names of pages 
I think that terse names for "Topic:" pages are acceptable. It is good practice for each page to start with a short description of what the page is about: at the least there can be a link to the Wikipedia article about that topic. When making a link to a page, it is possible to use any desired description for the hyperlink, not just the page name....example, Immunology (the study of the immune system). Pages in the "Topic:" namespace are content development projects where Wikiversity participants collaborate to create learning resources for a specific academic topic. I do like the practice of creating longer, more descriptive names for pages in the main namespace. There should eventually be thousands of immunology-related pages in the main namespace, so it does not make sense to give them short names. Wikiversity users who might not be familiar with immunology will eventually be guided to the educational content about immunology by a user-friendly Portal:Immunology.
If you are interested in research and publishing within Wikiversity, be sure to read the research pages at the central Wikiversity multi-lingual hub. We are trying to develop research policy for all of Wikiversity (all languages) there. Also, take a look at Wikiversity:Publishing original research. Wikiversity can start experimenting with formal peer-reviewed publishing at any time. --JWSchmidt 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Relex, I saw your comment about research on Reswik's talk page, and I had to come here to comment! There are a good number of people who are motivated to do research here on Wikiversity - some of which to improve Wikiversity itself (such as Learning to learn a wiki way and Developing Wikiversity through action research), as well as just about anything else (such as Bloom clock project). I hope Portal:Research will be a good window into what's happening on Wikiversity with regards to research (see also Wikiversity:Research). The page John links to above (Wikiversity:Publishing original research) has a link to the academia wikia (I wonder if that's the wikia you were referring to in your comment to Reswik?), which has developed its own system of peer review and "publication" - which we could learn from, and possibly improve upon to fulfill the aspirations you have (and that many, including me, share). There is already quite a lot on Wikiversity about research (see Category:Research), but I think we still need to do a lot on bringing it all together, and helping people who are new to the community into participating to make these pages/projects worthwhile. To help us find eachother, for a start, I've just now set up Portal:Research/Researchers, so that people can add themselves, or find others of like minds, in order to hopefully build collaborations. Looking forward to working with you in some regard anyway. :-) Cormaggio beep 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Relex, sorry for the delay in responding -- been rather busy elsewhere and will be so for awhile. (I see Cormac has already respondec, great.)
- There is a lot of potential in Wikiversity for all sorts of cross-linkages. But, we are just laying groundwork now. I think it could be helpful for research networking and initiatives to develop in multiple online spaces in the wikimedia world.
- I don't know if we are to the point of developing journals or collections of articles yet. I think having conferences and then coallating conference proceedings would be one first step. See the post below yours on my talk page by Cormaggio for initial thoughts in this direction. At some point in the not too distant future, some of these topics may blossum into more widespread discussions. Keeping an eye on the research listserv and Cormaggio's talk page (and the portal he mentions above) would be a good place to notice that. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, --Reswik 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. About your research university, firstly, which university is it? :-) I'd also like to know how the faculties normally publish their research - is it on a website? In a journal of sorts? Is it difficult for individuals/groups to publish in that format? Would that be the incentive to them for publishing on Wikiversity? Basically, I think it would be fantastic for university researchers to start publishing on Wikiversity - or, even better, become part of the research community here (see Wikiversity:Referees and Wikiversity:Review board). To make it attractive to researchers, we need to show the potential for a large international research community here at Wikiversity - and we also need to outline the benefits of publishing under a free licence. In general, I'm convinced that this will happen - though to what extent depends partly on our facilitation, and partly on who happens to join in. :-) Cormaggio beep 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's really interesting - thanks! I had never heard of the expense (to authors) of getting a submission peer-reviewed - in Britain, as far as I am aware, this expense is always absorbed by the journal (or their funding bodies/societies). What you say makes the process of getting published even more of a cut-throat business than what I am personally used to. The incentive is clearly there for researchers to publish on a space like Wikiversity - to expose their work to a wider audience - but, in order to republish elsewhere, licencing will become an issue. I've emailed the editor of an online journal about this (they publish under a CC-BY-NC licence, which is, as far as I am aware, incompatible with the GFDL), but I've yet to receive a reply. Once we work out this crucial question, it will become clearer as to exactly what kind of utility we offer to researchers, and perhaps, what the limitations of this space are. I'm going to send an email to the foundation-l mailing list - I'll keep you posted. :-) Cormaggio beep 12:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)