# Wikimedia Ethics/Feedback 1

This feedback page is part of the Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia learning resource, where readers may give feedback in a similar way to how feedback is given in "brick and mortar" classrooms. Four questions are asked by the survey template, including three that are "show of hands" type questions, and one "short answer". Please do not use this page as a place for discussion and debate: if you have a question or comment about one or more of the responses, you can either ask them personally on their talk page, or bring it up for discussion on the main talk page for the project.
To take part in this feedback page, simply do the following:
* copy the text below:
    {{subst:Emoew survey 1-preload}}
* add it to this page and save
* follow the instructions you find on that page.

## Responses

User:SB Johnny/Emoew survey 1

## Feedback from JWSchmidt

I agree with User:SB Johnny about the need to provide a better introduction to the Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia project. "increasing incidence of ethical lapses in the management" <-- There should be a list of these "ethical lapses".

## Feedback from Privatemusings

I agree with the feedback to date, that more simple, straight forward narrative might help greatly... I also think that this project has great potential, and appreciate those who have helped get it off the ground. I'm a bit of a slowcoach with contributions, but hope that over the long term we can achieve something valuable.
I didn't answer the second question above because I can't really commit to either answer at the mo... what I really value is some rigourous examination of a wide variety of issues, to try and generate more understanding (over and above 'change').

## Feedback from Dzonatas

The idea of a forum may vary from one person to another by their introduction and involvement into the Internet. I agree with the general idea of a forum, but I would like to see it kept within the limits of collegial atmosphere as found in the research labs. It should be kept distinct from coffee house fora. Further, the focus to change other wikis, even Wikipedia, is inevitable no matter where such change is incubated. I've already demonstrated how to tie-in bugzilla.wikimedia.org to here because I'm more in belief that it is easier to change the software than to change the people. Without a change to the software, that obviously means a change to the people and some may take offense to that.

## Feedback from Centaur of attention

Wikiversity is not the place to try to change or influence another Wikimedia project. I do not think it's appropriate to use Wikiversity as a forum for creating changes in how Wikipedia is managed. The Wikipedia community manages its own community. Would it be appropriate to use Wikipedia as a forum for creating changes in how Wikiversity is managed? The problem here is one of the founders of this project is banned from Wikipedia and is using it to harass those at Wikipedia he opposed and is being supported by "editors" from WikipediaReview, home to many banned Wikipedians with scores to settle. Wikiversity shouldn't be the next stop after getting 86'd from other Wikimedia projects for those who want spread drama and disruption. This project can only be improved by preventing the participation of those who are banned from Wikipedia from discussing Wikipedia and who have past personal conflicts with those they are writing about. If you are interested in who I am referring to, I'd be happy to discuss by email, you see, I'm giving them the respect they fail to give those they target. The founders of this project have serious behavioral issues at Wikipedia, one is banned, the other has a long history as a malcontent and enabler of troublemakers, and they skipped from project to project to found this project.

## Feedback from Salmon of Doubt

Reviewing only recent changes to this "project," it has devolved into a vehicle for Moulton to express his dissatisfaction with Wikipedia. This is complete with terms like "IDCabal," which is unexplained, and when it is explained, will be anything but neutral and informative. The project lacks balance, does not review the possiblity that it's initiators may be wrong, and lacks any sort of resonable experience in "ethical management" that should be expected before creating a project.