w:User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[w:User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 01:47,
19 January 2010 (UTC) (sirfozzie is a member of the english wikipedia's
'arbcom')
* The Dept of Fatherland Security runs deliberate tests of the airport
security system, by having agents see if they can get stuff past the
screeners, who are (supposedly) left out of the loop. It's very
important QC instrument. But suppose they were total doofuses who
weren't doing this AT ALL. And suppose some citizens decided to take it
upon themselves, using harmless toy mockups and so forth. Can you
imagine the shitstorm? That's rather what we have at Wikipedia. They
won't do it themselves, and they won't let anybody else do it, either. -
'Milton Roe'
([http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28227&view=findpost&p=216244
link])
* This page was deleted, and undeleted, leading to
[[Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments|this]]
review.