:Not quite. Nobody was watching or using [[b:Wikibooks:English Embassy|Wikibooks:English Embassy]] and there were no complaints when I delinked it from the above page and removed it. [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:Not quite. Nobody was watching or using [[b:Wikibooks:English Embassy|Wikibooks:English Embassy]] and there were no complaints when I delinked it from the above page and removed it. [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:: Well, I was sad. The Embassy is important, if not required -- useful on occasions, especially for people not familiar with the local language (so sometimes a bit less needed in english). Still, it would be great to have one here. <span style="padding:0 2px 0 2px;background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<font style="color:#f90;">+</font>]]</span> 02:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
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!";
"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.
Annotated Bibliography
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I am reading IF Stone's Trial of Socrates to understand the open-education environment of Athens (look in the upper left corner), and the nature of the Socratic circle especially with respect to Aristotle, inventor of the Scientific Method. I will create an annotated bibliography that includes my reactions creating what will be the first of what I call "mediated citations." I hope to attract opinions' of others, within the rules of MCs, that will very likely say I am all wrong! (pervious text)--JohnBessatalk15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I read, or re-read, the descriptive sections about Athens, the Socratics, and Greece that are important to me (I find trials boring) and annotated them on post-its. As you may have seen below, I am starting my counseling masters, so I have to ration my time between requirements and interest.
As an aside, the mediation concept is becoming very useful; I developed the term "mediated glandular responses" to describe, for instance, the feeling a gambler is looking for when winning.--JohnBessatalk12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Getting closer. I have these two examples of conversations that I hope will be typical of discussions: [1], [2]. Since I will have to also start reading psych texts now, I will want to create the same types of bibliographies for the texts. I think that writing per text is somehow more "open," as the text book industry is notorious for "price fixing."--JohnBessatalk14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
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 2010scholarships 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:
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
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.
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)Reply
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? Daviddoria16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. --Gbaor10:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Campus ambassadors and the Public Policy Initiative
The PPI is a Foundation-sponsored project (supported by a dedicated grant) to organize knowledge about public policy topics, from university courses around the world. It is organizing campus ambassadors who can help profs learn how to effectively integrate their classes into Wikimedia projects and vice-versa.
This is one good place to start building a body of student volunteers. Most of the ambassadors will be students... it may be worth combining these ideas with a discussion with Annie and Pete who are organizing that part of the PPI - and with the initial ambassadors that are so discovered. –SJ+02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just so you know, I already talked to various people on WMF staff who were approved as part of that process and they said they want to devote all efforts to Wikipedia and wont be putting any effort towards other projects for now. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Counseling
This counseling page is effectively the syllabus for the masters program I hope to be enrolled in this fall. As time goes on, I will be (hopefully) fleshing it out with my notes in the sparse wiki format that I like so much. The curricula is didactic and meant to deal with specific problems: societal stress, immigration, school, community and workplace issues.--JohnBessatalk15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
(!!) I am enrolling today for the online counseling masters. I have a great deal of experience in the topic, having taught the autistic and cared for homeless teenagers, so I think my work here will linking the courses, which I see as definitions, with supporting experiences.--JohnBessatalk12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Community Review
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Notice: The behavior of all Wikiversity Custodians is now the subject of a community review. The major problem is that a few sysops continue to abuse their power and positions of trust. Other Custodians fail to follow Wikiversity policy so as to prevent further disruption of Wikiversity by those who abuse their power. Now is the time for all honest Wikiversity participants to come to the aid of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
The community review now includes some specific proposals for ways to improve Wikiversity policies and procedures. Community discussion of the proposals is needed. --JWSchmidt12:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago34 comments9 people in discussion
I've been having a bit of a problem with Ottava Rima. I've been keeping a journal of the incidents. I'll let them speak for themselves:
Entry #1
Wednesday 21st July 2010
Whilst talking with Moulton on IRC today he told me that he had been banned by Ottava Rima. Moulton suggested that I [Rock drum] leave Ottava a message asking him some questions. The message was as follows:
“
With all due respect, do you have any evidence that Moulton is "attacking others"? Is there also anywhere that I can see him presenting his defense, and cross-examining the witnesses? Can you exhibit the record of Due Process, or exhume the cover up?
”
Ottava then removed this comment with the edit summary: removing obvious sock puppet. I am not a sock puppet of Moulton as many of you know and can testify to. I feel sad, angry, disappointed and just downright depressed.
Emotion scale:
Bullied: 7/10
Intimidated: 1/10
Upset: 9/10
Angry/annoyed: 8/10
Entry #2
Thursday 22nd July 2010
After Ottava removed the comment on his talk page yesterday I placed a new message which is as follows:
“
You removed my previous comment saying that I was a sockpuppet. I am not a sockpuppet and invite you to use Checkuser on us.
”
He [Ottava] then removed my comment with the edit summary: reverting inappropriae [inappropriate] addition by user who is revealing language and wording that verifies they are not new nor innocent. The only reason I can use language like this is because I am a moderately experienced user on Wikipedia (I’ve been there since October). I know about things like CheckUser etc. I’m not as upset as I was after the last incident; I’m just a bit angry.
User:Rock drum, I'm sorry you have had such an interaction with one of our Custodians. This kind of disruptive behavior by Custodians is under community review. With any luck things will improve in the future. Please don't join the ranks of those who have been driven away from Wikiversity by capricious acts of Wikimedia functionaries. --JWSchmidt16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Rock drum is an obvious sock puppet who uses the same language. It is no coincidence that a user without any experience found his way here and posted in he same manner. The same capitalization and the rest is also a major denoting factor. But the best was his diving straight into an obscure and complex problem while speaking about it from a position of experience. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
That was a useless checkuser request, because the checkuser was not provided with adequate information. User:Moulton is stale because that account has not been used for donkey's ages. A proper report would have been on Caprice or the various IPs that have been declared as Moulton by signatures. General policy for checkusers is to decline requests from users attempting to clear themselves. Checkuser cannot do that, there are so many ways to avoid identification by checkuser. The checkuser seems inexperienced.
However, Ottava filed this, later. Had there been an active sock of Moulton, this would probably have uncovered it, again, unless Moulton were using checkuser evasion techniques. For more than one reason, we can proceed on the assumption that Rock drum is an independent user, and making charges of sock puppetry without strong evidence is generally considered disruptive. --Abd15:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
User:Moulton won't be stale because I understand he has recently logged in, he just wasn't able to edit. I do think this whole thing was a bit pointless though and Ottava really needs to refrain from accusing users of being socks unless there is solid evidence. Adambro15:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
The checkuser reported Moulton as stale. If I'm correct, global lock actually prevents log-in. It might present the appearance of log-in to the user, but the user cannot, for example, use their watchlist. It may be that the log-in simply is not recorded at all. Are failed log-ins (say the password is bad) recorded? But, really, I don't know for sure how it works. Yes about Ottava. Thanks. --Abd16:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah, apologies, I hadn't spotted that it was reported as stale. I'm pretty sure that Moulton had said he had managed to log in recently but not edit. I'd have thought that would have left a mark somewhere but perhaps not, I'm not fully aware of how it works. Adambro16:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but what does it look like to the user, and is the log-in attempt recorded so that checkuser could see it and identify the IP? The linked page does not address these issues. --Abd17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I stand corrected. Moulton has shown me a screenshot of him logged in. It's not a good sign that Meta's own documentation on global locks is outdated (much more so the lack of a good policy for its usage). Adrignola19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
So now, from the revised documentation, a locked user can still log in and access their watchlist. Let me guess that the IP is recorded and that checkuser could inspect it. Maybe not. But it's possible. Things been getting a bit heavy on Wikibooks, eh? My condolences. I really did not expect that. --Abd03:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
We all know that proxies are used in such situations. Sock puppetry catching is 90% behavior. The behavior that was there was 100% not that of a new user and 100% including capitalization and language common for it being a sock puppet. Furthermore, JWS, it has already been shown that you've made a sock puppet and that there are plenty of others. If you want, we can enforce a clean house on such as sock puppetry has a history of being known to be disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ottava, Rock_Drum is not a sock puppet of mine. He came to Wikiversity for reasons unrelated to me. We had never met or communicated. JWS invited him to chat in his preferred IRC channel, #wikiversity-en-projects, which is where I met him. He's a bright young learner, and I am playing my usual role as a science educator of helping bright young people learn. You will discover that Rock Drum has some talents which I lack. When he manifests those talents (of which I am candidly incapable), you will realize that he is a real person who had never heard of me until we met yestrday in #wikiversity-en-projects. Moulton16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Did you not complain when Beetlebaum was exposed as belonging to you? Sigh. Talking to you makes me think either you lack short term memory or you are just messing with us. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
What you seem to repeatedly fail to acknowledge regarding the checkuser request is that I wasn't specifically entrusted with any confidential checkuser data. The information that resulted from the checkuser request was available to everyone. All I did was to mention the findings on Wikiversity. I'm not convinced that really fits with your suggestion that I "should not be trusted to responsibly make use of information obtained by checkuser". Adambro20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
You seem to have now gone onto criticising my apparent revealing of your IP address rather than use of checkuser data. That is a separate issue. Your IP address did not come from the checkuser request, the only findings that I have been provided in response to my checkuser request are exactly what anyone can see on Meta. I explained in my comment how I determined that was an IP address used by you. That was by making an assessment of the contributions it had made and your response to those. Anyone could do that and it was facilitated by the contributions you had made. If you really were so concerned about your IP address being public then you could and should take more care about ensuring you are logged in and, secondly, not responding in such a way to edits you make by that IP so as to confirm it was you, e.g. changing the IPs signature to your own. I'm not convinced that you are actually as concerned about hiding your IP as you would seem to be judging from your reaction to what you suggest is my revealing of it in light of comments you have made on IRC. Since I am sure you keep logs of IRC, you'll be able to find what you've said but my recollection is that you suggested that you weren't actually very bothered about hiding your IP address. In that context this seems criticism for the sake of it. However, even if you were genuinely concerned about keeping your IP address private, as I've explained, you could have taken a lot more care yourself to ensure that. Adambro21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps when you withdraw your baseless accusation that I've misused checkuser data I might be more enthusiastic about trying to respond to your questions. Adambro22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I probably shouldn't butt in, but... "went out of your way to invade the privacy of a harmless Wikiversity user account" <-- seems to violate (H1). Why not (H1', another good faith possibility) "he made a mistake trying to be to detailed in his post. Didn't realize it would be upsetting, he has been informed and it can now be dropped." Maybe? Maybe not? That is what good faith would mean to me. Thenub31423:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
made a mistake....trying to be to detailed.....Didn't realize.....has been informed...now be dropped <-- Thenub314, let me tell you what I think Adambro should have done: 1) nothing. However, assuming good faith for subconscious recognition of the fact that the Beetlebaum account was mine, having run the check, Adambro should have seen the error of his ways and 2) never mention his misguided checkuser request to anyone. However, assuming good faith for Adambro believing, without evidence, that Moulton had been banned (this was Adambro's excuse for requesting the checkuser action), I can accept that Adambro might have 3) come to my user talk page and asked me to mark the User:Beetlebaum account as mine. I would have done so and that would have been the end of the matter. However, rather than do #1 or #2 or #3, Adambro instead 4) created a "Request custodian action" item for the harmless Beetlebaum account. Why did Adambro do that? He wrote, "Since I am aware of some concerns about me taking action relating to JWSchmidt, I would ask that other custodians review this situation and take any action as appropriate." <-- This suggests that Adambro wanted to take Custodian action, but held back, expecting another Custodian to act. Act in what way? I draw a blank, so I have been asking him to explain his action. He refuses to explain. Such a lack of transparency derails my ability to assume good faith. "made a mistake" <-- check. "trying to be to detailed" <-- Why? What purpose was served by Adambro associating a particular IP address with a particular user account? "has been informed" <-- I have no evidence that Adambro understands what he did wrong. "now be dropped" <-- I believe Adambro never should have been made a Custodian and that he has done vast damage to the Wikiversity community since becoming a Custodian, as is being documented at the community review. His record as Custodian1, 2, 3 and #wikiversity-en channel operator and his misguided behavior after obtaining the checkuser results, as discussed here, indicates that he cannot be trusted. Custodians must be trusted members of the Wikiversity community. I think Adambro should explain his actions, but he often fails to answer my questions. It is up to the Wikiversity community to decide how to respond to Adambro's inexplicable and misguided actions. --JWSchmidt01:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
You say that your ability to assume good faith has been derailed. This exactly makes my point above that you had failed to actually assume it. I will participate in the community review as time allows. Thenub31419:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Too much postmodernism and christianity on Wikiversity
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The problems on Wikiversity regarding the fights among users has to do with an ongoing attack by postmodernists and christians on Wikiversity as an institution. My proposal is to strengthen scientific knowledge within Wikiversity. Another proposal is to ban for eternity those users who continuously attack other users and use a postmodern kind of language that makes civil discussions impossible. Also those who support these users should be banned. The support for science should be of prime consideration instead of simply focusing on whether someone has a specific background as a professor at a university. Personally i am also in favour of art and culture, but i think it would be wise to advance science first and foremost.Daanschr11:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am just going to assume that this obvious bias is you kidding, and if you are this is actually pretty funny to me as a Methodist-Buddhist, and someone who likes to go camping, which is post-modern activity.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have opened a custodian feedback section regarding some recent actions of custodian Ottava Rima. Elsewhere on this page, there are links to Community Reviews. When a person has a problem with a specific custodian, Custodianship/Problems with Custodians suggests first filing a report on Custodian feedback, hoping to find community advice regarding the problem, which might possibly resolve it. That step has been skipped with some of the CRs that are open.
Accordingly, I'm asking that as many members of the community as possible look at this review and comment, or watch it for a time. The feedback report cannot result in desysopping, but it's an opportunity to provide advice that may avert it (or avert problems with the filing user!). I would think that if someone comments in the Feedback, and if a Community Review is filed because we cannot resolve the dispute at this lower level, those who have commented will be notified on their Talk pages, and prior comment would be referenced in the Community Review, so this is efficient. Thanks. --Abd22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Category casing.
Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
I have been thinking about putting some hard work cleaning up categories and uncategorized pages. It was suggested that I standardize the casing of category names. But the suggester and I immediately disagreed about which was best. So I thought I would get a quick straw pole about a sense of how the communtiy feels. Let me know what you think. Thenub31412:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
strstract Algebraact AlgebraReply
Ok, but here is our chance to decide what we would like to do regardless of Darklama's edit. Express your opinion one way or the other about the issue on the table, and when enough people have, or I get bored of waiting then I will get to work. Thenub31417:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
While that may be true, until we are ready to enforce page discipline (easily done, it's not censorship), here we are. The man wants an answer, and if that answer, perhaps based on shallow discussion here, conflicts with general practice, we'll have to look at it some more. --Abd20:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Let me be very clear about why it is not (in my opinion) very relevant. First regardless of that edit, or what the policy said, I would have asked again. Why? Because I have a preference, and for all I know someone who wrote that page many years ago made a choice by eeny-meeny-miny-moe. Before I steel my nerves to make several hundred edits it would take to clean things up, I am going to ask questions to make sure my work reflects the current feelings of the community. I would have always started the discussion at this page instead of the page you point to because it is more visible. Now you can continue to complain about Darklama's edit, that is fine, but I have nothing more to say on the matter. Might I suggest though that it would be more productive to give your opinion below. Because I am not interested in any of this politics, I just want to get stuff done. Thenub31420:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Production, Politics, Prediction. My prediction is that you will change a bunch of category names and then a year from now someone else who "wants to get stuff done" will change them all back to the way they are are now. I admit that politics often works in futile cycles of needless activity, but I don't think that recording hard-earned cultural wisdom in guidelines and policies is "politics"...it is good community practice. --JWSchmidt22:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Abd 20:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There are strong convenience reasons to use sentence case. It allows someone to neglect case in citing the page or adding a category from memory, and case is always a little bit harder to type. Because most of us have strong Wikipedia experience, as well, which uses sentence case except for proper nouns, it's more in line with our habits. Wikiversity's somewhat common usage of "title case" -- which is ambiguous in fact, just clear in the example, has often delayed me completing an edit until I figured out what the used form is. Example of ambiguity: Category:Category:Solutions to problems in Abstract Algebra. Abstract Algebra can be taken as a proper noun, but it's easier if we use "title case," i.e, all lower case except for obvious and clear proper nouns, i.e., Category:Solutions from Isaac Newton on integral calculus. And if anyone thinks that a capitalization error will be common, a redirect can be put in. I think that sentence case will require fewer redirects. First letter is by convention capitalized in page names: first letter case is ignored by the software, I believe. Sentence case thus allows someone to type all lower case letters, usually, which can help with, say, an iPhone. I have some vague memory that there may be an exception. --Abd20:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Categories for courses should be title-cased, but general subject categories like those seen at Wikiversity:Browse should be sentence case. As a side effect, this makes it easier for interwiki adders to match up categories. Adrignola22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well I am relatively happy with the compromise suggested by Adrignola, a similar scheme is used at wikibooks. There are just a few things that should be kept in mind:
It is often the case that a resourse may be neither a course nor a subject, but rather some other learning resource. I it may be better to think of things in terms of learning resources and subjects.
Resources (and hence courses) are sentenced cased. So for example, Philosophy of mathematics would have a corresponding category would be Category:Philosophy of Mathematics to hold the subpages for the course. The casing would not match, this is no big deal in my opinion, but thought I would point it out. There is also a small potential for confusion. If someone later creates a category for the subject of the philosophy of mathematics it would be Category:Philosophy of mathematics, which now matches the case of the course. Maybe we should consider the reverse? That is, sentence case categories corresponding to learning resources and title case categories that exist to collect similar resources together. We used this type of scheme at wikibooks to avoid this type of name collision but it took the opposite form since our resources are usually title cased. Of course the other obvious choice is to make one of the names explicit by appending something like a (subject), but this could get a little messy. Thenub31409:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
It makes sense for WV to be distinct from WP as WP is an encyclopedia built from wikis, and WP is an educational wiki. Wikis are only a reasonably new concept, being about the same age as the Web, but they continually growing into complex collaborative knowledge construction entities, a concept that be-devils WP because it is only an encyclopedia. The exact opposite is true here; when we finally get this community site harmonized and are able to attract those who are truly wrapped in the wikis' construction potentials, then the WP will be a widely-respected as a source for new and revolutionary information. Wikis are educational by nature, so we can embrace the wiki potential in ways the WP cannot.--JohnBessatalk12:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've had a bit more spare time than usual over the past week or so, and have spent some of it reading a lot of things here that are frankly pretty depressing. Here's a snippet from WV:AGF, one of our core policies:
When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.
Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
I would like to propose that Wikiversity will redirect file upload to Wikimedia Commons. There are some pros and contras of course, but I think pros have majority:
Advantages:
Wikimedia Commons is a server for all media used on WMF projects, than files can be used everywhere. There are many useful files on wv, which may be useful also on other projects, but there is now personnel to move them to Commons (Economicaly: why we should do the work of someone else?)
We will have less work, less controlling, less work with moving files to Commons (the true is no one actually do this).
en.wv doesn't have different license policies, so what can be here can be also at Commons.
en.wv doesn't have extended upload, it means file types which differ from file types of Commons.
Disadvantages:
there might be problems with categorizing of some works to Commons, but why not set there special categories such as "Wikiversity works".
Users may have problems moving to different environment.
Finally we can prohibit the upload to en.wv at all and redirect everybody directly to Commons. Than in the future if license policy or file types will be extended, we may allow to upload just these specific file types, which doesn't fit to Commons.--Juan de Vojníkov20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree that we should be working towards directing uploaders to Commons for all media files and licensees which are accepted there. I think we still need to allow local uploads for things like screenshots. I have been doing a bit of work on and off for a while now with the idea of at some point proposing change the upload form. Wikiversity:Upload is part of this work. It is the development of a upload page to direct uploaders to the most appropriate form. Adambro20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I was initially against this on wikibooks, but I am glad to say that I think I was wrong and it seems to be working out quite well. I say redirect! Thenub31421:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Fair use works can go to Commons" <-- What? I'm opposed to forcing Wikiversity participants to follow the rules of another website. Wikiversity participants already have the option to use Commons and that is all that is needed. --JWSchmidt22:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thats what we are talking John, that Fair use works will stay here, but other will go to Commons. It can be done like Adrignola say or there could still exist local upload but kind of hidden. On the end, Fair use may look like open for contributers, but it is not open for other people, who would like to share. Is it possible to use fair use works in Australia, UK, SA or Germany?--Juan de Vojníkov06:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wikibooks uses a special group called "uploaders" that administrators can add/remove to allow people to upload fair use files locally. The "upload file" link has been changed to direct to Commons, but people can still visit Special:Upload if they are a member of the uploaders group (admins don't have to add themselves to that group). Keep in mind that fair use files are not permitted at Commons. The system used at Wikibooks directs uploads to Commons while not disabling uploads entirely. Finally, if you look at the fine-grained permissions at Special:ListGroupRights, you'll see that even under that system, people who aren't members of the uploaders group can still overwrite files they've uploaded. It will be a long process to push all the existing files to Commons, but that system takes the burden of file upload license checking off administrators and keeps files from being limited to Wikiversity's use only (which makes cross-project cooperation difficult). Adrignola00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the other option is not to allow Fair use, because our mission is not to collect the higher number of files at all costs but offer the free content. So how many English speaking countries recognize Fair use? All?--Juan de Vojníkov06:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
From Fair dealing, it would appear that there are at least seven: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States. I also replied to your other question on my talk page. Adrignola17:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I want to inject support for JWSchmidt here; I have had recent dealings with the WP where I extended myself as a "fisherman" for images. I cannot possibly tell you how much grief I went through. WP seems to be the opposite of free when it comes to sharing information; if you read all the copyright documentation there is now way to describe WP except as a supporter of copyright law. They seem to create their own, needlessly. WP is so opposed to fair use that pictures of buildings are illegal. Fair use is the most important tool for education there is, because all information is built on existing information--all work is derivative of other work! Here is writing on the topic from the WP that attempts to loosen things there. As an educational entity and a genuine wiki, we need to head the opposite direction with respect to uploads. Also, see WP as an educational entity.--JohnBessatalk13:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
The alleged discretionary "rights" of wikiversity custodians
Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion
I absolutely retain the right to use my custodian rights in accordance with what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community.
. Adambro certainly have mixed "rights" with "priviledges". But that is not my main point. In essense he believes he can competently act as police, judge and jury at the same time, and at every instance that he interests himself in, just based on what he thinks wikiversity should be, and even in the face of community opposition.
I do not know if that has ever been the consensus or custom of wikiversity. However, from what I know from the very early days wikiversity custodians has never been explicitly endowed with any "rights" and they only act as functionaries who would act on behalf of the community, and hence the title "custodian", in clear distinction from wikipedia "administrator". [So please don't say we are wikimedia blablabla and it has always been like that blablabla.] The use of the custodial tools by custodians may have changed through practice, and I would like the wikiversity community to establish consensus on what discretions, in particular blocking others from participations, we allow our functionaries to make.
You might be better raising any concerns you have about the general use of blocks at Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy where the development of a policy regarding this can be discussed. I'm not quite sure how you conclude that I believe I can act "based on what he thinks wikiversity should be, and even in the face of community opposition" when in the quote you highlight I specifically said that I would use my custodian rights in accordance with both "what I judge to be in the interests of the project and in accordance with the views of the community". On the issue of my "custodian rights", I refer to the ability to block as a custodian right because that is what it is widely referred to as. You can find a list of the rights that members of the Custodians group have at Special:ListGroupRights. Adambro12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
These problems are not here because of missing policies. Policies may help to solve actually problems, but on the other hands, they will build up barriers around custodians, who will no longer be possible to use their brains and fantasy, to fix problems.--Juan de Vojníkov12:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree that would be nice to know. I'd also like to know in general what discretion anyone has to make any independent decisions. Is the impact that a decision has part of what discretion people are willing to give anyone? I believe that is usually true on other wikimedia projects. A decision to rename a resource usually only impacts the people working on the resource and the people reading the resource for example. If most people do the things that Custodians block for that would have more of a direct impact on the Wikiversity community, than if only a few people do the things that Custodians block for. Is having a direct impact a consideration as well? I think where people stand on issues that have no direct impact on them seems to vary. -- darklama 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Are you going to be sticking around? Say yes. I'd like to see you involved in the community again (and I don't mean the drama stuff). It would be nice to drag some people back. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
You've said similar to the above, that "There are four policies that prescribe how the block tool can be used", a few times recently. Could you just confirm which four policies you are referring to? Adambro18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Slightly confused. You link to betawikiversity:Wikiversity:Review board/En but referred to it as "Research policy". Did you mean to link to betawikiversity:Wikiversity:Research guidelines/En? In which case, that doesn't seem to be a policy or mention blocking. I note Wikiversity:Bots only mention of blocking is "Bots running anonymously may be blocked". Would you not agree therefore that we don't really have much policy on how blocks should be used? Is it not the case that the only mention of blocking in our policies of any real substance is the small section of Wikiversity:Custodianship? Adambro19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
You again suggest that how blocks can be used is "explicitly and clearly described in Wikiversity policy" despite me showing that simply isn't the case. Of the four policies you've suggested define how blocks can be used, the Research guidelines on beta doesn't seem to even discuss blocks, the bots policy has one sentence and the civility policy also says little about how blocks should be used. All we have of any substance is the section of the custodianship policy but even that is only one paragraph which provides little guidance as to how blocks can and can't be used on Wikiversity. The first sentence simply says that custodians can block users, IP address or ranges. The second again just states a fact, that block can be temporary or permanent. The third section just describes how blocks are most commonly used, "in response to obvious and repeated vandalism". The fourth just requires a reason to be given in the block log. The fifth sentence again just states a fact about the blocking feature and the final sentence just provides a link to the proposed policy.
What I conclude from all of that is that it isn't accurate to say that "how blocks can be used is explicitly and clearly described in Wikiversity policy", which seems to be supported by your enthusiasm for Wikiversity:Blocking policy to be developed. I note that rather than responding to my points in my previous comment about this you just restated your concerns about how I was made a custodian. What you say may or may not be true but it doesn't help answer the question as to whether ow blocks can be used is actually "explicitly and clearly described in Wikiversity policy". Here's another opportunity for you. You can respond to the points I've raised and demonstrate that I am incorrect to conclude that Wikiversity doesn't have much which says how blocks should be used. Alternatively you could not bother and just restate your opinion that I've abused my custodian rights or whatever. Adambro22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Adambro has succinctly stated the common-law rule for administrators. In the absence of specific and clear policy to the contrary, this is the most that we can expect from any custodian, it is actually a lesser standard that the custodian would, for example, agree to only act within the clear confines of explicit policy. Wikiversity could establish this latter standard, but I'd highly recommend against it. "Police" are not "judges," they exercise executive power, which only allows temporary, ad-hoc "judgment," pending a deeper process where the community (or government, or university administrator, for, say, campus police, up to and including courts) reviews the actions. If Adambro regularly abuses discretion, that should be specifically addressed, not the principle of discretion, which is essential. Until this community gives much clearer guidance to Adambro, he cannot be deeply faulted for his actions as long as they are not clearly contrary to policy. If someone believes that a specific action is problematic, or a set of specific actions, and this cannot be resolved by direct discussion, that should be taken to a report on Wikiversity:Custodian feedback for the community to advise the custodian and the person(s) with a complaint. Instead, we have a habit of ineffective complaint through useless discussion, here and there, which just wastes everyone's time while accomplishing nothing. --Abd18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
what does "the common-law rule for administrators" mean and how is it relevant to Wikiversity? Good question, thanks. "Common law" refers to what is known and accepted by precedent and shared understanding, in the absence of specific law, statutory law in legal terms. Here it refers to what someone who has administrative experience, and users with general wiki experience, will expect as a norm, quite aside from explicit policies. Legally, policy would trump common law, except that wikis in general also follow some form or other of what is called on Wikipedia Ignore All Rules, which in public common law is called Public Policy. Means the same thing. So, unless you give custodians here guidance through establishing consensus on contrary policy, they will generally follow, providing they have sufficient experience to understand it, "common law." Inexperienced custodians may not, and even experienced custodians, I found, on Wikipedia, sometimes didn't have a clue about what makes wikis really work, the large body of shared experience. Violations of common law will often outrage people, who won't then have a policy to point to prohibiting the action. They just "know" it's wrong. How do they know that? Good policy and guidelines will stay close to common law, or they will confuse people. Deviations from common law should be very well justified by the specific conditions of a wiki. --Abd20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Common law?? Custodians do a lot of things, some of which I don't like, big and small. Sometimes I say so and sometimes I don't. So what? It hardly makes any difference since the custodians can always get their way, since most contentious issues have, by defintion, supporters and detractors. If THAT is how wikiversity establishes its precedents, it gives far too much leeway for the custodians. They can easily get away with whatever they want. I have seen custodians allowing themselves more and more discretions through the years. And now I want to say enough is enough. A Wikiversity "Admin" who has a habit of equating what he thinks is the community consensus to the actual consensus can simply cite "my right and my discretion!" to stuff whatever he likes down the throat on the community. Wikiversity isn't supposed to be a place where a caste of admins have an advantage. You are supposed to use persuation, not your drawn tools. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk00:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Guys, Wikimedia Usability has set August 25th as the date when Vector will become the default skin for all other projects, including Wikiversity. Geoff Plourde07:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Synopsis
A statistics, for your reference, shows the number of edits, made by editors and custodians, counting more than a hundred in the last 30 days as of 8 August 2010. The number includes a more or less portion of Talks, which in turn includes more or less portions of friendly treats and hostile threats, perhaps depending on the user's temperament, civility, or the respect and love of the community.
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hi all,
We're getting another shot with a sandbox server -- but we need some projects!!
Is there a course, learning experiment, interaction or other bit that could utilize a
server? Please let us know! We're putting together projects that will be going on to the
server when it gets set up, hopefully in the next few weeks. We're hoping to start with
3 strong projects, but once we've got those we'll be rolling out more in the future.
So let us know what you've got.
--Historybuff05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Geoff, you are a man of few words. I think you've nominated yourself to help out with the Moodle project -- I like that idea. Any other contributors there, and any other ideas? Historybuff23:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Darklama -- I think Wikimedia (and WM software development) would be a _fantastic_ project, but it could be a large one, and one (at present) which I won't have time to manage or lead. If we can find a tech lead and a learning project manager, I think it would work well. Wordpress is a great idea. I like the idea of just a blog, and I'll fiddle around with this. There are other good ideas (other CMS, LMS, etc) which could be explored. Keep the ideas coming! Historybuff14:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi Geoff. Do you have a Learning Project on WV about Moodle, or somewhere to talk on-wiki about it? I think you've got the Moodle thing if you want it, just let me know what's needed to get started. I think we'll be "going live" in a couple weeks. Historybuff18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wikiversitans in London
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ottava Rima, please provide a link to where I said they "had no right to express opinions about Moulton's ban". If I was forced to define "community member", my definition would involve the idea that a person is editing in support of the Wikiversity Mission. --JWSchmidt18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have yet to see any of that. And JWS, you challenged KillerChihuahua's statements and Salmon of Doubt's statements as being from outsiders quite often. Or are you going to say that they were part of our community and therefore their votes on Moulton's ban were correct? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
When Wikipedians make decisions in secret, off-wiki, decisions that disrupt the Wikiversity community and deflect Wikiversity from its mission, and when they edit at Wikiversity so as to impose those decisions on the Wikiversity community then it is fair to characterize them as acting as outsiders. "votes on Moulton's ban were correct?" <-- The decision to ban Moulton was made in secret, off-wiki. I don't know of any votes on Moulton's ban that were "correct", certainly there were none that were announced to the community as being a vote to community ban Moulton. There have been quite a few calls for bans at Wikiversity and none of them were justified, thus they were all serious violations of Wikiversity policy. There were some show trials that do not constitute a fair and just treatment of Moulton. "you challenged KillerChihuahua's statements and Salmon of Doubt's statements" <-- I have challenged some of their statements. Can you link to an edit by me where I challenged one of their statements on the basis of them being outsiders? --JWSchmidt20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
In the document that I keep citing that was used to verify why you needed to be desysopped, he section on IRC abuse included you being unkind to Salmon of Doubt and KC in IRC. Perhaps they did things in secret because you were using anything public to cause them discomfort? Ever think that perhaps you drove people to such? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ottava Rima, the show trial document that you keep linking could not be the basis for a policy-violating emergency desysop when no emergency existed. "unkind to Salmon of Doubt and KC in IRC" <-- Exactly what does "unkind" mean? When they made unsubstantiated claims about Moulton I asked for evidence to support those claims? I objected to a disruptive sockpuppet from Wikipedia coming to Wikiversity on a self-declared mission to get a Wikiversity community member banned? I objected to the unauthorized use of a bot at Wikiversity? If my questioning of their actions caused them "discomfort" the source of their discomfort was their own actions and their inability to explain how their actions supported the Mission of Wikiversity. "drove people to such" <-- A group of bullies decided to violate Wikipedia's BLP policy and use Wikipedia biographical articles in an inept and misguided effort to paint some scientists as being unscientific. When they were caught violating Wikipedia policy, they blocked Moulton from editing. Not satisfied with that, they resorted to vile online harassment which resulted in it being revealed that one of the policy violating Wikipedians was using corporate computing resources to violate Wikiversity policies and carry out online harassment. In an attempt to cover all that up, there was an orchestrated effort to ban Moulton from participation at Wikiversity. It is a truly sad saga, and a huge embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, made even sadder by a few misguided Wikimedia Functionaries who continue to defend the policy-violating Wikipedians who harassed Moulton. --JWSchmidt05:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Gad this spins out quickly. Looks to me like, far from preventing the member from editing, a possible or even probable result is that the impediments to editing will be lifted, in short order. I didn't notify the community here of that Request Custodian Action because, really, I was just looking for a single neutral custodian to look at this and make an ad hoc decision, trying to keep it simple, avoiding Community Review -- maybe -- unless someone wanted to push it. But there is now a poll going on there, it's true. And various fireworks. For example, SB_Johnny's back! As a custodian and bureaucrat again.... --Abd01:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Importation proposal
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have source material for a new course. What do I do with it?
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have translated some of Maimonides' work and I think it would make great source material for a survey course in Judaica. Is it something the Wikiversity could use? Is this the right place for it?
--Rebele14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Maimonides died over 800 years ago. His works are PD. en.wikisource.org tends to have PD collections of works. If they don't want a translation, then you can post here and we can figure out how to accomodate you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Wikimedia Studies": perhaps we should have a policy or CR?
Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion
Original research projects related to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and so on have proven to be rather problematic for Wikiversity in the past. Should we simply set these studies outside of our scope?
There are problems with doing so, of course, since this would in fact be censorship. However, a blanket ban on the subject would be easier to digest than a ban on only those projects that are critical, or bans that only apply to certain people.
Jimbo himself when asked said research about Wikimedia projects are fine. I see no need to put a blanket ban on the subject. I'm not aware of any current problems, are you? -- darklama 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
How have research projects related to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation been problematic? What has been problematic are people who disrupt such projects. Rather than ban useful research, I favor putting in place at Wikiversity some protections for scholarly research projects and researchers. --JWSchmidt16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree, John: the projects weren't the issue, but the reaction to them did a lot of damage. The point is that any such effort is going to attract the same reaction. Projects that are critical will attract the attention of those who want to defend Wikimedia from criticism, and likewise projects that are not critical will attract the attention of those who feel Wikimedia deserves some criticism.
I don't, of course, think this approach would in any way be good for the sort of academic freedom that WV should ideally stand for and encourage. It might be the only way to survive. --SB_Johnnytalk17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Moulton commented here, it was properly reverted as being by a blocked user, and I restored it with redaction and a note. This was removed. To respond, I agree with Moulton that the study of wiki ethics could do much to avoid future problems, by delineating existing problems, which may lead to suggestions for improvement. We need be particularly careful, here, to avoid the assignment of blame. In my view, most problems on the wikis are due to defective structure; this is at variance with what seems to be a popular, easily-assumed view that ascribes problems to problem users. --Abd19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Defective structure will turn possible positive contributions into problem users of various kinds; on the one side they may turn into vandals or "trolls" or stubborn critics who won't respect a block (tell me, folks, would you? Really? If you cared about the site vision?), on the other side they may turn into abusive sysops who bully users and impose their own POV on the wikis (whether about a topic or about the wiki itself). The "problem user" view then leads, on the one side, to calls for blocks and bans, and on the other, to calls for desysop, to endless and time-wasting complaints and conflicts without resolution in real consensus, and to a serious image problem for WMF projects, sometimes. I have commonly met, mentioning Wikipedia to academics, a sense of disgust and rejection. Where did that come from? Defective structure, you can be sure. Hence my interest in bringing together the entire community -- all those interested and willing to cooperatively participate, including the Rejects, who understand from experience half of what we need to know -- in studying, first, what has happened. Not "who caused it," not "who is to blame," not even "how we can fix it," not yet. Just the facts, ma'am. From there we may set up fora to discover existing solutions or research new ones. We might even do some experimental research with consenting subjects. I'm excited. What about everyone else?
Someone might easily misunderstand, so I'll clarify that "including the Rejects," i.e., blocked users, doesn't mean unblocking or even allowing direct block-evading edits to stand. That is an entirely separate issue, which each wiki properly decides for itself, based on the overall needs of the community. Many people participate here, indirectly, through users, who bring in the content on their own responsibility; for academic purposes the content counts, and while the identity of the author should be known, generally, so we might understand possible bias and for other reasons, the editing status here is irrelevant to the academic value. I do not see blocked users as being allowed to directly contribute without review; my restoration of the above edit demonstrates review in action. If that edit causes a problem, anyone may take it out, strike it, replace it with a reference to history, or whatever they consider best, this is a wiki, and if we cannot directly agree on an edit, then we can discuss it and find consensus. I will not consider a reversion of the restoring edit to be revert warring, it is as if my restoration is an original edit, but I would intend to discuss it. I urge, however, that any editor consider the content, now, as distinct from the editor.
Other editors may, of course, comment on this comment. If you comment within the collapse, you may add your user name to the collapse title, or I will. --Abd19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think Wikiversity needs to recognize that any research can attract all kinds of people, and some may seek to have their views dominate discussion and research. I think Wikiversity needs people that know how to quickly bring about a cease fire when strong views clash. If Wikiversity needs a policy it might be that dominating discussion and research and seeking "victory" harms Wikiversity, and those are acceptable reasons to block when people don't stop after being asked to cease fire and come to a truce. -- darklama 17:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
It might seem contradictory, but the solution may be (at first) more blocks rather than fewer. And even more than more blocks, more warnings for incivility or revert warring or other disruption, followed by short blocks upon disregard. A short block is like a sergeant-at-arms at a meeting asking a disruptive member to leave a meeting. It is not a ban, and the member can come back when there is no more immediate risk of disruption. It is purely procedural, and it's understood that some people can be hot-headed and that the community can and should restrain this. But members aren't punished for being hot-headed, rather the disruption is directly addressed. Temporary exclusion is not punishment and should never be presented as such. A failure to understand this is behind a great deal of tenacious disruption on Wikipedia and here. Basically, if anyone thinks a person is causing disruption, they can and should warn the person. If the person disregards this, any custodian can look and short-block, if warranted. Ideally, the one warning should not be from someone involved in a dispute, and the reason is that people will tend to discount warnings from others who are involved,nor should the custodian be involved, except in an emergency as I've elsewhere described. But it's still okay for someone involved to warn; a reviewing custodian can decide whether or not to proceed with a block or confirm the warning -- and then block for continued disregard beyond that. The point is to gain voluntary compliance, and not to allow the user to believe that they are being excluded.
Generally, a user who has violated agreements many times should be unblocked promptly upon assurances that the user will not continue the blockworthy behavior. The blocking custodian should always consider this, and can even set conditions for prompt unblock, but should not coerce; humiliating conditions and unclear conditions should be avoided, they cause trouble. If the blocking custodian does not wish to unblock, that custodian should never decline an unblock request. If there is no other custodian available, the blocking custodian should simply leave it in place. Blocks should always be applied with utmost civility and with support for acceptable behavior. Wikipedia deprecated "cool-down blocks." I suppose the reason is that, as a block reason, it represents mind-reading and, indeed, that could be offensive. But, in fact, a properly applied block will accomplish cool-down. "Okay, I was out of line there, thanks for considering unblocking me, I'll try not to repeat that." Most adults are capable of that kind of admission, and they will do so sincerely. It's not even any kind of moral offense to be "out of line." We get angry for good reasons, often. But we, if we are sane, also understand that if we start shouting at a judge in a court, for example, we'll be restrained. Only the truly crazy will take this as a personal insult.
A better understanding of block policy would go a long way. We need better documentation, to guide custodians, and also to assure users that they will get fair treatment, if the policy is followed. We should never allow the appearance to arise that a single custodian is "in charge" of an editor's behavior, unless the editor has accepted that arrangement. Even my young children know, instinctively, to resist this kind of control! I'm in charge of what I will permit and what I will prevent, as the parent, but they are always in charge of their own behavior, and if I don't respect that, I'm failing as a parent.
There are deeper solutions that are possible, using bots, allowing for the flexibility of temporary narrow or broad "topic bans" that would be bot-enforced (by automatic reversion), but that's down the road. For now, seeking and encouraging voluntary compliance, with stronger response as needed, with judicious use of the block tool, should be adequate. --Abd20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
A ban is not needed. What is needed are guidelines accepted by consensus that handle how to avoid unnecessary disruption when individual users or the WMF are criticized or appear to be so. It is easy for such study projects to become wheels on which to grind axes. Now, need these guidelines be developed in advance? No, except for one, which we should write. When WV content becomes controversial because of "cross-wiki issues" -- or even local issues -- we need to have procedures in place to address this and prevent disruption. In the current project started by Privatemusings, I called for work to "come to a screeching halt" when objections appeared, until the objections themselves are addressed and consensus found. Not "cancelled." Not "deleted," except that ordinary content deletion, still in history, should be fine if needed temporarily, while it's under discussion. We should not allow any user to barge ahead with insisting on controversial content. If there is "outing" perhaps revision deletion may be needed, and even short blocks if revision deletion is needed. Otherwise, we need what Moulton calls a social contract, an agreement that provides for means to resolve disputes, and the default situation is blank, i.e., no content. When someone objects to content that has not been established by consensus, it should be blanked or deleted, by default. Then it can be discussed, whether or not to allow it, with the community assisting to keep the discussions civil and to the point. The legitimate needs of "outsiders" must be respected, but also the academic freedom of this community. We need to do both. And it takes time.
What about a temporary ban. To wait until Wikiversity has grown in learning communities on other issues than Wikimedia? If there is a very large community of users, mostly occupied with topics that have nothing to do with studying Wikimedia, than fights on these kind projects for studying Wikimedia will have far less influence on the whole Wikiversity community.Daanschr17:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
We have a current project which is not causing any disruption. And more are being opened, with no sign of disruption. Why fix it if it isn't broken? See Response_testing/WMF_Projects. Note that if someone objects to some work there, there will indeed be a kind of "temporary ban." I.e., an informal ban will arise upon complaint, enforced by users who have both academic freedom and avoidance of unnecessary disruption as goals, and who will seek consensus before barging ahead. It's really like just about any wiki decision. --Abd20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
< I think CR is 'community review', right? - I suppose that's actually what's happening here - I hope to be able to carry on real slow with the Response testing project (which, following a suggestion from sj, has a 'wmf' section) - I don't think it's really creating any trouble at the mo - and I have a feeling that the root causes of the broo ha ha's are both interesting and important as subjects to discuss, learn about, analyse etc.
There's a hint of an intimation in sbj's post that perhaps the closure of wv remains on the table somewhere - personally I'd raise an eyebrow were wmf to shut the project down on the basis that it became critical - but sure, things like sue's blog (she's the executive director of the wmf - so the boss on the staff side) could be read as warnings to pull some heads in. Is wikiversity really seen as harbouring people who have;
"aimed to covertly undermine the movements that they found threatening. By investigating and harassing participants, and discrediting leaders. Fomenting internal conflict: encouraging jealousy, suspicion, factionalism and personal animosity. Spreading damaging misinformation. Undermining morale and thwarting recruitment efforts. Undermining activities that generate revenue. Encouraging hostility between the movement and its potential allies and partners" (Sue's paraphrase of Gary Marx's description of how people attack social / political movements here)
The idea that the above could in any way be aimed at, well, me I suppose, I find both amusing and troubling - were it shown to be the case that those in ultimate control of this project are forming that view, I think shutting down wv would probably be a good thing - there probably wouldn't be much point in it, I guess? Privatemusings 00:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC
PM, that comment of Sue Gardner was not at all aimed at you. Sue was writing much more generally. However, a shallow understanding of Marx could lead her to think of Wikipedia vs. The Enemies, which would be a serious mistake. --Abd15:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
The hazards to Wikipedia are internal. The cogent criticism of Wikipedia is from people who are, or were, insiders. It is, in fact, essential that the Wikipedia community move toward its original ideals, clarifying them, and understanding, as well, how normal (they could have been expected and were expected by a few) social forces have corrupted the original vision. Wikipedia is not dead, but it is far less vibrant and efficient than it could be. Wikipedia began with a huge reservoir of volunteer labor, enthusiastically given. Because of the vast nature of this reservoir, labor was not valued. Oh, yes, "valuable editors" were recognized, and, too often, given inappropriately excessive power. But the labor of ordinary editors, such as a casual editor who writes an article on his or her favorite subject, spending days on it, was not valued. If it didn't meet the standards of some other editor, it could be speedily deleted, and only if the writer knew the arcane processes of recovery could that labor be recovered. So that editor goes away, almost always. And this story is repeated over and over. Experts arrived and tried to edit articles according to their expertise and, again, unless they learned the increasingly complex policies and guidelines and the even more complex wiki politics, they would find themselves outmaneuvered, and often blocked. Their labor and their expertise was not valued.
Wikipedia is considered extraordinarily successful, it is often held up as a model project. But "success at the beginning" can be very misleading. Wikipedia stepped into an open opportunity, ripe for "exploitation."
However, the wiki vision required neutrality. There is only one practical measure of neutrality. Many editors think that neutrality is objective, that it can be described by rules that could be applied by a disinterested judge. So efforts were made to create guidelines and policies to describe and define neutrality. Those policies and guidelines can be quite useful, but they are widely ignored, and, ultimately, they must always be considered incomplete. Some critics think that neutrality is a mirage, that it does not exist, but that is a shallow view. It's correct in that there is no individual objective measure of neutrality. But consensus, if it's real consensus, is a measure of neutrality. It is not that if we all agree that the sky is red, that's neutral in some objective sense. Rather, people will not agree that the sky is red. If everyone agrees that the sky is red, "The sky is red" must be taken as a neutral statement. Denying the existence of neutrality is mistaking an absolute principle for an operating principle. The success of a process at finding neutrality can be estimated by measuring the degree of consensus. If we have 100% agreement, without excluding any participants, we can have -- for practical purposes -- absolute confidence that text is neutral.
100% consensus, in large groups, may not be attainable. However, if the goal is neutrality, the process by which neutrality is determined must always seek maximized consensus, and never be fully content with less than that. However, as the agreement approaches 100%, efficiency requires that the process of extending consensus be reduced to a smaller and smaller number of participants.
When there is high consensus, but not complete consensus, this implies the existence of dissent. How to channel dissent so that it is not disruptive, but still functions to improve neutrality, is a basic structural problem. It can be done. Democratic societies, of all kinds, have frequently solved this problem to one degree or other. Wikipedia, largely, has not, or, rather, it does have processes, but they can be so fantastically inefficient that using them is inaccessible for most.
Hence we very much need Wiki Studies. We need to understand how and why Wikipedia works, and how and why it does not work. Much of the motivation for this work arises with people who have been trampled by the "mob," or abused by "leaders." Thus it can tend to take on the nature of complaint and perhaps revenge.
My strong opinion is that the problems of Wikipedia are structural; that is, they are written in the defacto structure that developed. They are not the result of "bad people," though the structure may preferentially cause people with certain personality types to rise in influence and effect. And the solutions are not exclusion of "bad people." They are structural as well, and "structure" includes the culture, the unwritten rules.
There is an effect that I've written about for years, so often that in some circles it has been called the "Lomax effect," which is related to the w:Iron law of oligarchy. When an organizational structure assigns increased power to some members over others, creating an effective oligarchy, any move to more equitable distribution will be seen as a reduction in the power of the oligarchy (whether it actually is or is not), and the oligarchy will resist it. And, by the defined condition, they are more likely to have the power to successfully resist it. The oligarchies become self-preserving. This is not about "greed" or "power hunger." The oligarchy will typically believe, and it is frequently true, that they know better what is best for the organization, and they fear turning power over to the relatively ignorant ordinary members.
If the reform simply turns over power without considering the legitimate concerns of the oligarchy, the result can be disastrous. Democracy has long been feared by elites, but the fear is not exactly of democracy. Rather, it is of chaotic or despotic influence by demagogues who can move masses through rhetorical or other skill, or other phenomena of unorganized masses.
The Lomax effect and the Iron Law are only obstacles if we consider them incompatible with all possible reforms. They are not.
There are solutions. Describing them here would be beyond the scope of what can be done in even a long comment. My short solution, a heuristic, not the solution itself: study wiki theory and process here, as a general topic. Use specific examples as illustration with caution and respect. Wiki history is public. What we have all done on wikis is public information, we have no right to privacy, generally, with regard to that (Where we do, and where we insist, contributions will be oversighted, actually removed.) Absent specific reason to the contrary, there is a vast reservoir of material to be studied. Hazards remain. For example, it is possible, for a massive contributor, some having more than 100,000 edits, to cherry-pick the worst and make it look as if such an editor has been wrecking the place. But this is standard BLP stuff on Wikipedia, and, there, the problem is much more difficult because of sourcing and original research requirements. Here, we can do primary research, and, if there is cherry-picking, it can be balanced with ... balance! So if it's pointed out that an administrator made 20 blocks that satisfied some criterion of "improper," it could also be pointed out that the administrator made 2000 blocks that were unquestionably proper according to the standards in effect at the time. Or, at least, that were not found to be improper. Thus we could look at the problem blocks themselves without implying that the individual administrator was, in any overall sense, an "abuser."
This process is not merely some off-in-the-corner academic exercise. It's crucial to the future of all WMF projects. If it is properly done, it will attract participation, here, by a wide range of people, almost all of whom will have substantial experience, and some of whom will have, in addition, academic knowledge. For example, Wikipedia User:Piotrus is a sociologist who has been published under peer review, writing about Wikipedia, both before and after he was pushed under the bus.
This will, however, expand the scale of Wikiversity beyond the small collegial core that some want to return to. Some of those new participants will be disruptive in various ways. You can count on it. We need to get ready for this, while it is still possible. And it is still possible, I believe, the small present size of Wikiversity (reduced from previous activity by damage from prior disuption) may make it possible. Some have objected to my focus on process over the generation of more content. I can understand. However, if there is not serious attention paid to our process, Wikiversity will fail this challenge and the opportunity will be lost. --Abd15:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-16/Spam_attacks describes a recent "research" aka vandalism project on Wikipedia. Any research which harms or otherwise disrupts other WMF projects shouldn't be permitted here. More generally, we shouldn't have to ban all research of other WMF projects, we just shouldn't pretend that there aren't certain limitations and issues to consider due to Wikiversity being a WMF project. As far as I can tell, the WMF research projects here that have been controversial, such as trying to research into past conflicts on Wikipedia, have failed to recognise some of these issues. Adambro15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is a possible misunderstanding here, based on there being two kinds of "research." There is experimental research, which is something done by someone who undertakes "response testing," for example, and there is research as in the study of evidence already available. The research Adambro mentions (thanks for the link, by the way, fascinating story) was, however, not organized on-wiki, nor was prior response testing research, to my knowledge. In other words, these were not "research projects here." (But they may have been headed in that direction, hence were properly interrupted, given the lack of guidelines and supervision.)
I'll note that the researcher involved in the Signpost report was unblocked per an agreement with ArbComm that did not prohibit further research; rather, it contained it and set up private review processes to precede future projects. My own opinion is that research like that which was done is actually very important, even though it involved "vandalizing" Wikipedia for a very short time. (With fake spam designed to test real user response.) The intention underlying the research was to reduce vandalism and spam and to reduce its persistence. Actions should be judged by intention, as well as by immediate effect, sometimes a negative immediate effect can have a benefit, long-term, that far outweighs the immediate effect. There are ways to address the problem of consent to participation in research involving human beings, and I hope that the WMF obtains some real expert advice in this area.
I do agree with Adambro's conclusion, however. First of all, experimental research involving human beings requires fairly complex ethical guidelines, just as response testing in business is best done under ethical restraints. Study of particular past conflicts, however, is normally research of the second kind, without the same ethical considerations. However, because such research can create what are effectively partial biographies of human beings, there are still serious requirements to respect, and these are guidelines that we need to develop. These should be developed and applied wherever such study takes place, whether here at a WMF project, or on, say, the alternative netknowledge wiki, independently controlled. If undue interference develops here, I assume that the project would move elsewhere. But I don't expect that outcome, except for minor subprojects, perhaps. I expect cooperation between the "academic institutions," which is the norm. --Abd17:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
@
The Arbitration Committee has reviewed your block and the information you have submitted privately, and is prepared to unblock you conditionally.
The signpost Adam pointed reminds us of the reality, loud and clear: You can get away with doing the same harmful things or worse more easily if you are powerful enough, like being a developer or a researcher working on a project in a computer science department in a major university. Guys, if you want to make a splash, make a big one, and don't talk about your plan if it isn't mature. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think the moral of the story is if you've contributed things of great worth in the past, you are more likely to be forgiven and allowed to get away with doing something harmful. I think waiting until plans are mature to discuss them discourages early collaboration. I think people just need to be absolutely clear that plans aren't final yet and need to indicate when a plan is final when discussing plans. I think people should avoid acting on plans before plans are clearly finalized though. -- darklama 23:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think HG's point is valid, though. The research project in question was not planned with the approval of ArbComm or the Foundation. It was outside. It did minor harm, short-term. The breaching experiment with a set of unwatched BLPs, done by Greg, was by the cooperation of a WP administrator and the blocked Greg Kohs. The experiment did much less harm, probably, than the university experiment. Yet the admin was desysopped, and that experiment might have been a factor in the global lock, as I recall (what was the timing? I forget). The conclusion and resolution of ArbComm in the university case was one that I agree with. But there is, in fact, a double standard being applied here, and it probably has to do with Greg being a prominent critic. And that sucks, in short. Nevertheless, this is really moot here. As far as I can see we are not going to allow Wikiversity to be a base for organizing "breaching experiments." Period. We might study those, however, sometimes, afterwards. Carefully. --Abd23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
For simplicity what I'm saying is: Do get permission before acting. Don't wait until a proposal is mature to discuss a proposed experiment. To use the specific experiment being discussed as an example, the researcher should of been able to use Wikiversity to develop there plan and to discuss the plan with other people, and than once people at Wikiversity felt the proposal was mature, the researcher should of sought permission from the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's ArbCom, or Wikimedia Research Committee, pointed to the development here, and answered any questions that WMF, ArbCom, or the Research Committee had, and ensured any actions or experiment carried out was within the limits that WMF, ArbCom, or the Research Committee permitted or not done it at all if they opposed the proposed research experiment entirely. -- darklama 14:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Experiment" is a loaded term here. I agree with Darklama, generally, but I wrote the response before carefully reading all of it! So this is an independent take: We can say that experiments involving testing the responses of human beings raise ethical questions that must be addressed before proceeding with actual experiment. If someone proposes such an experiment here, discussion is necessary before action, and, in fact, that discussion should eventually be brought to the attention of those that might be affected. If, for example, some response testing on en.WP were proposed, users here should be discouraged from acting to run the experiment before there is consensus for it; users who disregard that might be sanctioned, if there was activity here that was improper (such as active and specific planning of an experiment, with operational details, etc.) If an experiment is to be run on another wiki, such as en.WP, the proposal should be cleared, first, with either the community of the wiki involved, or, on WP, if confidentiality and some level of secrecy were required, with ArbComm there, or with some WMF body. WP ArbComm has an established procedure, it looks like, for such testing.
However, we do not have to wait for wide consensus to develop resources studying wiki history. There are still issues, but anticipating them all could be difficult, so normal wiki process suggests proceeding with caution, being sensitive to criticism and warnings. Normal process (such as deletion of contributions considered too hot to stand at the surface), avoidance of revert warring, and ordinary discussion should handle this well enough. An Ethics Committee might be formed to consider ethical issues, with, possibly, some special process, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --Abd17:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Templates could be used to indicate the progress of a research project like:
This proposed research project or experiment may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering approval. You may be sanctioned if you follow suggestions in this draft proposal without approval.
This research project or experiment is mature and has gained approval. Please check the edit history to ensure no significant divergences from the approved proposal has happened before following suggestions to avoid any sanctions.
This research project or experiment sought approval and was rejected. This resource is kept for historical interest and for people to learn what not to do.
Yes. This would be clearly appropriate for proposals involving response testing planned as part of the study. A somewhat different template would be used for simple documentation research, pointing to guidelines for such. (Suppose I put up a link to all contributions of Editor X. No problem. Suppose I put up a link to selected contributions in a way that make the editor look like a complete bozo. Problem. Maybe! A proper research project would be designed to avoid cherry-picking, would use stated, objective criteria, if selection is to be done.) A goal of stating or inferring blame should be carefully avoided, even the appearance of such a goal should be avoided. It's impossible to anonymize the necessary evidence, on-wiki, but certain pieces of a project could be developed off-wiki, or on-wiki under certain conditions, that would, top-level, draw anonymized conclusions, with raw evidence being buried, not available in current pages, so not searchable under the person's name. For the studies, the identity of the person is, ultimately, not relevant. It's tricky, and no specific rule is likely to apply well under all conditions, sometimes identity is important, which is why the Privacy Policy allows breaking privacy rules when it's needed. And when one does that, a review process is needed, which is, I think, OTRS, though there is also Ombudsman if checkuser is involved. --Abd14:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
sound shapes - phonograms
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
--155.150.223.15014:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Have a list US language sounds and their graphic representation like ough_ow - oo - uf - off - all - bough dough through rough caugh bought. A set of cards with the symbol on one side and the sound words on the other side. Munson short hand is similar but with shapes. There are 26 letters and 76 phonograms, very confusing but very flexiable, US language is not like NORWAY. NORWAY HAS GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF SPELLING.14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)~~Reply
Well, I was sad. The Embassy is important, if not required -- useful on occasions, especially for people not familiar with the local language (so sometimes a bit less needed in english). Still, it would be great to have one here. –SJ+02:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
feedback if you're interested :-)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
It would be elegant to import this gadget, especially for those who have never installed any additional fonts. It just translates the interwiki links into English, you can test it by ticking it here. JackPotte09:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
What I am talking about is the ability to submit the answer to one question at a time.For e.g., in english basics 101,[basics 101 numbers] numbers section, you can see a series of questions where the user has to enter an answer.Now if he clicks the submit button for the first question, the present format tends to check all the questions, including the ones he hasn't answered.I was wondering if there was something which would allow only one question to be corrected each time rather than the whole quiz.
--Justin carlo masangya12:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
White blood cells (WBCs), or leukocytes (also spelled "leucocytes"), are cells of the immune system involved in defending the body against both infectious disease and foreign materials. Five[1] different and diverse types of leukocytes exist, but they are all produced and derived from a multipotent cell in the bone marrow known as a hematopoietic stem cell. Leukocytes are found throughout the body, including the blood and lymphatic system.[2]Reply
The number of WBCs in the blood is often an indicator of disease. There are normally between 4×109 and 1.1×1010 white blood cells in a litre of blood, making up approximately 1% of blood in a healthy adult.[3] An increase in the number of leukocytes over the upper limits is called leukocytosis, and a decrease below the lower limit is called leukopenia. The physical properties of leukocytes, such as volume, conductivity, and granularity, may change due to activation, the presence of immature cells, or the presence of malignant leukocytes in leukemia
deforestation-is the clearance of forest by logging[popularity known as slash and burn.]
effects
the effects are:
1.erosion of soil
2.disruption of the water cycle
3.loss of biodiversity
4.flooding
5.drought
6.climate change
Difficult navigation
Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
--91.65.132.7612:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As a studdent, I find the navigation trough Wikiversity really confused. For example, I was interested in learning Biology, but first I reached the primary school and then a link to "university" level, and from there just a boring list in alphabetic order... I understand the lak of content, but why do I get different places form the same link and viceversa? The spanish wikiversity is oftenly easier to navigate, may be you could get some ideas from there, or what is better, to colaborate together! :)Reply
I agree, wikiversity as a whole is kind of all over the place. Perhaps it might be useful to develop some pages for those who would like to make things easier. That is what led me to this page, but there appears to be a series of disparate discussions here!Harrypotter19:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
There also needs to be worthwhile contents. If there are to be links, the best thing would be to link to finished products, or to mention from the start where finished products are not to be found.
The disparate discussions deal with the issue whether conflicts on Wikipedia should be studied here. And these conflicts are not only studied... The rest of Wikiversity didn't cause much trouble as far as i know.--Daanschr20:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think there is a lot of useful and worthwhile contents, but content is too deeply nested in navigation to find. I think most people give up after 1 or 2 pages, and with the current navigation you could end up having to goto 6 or more pages before finding the course contents:
Math portal > Math school > Math department > Math topic > Math category > Math list > Calculus topic > Calculus category > Calculus list > Introduction to calculus.
An inventory could be made of all worthwhile contents, and than a good navigation system to get these contents. I got little to do now, so i can work on it, but i don't want to do everything on my own.Daanschr08:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think everyone will consider their own work worthwhile. I think navigation needs to start small and grow as more contents becomes available. I think part of the problem is people at the beginning were too ambitious and didn't put enough thought into how to organize contents so it could be easily navigated. I think if we are to avoid repeating that, we need to have a organized plan that most people can agree with, even if only a few people are willing to volunteer their time to implement it. In the past I suggested that the portal, school, and topic namespaces be replaced with a single course namespace. We could always attempt to implement a course pseudo-namespace with the intent to replace those 3 namespaces once all/most works have been organized into it. What do you think? -- darklama 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well i have come across a vast undergrowth of incomplete pages which have been abandoned often a year or two ago. In working on the British Empire, I parked this as an archive, and proceeded developing a much smaller element of this enormous topic (those interested can see Tudor Origins of the British Empire). In a rather chaotic fashion I have stumbled across wonderful navigation aids, quizzes and other useful tools, but largely through trial and error.
What I feel would be useful is:
Student Navigation, which would lead potential students to peer-reviewed educational resources - perhaps some thing like wikipedia Good and Featured articles
Teacher Navigation, which would include partially completed material and various resources like quizzes, navigational bars etc. as well as active working groups. It seems to me that there was a lot of enthusiasm a year or two ago, but that activity has declined and that now quite a few people check the site, but after a little while give up. Before being active here, I was active on wikieducator, which has quite different problems. I am currently trying to find a practical way of using both sites to get the benefit of each.Harrypotter14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
We could make a split in the categorization between featured contents and all contents. And put a warning on the last categorization, that lots of the contents aren't finished learning materials. Determining the difference between featured and non-featured contents will require a lot of politics. How can that be managed in a decent manner?
It would be best to make a categorization of active courses and learning communities, to ensure that new users don't enter a desert, but can become part of a community. One way to stimulate this would be to organize fairs. In the Middle Ages, merchants organized fairs to ensure that they could buy and sell products and wouldn't be alone on a market. If we set time periods, like a week, in which certain topics could be studied as a group activity than that could stimulate new users to stay. I fear that lots of people will turn away when they can choose between 30 featured contents, all developed by a single user of Wikiversity.Daanschr09:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Under ConstructionI would be interested to discuss how thus idea of fairs might work. Is this for teachers or students, or both? Perhaps we could start with a week when people are encouraged to work on a certain topic or area. Perhaps we could experiment through that in developing pieces of learning resources which are in some way marked as being presentable. Also we can put the under construction graphic on pages which aren't "complete" - whatever we mean by that!Harrypotter09:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think Cormac made it. But, i wasn't part of the people who made this category. My main focus here on Wikiversity was to come to some kind of learning communities. The reading groups have been operational, one was aired for a couple of months with weekly activities. Two others had problems with upstarts.
The idea of the fair can be used in several ways. Suppose there will be a fair on history in the first week of February 2011. Than a couple of people can prepare something for this week with the aim to attract more users for Wikiversity who are interested in history. There can be discussions on the chat, there can be the development of a game on history, or we can discuss certain writers or sources. The same can be done with topics like climate change or Einstein's Theory of relativity, or major political philosophers.
I have tried to organize congresses, focused on editing a group of articles on Wikipedia. But, that looks a lot like WikiProjects. It could also be simply about discussing a subject and collectively writing an essay on it. A date can be set when the congress will start. In preparation of this congress, literature can be discussed and read, people can be invited. An organization can be set up in order to manage the congress in such a way that the participants felt comfortable with it.
A fair is more broad and less determined from a congress. In the Middle Ages fairs were attended by merchants and some customers, who traded their products with each other in order to sell them in different areas. On Wikiversity a fair could be a gathering of people, all with different ideas, who want to find some like-minded people in order to get their ideas worked out, with whatever they want to do regarding learning and Wikiversity. I guess it is best not to use the word fair, because it is distracting. What can better be done is to just put a meeting on an agenda to of a field of study (like history, or physics), to talk about this on the Wikiversity chat. But, maybe there are too little people at the moment to man these kind of meetings.
We are both interested in history, i graduated at the university in history. So, we could try this out with history.
The problem with the under construction tag is that most contents on Wikiversity are under construction. If you add the tag, it should also be removed when nothing is done with the article anymore. On Wikipedia there was a campaign to remove tags from articles, otherwise half of the encyclopedia appeared to be under construction. But, in some cases it might be a good idea to use those tags. Suppose we have a busy well-organized community, that cleans up all the mess it leaves behind online, than an under construction tag would work very well.Daanschr14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
What you say is very interesting and brings to mind the Champagne fairs, which I always link with the development of the narrative form, i.e. through Chrétien de Troyes. Perhaps we should use the term Fair and encourage existing participants to prepare material to showcase during the period, have a number of people who will agree to respond to queries during the week and try to raise the profile of wikiversity outside the existing community, particularly as regards other wikimedia projects and wikieducator - who I feel we could work more with. How does that sound?Harrypotter18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I derived the idea from the Champagne fairs. Never heard of Chrétien though.
One way to organize such a fair would be to make an article on the subject and to have people join by stating their own learning projects on it and tell what they are doing now with them. Added to it could be chat sessions, to make the communication quicker.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, the en.w, fr.w, fr.v et fr.b have installed this gadget, it can be useful as we can use a video in any language by pasting some customized subtitles above, with eventually some hyperlinks. JackPotte13:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
If me and Harrypotter will succeed, than we might be writing some articles. At the moment though, i don't have any material.Daanschr21:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Bessatalk 15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Bessatalk 12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
