Wikiversity:Colloquium

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Colloquium)
Jump to: navigation, search


Marburger-Religionsgespräch.jpg
Sign your posts with   ~~~~
Welcome

Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking a question, you can find some general information at:

Shortcut:
WV:C

Wikipedia Administrator.svg
Organization of Wikiversity

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!";

Folder-sort.svg
On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 18 days old.

A question about wikimedia images[edit]

For some time I have had a hypothetical question about changing images that is now very real. When you change an article on Wikipedia or Wikiversity the change appears on people's watchlists, which ensures quality control. But what happens if someone changes an image? I have upgraded one or two images, but always verified that all pages using the image would benefit.

But now it has occurred to me that images could be upgraded by students. The example I am thinking about is this project. It calls on students to make a drawing. Each semester, students could improve the drawing until it eventually becomes worthy for others to use. I have a drawing I could upload to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page right now, but it will need to be replaced. Will multiple upgrades to an image bother these people?--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 16:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just a thought, but you could upload here to Wikiversity, choose non-commercial fair-use, and each figure uploaded remains copyrighted to you or the student. Commons only accepts licenses similar to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL which your students might object to because they are in effect surrendering the image (they always own the copyright) to commercial exploitation. Also, if any complain later that they were forced to put the image on as part of the course/project, since each contribution is copyrighted, they automatically can delete without any hassle. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I will do that, but for an entirely different reason. As a matter of policy one should refrain from downloading images that are likely to change onto a server that large numbers of people will potentially want to use. --guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 01:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Simplify Beginner's Tutorials will multiply Wikiversity active participants[edit]

Hello everyone!
I hope to be correct in posting this suggestion in the beginning of page.
I'm a Junior Wikiversity Writer (that is inexpert). I'm also italian so excuse my possible grammatical errors.
I've thinked this: "If there is a great place where many people want to get there, but entries are too difficult, long, etc, happens that the majority of them retire".
Now, Wikiversity is a very great place! More people come to participate, more this place became fantastic! Beautiful! Dreamful! Useful!
Thence, entries are helping pages!
I propose to create one page, short and summarized, in which a new user can learn quickly basic formatting language and page sections (Edit, Read, Discuss, History), then a briefly introduction on what Wikiversity is, etc
All of this page, of course, must contain wikilinks to go in depth pages.
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 22:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What did you think of our Guided tours? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It give an overview of what Wikiversity is, what everyone can do, but is a bit dispersive! There is too text only for introducing! And finally, there isn't a link to a complete page in which anyone can get basic skills on editing pages!
I propose these tasks:
1) Optimize Introduction Tour you linked me above
2) It must be highlighted, easily reachable, because in the help page newcomers get lost!
3) It need containing links to study in deep anything (Code of conduct, Copyright, Participate to community, etc)
4) Finally, there must be a link to a page which contains basic skills on editing, and this one need to be complete!
5) The editing page has to have links to study in deep anyother editing skills (templates, commons, etc)
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 16:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This is why I wrote this tutorial: Help:Writing a technical_article RandyRostie (discusscontribs) 23:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
But it is incomplete! A newcomer, after having read all of this is however unskilled to editing, almost basically, any resource!
I've thinked this:
1) Complete this article above on editing, at least with basic skills
2) Insert it into the introducing tour above linked me
3) Optimize that tour (less text, more content)
What do you think?
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 18:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I may seem boring, or inexpert for suggest this. But is just a inexpert that know what are the problems of newcomers, an example: what can know of mediawiki software, bugzilla, ecc who doesn't work in IT sector? Such as scientists, lawyers, biologists, doctors, economists? They probably will get lost! In front of what you aren't able to understand, you don't know if jump it is possible or not! So indecision cause waste of time, and for many people (just who might put too much good content) time is costly! If be successful to contribute at wikiversity take a lot of time, just these important people can't do it!
However, my question may be a bit senseless, if yes someone is free to persuade me.
Moreover, I may be wrong!
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 21:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Be bold! If you can make Wikiversity better, go for it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll do my best! -- Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've created this page: Quick start, and I've put it in the Main Help page, at the beginning of Wikiversity Help Contents paragraph.
With this page, I'm sure that everyone come the first time to Wikiversity will be able to edit pages in few minutes just reading this one!
Everyone should start from here.
In this page, I (or anyone) will put links to other tours of Wikiversity.
So, this page, also will provide an Overview of Wikiversity with links for every further information, tours, articles.
I hope all of you appreciate my idea and collaborate.
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur[edit]

I just joined up to Wikiversity as I want to start contributing to the Accounting/Finance field and I have found that the information to do so is very disorganized. There are a ton of posts that I have read but that are spewed all over the site. I feel like people keep coming with an idea like a "Quick Guide" and then just draft one up without thinking about the current sitemap. So there are like 10 different "Quick Guides" that all have different information in them and all link to different places. The guides to getting started need to be consolidated into fewer wikis that are broken down into the type of users in a more intuitively flowing manner. A sitemap would be very helpful organizing this I think. I would love to help out in this regard if others agree.

--ttam (discusscontribs) 00:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What needs to be organized for newcomers is going to be much more obvious to you than it is to those of us who have been around awhile (and navigated our way through those 10 different quick guides). Pick something and make it better. Pages can be consolidated, but it's important that it be done the right way so that those who made the original contributions are credited for their work. If you want to combine some pages, let us know which ones so we can advise you on the best way to go about it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. But maybe I haven't understood well how your idea of a sitemap. I think that Quick Start is the best Quick Guide, but a little uncomplete, especially about links! So this structure of links that breaks down should be put there.
I've inserted this page in the Help:Contents page, as you can see, but it should be put in the Welcome Paragraph of the Wikiversity Main Page together with the other two. I leave you this job, that require more skills on Wiki. Dave Braunschweig certainly know what is the right thing to do. --Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 20:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The WMF's "Wikipedia editing basics" playlist on youtube may be of interest - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVx9pX-VnGVjAVQo8Qv_ohNP5r7JuzhRo -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:30, 20 October 20 --Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 18:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
If you think this of it, just put a link in Wikiversity:Quick start.
But I think Wikipedia Formatting Basics is already in Wikipedia Helping Pages themselves, so the necessity is just a few links in the Quick start page.
Now the question is clarify and simplify Wikiversity philosophy, communities, structure, patterns of create learning materials, etc and give everyone a simplified overview in the Quick start page, through links well organized, such as in the manner proposed by ttam above. --Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 18:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Red-linked categories[edit]

When I uploaded and supplied licensing information for File:Stauning's Alps E Greenland.jpg, the following appeared in the categories list at the bottom:

Category:Files with no machine-readable license, Category:Files with no machine-readable description Category:Files with no machine-readable author, and Category:Files with no machine-readable source.
Anyone know what's going on? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It came with the update to MediaWiki 1.23.5. See mw:MediaWiki 1.23 for release notes, and specifically mw:Tracking categories for the explanation of these categories. That then leads to Commons:Commons:Machine-readable_data for the details. It's going to take more reading from there to see what changes we need to make in what templates to make the tracking categories happy. What I would recommend is to see what new files we have that don't have those categories and see what's different. Otherwise, do the same thing on either Wikipedia or on Commons. With enough comparisons it should become clear what makes the categories appear and what we do to correct the problem. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
So far on commons these four categories are not displayed at the bottom of the file page, nor are they hidden categories. But, when entered into "search", they exist with anywhere from 1,000 files on up. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 16:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like Commons has those added as hidden categories. You might consider creating those four categories here and defining them as hidden. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. I entered Category:Files with no machine-readable license into "search" on Wikipedia and they claim "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact name." But, the category has 16 files which do have it as a red-link at the page bottom. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I tried the first one Category:Files with no machine-readable license but it still shows up at the page bottom even though it is now listed in Category:Hidden categories. I'll do some more poking around. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
See mw:Help:Categories#Hidden_categories. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Good idea! Their magic command worked. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

MOOC Module and course interface for wikiversity and common.js[edit]

hey everyone I would like to get some feedback from the community on this very topic started by User:Sebschlicht We invested quite some developement time (about 4 month) which by itself is not a justification for making the stuff public. But getting no feedback at all is a little frustrating. especially because our lecture will start soon and the students need our javascripts deployed.

What is possible with the new javascripts and lua-scripts is to make courses on topics with a click and point experience and also have a easy user interface for learners. you can check then out as descriped by User:sebschlicht on the talk page Wikiversity_talk:Colloquium#MOOC_module:_migrate_resource_loader_into_common.js

Thanks for reading through this stuff (: --Renepick (discusscontribs) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Renepick: Is it possible for us to see a simple demonstration of your efforts without us having to install anything ourselves? Could you do a quick screen-cast capture we could view, or some other type of demonstration that would allow us to more easily evaluate the request? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: The problem is I was sick in hospital over the last 5 weeks and lectures start on Tuesday oct 28th. I probably cannot do a nice screencast with high audio quality till then since I am lacking equipment. I did a small screencast with low quality right now. The first 3 minutes demonstrate functionality and the last 6 minutes give a short explaination of how we did this. For our students it would be a much nicer learning experience if they did not have to register an account and create common.js in their user space. So for your reference what you could do is to copy User:Renepick/common.js to your common.js and then visit a page like Web_Science/Part1:_Foundations_of_the_web/Ethernet/Collision_detection. You can also visit the pages with and without the common.js as you can see the content will also work without javascript but it is being displayed in a much more boring way and it is much harder to interact / edit the content when you are an unexperienced mediawiki user.
I know it is a different community and process but It might help you to make a decision to know that 3 days before my accident I was in the officies of Wikimedia Germany and they have been very impressed by our frontend and said that they would like us to develop it as a mediawikiextension so that it can be easier deployed via mediawiki installations in various language versions. Our current plan is to do this but for the current course it would be really great if we at least had the scripts installed on the english wikiversity so that users can access them without barrier.
For security: As I have stated in the video in common.js we create a resource loader so any page that contains a hidden div with a certain id can contain information on which javascripts should be loaded. this is necessary so that our code is not invoked on every page load but just on MOOC pages. To make the system secure we currently only allow javascript from User:sebschlicht namespace but after complete deployment we would of course change this to Mediawiki:common.js/... namespace. So this means that theoretically user:sebschlicht could secretly deploy malicious javascript code into the english wikiversity. I think this should not be a problem since we can see from his developer history that he did not do anything bad here and he can be monitored as all admins that could deploy javascript code should also be monitored. --Renepick (discusscontribs) 09:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Renepick: I am also very impressed by your efforts and would like to see it developed as a MediaWiki extension. But that's a completely different discussion than adding the current content to MediaWiki:Common.js. To support the current request, I have created a page at Wikiversity:MOOC Interface and will post an announcement to encourage community involvement. Please review Wikiversity:MOOC Interface and correct anything I might have misunderstood, and add any supporting comments you wish there. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: thanks for starting this process. I am aware of the fact that my request and the roadmap with the mediawikiextension are two different things. Since the extension would first have to be developed and second have to be deployed I was making the current request. Anyway I am curious to see what will happen. Thanks again for your support. --Renepick (discusscontribs) 14:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia copies[edit]

So far using Random I've come across 32 Wikipedia copies where for the time stamp some significant per cent of a Wikipedia entry has been copied over to Wikiversity. In the case of ice cores and glaciers I am happy to convert them to Wikiversity resources. But, that leaves 30 (so far) that have been sitting over here sometimes for as long as seven years. What would the community like to do with these if anything? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a {{Welcome and advise}} template that can be applied to these. That could be combined with a {{Prod}} if there's no clear value beyond what is already available at Wikipedia. You could even tag them for speedy deletion as no educational objectives or discussion in history, but that may be a bit hasty for an article that's been here for seven years. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
See comment at Talk:Torque_and_angular_acceleration--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 13:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Good idea and great presentation! I don't believe there would be a reason to delete this one. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Suicide Learning Project[edit]

A discussion regarding the scope of the Suicide learning project has been started at Talk:Suicide. There seem to be strong opinions on both sides as to what level of detail should be included in the project. That talk page is an effort to gain consensus on the level of detail the community is comfortable with before additional content is added to the project. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would not contain any additional user rights. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to the first proposal at meta as follows:

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most of the arguments above for having this are good ones. But there is one likely major problem. "In addition to general question/answer-type correspondence, a portion of OTRS is dedicated to handling copyright and licensing permissions." With respect to commercial-free licenses, I believe the OTRS volunteers do an outstanding job. But, having a global group that is "dedicated to handling copyright and licensing permissions" may mean they decide "Fair Use" images. Whether a project opts in or opts out requires that a local consensus be sought where none right now is necessary. I do not believe any group of volunteers no matter how well meaning should be deciding anything about "Fair Use" images. While such images are not allowed on commons they occur with great frequency on Wikipedia and Wikiversity.
On a secondary note, images already designated as Public Domain on commons are often deleted for any reason, often inappropriately. OTRS volunteers do not review or act to preserve these images. I would not want any such group of volunteers going through "Fair Use" NASA images to declare them PD, sent up to commons, only to have them deleted, and the uploader then has to re-upload them. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review[edit]

Hello. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc) was recently adopted by global community consensus (your community received a notice about the discussion). According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on smaller wikis. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the new admin activity review here.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

  1. Cormaggio (admin, bureaucrat)
  2. Digitalme (admin)
  3. Draicone (admin)
  4. J.Steinbock (admin)
  5. La comadreja (admin)
  6. McCormack (admin)
  7. MichaelBillington (admin)
  8. Rayc last log (admin)
  9. Robert Horning (admin)
  10. Sebmol (admin, bureaucrat)
  11. Trinity507 (admin)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, --MF-Warburg (discusscontribs) 23:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter[edit]

Hi all, here an update regarding the Dutch wikiversity. As you may or may not know, this year all 5000 pages on the Dutch wikiversity were removed. The people who removed the pages had another vision on what a wikiversity should be. After the removal it became quit again, no content creation. This month Wikimedia Nederland asked me to write about the Dutch wikiversity in there newsletter. What should I write about? My plan for 2015 is to find more people who want to join me in starting the Dutch wikiversity 2.0. How can I set up some guidelines to prevent a mass deletion again? I think I should find other people besides the Wikipedians who deleted the content, but unfortunately they are the only ones who are active? Can somebody help me? Give me some tips in how to establish a new community? Regards, Tim, Timboliu (discusscontribs) 11:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Start with a mission and vision. But also recognize that you, by yourself, can't establish anything. It needs to be a community, and the community has to support the vision. Think about what works here on en.wikiversity. How do we avoid mass deletions of questionable content? Two approaches that help are to organize content by learning project rather than individual page, and to focus on the learning rather than the content. Ask those who are interested in Dutch Wikiversity for their ideas. Are they willing to focus on learning, or are they only concerned with content? You might find that the issue isn't the content itself, but the format that is troublesome. You may need to get everyone to agree on a design template for what a course, lesson, and activity look like and go from there. That would be highly proscriptive and somewhat restrictive, but it might get agreement from those who couldn't support the previous work. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dave Braunschweig. The key strategy is to allow students to write. They are the future writers of Wikipedia (and everything else that will be written). Don't worry about quality control, just let them write. Then, if a page is neither visited nor edited for a sufficiently long period of time, remove it from namespace so that others will have good names for their projects. Don't worry about Wikiversity being cluttered with bad material. The good stuff will eventually be found by Google or through interwiki links. Teachers who find useful resources on Wikiversity can make permalinks so that they need not worry about misguided edits made in the future. Wikiversity, Wikibooks and Wiktionary will all grow. It just takes time.--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 18:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm amazed that someone would bother to remove so much material and then not put something new in its place! But I can quite understand it. There is such a feeling, with Wikiversity, to get some structure in place before adding one's own material (at least, this has been my feeling from time to time with the English Wikiversity) that it's easy to never get to the real work. I rather suspect there's some parallel with traditional university procrastination here!

What was the quality of the deleted pages like? I assume mostly it was not very good?

But yes, those above have it right: the way forward surely is to succinctly define what Wikiversity actually is and then encourage people to write about whatever they're interested in! :-)

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 00:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that https://nl.wikiversity.org/ is not a wiki. Has it been closed completely? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The Dutch Wikiversity is at https://beta.wikiversity.org. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Cheers, Tim, 77.171.140.130 (discuss) 21:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. :) Cool. I'll have a read of what's going on over there. I've never really noticed Beta Wikiversity much. :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

New request for custodianship[edit]

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Goldenburg111

Just like to inform you. --Goldenburg111 16:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't this page violate our Wikiversity:Privacy policy?[edit]

The <hidden> userpage shows:

1. Her full name 2. Her birthdate 3. Ancestry 4. Religion 5. Father, date of birth and place of birth. 6. Mother, date of birth and place of birth. 7. Residence.

I say this violates the privacy policy, as I said, she revealed her full name, her birthdate, ancestry, father (date of birth and place of birth), mother (date of birth and place of birth), and residence. --Goldenburg111 14:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the page you noted appears to be a violation of Wikiversity:Privacy policy. But be careful, as drawing attention to it is more likely to cause a violation of that person's privacy than the page itself does. I have hidden the page link here, and will hide your revision to protect the privacy of this minor user. If you find more privacy violations like this, it would be better to use the Email this user feature to contact a custodian for review. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. --Goldenburg111 15:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Global AbuseFilter[edit]

Hello,

AbuseFilter is a MediaWiki extension used to detect likely abusive behavior patterns, like pattern vandalism and spam. In 2013, Global AbuseFilters were enabled on a limited set of wikis including Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki.org, Wikispecies and (in early 2014) all the "small wikis". Recently, global abuse filters were enabled on "medium sized wikis" as well. These filters are currently managed by stewards on Meta-Wiki and have shown to be very effective in preventing mass spam attacks across Wikimedia projects. However, there is currently no policy on how the global AbuseFilters will be managed although there are proposals. There is an ongoing request for comment on policy governing the use of the global AbuseFilters. In the meantime, specific wikis can opt out of using the global AbuseFilter. These wikis can simply add a request to this list on Meta-Wiki. More details can be found on this page at Meta-Wiki. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on m:Talk:Global AbuseFilter.

Thanks,

PiRSquared17, Glaisher

— 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Top 1000 Requests By Month[edit]

I automated a process to download page request statistics from http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecounts-raw/. I've posted monthly totals for the top 1000 articles from the last three months at:

Those looking for a place to help and wondering where their efforts would have the greatest impact should focus on the projects and pages in highest demand.

Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am puzzled that Torque_and_angular_acceleration got so many hits. We almost deleted that article about a month ago. See the discussion at Wikiversity:Colloquium#Wikipedia_copies --guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 23:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It is possible for a single individual to mess with page counts. Just hitting purge on a page forces it to refresh. There are also some pages on the list that are clearly influenced by a bot driving up the counts. But overall, it makes more sense to focus on pages on the list before working on some random project that may never be viewed. I did notice that there are a number of mechanics / physics pages that might go together well as a learning project. It's out of my area of expertise, but something to consider. I'm also working on a list of the top 100 learning projects (adding up subpage counts to get a total per project). I'll post when I have something useful to share. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
It was fascinating to see how much is being done in fields closely related to mine. I was planning to strengthen the electronics sections of Physics equations, but now realize that I should instead let others do the work for me.--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this shows page hits or views, not edits. I have several projects on the list that never see an edit from anyone else. They're popular, but they don't draw updates. I keep telling myself it's because the quality is so good that they don't need updates.  :-) I'm not entirely sure I believe that, but it sounds good. If you have something high on the list, you should work on it anyway, or make it very clear to visitors that they can update and improve. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello forum members[edit]

I'm new to greet you need in August. Sorry for my english

Welcome! --Goldenburg111 01:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature[edit]

VE as BetaFeature.png

Hello. Please excuse the English. I would be grateful if you translated this message!

VisualEditor, a rich-text editor for MediaWiki, will soon be available on this wiki as a Beta Feature. The estimated date of activation is Wednesday, 26 November.

To access it, you will need to visit the Beta features page after the deployment and tick the box next to "VisualEditor". (If you have enabled the "Automatically enable all new beta features" option, VisualEditor will be automatically available for you.) There will also be a "VisualEditor language tool" that you can enable if you need it.

Then, you just have to click on "Edit" to start VisualEditor, or on "Edit source" to edit using wikitext markup. You can even begin to edit pages with VisualEditor and then switch to the wikitext editor simply by clicking on its tab at any point, and you can keep your changes when doing so.

A guide was just published at mediawiki.org so that you can learn how to support your community with this transition: please read and translate it if you can! You will find all the information about the next steps there. Please report any suggestions or issues at the main feedback page. You will also receive the next issues of the multilingual monthly newsletter here on this page: if you want it delivered elsewhere, for example at your personal talk page, please add the relevant page here.

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature (errata)[edit]

Colloquium image[edit]

A while back we were considering replacing the colloquium image with something a bit more universal and perhaps appropriate. May I suggest the following image, which may need some cropping of the ceiling:

This may be an open conference on a colloquium subject. Credit: Leighblackall.
Where are the kids in the pic? or <SOME COLOR>-colored people? (not that the current one has it either ;-)) ----Erkan Yilmaz 09:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Two good points! At least it has men and women, improvement number one. There is an Asian Indian or Pakistani center back I believe, and an oriental on the right. I'll keep looking. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 16:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)