Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-29 Ecademy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-04-29 Ecademy 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion 1.6.1 Personal Statement

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-29 Ecademy

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Trident13

Where is the issue taking place?

the Wiki entry on Ecademy

Who's involved?

Steand, Trident13, others

I will add that I am a declared member of eCademy, although not a member of management, or their highest form of paid membership. --Trident13 21:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am an ex-member of Ecademy and the current moderator of Ecademy Watch, a group of people discussing Ecademy without fear of management reprisals. Ecademy Watch members include ex-members and current members of Ecademy, including BlackStars. I was ejected from Ecademy for disagreeing with management, though as there were no hard and fast rules in place at the time, it is inaccurate to say that I was removed for breaking the rules. Ste 12:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

While trying to create an appropriate and NPOV page for this mainly UK based networking community, a number of disaffected members and one in particular Steand seem to want to add what they percieve as facts. While trying to accomodate such a view, and accepting both points of view, it has unfortunatly resulted in an editing dispute. After a previous such dispute, I posted a simple version of this page. After trying to revert to this through addition of percieved facts, and trying to reach agreement, a particular member will only accept the page with his POV. I see as at present, about one third of the entry relates to "Complaints". I can not understand why people wish to bring disputes between themselves and third parties to Wiki - pointless! --Trident13 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I note with interest that the affected page is now being edited in an annoymous form --Trident13 23:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

Firstly, the present entry is partly libelous on persons mentioned in the article. Secondly, it's not written from an NPOV view point. Thirdly - why does a network of 70,000people have a larger entry than similar offerings of larger size - LinkedIn has 7M members, IoD 250,000 and both have smaller and more appropriate entries. My belief is that the combination of negative and unsupported/referenced comments made by a few disafected members with continuing disagreement with eCademy management are bringing a dispute to Wiki is the reason.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I am happy with open working, and advising the other party/s of the request for mediation on this page

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

I honestly don't think I have enough experience of this place - yet! I am still learning the subtlety of the implementation of the rules, and getting to know the place

...

[edit] Mediator response

Parties to this dispute are very partisan. Independently they have developed a criteria of evidence which all parties seem willing to accept. So from a mediation standpoint I'm going to close the case out. I think substantial improvement can be made to the article but neither side seems willing to accept input in large measure. That is I was unable to lead them to creating I'd consider the issues resolved in terms of mediation however two key problems remain.

The article itself focuses far to heavily on the debate between critics and supporters. There is very little information about what makes ecademy and more importantly about what makes it different than other groups of the same type. Ecademy is genuinely unique and needs a better treatment.

On both sides there is a tendency of "shady behavior". On the pro side there is a member with undisclosed semi-official status, unfortunately I can't disclose who and what without tying a username to a real name. On the anti-side there is a tendency to make insinuations but unfortunately the pro-side is not objecting to these.

Virtually everyone involved in this article are newbie users with 2 exceptions neither of which seems willing to get heavily involved. I believe as the core group gains more experience or more experienced editors come along this article will change drastically. They basically are working together successfully now. I'm closing this out.

[edit] Evidence

See history of page edit's at Ecademy and Discussion - --Trident13 23:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

There are critisms of eCademy, like any network, both within and outside the platform. There is not a problem encompassing this within a page on eCademy, but the level/volume at present is beyond NPOV rules of Wiki. It would also be useful to add sections on eCademy Watch and alternate networking group Last Thursday (neither presently listed on Wikipedia) - --Trident13 23:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Discussion

While some members of Ecademy seem happy to see a balanced view http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=66995 it appears that others aren't http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=66984

Also while Ste is willing to identify himself and so his 'bias' as an ex-Ecademy member is in the open, it appears that Trident13 remains anonymous and so there is no way of knowing who they are and whether they are currently a member of Ecademy --YoungTaff 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to see that I am asked to reveal my ID, where as the person who ask's the question is under a similar 'banner'. I also note a series of both positive/negative edit's have been undertaken even more annonomously, using port ID's! The answer here is not a personal debate - the answer is to find an agreement on the balance of a singular entry for Wiki which is appropriate. This is not an appropriate platform for either sales push or personal vendeta's - this is a referenced based factural encyclopedia - Rgds, --Trident13 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But you have made it personal by implying that Ste is not neutral due to his past history with Ecademy and his involvement with EcademyWatch. You also imply that much of what he posts is not factual (that is until he produces that facts to back it up), where as you feel free to remove things on the basis that you judge them to be non-factual but provide no evidence to back up they're not factual --YoungTaff 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact that he was excluded, and felt disatisfied with that conclusion. I note you have not stated whether you are a member or ex-member? All I believe is that his status has been effecting his and other excluded members posts on the Wiki page, and hence the request for mediation. I also accept that pro-members have been posting items which verge on sales-pitching. If the items is verifiable and inline with Wiki rules, I don't have an issue - it's lines like "Many" and 'Users" which are unreferenced which are not with Wiki policy --Trident13 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And what about your status as a member of Ecademy does that not affect your edits of the content. Why is my membership of Ecademy at debate here - you'll note that I have refrained from editing the page, something you spend a huge amount of time doing. --YoungTaff 09:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"...why does a network of 70,000 people have a larger entry than similar offerings of larger size - LinkedIn has 7M members, IoD 250,000 and both have smaller and more appropriate entries."

I don't see this as an issue. If we were compiling a paper-based encyclopedia, where space was an issue, I could understand. As it is, there is no reason to omit anything that is relevant.

I agree completely that it should be referenced and fact-based. Some Ecademy members may be surprised by some of the details, as these details have been airbrushed from Ecademy, and the people stating them have similarly been completely removed.

Ste 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my comment - eCademy is a club of 70k members, active or inactive - it's relativly small versus other networks which have fewer lines on Wiki. But it seems to have stired up more than it's scale in terms of debate of what should/should not be included. Many of the previous items were unreferenced, and now seem to be historic and not inline with current (stated) policy of the management team. One of the questions I would like answered in this mediation process here is how far back should a reference be included, particularly where it's a previous policy issue which is not inline with present policy? --Trident13 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Things that are patently different now from how things were in the past should be clearly written as being history and, they should not distract from understanding what eCademy IS. When things changed and people still have a grudge that in itself does not make it relevant. Wikipedia may include historic developments but it should be relevant. GerardM 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Statement

I called for this mediation cabal because I feel we can all reach an agreement, that there should be an Ecademy page and that it should reflect all views - no one wants an edit war! I have found the debate interesting, and some of the history enlightening - still, you find that as you get old, you forget more than you remember! I also feel that the issues of criticism against Ecademy add to the proposed article, and are very relevant - it would not be an accurate entry if it were not included. I think we have made great progress in the past 5days to creating something appropriate and accommodating to all views, which complies within Wiki's rules. However, I have also become personally aware that it is perceived or believed that, because I have taken a different view on Ecademy to some (perceived as positive), that I or others here therefore must be authorised, allocated or under the instruction of Ecademy management. I am happy to say publicly and on the record that, much as thought I am an admitted member of Ecademy (not a Blackstar), I have never been allocated, instructed or authorised by Ecademy management on any basis or at any time to edit or input issues to Wikipedia. I have offered to copy to Jeff all copies of correspondence re this page with various parties, including issues which I have checked with Ecademy management - but all those checks I have undertaken are logged and are commented on in the Discussion page already. I find it personally disappointing that, because I gain value from Ecademy and am a member, it is concluded by some form of logic I must be under instruction. Please, some of us are open to a balanced view of things we belong to or take part in, wouldn't abuse Wiki rules, and can act independently/are not under instruction - it's purely because we gain value, that we may appear to some too passionate. Rgds, --Trident13 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)