I just discovered that Wikiversity has a fairly nifty extension for writing quizzes and tests.

I think I'll give this a try, authoring a quiz entitled "How well do you know the real Wikimedia Movement?"

Will that get me banned from Wikiversity, if I present only factual information, setting knowledge free?

Wikiversity has no rules because SB Johnny turned it into an anarchy where the only rule is his whim. I'm sure you'll be fine.

Moved to annex where the posters can work out whether to make it about the "neat new quiz feature" or another seething rant about people Ottava hates. Of course Obesity won't want it either, but too bad for him.

Actually I checked Wikiversity out today (and registered an account) on a whim (I know we're not supposed to have any more threads about it), specifically Econ related topics and looked at this
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Economics

I know it's not a very much populated site but I really couldn't find a single useful thing on there. Some of it was weird or off base. Other than that the only "articles" (or whatever you call them there) were copy/pastes from Wikipedia (like the on Austrian economics) though apparently by somebody's preferred POV version.

I actually thought about putting something up there, like some old problem sets or experiments I've run in class but then I thought... "the way that this will turn out, best case scenario, is that I do a bunch of work and contribute bunch of content, then come up against somebody who's into categorizing stuff or whatever, the grief will start and it will be the repeat of the Wikipedia experience. One of those is enough".

We're in the annex now...

Well, Wikiversity at the moment has Moulton and Ottava and assorted characters running completely fee. Moulton is outing, revert warring, harassing, and nothing is being done.

No, you won't get banned, I think. If you are warned, pay attention, but you could try almost anything.

Criticizing the WMF is probably fair game. Criticizing Wikiversity participants, maybe, if it's reasonable and not really personal attack. Criticizing other WMF regulars or individuals, right now, you might get away with it, but Come Da Revolution....

Right now, it's pretty clear, lots of users are staying away because of all the fighting.

Ottava is kinda right.

One of Ottava's last acts before his bit was yanked was to unblock Moulton. I'd been negotiating with Moulton for unblock conditions. He was resistant, I lost my bit because of Ottava, and range blocks were being put up by Adambro.

When Ottava unblocked Caprice, Moulton's declared sock, it was to create disruption. It worked.

Ottava is correct about SBJ. When Ottava started seriously harassing users on WV, I warned, and I blocked. Had it been Wikipedia, I'd have blocked indef, i.e., pending discussion. WV doesn't have an indef option, so I blocked for a year, making it clear that this was indef. SBJ had just blocked Ottava himself for two days for incivility, and Ottava had escalated.

But .... SBJ was allergic to the idea of me being a sysop. He thought a year was excessive, and he unblocked without conditions. And he took up Ottava's Community Review on me, heavily canvassed by Ottava, and used it as cover to desysop. And he's done nothing to help the situation since. Ottava has violated the warnings SBJ himself had given him, and blocked on before.

Meanwhile, Moulton, realizing that WV has become the Wild West, and the sheriffs are passed out from boredom or are in some kind of paralytic fit, has been harassing Wikipedia admins from the shelter of WV, revert warring with users on their talk pages, doing *more* than what he did when Jimbo dropped in and blocked him in 2008.

A complaint was filed on the Request custodian action page. Moulton used it to drop a very long complaint about the user who was complaining, plus a song parody. I collapsed that so that the complaint and actual responses could be visible. That Moulton edit also pointedly referred to the editor by his real name, I redacted the name to the user name, noting the redaction. Moulton began revert warring to keep his original comment expanded.

Moulton does not accept any restriction of his inalienable right to do whatever he pleases whenever he pleases, to create "educational opportunities." Okay....

I realized that this was a way to call attention to the total lack of "adult supervision" on WV. For days, now, we have been revert warring on that collapse/no-collapse thing. For me, it's a way to effectively demonstrate that "law and order" has completely broken down at WV. The ping-ponging diffs:

My version.
Moulton's version.

Moulton also started revert warring on my user page, repeatedly inserting a long IRC log that shows ... nothing that I could see. He's using it to create tweets with edit summaries, and he bragged about that on IRC. Tweet!

The point here isn't Moulton, really, Moulton is just doing what Moulton usually has done, in the long run: troll to be blocked. He's demanding that I go to meta to request stewards intervene.

Ottava unblocked him to get revenge on Wikiversity. The result was predictable.

SBJ is in it for the lulz.

WV is very much Not Wikipedia. You can create, on WV, deep educational resources, and there are people doing it. There are a lot of misc pages, shallow fluff, etc., but that's partly due to lack of admin support and a large enough working community with a vision of what Wikiversity can be.

The only place people get into trouble on WV, aside from the current very personal squabbles mostly connected with Ottava and Moulton in some way or other, is when they try to use Wikiversity to study Wikipedia, in ways that attack editors there.

I'd hoped that Moulton would help develop guidelines for research involving real people, specifically Wikipedia editors, but, in fact, Moulton's agenda is not research, but revenge and humiliation and trolling. He pokes people to see what they will do.