Wikiversity:Colloquium

Start your discussion here Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles. Sign your posts with   ~~~~ Welcome Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking, check the general information at: What is Wikiversity? Who are Wikiversity participants? Wikiversity Introduction MediaWiki software questions Wikiversity: Chat | Mailing list | X

Purge Cache - Colloquium Archives - RSS version

var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = "http://en.wikiversity.org"; var wgPageName = "Wikiversity:Colloquium"; var wgTitle = "Wikiversity Colloquium"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var x-feed-reverse = "true"; var x-blog-description = "You have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for!";

RSS

"Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." — Benjamin N. Cardozo (discuss)

On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 21 days old.

Wikimania Scholarships

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference. To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply. For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

• Scholarships
• Scholarships FAQ

Yours very truly, Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

Making Technical Wikiversity Topics Better Teaching Tools by Utilizing the Skills of a Hyper-Multidisciplinary Team

Moved to Improving Technical Topics At Wikiversity, with discussion on the discussion page.

Where to host graphical content?

It seems to me like there is MASSIVE overlap in some projects (wikiversity, wikipedia, wikibooks, wikieducator, etc). It seems to me, particularly for graphics/animations/etc that we should "share" between these projects. I suppose since it is all open, we can just take graphics from one and paste them in another, but I see something more like wikigraphics.com (yay, another project!) that people use to create graphical content that should be linked to from all other wikiXYZ projects. Thoughts? -- Daviddoria 12:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons should be able to serve that purpose. It accepts freely licensed media content which can then be used on Wikiversity, Wikibooks, or any of the other WMF projects without having to upload it locally there. As far as I understand, it would be possible for WikiEducator to use content hosted on Commons in the same way subject to setting the Wiki up in a particular way. Adambro 12:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't all of the wikimedia projects just not allow files to be uploaded to the individual wikis and force everything to be hosted at wikicommons? Daviddoria 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wiktionary, to name a few) can all use files that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as if they were uploaded locally using the same method e.g [[File:Foobar.jpg]]. Wikieducator isn't a Wikimedia project, but recent versions of the mediawiki software allow local repositories to be build transparently by importing uploaded files from external repositories, which Wikieducator could use if they wanted to make use of files from Wikimedia Commons. -- darklama  12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki commons is for all (permitted) file types, not just graphics. In general, users should be encouraged to upload to commons, but it is also helpful to have the capability for local uploads to specific sister projects. This does, however, create some double-handling. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiEducator vs WikiVersity

I came across this: http://wikieducator.org/ It seems like they have almost the same goals as the WikiVersity project? I understand the difference between WikiPedia and WikiVersity, but what is the difference between WikiVersity and WikiEducator? Daviddoria 13:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

These two are very similar projects. As you can see on the WikiEducator page, there are some links between them, but only a tiny-tiny proportion of cooperation potential is used so far. --Gbaor 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts - Possibly the main difference is that Wikiversity is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation whereas WikiEducator is supported by the Commonwealth of Learning. This means that WV is integrated with the sister projects more so than with WE. By all means try out WE and see what you think - most regular users of Wikiversity have. Personally, I find the governance structure of WE of some concern - at the end of the day Wayne Mackintosh calls the shots for better or worse. There is a more organised, transparent governance structure for WV, with its own problems, including that at the end of the day the WMF board or its representatives such as Jimmy Wales may call the shots. WE has some more freedom in its structure and use of mediawiki add-ons - this can be an advantage or disadvantage (e.g., the use of liquid threads on talk pages on WE annoys some people). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reproducible Graphics

One thing that I believe would really help with technical content is requiring that all graphics that are available also point to the files or code necessary to produce them. For example, consider that someone creates a nice vector graphic in Illustrator or Inkscape, exports it to a jpg, and uploads it to WikiCommons. While that is certainly appreciated, if someone notices an error in the image, or suggests an improvement to it, it has to be produced from scratch all over again! Another case is that someone writes some Matlab or similar code to produce a plot and then uploads the plot to WikiCommons. This code must also be available so, again, if someone wants to change it, it is a simple incremental change instead of having to start from scratch.

Any thoughts on how to suggest that people do this/start enforcing this?

Daviddoria 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting or supporting are one thing, enforcing another. Enforcing is utterly impractical. It's demanding that volunteers jump through hoops. But, hey, setting up suggested guidelines and procedures, making it easy, all that, is just fine. And requesting such files from users is, again, just fine. As long as it's nice, and supportive! --Abd 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be easy to request and receive these things. As you say, we don't want people to have to jump through hoops. When they go to upload an image, it should very clearly state that it is TREMENDOUSLY more useful/helpful if they also at this point attach/submit the producing materials. I think these kinds of changes need to be made on the backend, right? Daviddoria 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this is desirable, but also that for many, this may be too much effort. svg image formats are preferred because they can be edited, however, you're right that the code and data used to produce such images should also be uploaded. The code can be added to the image's page. The data could be uploaded separately. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New guy

Hi friends. I made an account here as soon as the site was started, but ended up never coming here. I think what I'm looking for is a teacher(s)— someone who would be happy and available to answer my questions as I go through learning what would consist of a physics degree, the courses at School:Physics_and_Astronomy, and my found learning materials and projects. I don't know my way around Wikiversity, or the people or culture. Any help? Thanks! I've been active on Wikipedia for many years. Mac Davis 22:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mu301 is a physicist. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Go to a library. WAS 4.250 10:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Read The Feynman Lectures on Physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics). - WAS 4.250 10:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Or ask a user here who was there, then. I sat in the room when those lectures were filmed and made into a book. At least most days. I also had other interests and never graduated, but recently I've been putting what I learned to use and have considered Feynman one of my most important teachers. So, while I'm not a "physicist," I might be able to help on occasion, or at least to encourage you. Welcome. As you study, indeed, ask questions and let them and the answers we find become resources. Learn by teaching, teach by learning. --Abd 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

About Renewable/Sustainable Energy

--204.154.137.252 14:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I would like to know about recommended text books, web pages or online tools to learn more on the subject. The focus would also include energy efficiency. I am looking for information regarding all of these subjects, but with an easy and understandable learning curve. It would also be helpful to have an engineering point of view in the text.

Animated growth of Wikiversity projects

You may be curious to play around with this. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

İnvite to History of Ottoman Empire Course

I opened History of Ottoman Empire Course. You may come to this course. You may ask the questions, answer the quizzes and learn History of Ottoman Empire. I will start tell lessons 20 June 2010. First lesson: "Establishment of Ottoman Empire". Good works... --Bermanya 16:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds cool. I believe I see an error, though (200 should be 2010 ?):

Week XXVI: 1982-200 age of Modern Turkey

• Also, I see many English errors. Would you mind some help with your English ?

• Finally, looking at your first lesson, it looks like it might be better in outline form, with bullets. StuRat 22:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are errors on page. I corrected some errors. You may help me for english. And thank you for your criticism. Good works... --Berm@nya^Talk 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I will try to correct any English errors. Also, some links to Wikipedia pages would really help. For example, in the first line "Osman Gazi, founded Ottoman Empire in Bilecik, Anatolia", I don't know who Gazi is, what Anatolia is, or where Bilecik is. If instead it said "Osman Gazi, founded the Ottoman Empire in Bilecik, Anatolia", then I could follow the links if I had any questions like those. (Of course, links to Wikversity articles would be even better, if we have any.) StuRat 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will do. Thanks... --Berm@nya^Talk 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Student Volunteer Campaign

Hi all,

It seems to me that the best way to improve (and add to) the content on WikiVersity is to have a few students currently enrolled in "real life" versions of the courses we are offering work under a mentor as they go along. It is incredibly time consuming to produce/improve content in parallel with a post-college life. However, during an "in-college" life, this exercise is mutually beneficial - generating material is one of the best ways to help the student really learn the material (if you can't explain it, you don't know it!), prepare for exams, etc. At the same time, they could let WikiVersity know which topics were explained unsatisfactorily, which topics could have benefited from additional images, etc.

My suggestion would be for WikiVersity to reach out to universities calling for this type of volunteer. It seems to me that it would only take one or two iterations (less than a year!) to produce some incredible material.

Daviddoria 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Students enrolled in brick and mortar universities are already contributing here, and people are already reaching out to brick and mortar universities. The mentor concept already exists, just needs people to do it. Take a look at my user page for an example. -- darklama  16:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm saying it should be formalized more than it is. I'd like to see a page that says "A, B, and C are currently students taking Physics I and contributing to the content of this page. Click here if you are also taking Physics I and would like to help (maybe 1-4 hours /week). Click here to mentor a student.". Darklama - I see on your user page that you are a "C Progamming Mentor", but is there a list of your students? Which pages are the working on? Which classes are they currently taking? Daviddoria 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Some pages already include a list of participants that wish to study the subject and wish to help contribute to works on the subject. My main goal with the mentor system is to clearly identify people willing to answer questions about a subject and than to list them on related pages so students can find them. Right now it is somewhat common for people to turn to custodians for help for site-related issues, and this is sort of an extension of that where people can know who they might be able to turn to find answers for their other questions. -- darklama  23:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Although the issue is not new and contributions from "real" schools occasionally appear on the site, it would be good to know how many people (i.e. teachers/students) contributed to WV as a part of a "real" class. Page listing these, maybe with some description and put it to a prominent place (main page?) would help to advertise the possibility and WV in general. --Gbaor 10:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We have long had this page: Wikiversity:School and university projects. We have also long had a problem with the main page: rather than address the critical needs facing Wikiversity the main page is a silly "let's pretend we are Wikipedia" page. --JWSchmidt 14:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to create a Cite namespace

KYPark wants to create a namespace (Cite) that has reference entries that could be used on multiple pages as a template. I will let him explain it. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

KYPark

Prompted by User talk:KYPark#Warning, may I cordially ask the WV community members concerned to draw a consensus on the creation of the Cite: namespace, each of whose pages will essentially contain the citation or bibliographic record on a document? For further information, please refer to User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima, which keeps evolving, as everything ever evolves, I guess, whether naturally or culturally. BTW, I'm just a newcomer to WV, unaware of its culture and the right way I have to behave in it. Please do me lots of favor and justice. Thank you. --KYPark 06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Adambro

As it stands, from reading the discussions that took place at User talk:Ottava Rima, I'm yet to be persuaded of the value of a cite namespace. I think it would create a lot of work for not a lot of benefit. Each reference would need another page whilst many sources will only ever be used in one page. Spreading content across pages unfortunately creates more targets for vandals and so more pages that need to be watched and potentially requiring protection. I think the current system of citing sources is satisfactory. Adambro 07:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: a lot of work -- I expect academics would do a lot of it to help themselves. kk :-) --KYPark 09:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: many sources will only ever be used in one page -- WV need not bother having such trivial sources or pages. The greater repetition or redundancy, the greater satisfaction. Hence the first-thing-first principle. --KYPark 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: vandalism -- The nature of citations or bibliographic records is so objective that sane vandals would not bother them. --KYPark 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"sane vandals" sounds like a good example of an oxymoron. Adambro 09:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed in a sense. But sadly, to tell the truth, I've been so often made to feel like one here (I can't exactly figure out where), though I may be one in no way. Could you prove I'm insane anyway so far? I hope not, even though I've been treated as such too often here, not in WV. That is to say, "sane vandals" is too uneasy a term for you to use definitely. I guess there are lots of "sane vandals" suffering a lot unjustly by name of vandalism, as pagans suffers by name of anti-christianity in the West. --KYPark 10:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

I could see some merit if there was a Commons like project for reference entries that would allow one reference to be used in thousands of pages, however, I honestly don't feel that even in such high user that having a page dedicated to one sentence that is easily copied and pasted is worth while. On a much smaller scope (i.e. just Wikiversity), I see even less of a point. I have created hundreds of pages that use references, and I find copying and pasting easy. Templates, in general, take up a lot of space and room for little gain. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Recall that each page will essentially contain the citation or bibliographic record on a document, which may be called the citational, transclusive or onlyinclude content that will be nested between the beginning and ending onlyinclude tags.

This essential content may well be compared to the tip of an iceberg, that is, the explicit, superficial, minimum-essential part of the whole page. That is, there is the massive, non-transclusive content or added value, which may be compared to the huge submerged mass of the iceberg. It should be pre-determined which features of a document should be added to the tip. The User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima#Additional contents may be taken into account.

Simply, such a Cite page could serve as a notepad, as it were, for learning and annotating anything from a scholarly document, whether a book, journal article, or whatever formal documentation. It may be regarded as a grass-roots or bottom-up building block of scholarship, whether research or learning, based on scholarly documentation. Such was the common idea of most hypertext prioneers, including Vannevar Bush, Ted Nelson, and Tim Berners-Lee in particular.

In a sense, most WP and WV articles are a top-down digest or synthesis of various scholarly documents, each of which in turn is such a one. Then, scholarship may well be said to begin with a web of grass-roots or source documents, which may be embodied as a Cite namespace!

--KYPark 01:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just checking in briefly with this idea. I put some references on their own page, then transclude them e.g., Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/Howell/2010 - what links here. What advantage would there for be for locating something like this in a separate namespace? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the argument is that it helps to keep all references well organized and you know that they are being used as references. -- darklama  12:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing, Jtneill! You've been already transcluding citations, though perhaps less easily or less plausibly than using the proposed Cite namespace. Your hierarchical and project-oriented way looks too special and hard for any editor to locate citations, I fear. Now my proposal seems to have been deliberately made for an easy alternative to your way of controlling citations. A definitely easy way would facilitate the weaving and other controls of citations. Please go to:

• Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks#SPSS manual to notice the links I've added in front, and
• Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008#Critiques to be advised of the possible extension of citational pages, whether yours or mine, toward the additional contents or features beyond the mere transclusion of a citation. Also note the above page could be very simply named Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 for easy location and use!

--KYPark (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What if jtneil decided to add additional citations by Allen & Bennett from 2008? Where would they be located? The page name seems to severely limit the number of possible citations. -- darklama  11:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Recall Cite:Vannevar Bush 1945 AWM where the suffix "AWM" stands for "As We May Think," the article of Atlantic Monthly 176 (July 1945), pp. 101-108. Books, eg, Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 are more likely to do without such a suffix. Along with this author-year naming convention, we might also attempt to do with Cite:As We May Think, Cite:World Brain, etc., depending on their celebrity.

--KYPark (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, partly in response to Ottava's comment concerning a Commons namespace for citational transclusion to sister projects, WV should not be adversely affected to have a Cite namespace and make its entry easier as much as the transclusion from the Commons entry. And, any WMF community members concerned may read this Colloquium and preceding discussions first and perhaps invite me there.

--KYPark (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jtneill

Thanks for the ideas and explanation KYPark. Maybe you could create some citations starting with Cite: as a demo. Would they need to be created in a namespace? Or could such pages just be named Cite: (without it being a namespace)? I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea - especually as I transclude some commonly-used references such as textbook references within a course. I do tend to like in that case that the transcluded references are within the sub-folder structure - but the final reference could still sit within Cite: and be transcluded from there. But I am doubtful that such a namespace would be used very much. Has this been proposed and discussed elsewhere on the sister projects e.g., Wikipedia? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WV is the first WMF project to which I proposed this new grass-roots documentary namespace, from which, it seems to me, WV would benefit most from the researcher's, teacher's and learner's perspectives. Meanwhile, such a documentary system is not really new without but quite implausible so far, I fear. The w:CiteSeer and the w:ACM Portal are limited to computer science and too automated. The Google is developing a sort. This mundane state of the art is as far as my knowledge goes. I would not deny that my proposal may be worth an independent WMF project, but make it simple. as I see simple is beautiful!

Suppose you passionately take notes on cards, as old scholars and students used to do. There you put down the source at the end, as well as a passage, quotation or annotation, tediously as many times as the number of notecards you make from the same source document. With the corresponding Cite page established once and for all, however, anyone could do without this tedious repetition, and that much more easily on Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 than Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008.

Quotation is selection. Also consider how to select a specific notecard from the messy mass. (Also consider how to find your car out of the huge car park after you've forgot the parking location.) The celebrated hypertext pioneer w:Vannevar Bush (1945) took these two kinds of selection very seriously, as he used the term more than twenty times in his 8-page article! Read at least the first 4 paragraphs of the section 6 there to understand his motivation. He named his ideal machine the w:memex that would free you from that messy mass.

It took exactly three decades for many people to begin to take his ideal very seriously. Since 1975, cognitive science began to emerge to study the hypertext-wise w:mind map, w:cognitive map, w:conceptual map, w:mental model, and many other parodies. Bush (1945) "As We May Think" was to suggest that hypertext is not so much grouped and selected hierarchically as associatively as the way we may think, hence the title. Associationism, behaviorism, experientialism, contextualism, social constructivism, and the like were merging into a revolutionary power against rationalist nativism or innatism.

Soon a variety of hypertext systems were mushrooming, including w:Enquire (1980) and w:Guide (hypertext) (1982) from the UK. The development at the University of Maryland is highly remarkable in the US, resulting in w:The Interactive Encyclopedia System (1983) and w:NoteCards (1984), 3 years earlier than the celebrated w:HyperCard (1987) of Apple Computer. WP and WV pages are (like) such cards; the namespace is simply the card box, deck or cabinet.

In the beginning, there was a namespace in WP, now called the main namespace, where all the main pages are parked, located or "created equal" rather than levelled "down from subclass to subclass" (in terms of Bush 1945) or from subpages to subpages in WV parlance. Now all WMF projects have essentially one main namespace and some extra namespaces marked by a colon, such as Wikiversity, School, Topic, etc. of WV, in addition to User, Talk, Category, Template, etc. in common. Each is quite homogeneous in kind. The Cite would be another for the reference kind.

Pages parked equal in the main namespace should be marked or named proper or unique, avoiding overlapping. Then anyone can be very easily selected by virtue of its proper name, and you need not go up and down the ladder of subdivisions such as Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks/AllenBennett/2008.

Instead of such a long hierarchy, you could simply have Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008 in the proposed Cite namespace, or even more simply Allen & Bennett 2008 in the main namespace. The simpler the better. Then why the Cite namespace? It is mainly to save the main from being overcrowded with too many Cite pages, which quite differ in kind from the main pages and may eventually count to millions.

The main namespace, looking like a grab bag, is making life easy or simple, but disregarding the grouping or categorization of relative pages one way or another. The Category pages are partly to make for this default. The idea of subpages is another breakthrough. For example, any pages relating to any textbooks are grouped under Category:Textbooks, while some pages relating to psychological textbooks are grouped under Survey research and design in psychology/Readings/Textbooks.

--KYPark [T] 08:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sooner or later I will try to edit Cite:As We May Think, Cite:Allen & Bennett 2008, and the like under the Category:User:KYPark.

--KYPark [T] 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these excellent examples, KYPark. The idea of a Cite: namespace is growing on me. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Abd

I think this is an excellent idea.

On Wikipedia This would be a place to build information about sources. Discussion of sources often takes place in articles, when, in fact, the information could cover many topics. Does the source generally qualify under WP:RS. Often this is a debate that takes place in an article, based on the perceptions and POVs of the editors of the article. The Cite page and attached Cite talk page would be a place to form neutral consensus on the source itself. Is it "self-published," or is the publisher independent? I've attempted to use w:Naturwissenschaften as a source and the argument comes back that this is a "life sciences journal," which is not true. But it can look that way. How many times does this argument need to be repeated? That is a question that was resolved under mediation, with consensus, but where would this information go? Cite space. Naturwissenschaften is a multi-disciplinary journal where the majority of articles, which are typically cross-disciplinary (that's what they prefer), happen to have something to do with the life sciences. But they have always published in all fields related to the natural sciences.

On Wikiversity, the Cite space would be like a university library. It might be organized through categories into topics, and one could quickly find all articles that use a reference. How much work would maintaining this be? Some. But it can be built slowly. As to vandalism, it would be entirely possible to semipro the entire space, for example, and to have, then, suggestions from IPs, on a page for that, allowing any registered editor to act in semi-administrative capacity. Besides, WV is still small, and I can monitor all the activity. Have a new space will not create new vandals, just a different space for them to use, it would still show up in Recent Changes.

I think it's worth trying. It costs very little, if anything, if I've understood this correctly. It would allow the use of a common citation format, if we wanted to specify one. But it's also possible to have alternate pages according to various citatation standards. Diversity is important, but the question is always which is more needed: diversity or efficiency. If it will take a huge battle to decide on a single standard, then we could define a number of them, and this is something that can be handled with templates.... --Abd 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your positive support, Abd. You got it from the very beginning, I thought. One thing I like to reassure you at the moment, however, is that the Cite should be far more than the librarian site just for sight. Yes, it is a library or collection but of the whatabouts of the library resources, that is, of information of information, the second-order or meta information. I wish this could be a melting pot or center for diverse information users with their own perspective or point of view, which should rarely be a shame! The w:confirmation bias is deeply engraved in the living, from the recent psychological perspective, which though may be no more than a point of view. Such is w:Karl Popper's argument in w:Conjectures and Refutations that all scientific theories are essentially conjectures, hence the name of the book. NPOV is an easy word but a hard warrant indeed. How could you make certain the neutrality of anything without a thorough tour through the messy massy mazy marsh of soures of sources of sources? The best thing we could do would be to allow readers for the easier tour and the final judgment. See w: Reader-response criticism and w: User-centered design.

"Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and to coin one at random, 'memex' will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory."
-- From:Cite:As We May Think#Excerpts.

Perhaps more comments may follow later.

-- KYPark [T] 03:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

KYPark 2

Ladies and gentlemen, please have a look at Category:Linda Smith 1980 and the like Category (instead of Cite) pages, all converging to Category:As We May Think, where all of them gather together as a citing successor. From "edit this page," find how easy it is to weave such an objective, historiographical, causal web of preceding and succeeding scholarly documents, in sharp contrast to the non-causal hence rather arbitrary w:semantic web, conception of conception of conception (cf. citation of citation of citation), or simply w:intension, one of which Wikipedia and Wiktionary pages look like. There are two kinds of things in your world: what you have to pinpoint or enumerate and what you have to persuade. No doubt, the latter is what troubles you most.

In the beginning, the w:World Wide Web began with the two things: the semantic and the historiographic webs, simply the keywords and the reference numbers. Eventually, w:Tim Berners-Lee seems to have preferred the former (semantic web) to the latter (historiographic web) after all. Meanwhile, compare the traditional use of the Category namespace with the revolutionary use of cause-effect chain reactions for a historiographical, causal web!

-- KYPark [T] 10:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Capchaa inaccessible via screenreader

I would like to creat a WikiUniversity account, but there is no audible Capcha. The graphic capchas are inaccessible to screenreader-users, such as myself (I use JAWS). There are easy-to-implement audio capchas available, and I would like to see WikiUniversity implement one to make this site accessible to the blind.

Sincerely, Jewel Shuping herekittykat2@gmail.com

Someone can create an account for you, if there are any with experience in doing so who read this, could you help? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting about this. I've added your comment to this bugzilla issue: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4845 and voted for it. I'd encourage others to do the same, to improve accessibility. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Query

shafaq mohsin

hi wikiversity i am related from pakistan i have not completed my a-level shall complete soon.so can i be the member of this web page relating to any subjects and how will i study from you as a regular student and after completing it shall i get any certificate?your reply will be my great pleasure. --115.186.48.18 18:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to join in! However, Wikiversity itself does not grant certificates or degrees. See What is Wikiversity and What Wikiversity is not. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

School spam

We've probably deleted tons of pages of outright spam over the years, but there are always more and more schools that just drop some links and the rest as a page. We need to come up with a guideline or policy on how to deal with this. Now, two things that need to be determined:

• Do we allow universities to have a promotional page here?
• What about pages that are just copied from Wikipedia on schools?

- Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes within reason to your first question. No to your second question. -- darklama  23:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Once upon time there was collaboration to make policies that were needed for the Wikiversity project. Then, after the hostile takeover, Wikipedia's rules were enforced here and policy development was derailed. We've had two years of sysops and other interlopers from outside who do whatever they want to do, even in violation of policy. Does policy development matter any more? --JWSchmidt 23:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see a promotional page on a school as belonging here. It's not a learning resource. The page, that is. The school might be a resource, of course. There may be some way to have listings of schools that offer courses and degrees in certain subjects, but I'm not comfortable with the concept that a diploma mill might effectively advertise here. On the other hand, if a learning resource here was developed by someone at a school, and is offered as a class there, used with permission, and with some kind of disclaimer, I don't see a problem with the course being credited to the school. We are not an accrediting agency, nor should we become one; but we can list and possibly review accrediting agencies or link to sites which do this. To me, the question should be what we can do, not what we prohibit. Just copying pages from Wikipedia is useless, that should be discouraged. Critical commentary on Wikipedia articles (i.e., on some particular version) is a possibility. If it could be done in a college seminar it could be done here. If it's on Wikipedia and there is some reason to mention it, and as with other pages on other sites, we would just link to it, possibly with a very brief summary in some cases.

• I recommend that we be pro-active and put up what we *can* do, at least with some examples. Then, when someone puts up a school page like that, instead of just coming down negatively, we can point to something positive that we will allow. And we can write a policy, and "eff" the history of hostile takeover here. Whatever happened then, this is now. Besides, there is netknowledge.org. Universities in the real world cooperate with each other, it should be no different here. But each is independent and autonomous, they are not centrally controlled. Full disclosure and free sharing of information, yes, but uniformity of approach and curriculum, no. --Abd 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• An example for consideration: School of Extended Studies at Portland State University. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• That reads like spam! --Diego Grez 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• People tend to get upset when what they write is called "spam," we should avoid that term, unless it truly and clearly is spam. I'll agree, the article reads like promotion, but unless it is spewed all over the place, "spam" it isn't. Anyway, I've tagged it for speedy deletion and both warned the author about this and suggested that the author might read this Colloquium discussion, inviting him or her to, perhaps, help set up appropriate resources here. That page isn't going to be read by anyone here, it's useless. But suppose there is some course offered by the School of Extended Studies, which appears to be a fully legitimate, accredited activity, and there is a learning resource on that topic here. It could be quite appropriate to have, with resources here, some listing of schools, according to standards we set, where courses for credit are offered. That's helping our readers and students. --Abd 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  People can also get upset when what they write is called promotional. Just having a view point can seem promotional. My thought is we should put up with works that might seem promotional in nature if learning can happen from the presentation including enough details and common questions that people are likely to have are answered. I think this may be along similar lines as defining what can be done. I think Extended Studies fails that because it fails to answer important questions like what courses are offered and is devoid of details. -- darklama  01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Heck even when it mentions that its award-winning it doesn't mention what award its won, doesn't mention what businesses it meets the needs of, doesn't mention what kind of students its orientated towards, etc. Nothing to learn there. -- darklama  02:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's why I tagged it for deletion! But I also want to show the user that there might be some legitimate contribution that the user can make that will help students. I don't think that articles on schools, generally, are appropriate here, but perhaps some example could convince me otherwise. However, listing schools -- with links -- where the information would support learning and be useful for that, makes sense to me, but does raise the specter of standards. Definitely we'd not want to end up, in effect, promoting some scam or diploma mill. In addition, whatever we do must be efficient. The person who put the page here also put it, apparently, on Wikipedia, it was promptly deleted, and w:Portland State University there was edited to place the School of Extended Studies in the list of major academic schools. The intro says seven schools, which matches the university catalog. SES would make it eight. It is actually a separate section in the catalog. It's really a kind of program access, perhaps providing its own courses in some cases, it appears, but also perhaps distance learning access to other courses. I edited that article to place the SES in context. I'm hoping to solicit this new user's support and participation in setting up the policy! This wasn't a spammer, but someone not clear on policies at Wikipedia, I'd guess (notability, sourcing, etc.) and not clear about the mission of Wikiversity. I think there is a way to connect Wikiversity with the SES, there would be appropriate mentions and cross-connections. The SES is fully legitimate and recognized. And looks damn useful! They offer courses to people outside of Oregon as well as to Oregon residents, at the same tuition as for locals. So someone with the catalog could go through it and add links to appropriate resources here. But that should first be considered globally.... and I'm sure not interested in slogging through that stuff. But maybe some other volunteers can do it, including someone with a special interest in SES. And we could end up with a policy that works and is easy to apply. My hope. --Abd 02:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  Abd, that's an encouraging message you've left on User talk:Tncarey. Maybe DM the user if no response soon. In general, I'd suggest we want to encourage schools etc. to engage with WV and listing themselves can be a first step. But if its just a description of the institution with no obvious connection to WV, this should go on a user page or Wikipedia. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Spam, or not spam, it is out of the project's scope. Wikiversity is a learning resource, not a place to put promotional information. There are legitimate uses of school's pages, but Ottava's example clearly doesn't adheres to the policy. --Diego Grez 02:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By way perhaps of another example of an educational institution page on WV, feel free to visit, improve and critique, University of Canberra. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

University of Canberra is an example of what "school" pages should be in my view; a portal with a brief description of the school, links to relevant Wikipedia articles, relevant external links, and most importantly, links to learning resources related to that school. As has been suggested, I would agree that School of Extended Studies at Portland State University is beyond what is probably appropriate here. Encyclopaedic style lengthy descriptions of schools should be on Wikipedia. Adverts for schools shouldn't be anywhere on WMF projects. Users should come here and find educational resources, not adverts. They way that educational institutions can benefit from Wikiversity is by creating useful learning resources that may prompt users to look at what courses they offer. Adambro 10:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible template for use

In the title, I use "template" as in form and not as a Wiki template. I think that we should come up with a set standard for how pages for schools and universities should look like. Perhaps the basic information at top (type of school, size, etc) then allow them, say, a two paragraph summary on their institution/program. Then, after that, have a link to pages (learning resources, teacher's/professor's user pages, etc) related to their institution. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

There is a proposal at Wikiversity:Real world schools that has been around since 2007. Does that proposal have what is needed? Should there be discussion to establish it as a policy, or does it need work more first? What do people think? -- darklama  14:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

SUL

Hi, I have SUL as Mysha. As one of the pages keeps telling me my SUL is incomplete, I would like to resolve the last few conflicts. One is the user:Mysha on Wikiversity. The current user has slightly over 70 edits, all done on 5 dates in July - September 2007, and links the user page to an URL that no longer seems to exist. Is there a way to resolve this? 212.203.0.54

Yes, make your request at Wikiversity:Changing username. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Btech and BE

--116.199.170.220 05:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC) hello sir/mada, i want to know the difference between Btech and BE.

• Maybe - Bachelor of Technology and Bachelor of Education? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall we request unlock for Thekohser?

From discussions on my talk page and elsewhere, it seems we had a consensus among administrators to allow User:Thekohser access to his Talk page, and, in fact, I did open that up. However, in the process, it was revealed that on May 30, that account was globally locked, reversing what seemed to be a broad consensus to allow local wikis to make their own decisions with regard to this user, who is blocked in many places (mostly as a response to a request from Jimbo), but not blocked in others, and in some places this unblocked status was explicitly made and supported by local admins. The issue here is not whether or not Thekohser should be unblocked, no immediate decision is even requested on that issue, but whether or not we should be allowed to investigate the issue without it being completely moot. If the account is locked, Thekohser cannot log in and therefore we cannot have any clear proof that we are communicating with him. Some of us do have direct contact information, sure, but the whole process becomes obscure and limited.

Anyone can request global unlock on meta, at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_.28un.29lock_and_.28un.29hiding. If I had time, today, I'd do it, but it would be better if we have a local consensus to make the request. I don't want this to become a personal struggle or argument. As I said, there was consensus from a few administrators who discussed it, which has been Adambro, Ottava Rima, and myself, and Diego Grez only expressed opposition because unblocking was moot given the global lock. I'd prefer to have a central discussion to point to, plus my plan would be to point out other wikis where decisions were made by administrators to either completely unblock or to allow talk page or email access for Thekohser, and the meta action locking effectively reversed all these decisions, apparently without discussion, or with only narrow and/or private discussion (I've been unable to find any discussion at all.) I've asked Mike.lifegaurd to explain on his meta Talk page, but we don't need to wait for that.

My sense is that a request to locally unlock Thekohser might be granted swiftly if made as a general steward request accompanied by evidence of consensus here. We would clearly not be allowing Thekohser to edit anything other than his Talk page here, and that only to allow investigation of unblocking, and anyone from "outside" Wikiversity could express concerns about Thekohser in our discussion, if they find it important.

So my proposal: The Wikiversity community, directly and as served by Wikiversity administrators, requests that a steward allow Thekohser log-in access to his Wikiversity account, or to all WMF accounts through a global unlock, returning the situation to what it was before May 30, when local wikis were allowed to make their own decisions. No prejudice is implied as to blocking or unblocking Thekohser. This is solely about allowing the Wikiversity community to decide, with "outside" participation if needed, but not outside control. --Abd 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be most efficient to simply have an honest Custodian try to undo all of the damage done by the unwelcome interventions of User:Jimbo Wales and others such as Mike.lifeguard. All of their actions that were taken without consulting with the Wikiversity community should be undone. --JWSchmidt 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• One step at a time, JWS. If there is a way to locally undo 'the damage' from the global lock, then we will simply implement our consensus locally. Otherwise, no Custodian here, "honest" or otherwise, can act and have it mean anything. I already revised Thekohser's block to allow Talk page access, to begin the process you seem to want, but it's moot unless we find consensus here or, otherwise, the global lock is somehow lifted without that. Please don't complicate the issue here by bringing up the whole mess. No individual custodian can clean that up without creating a similar mess in another direction. We can do it as a community. Please join this, okay? --Abd 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As I've made clear and despite Abd seeming to suggest that I "only expressed opposition because unblocking was moot given the global lock", I have significant concerns about Thekohser and consider the block to be appropriate. Thekohser has a track record of finding trouble wherever he goes on WMF projects and that is the justification for the global lock. I've highlighted Thekohser's false claims of copyright violations as an example of how he has acted disruptively here. At the moment Abd is right that Thekohser can't comment on his block on his talk page. However, before we go to the effort of trying to get the global lock lifted in some way to allow him to do so, why are we not discussing the pros and cons of unblocking Thekohser? We might conclude that the block is appropriate and not need to progress any further regarding the global lock. I appreciate that as a small project, Wikiversity will struggle to get its voice heard at a WMF level but I think "flexing our muscles" for the sake of it isn't helpful. Is there really such an enthusiasm for unblocking Thekohser to merit this effort? Adambro 16:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC) See below. Adambro 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I urge you to reconsider, Adambro. The issue here is not unblocking Thekohser, merely in whether or not we, as a community, are allowed to make the decision. If we are not allowed to make the decision, I, for one, am not willing to waste my time and that of others engaging in what might be a difficult and contentious decision process. It seems you prefer deciding first if Thekohser should be unblocked, but, paradoxically, you don't want Thekohser to be able to participate in that, to defend himself, etc. I am enthusiastic, not about unblocking Thekohser, which I only support if appropriate conditions are set up, but about wiki communities making their own decisions without what certainly appears to be outside interference and control. I have not stated that I would even request unblocking Thekohser, only that I want to allow him access to his Talk page so that we can properly consider it. This should have been simple. You supported it, in fact, so I must assume that you now oppose because you misunderstand the request. You've also mistaken my comment about Diego Grez's apparent position as being about you. Please read more carefully. I understood, previously, that you supported allowing the Talk page access. Was I wrong about this? --Abd 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Apologies if I misread. You did understand correctly regarding the talk page access issue however at that point I hadn't realise a global lock was in place. Simply changing the block conditions here to see what he has to say is very different from having to start getting the global lock changed to enable it. I remain of the view that it would be useful for the community to consider the block of Thekohser before considering going to all these efforts necessary to allow him to comment. It might be the case that the community agree that the block is completely appropriate and nothing that Thekohser be able to say might change that view. Adambro 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd also support removing the sysop bit from all Wikiversity participants who continue to support the disruptive practice by which outsiders come to Wikiversity and block honest participants and delete content without first engaging in community discussion. We need to return Wikiversity to its purpose and put and end to the disruption of this learning community by interlopers who abuse their positions of authority. --JWSchmidt 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: The community discussion has been censored. --JWSchmidt 17:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If so, rather ineffectively, since that comment can be read, as you just proved. I certainly hope that nobody revision-deletes, that would be, indeed, censorship, and I see utterly no reason for that and plenty of reason to oppose it. We can decide, at leisure, if the comment itself should be restored to this discussion, I was inclined to bring it back in, but it is also, like some comments that remain, rather off-topic, so I was thinking of bringing it back in within collapse, and also possibly of collapsing some other comments (including my own responses). It was from Moulton, another banned user, banned for somewhat similar reasons and also through intervention from meta. --Abd 17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Actually, I'll support this proposal. We may as well see what, if anything, Thekohser has to say. The outcome may be that the community confirms its support for the block or decides to unblock Thekohser. If the latter happens and Thekohser does turn into a useful contributor then I'll happily eat my words. If the latter happens and Thekohser doesn't turn into a useful contributor I trust anyone who has argued in support of the unblock will take responsibility and take appropriate action to prevent disruption to the project. Adambro 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Adambro. I now have a brief response from Mike.lifeguard: permanent link, and I asked for more details. However, at this point I see no reason to not go ahead and make the request on the steward request page, but I'll wait another day to see if any objection appears here that should be considered. As to unblocking, I haven't decided to ask for that, it would depend on what Thekohser has to say, and what conditions, if any, are set. Given the history and to satisfy possible "cross-wiki issues," whatever that means, there may well be conditions. We are not, here, deciding to unblock, only to return the situation to what I think most of us agree on: we should make our own decision, and if there is to be interference from outside, that should be clear and probably based on Foundation rights and authority, so we can all know what to expect. I have already unblocked access to User talk:TheKohser, so, unless that changes, the process can begin of considering any local unblock appeal from him as soon as he is able to log in. That's what the lock prevents. --Abd 00:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

[

Summary of what I've found. --Abd 03:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was rather excited to find a MediaWiki control page, global-blocking whitelist or something like that. However, this only affects global IP blocks. It appears that there is no way in the MediaWiki software to locally bypass a global lock on an account, which prevents the user from logging in. The steward documentation on global locks implies that it will only be used for egregious problems, but I also find reference in one discussion to "cross-wiki issues" as a supposedly common lock reason. Ottava Rima made a suggestion for Thekohser on meta, but the global lock, initially transient, later made this moot when re-established. This meta discussion took place May 3. There was no global lock until May 3, as shown in the global account log. Drini went back and forth until Pathoschild unlocked May 5. Mike.lifeguard relocked May 30, as can be seen. This is an example of a discussion of this on Wikiquote. Other similar discussions took place elsewhere. The SUL utility shows the current block status on various wikis. As can be seen, almost all the blocks were implemented by a few stewards, notably Pathoschild and Mike.lifeguard. By locking again, in effect, Mike.lifeguard undid the work of Pathoschild, who was establishing a reversible local action with his blocks. Pathoschild specifically unlocked so that local wikis could make the decisions. At least three of the blocks shown were actually partial unblocks, such as mine on Wikiversity. Those are all useless at this point. Some links: Discussion on commons leading to unblock of Thekohser there. The unblock was May 28. Was the May 30 lock related to this? An edit of Thekohser, May 26, to de.wikipedia, may also have been related. Other than the de.wikipedia edit, which wasn't taken as abusive locally -- Thekohser is not blocked on de.wikipedia -- I don't see any activity that would lead to some emergency need to lock May 30. But we shouldn't have to be guessing. There was an earlier attempt to protest the unblock of Thekohser on de.wikipedia.[1]. The admin didn't buy it. This is the most recent version of the discussion with the locking steward.

So, how to proceed? The same steward globally locked Thekohser-2, but before there had been much notice here. This is what I suggest, and will do, absent objection. I'm trying to avoid a confrontation. So I'm going to ask Thekohser to create, if he can, a new account that is, on creation, not identified as his. However, I will ask him not to use this account to make any edits, just to create it and notify me, off-wiki. If he is prevented from doing that by IP blocks, I will assist him in the creation of this account. I will then block the account, allowing Talk page access, with an explanation on the page, and notification here, and I will invite others to comment there as well. This will be setting up the mechanism for dialog with Thekohser, if he accepts this. If a steward again interferes at this point, we will cross the bridge then. The precedents have been established for local control. I suspect that the steward community will not support the recent actions; if there is no consensus there on meta, this may have to go to the Foundation itself, because there are critical Foundation issues involved. We want and need to know if we are autonomous in matters that only affect our wiki, and we need to know how to determine the boundaries.

I'll wait a day for comment before going ahead with the plan. --Abd 03:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

fix for text size

Hi, In some browsers, texts look very small when "code", "pre" and "tt" tags are used. Could you please add this code to mediawiki:common.css to fix this problem:

/* Fix so <tt>, <code> and <pre> tags get normal text size also in 
   some versions of Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, Chrome etc. */
tt, code, pre { font-family: monospace, sans-serif !important; }

--Srhat 12:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I also added font-size:inherit !important; -- darklama  13:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Srhat 13:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Moulton

Note: this community discussion has been censored.

No, it was not. Moulton was again evading his enforced ban, that just proves he's being childish. If he really wants to redeem himself, is tell Jtneill or any other bureaucrat a name to rename themselves (Moulton2?), and then they will be able to edit their talk pages. They can't because they are locked globally, so any type of discussion here will be unsatisfactory. Just rename them! Additionally, he will not merge his global account, otherwise he will be locked globally without further notice. This is the only solution. --Diego Grez 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Moulton has proven himself unrelentless in wanting to post or discuss aspects of his block as various IPs, I would like to propose the following:

• Release the part of Moulton's block that prevents him from being able to edit his user talk page.
• Allow him to edit on his user talk page and only his user talk page.
• Any posts that discuss personal information of users (real names, real jobs, song parodies mocking such, etc.) will result in a loss of user talk page access for a week and a delete of the content.
• Only Wikiversity related matters can be discussed on the user talk page, which can include aspects directly regarding his Wikiversity block only and not any blocks on other Wikis including Wikipedia.

In return, I would expect from Moulton to use this access to produce the following:

• A statement regarding how he would address the problem of his previous releasing of personal information about Wiki users that were a major component to his previous block.
• A statement regarding how he could contribute to building educational content here that does not have anything to deal with his Wikipedia block, users from Wikipedia, or other matters dealing with what transpired there in 2008. This would include possible content based on his experience/education/research outside of Wikipedia itself.
• A statement with suggestions on what kind of parameters and limitations he thinks would allow us to comfortably allow him greater access beyond his user talk page.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If no one objects, I'm gonna change his block. :-) --Diego Grez 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, this is not an unblock, but mostly a way to limit Moulton and to keep him focus on what could be a legitimate discussion instead of having him express himself in a way that could be problematic. I would also like Moulton to produce the content he claimed he wanted to produce for Geoff (as claimed on WR) while logged in on his name and on his user talk page, instead of going around the blocks and just doing whatever he wants. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't going to unblock him, just to let him edit the talk page after your suggestion. --Diego Grez 23:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the above in response to you, as more of a response to anyone from WMF or offsite that might mistake this as an unblock. Moulton could possibly prove that he can be trusted enough for that, but I don't feel that he is yet. I would like to see him make good on his claims at WR and show that he can contribute to our community, or, at least, show how he could. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. --Diego Grez 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• An honest Custodian should just unblock Moulton. The whole affair is a disgraceful chapter in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton outed people. You know that, I know that. He cannot be given free reign until at least -that- behavior is snipped in the bud. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Moulton's SUL lock keeps him from being able to get access regardless. I'm trying to figure out a way now. If Moulton wishes to email me I can then put up the above material on his user talk page for now as long as it abides by the conditions above. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to point that out. One step at a time. There is a pending discussion here to request unlock, at least locally here, for Thekohser. If a consensus appears quickly here to do the same for Moulton, it can all be done at once, but ... no rush. This mess has existed for a few years, it can take a few more days.... I agree with transmitting material for banned users in general, the person doing it is responsible for disruption if the content is actually disruptive, otherwise, without that responsibility, it would be meat puppetry. I already put Thekohser material on his user page, at his request and on review of it. --Abd 00:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not an unblock request for Moulton. This is a talk page unlock to allow him to put his content in one area with the benefit of his name. It would trade his using hundreds of different ips in various pages for having his own identity back on one page with a strict set of rules and intent. The restoration of identity even in a limited capacity should appeal to Moulton in some regard, as he speaks quite often about rights and intrinsic aspects of an individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a solution (after talking to a few stewards), but I will need a crat and it might be interesting to see if it works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect a bureaucrat can locally disable a global lock. If that's true, then we don't need to go to meta to open up his Talk page to Thekohser. By the way, this would be as it should be, and the only difference between global account locks and the global blacklist is then that it takes a 'crat, whereas an ordinary administrator can whitelist pages or an entire domain. Ottava, I'm busy this morning, you want to ping JT? we do have a consensus on allowing User talk access to Thekohser, to start. --Abd 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would stop mentioning Thekohser. I would not advocate doing anything like this for him. This is about a user who was banned a year and a half ago claiming that he could contribute something worth while and giving him a chance to do it without having to avoid our blocks and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same issue, basically, users "globally banned" for "cross-wiki issues," where we cannot simply work some solution locally. Both users were critical of Wikipedia and of the WMF and then of various interventions here. Both have some level of support. The case of Thekohser seems to be simpler, as to the first step, and we seem to have consensus on it. The case of Moulton is more complex; but both cases could possibly end up with no change, except that the decision would remain local. We could try unblock and see what happens, for example. Or not. I really am just looking to make it possible to negotiate an end to the disruption, which, if prior history elsewhere is any guide (with others as well as with them), will simply continue indefinitely unless a real solution is found. If that's inevitable, so be it, but it behooves us to try.

In both cases, manipulating block settings does nothing except change the block reason one sees when looking at the global account summary. In both cases we need a steward, or, I hope, merely a 'crat. --Abd 01:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The issues are extremely different, with different lead ups, backgrounds, and the rest. The people are also very different. Abd, you do not have the experience with the situation or the background, and your statements above do you far more harm than good. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, I've read a great deal of the background, but as I've written, it's complex. The people are different, and should be considered individually, as to any unblock issue. The similarities are two: both users were blocked out-of-process and without local consensus, the accounts have been globally locked preventing us from even allowing Talk page access, and both users were blocked, apparently, for criticizing Wikipedia or the WMF or privileged individuals. I'm trying to tease out the issues so they can be addressed one at a time, and there is no use discussing unblocking either account if the global lock is in place. If my statements above do me harm, can you please specify so that I can refactor or strike or whatever is appropriate? I can see above that Diego Grez struck his comment about "childish...." --Abd 11:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Both process and consensus was followed with Moulton's block. It is only that Jimbo beat everyone to the punch. If you noticed, Moulton was given a program to be user talk page only before he was blocked to see if he could prove that he was capable of limiting himself to a task without using real life identities and he rest. He chose not to do that and was removed. Moulton's issues were local. Thekohser issues are not local. He was not a regular here. He was not a normal contributor. He was blocked across Wiki and we don't have the same connection with Thekohser. To locally unblock him or the rest would have no real basis as local unblocks should be based on a relationship with the user and the community, and there was none for Thekohser. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton outed people. You know that <-- If you want to make charges against Moulton, I suggest you provide your evidence and let Moulton respond to your charges. Which Wikiversity policy states that participants can be banned for using someone's name? My understanding of "outed" is that it is a term like "troll" and "disruption" that Wikipedia sysops frequently use when they want to abuse their power....almost always no evidence to support their charge is provided. Moulton was participating constructively at Wikiversity and then a hit man from Wikipedia came here with the declared objective of getting Moulton banned. It's a disgrace to the Wikimedia Foundation that Moulton was banned and the hit man was made a sysop. The Wikiversity community should have a discussion about the wisdom of allowing anonymous Wikiversity participants to publish claims about living people, particularly under conditions where those people are not allowed to respond. --JWSchmidt 08:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, you were present for many of his instances of using people's real names, even my own. He uses my name and identity quite regularly. I had to go through his archives and delete last December after someone pointed out that it was still visible on some pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the hostile take-over of Wikiversity in 2008, collaborating editors at Wikiversity often made use of real-world names and some still do. Colleagues often get a warm felling when a friend uses their name. In 2008 a few Wikipedians started imposing rules from outside of this project, such as making it a crime to use someone's name. I think the Wikiversity community should have a long and serious discussion about the damage done to Wikiversity by "Wikipedia Disease" and the forced imposition of outside rules. Why can't Wikiversity be a community of scholarly learners who can refer to each other by name? Why must this wiki continue to be a hell hole where anonymous barbarians are free to harass and drive away the scholarly participants? --JWSchmidt 17:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Often does not mean mandatory, nor does it make it acceptable to use identity against someone's will. Your argument falls apart on that simple fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to build a community of collaborating learners when there are sysops who protect the right of anonymous thugs to harass and drive away other wiki participants. This abhorrent practice destroyed the Wikiversity community that was built up during the first two years of the Wikiversity project. Wiki participants who want to remain anonymous should restrain themselves from publishing false claims about other wiki participants. The Wikiversity community should carefully study why it is that a few sysops protect and reward anonymous thugs while preventing honest wiki participants from defending themselves against the thugs. --JWSchmidt 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is harassing to out people. It is also against our privacy policy, which is built into the WMF system. It cannot be justified in any manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that, as Moulton himself has said on Wikipedia Review, he doesn't actually want to be unblocked nor to actually contribute properly but simply to comment on things going on here. He can stick to doing that on Wikipedia Review. It seems clear that he doesn't want to join the community to develop learning resources but use the project as some kind of experiment with the community as effectively guinea pigs, making odd edits here and there to test his theories. Is this right? Should we really bother accommodating Moulton when he has no intention of actually contributing to the project? Adambro 09:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

He stated there that he would want to help Geoff on his project. If so, then that is enough for me to try. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• On the issue of whether a 'crat will be able to deal with this, it doesn't look like it from Special:ListGroupRights. Whilst we can locally whitelist globally blocked IPs, we can't do anything about global locks it doesn't seem. Assistance from a steward would be required I think. Adambro 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

See this page for some unanswered questions related to the above. Unless and until those questions are answered, the above is an exercise in futility. —Moulton 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Principles, not personalities. You should be allowed access to your Talk page unless you abuse it, but using it to out editors, to poke them, is generally abuse. I'd argue that admins should have thicker skins, but .... some of us think that admins need special protection (I noticed a number of admins on Wikipedia connecting me with my RL activities, not that I minded, and I've been very open about who I am and what I'm about.) Wikiversity isn't a court of law, Jimbo is not on trial (nor are you, actually), and the future of Wikiversity does not depend on Jimbo, it depends on us. Which could include you, or not, it is largely your choice. If there is interference from "above," we will deal with that, through civil due process and natural rights, and if it turns out that this interference remains unacceptable, we will take our efforts elsewhere. That is, in fact, part of the wiki design, especially wikis with open licensing. Very simple: which is easier, to stay here or move elsewhere?

When you asked before, I contacted you directly about various outings you did, including your song parodies about Filll's real identity. I also yelled at you multiple times for using Killer Chihuahua's real name among others, including -my own-. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're evading the question. What about the unanswered questions? Please summon Jimbo here to answer them. —Moulton 04:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The question was answered. You are evading your block trying to distract from the fact that your questions were answered and have been answered since December 2008 and you are using the above as a false justification to acting inappropriately. The above are the conditions, and if you are unwilling to abide by them I can take the offer away. You've pushed me before trying to get me to back down and you know that I am willing to take any measure to stand up against you. So cut the crap. If you honestly want to contribute, you better shut up and prove it. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton, I am sorry. I am not as smart as you. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I beg of you to please please write a song so that a simpleton like me can understand your point. Thank you ever so much. (P.S. thanks for the memories...) - WAS 4.250 07:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Users are doing here exactly what I was trying to avoid: debate the wisdom of unblocking a user when it has not actually been proposed to unblock him, and when it's moot unless another step is first taken (unlock). The case of Thekohser is difficult enough; Moulton raises hosts of issues, including the whole question of "outing"; Moulton believes that an academic environment is in intrinsic conflict with anonymity. I'm not prepared to debate that now, but it is not a simple matter of someone being "childish." It's a real question, which should be carefully considered as we chart the future of Wikiversity. Moulton raises valuable issues, that's why I even care about all this. But he's also tendentious and tenacious and doesn't seem to understand how to collaborate with people who disagree with him, particularly when he -- and some of his friends -- can define the disagreement as "corruption" or "abuse."

Given that Moulton is actively prevented from defending himself here, I will agree with JWS that he should not be attacked, and I ask that this cease, as well as the defense and accusations of censorship and dishonesty. If there is no objection, I intend to fast-archive this discussion. It can be incorporated by reference if an actual unblock template is put up and we wish to discuss the matter. Until then, this is a colossal waste of time. Moulton doesn't want to be unblocked, so discussing him here is an open invitation to him to sock, trolling him for further violations. If anyone wants to discuss things with Moulton, it's very easy on Wikipedia Review, and users remain free here to bring in specific comments from Moulton that they believe of value; they will be responsible for them. I've asked Moulton to stop socking, to use alternate modes of communication which are open to him. If he ignores that, I remain free to wash my hands of the affair. I respect Moulton, but I also want him to respect the rights of the community, which has the right to regulate its own process. --Abd 01:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moulton is actively prevented from any interaction. If he wants a legitimate way to interact, the above is the only way. However, I haven't seen anyone attacking anyone here. There is also no reason to archive this material. As a final note, this is not a discussion for him, but about the action I am willing to do which would give him a voice. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity mentioned

FYI, Wikiversity mentioned in the Telegraph in Who will admit that the Right ways are not the wrong ways? --Gbaor 11:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Exciting! And some people tried to shut that page down. That just goes to show that we did the right thing there. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The page is a problem, but the problem is that it would take some serious work by an experienced Wikiversitan (or someone else who understands Wikiversity concepts) to fix it. I don't see that it does significant harm, pending, though. Just that it would take the work to turn it into a true learning resource. Consider it under construction. --Abd 16:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fallen" into public domain

A mere matter of semantics, but do you think WV could start refering to works that have become Public Domain as "ascended into the Public Domain" rather than "fallen into the Public Domain", as is presently the case on the front page, where the Vameer is featured. --Leighblackall 00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I said the same when my missus ascended pregnant ;-) Privatemusings 01:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)language is as language does - can you really fight it?

"Fallen" in this case is about entropy. It's not a moral judgement. - WAS 4.250 12:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)