User talk:Reswik

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

Comments?

Contents

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your addition to the "department" template and related editing! --JWSchmidt 16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome - having fun with this department/area work inspite of having to change direction a few times due to the process being in the midst state of change. :) Reswik 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What does "droping of departments is underway" mean? --JWSchmidt 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I meant about "dropping of departments" that some people have start moving naming of departments from "Subject/Topic: Department of X" to "Topic:X". I meant that a number of schools now have the topic usage in place. "Topic" seemed awkward for the "Department" context. But it is not awkward in the case of Topic:X as in Topic:Physics. That is all. No pages beind dropped. Just noticed that the toipc renaming was well underway :) Reswik 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"moving naming of departments from "Subject/Topic: Department of X" to "Topic:X""<-- just take care with the terminology. Names of pages for departments start with the "Topic:" prefix. A particular "topic" can still be called a department when discussing it on Wikiversity pages. The word "department" does not need to be in the name of the page. --JWSchmidt 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Area Description" <-- do you object to using the term "division"? --JWSchmidt 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Division is a similar meaning as Department -- structural. Some universities use Division as a main subsection of a school -- like Division of Physical Sciences. Area is a more flexible. Was trying that. If we use anything structural, like "department" or "division" then I think those pages should actually be in a school or other structural sounding namespace. If we use Topic namespace then some way of referring to Subjects as areas of study or subjects of study is perhaps a way to go -- more like a scholarly association or network than a department. We could even call it the sociology association (or network) -- inviting different and flexible kinds of interaction from a dept naming. Reswik 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Wikiversity namespace hierarchy. Any department can be 'contained' (linked to) by several schools. Any learning project can be 'contained' (linked to) by several departments. How much more flexibility do we need?
I agree that the "Topic:" namespace does not "sound" particularly "structural". It was an arbitrarily selected term that was meant to sound "neutral" and allow room for most small organizational units of Wikiversity. I think of it this way: Schools are large organizational units that are concerned with particular topic areas and academic subjects. "Division" was also an arbitrary choice; it is not better than "area", but it was what came to mind first when the choice had to be made. --JWSchmidt 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a strict distinction: It seems that there can be at least two kinds of structure that could be organized -- hierarchical and network based. Topic and area inviting network organization. Brick-and-mortar terms such as school and division/department invite hierarchical organization. Just a thought: I wonder if it would interesting to restart and develop topic (department) pages using a topic/area/network approach? I might make up an alternate naming page/policy to suggest that. Depends on how much time it takes! Reswik 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that a network of categories and portals can provide all the additional flexibility that we need. --JWSchmidt 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree as I think more could be done to encourage creativity and networking. I reply similarly on your talk page. Reswik 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] portal network

History: the "School:" and "Topic:" namespaces were created in order to set up a hierarchical system of organizing the many pages of academic topics being imported from Wikibooks. I wanted an additional namespace that would be more flexible and allow topics that are hard to fit into conventional categories of academic topics. I requested that Sebmol setup the "Portal:" namespace and he did so. I hope you find that portals provide the kind of "network" flexibility that you want. In my estimation, with time, a network of portals and categories (similar to how it exists at Wikipedia) will become much more important to Wikiversity than the "School:" and "Topic:" system. --JWSchmidt 17:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems it could be so with portals. :) In thinking about the social theory and social research portals, various interdisciplinary connections are arising and yet depth of approach is likely in the interdiscip. pages and projects too. Thanks, Reswik 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity prefix

Hi and thanks for your edits on the logo page on meta. For your information, Wikiversity links can me made from any other wikimedia project using the prefix v: (as b: for wikibooks). guillom 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tip. :) Reswik 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you explain the advantage

(conceptual alt) Area -> Subject -> Topic -> Lesson
or: (conceptual alt2) Area -> Field -> Topic -> Lesson

If we are going to change namespaces at this point, there has to be a clear reason for doing so. Are you saying that terms like "area", "subject" and "field" have clear advantages over "school"? Are you suggesting adding two more namespaces? --JWSchmidt 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I reply on your talk page. :) Reswik 23:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"School/Topic is a cognitively dissonant connection." <-- I do not understand wh anyone should be having problems understanding that a school concerns itself with certain academic topics. The problem was that people were making contadictory "turf claims" about what was a school.

The problem, which several have noted, is that "Topic" is being used to refer to Departments. This can be solved by adding another namespace. 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"School is quite variable in meaning and invites everybody to form a school" <-- I think this was the original intent. I am only concerned with trying to organize the relatively few schools that are listed at Wikibooks. Beyond that, I think the community will grdually sort out its own system.

"Area/Field have variability but could be defined ahead of time such that Area relates to the 10 or 20 or 30 largest study areas in the University" <-- Right now we are using portals for this high-level set of topic areas. I think portals can patch all problems with the school system that the community developed at Wikibooks.

If you want to introduce one or more new namespaces, craft a proposal. Since it is a big change for the wiki, I'd suggest posting a note about it to the Colloquium.--JWSchmidt 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll make a simple proposal to add a new namespace to replace Topic. Reswik 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schools

I think we should support a list of schools that looks something like the one that the Wikiversity community developed at Wikiboosk. --JWSchmidt 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


"Portals seem to be at the top of a structural hierarchy now" <-- Yes, I think these portals are the top of the hierarchy and should be on the "Browse" page.

"a space for networking categories" <-- Any category can have a portal.

"I thought creative cross-cutting of content in creative ways would happen in the portal namespace -- such as with develpling social research and social theory portals (which cut across humanities, social science, medicine, professions (law, architecture) etc." <-- Wikipedia participants are free to create new categories. Every category can have its contents describd and organized by a portal.

"major Portals being top of the structure hiearchy ..... are major schools needed on browse page?" <-- Why make people navigate by way of the portals if they can just spot what they are looking for in a list of major schools?

"the main space of the network playful major categories? Or are portals both structural top and network top? If so, that is an interesting approach and something to consider." <-- In my view, portals could have done everything that Wikiversity needs...that is, I view the "School:" and "Topic:" pages as specialized portals for conventional academic units of administration. The "Portal:" namespace can be used to organize everything that does not easily fit into conventional academic units of administration. --JWSchmidt 03:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"all sorts of schools (many of which will be departments) will be there on the browse page" <-- In my estimation, Wikiversity should not be bound by any particular conventional view about the distinction between a "school" and what is a department". That distinction depends on how much effort you put into you exploration of the subject. If a group of Wikiversity participants wants to create a "school of beetle studies", fine. Yes, most people in the world will think it is silly, but there are so many beetles and so much research has been done on them that it would probaly be very easy to form dozens of departments in a school of beetle studies. I would say, as long as you have a set of specialized departments that are organized unde rthe umbrella of a school, you have a school.

"there will be eventually a hundred and more schools (departments) up there" <-- If "up there" means on the Browse page, I hope not. In my view, the "Major schools" heading should be taken seriously. This is the first place people will go for a quick guide to Wikiversity content. It should not be cluttered. --JWSchmidt 04:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What I mean about 100s of schools on browse was: Per the wikibooks page, there will be at least 50 schools (major schools) up on browse. Some new or not universally accepted or known subjects/departments will think the wikibooks list doesn't seem to be an exhaustive list. So, there will probably be at least a 100 "major" schools eventually on browse. But, 100 is not a bit deal - 100s was exaggeration. Calling 50-100 schools "major" seems strange to ear when we had just a dozen divisions as top level schools a day or two ago. But those are over in portals now, so it is not strange in the current context. The new image on the browse page works better - to indicate that departments don't go under "major" schools (really, it is top level schools, which fit now under portals). Reswik 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Reswik 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mottos

Thanks for listing my ideas at the mottos contest. I appreciate your efforts. Mirwin 04:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. Thank you. :) Reswik 08:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main page redesign

David, It seems you were correct, for several reasons, about waiting a few days to let the new main page design settle. The ability to edit the template needs to be there. And, the extra usability issues need to be checked. I moved the longish discussion we had today (which was very worth the while once I understood where you were coming from) and I created a link to this: Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design. I thought the amount of text in the string might discourage further comments on the new design -- but people can readily access it if they want. Thanks again for you input, Reswik 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking my concerns seriously. I'm about to upload a revised version of the page. Please let me know what you think. —David Levy 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Regarding the edits you made to the new design: I agree with a few and disagree with others. I did figure out how to use some of the templates. But, I could not recapture some of the elements you took out, so I reverted your edits. Elements that I think are useful or nice in this design are: The center menu; The white background for all text blocks (key); The blue background in header; The brown background in titles. Your version was too compact and not enough whitespace. I'm not sure I like that direction. There must be something in between or perhaps another direction. I wonder about creating more space for a banner. This is going to take work. Reswik 05:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. I moved your version with a few of my edits to this alternate here: Wikiversity:Main Page/Design 2. It is a distinct enough version that I think it is a fork. Reswik 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for preserving my version. I spent hours working on it (based upon the comments expressed thus far), and I would like to solicit feedback from the community.
I moved the menu to an obvious location that otherwise is completely empty. The background isn't white because the page isn't in the article namespace, but I believe that this can be corrected via simple CSS code (which I can't add because I'm not a sysop here). I retained exactly the same shades of blue and brown; only the specific locations differ. I actually attempted to include more whitespace than that, but I ran into some minor coding difficulty. (There was either too much or too little.)
I await a response from the JAWS user, but I know for a fact that the headings need to contain <h#> elements to be properly recognized. (This was what we failed to realize during the English Wikipedia main page redesign process.) I managed to successfully integrate these into some of the design, and I was working on the rest when you reverted. —David Levy 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
See the message I wrote at the top of Design (1)--in the page. I prefer the original arrangemetn of blue and brown. But, main point: The abscence of a sapce for a graphic is a flaw in this design. We need to save that right top space for that, I think. I think this is a fairly big issue for several reasons to discuss later. What do you think? Thanks for update and reply to more later. Time for bed for me. Reswik 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the space below the header (where you wish to place the menu) would be a much better image location. Otherwise, the height would be extremely limited (because it would look bad to stretch the header very much).
Regarding the original arrangement of blue and brown, my version started out that way, but this resulted in an overwhelming amount of brown (because I eliminated the bi-color headings, which more than one user disliked). The logic behind my configuration is that readers tend to notice solid elements of the same color that they're already looking at. If the left side of the page is predominantly blue and the right side is predominantly brown, they'll be more likely to concentrate on one and ignore the other. By placing blue section headings below a brown header (and vice-versa), the users' eyes will naturally be drawn to both sides of the page.
I forgot to mention that I also increased some font sizes to 100%. For the sake of usability, I think that it's important for this to be the minimum.
As for the templates, I actually needed to create copies of my own (because I didn't want to edit the existing ones). This setup is far from ideal, and most of the code really should be integrated into the page proper (which I was unable to do). Also, the editorial content needs to be transferred to templates (so that it can be edited without disturbing the main page). This, of course, won't be important until a design is adopted.
I sincerely hope that we can wait enough time for my version to receive feedback from the community, as I did work very hard on it. —David Levy 06:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking there would be a reconciliation of your version and some of elements to keep from old version. But, try as I could I couldn't make a reconciliation of your version and some old design aspects in an hour or so. This synthesis can happen now or once it goes up or over time. Doesn't matter to me. Hopefully, someone else won't take the whole thing in another direction before this goes up. Plenty time for lots of directions to be explored. Anyway, I hoped for any remaining voting to be on the "old" new design version (which is more attractive at moment imho) and so I made the judgement call to put that back up top. I understand about time: I put in many hours on the current front page design and am sorry to see it supplanted so soon. About photo position -- I think the current one could work (that is on top of Design option 1 now) -- I replaced a note I had put there with a photo as place holder. Anyway, I just woke up to jot something and saw your note. Half awake - back to sleep soon. Reply to more of your points tomorrow. Reswik 06:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I prefer my version.  ;)
In my opinion, placing the image in that position causes to header to become far too large. I'm tinkering with adding the photo to my version.
You saw the response from Graham87, who confirmed the existence of the <h#> issue. He also cited a different problem that I forgot to mention: the presence of "hiddenStructure" markup! I don't know how this CSS class managed to migrate over to Wikiversity, as lead developer Brion Vibber long ago determined that it's a very ugly (and unacceptable) hack that breaks things for many people (including users of some screen readers). I don't remember which of the templates contains this code (and I can't seem to track it down now), but I removed it when I was compiling my version. —David Levy 06:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm really gld you asked Graham to review. Thank goodness and he needs big thankyou. Good about the CSS catch too. I was going to ask you if you could fit the photo in your version. However, I kind of like a lot of white space... Perhaps I will go and stare at white space for a bit--It's too late to be up. Btw, I put in a joke title and subtitle. Please revert if you think the effort at a few laughs is inappropriate. Reswik 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah, your joke is funny! If we can't have a little bit of fun with a sample page, we're taking ourselves way too seriously.  :) —David Levy 07:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
As you might have noticed, Graham has confirmed that my version is more compatible with JAWS. (As far as I know, the last remaining technical step is to incorporate <h2> and </h2> tags into the right-hand column.) —David Levy 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey David, I think we should go with posting Design 2 when all usability issues are resolved on that. It is too much work to verify 2 designs. Then, we can revise Design 2 for aesthetic issues over time. I think that is very much within the scope of what people were indicating: Revise Design 1 (which you did per advice points) and post that. Ongoing polishing for aesthetic issues can be delt with still while the design is active. So, please post a message on the main talk page when you think all usability issues are resolved. Since I've been involved as well in developing the alt design, I think I will post a message tomorrow on the Wikiversity:Request custodian action page to request a sysop verify our reasoning and post the new design when they see your ok about usability issues being resolved (and if no strong oppositional criticisms come up). Do you agree with the points in this comment? Reswik 02:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I'm aware of two remaining bugs: the lack of <h2> and </h2> tags in the right-hand column (required for proper navigation within JAWS) and a slight image display glitch in IE. I'll try to recruit a coding expert (most likely from Wikipedia) to address these issues. I'll also move the editorial content over to templates.
You may have noticed that the English Wikipedia's main page lacks a standard header in most skins. This is accomplished via MediaWiki:Monobook.js, and I suggest that we arrange for a sysop to implement the necessary code here. —David Levy 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the mediawiki link. I posted a note (here: Wikiversity:Request custodian action) requesting a sysop to check the new design discussion and post Design 2 if they agree (once the usability issues are resolved, noting that you will make a post about that). Reswik 17:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, I posted a request for editing assistance at the English Wikipedia's village pump. Hopefully, someone there will know how to fix the remaining bugs. —David Levy 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Design 2 is growing on me. My number one wish is for more white space at the top in the title (and the photo to be resized). My preference is for the top title box to be 2xs as tall but 1.95xs as tall would be fine too. ;) Reswik 17:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the current appearance, but I didn't mind your change from three menu items per line to two as much as Rayc evidently did. Whichever variation the community prefers is fine by me.  :) —David Levy 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


I think it's great the usability issues are being resolved, but I'm dissapointed that Template:MainPageBox's style seems to be removed. If anything that template should be fixed and used. I'm also dissapointed in the removal of icons. Every major wikipedia project (with the exception of the english one) use icons on their main page. I see no reason we can't say that "Nuvola apps kuser.svg is to Community as Wiktionary-logo-51px.gif is to Wikitionary and Sciences humaines.svg is to Wikiversity". But, ces't la vie. - Trevor MacInnis 17:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Trevor, thanks for sharing your concerns. I don't think any design element is set. I think you should discuss revising the template with David. (Or just do it and reintroduce in Design 2 once it is up on main page -- with a bit of explanatory information and invite people to try it.) As it is now I can sort of use it... I did not remove it. Whatever is most effective template wise for most editors is perhaps best. I don't know if what kind of templates will work best. I think we should have some system for skins. I did not remove the icons and I am rather neutral about using that set of icons. I do prefer to see some sort of icons (as they would help navigation) but another differently styled set of icons might be better. Perhaps we can have an icon contest... :) Reswik 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't strongly oppose the use of icons in general, but I do oppose the use of these particular icons (which are a bit childish and seem rather disconnected from the sections' themes.) I'll note, however, that at Wikipedia, more users than not opposed the use of any icons for this purpose—even the sober ones that I proposed as a compromise. I realize that this isn't Wikipedia, but it's reasonable to assume that a similar consensus would emerge here if we had enough users from which to draw a comparable sample. (More users participated in the Wikipedia discussion than have registered accounts here.) —David Levy 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi David, Is design 2 read yet to post? If not, how long do you think we should wait to resolve the remaining usability issues before posting? Reswik 02:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one at Wikipedia has responded to my requests for editing assistance. I'm going to seek help elsewhere and continue experimenting with the code to the best of my limited ability.
I can't specify a time frame, as we absolutely need to fix these problems before posting the new design. (Otherwise, we'll break part of the page in IE and JAWS, with the latter bug reducing accessibility for visually impaired users.) —David Levy 05:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I agree that these issues need to be fixed. Could it help to mention to the Wikipedia people a second time that the posting of our new front page design is *still* waiting on resolving these issues? Reswik 13:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It actually will be the third time (as I've already tried posting such an update), but I'll give it a shot.  :) —David Levy 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Great. If nothing comes of this soon, I wonder if there is place to ask for help. Meta? A mediawiki project page (if this is what the issue is)? And, do you think it would help to post a call for help in the colloquium and the main talk page? Reswik 23:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that an anonymous editor responded to my third post. I still have a bit of testing to perform, but the two major bugs seem to have been fixed. One of the changes introduced a very minor display bug (tiny border gaps in Firefox), but this is barely worth worrying about (and certainly not cause for further delay). After I've verified that the code is sound, I'll update the design with the missing content and move the appropriate sections over to templates. At that point, we should be ready to roll.  :) —David Levy 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful! Great news. I just edited the browse and "What is Wikipedia" text blocks on Design 2 -- had a few ideas recently about how to integrate the new text at top of main page there. Please post a note on the Wikiversity:Request custodian action page when Design 2 is ready to go up. (Oh, unless I'm in a design mood, I'm not going to start in right away with revisions on new design page(s) for the masthead/top page design. It will be good to wait a bit and see if people post any nostes of reaction to the new design.) Thanks again very much for all your work on this, Reswik 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Reswik!  :) —David Levy 00:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for failing to get back to you. I got tied up with a bunch of stuff at Wikipedia and in the real world, and I totally forgot that you were waiting for my go-ahead. I'm glad to see that the new main page design made has made its debut. Sorry again. —David Levy 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's ok. :) Do you have any remaining questions about usability of the new design? --Reswik 02:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't. I've now viewed the page in Safari for OS X, and everything seems to check out.  :) —David Levy 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV vs. Confessions

I thought with your comments at Multiple points of view, you might like Wikiversity:Confessions better than WV:NPOV TimNelson 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up. I look forward to discussing NPOV, Confessions, etc. Reswik 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Now both Confessions and NPOV are merged into Wikiversity:Disclosures. TimNelson 12:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just pointing out that "Multiple points of view" has been moved to Wikiversity:Multiple points of view - but you already knew that! Just explaining the strange "you have messages" sign.. :-) Cormaggio beep 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I mean to get back to that MPOV page and some of the Wikiversity policy discussions and whatnot at some point. Snowed with my research work for a bit... --Reswik

[edit] featured mainspace

I was wondering, the featured content will start being discussed. Is there any room for future addition to the mainpage for something like that?--Rayc | (Talk) 05:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In the new design, Wikiversity:Main Page/Design 2, one could simply add a new box or sub-box in either of the columns -- as long as it was a shortish bit of text or a list of links and not a whole bunch of text. I don't know if we have too much room for featured pages and departments and such. I think the page is already getting long. A separate page for featured items might be good -- could even think of it as "page 2" in the online catalog. I'm hoping Design 2 is posted sometime soon. Reswik 11:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I did some copyediting of the community and communication right sidebox on the main page today. Half of the items in that box are redundant with a similar left side box (minus the explanitory blurbs). It occurs to me that those boxes could be combined - with the left box having perhaps some explanitory material. That would leave space on the right sidebar (with the community box mostly moved over to the left sidebar) for a featured learning project. The current photo space could be turned into a featured photo of a learning situation. Sound interesting? Perhaps we could move this idea to the colloquium --Reswik 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] main page question

"provides various communication media"
What are these "various communication media"? --JWSchmidt 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First, it seems quite limiting to state that Wikiversity is a website on the main page and other prominent pages. Wikiversity is a multidimensional social organization dedicated to learning, teaching, and probably research and services. Hence, Wikiversity is part network, part circle of communities (including an editor community and various learning communities), part collection of learning groups using various learning projects and more. To say that Wikiversity is a website is like saying that a university is a collection of buildings. But, even that "technological" description is not accurate as Wikiversity users work through other media and forums and may increasingly do so.
Regarding your question - Though Wikiversity is new, there are a variety of communication media and forums:
  • actual media and forums: listserv, irc, wikiversity website, pre-wikimania conferences (programming and a possible social science research pre-meeting conference mentioned at Wikimania 2006)
  • possible media and forums: email circles, class listservs, meetups, seminars, online conferences (perhaps through wikimedia website - perhaps elsewhere - mentioned as possibility at Wikimania 2006), various other online and offline media (newsgroups, blogs/blikis, offline hard/digital copies of learning materials and tools for use in needy communities).
  • Note: The "Ways to Communicate" subsection of the community portal, Wikiversity:Community_Portal#Departments, lists some ways to communicate and probably will list more over time. It seems to me that media and forums on and offline will only expand as Wikiversity grows.
The seeds of these communication and meeting options could be edited and moved to a relevant discussion page that addresses types of communication and community forums. Wherever the statement is made that "Wikiversity is a website," I hope this is edited soon to reflect the idea that Wikiversity uses various communication media and that these and the variety forums for learning may grow over time. -- Reswik 02:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If we need to mention things like chat channels and Wikiversity as a multidimensional social organization we can do so without turning a factually correct sentence into a factually incorrect sentence. Wikiversity participants make use of a mailing list, an IRC chat channel and will no doubt have meetups. It is wrong to say that Wikiversity provides such communication media. In contrast, if you remove the website then all that is left of Wikiversity is an idea. The sentence, "Wikiversity provides various communication media and a wiki website where anyone can edit the pages," is factually wrong and misleading. Saying "Wikiversity is a website" in no way contradicts or deminishes the idea that "Wikiversity is a multidimensional social organization dedicated to learning, teaching, and probably research and services". Many people come to Wikiversity and do not understand that it is a wiki website, what a wiki is, or the fundamental idea that they can edit the pages. The desire to mention other aspects of Wikiversity is not a good reason reason to take the one sentence on the main page that mentions the essential facts about editing the wiki and change it to a sentence that is wrong and distracts readers from the points that the sentence is trying to make. --JWSchmidt 04:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stating that a main medium of collaborative learning and teaching in Wikiversity is by using a wiki is a good point to feature. However, we have a significant difference of opinion. This is an important issue. The statement that Wikiversity is a website was actually factually incorrect. What I edited was more correct. The contention of that "Wikiversity is a website" should not be in what is an edited version of a mission statement at the top of the main page. The Wikimedia foundation and hence the Wikiversity organizational entity does provide a listserv. Wikimedia does provide Wikimania -- an in-person media/forum. Irc and listervers are noted as ways to participate on front page and community portal (hence the link there). Other media will be provided. This difference of opinion needs to be discussed further. I see you edited the main page statement. That moves towards describing Wikiversity as using wiki as a major process without using the limiting statement that it is a website. I think we need to further revise how we describe the vision, mission and practices of Wikiversity and that is underway on the Wikiversity:Mission page. -- Reswik 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Ps. By the way, I added these sentences to the top of the What is Wikiversity? page weeks ago because I didn't think the use of wiki was well explicated there: "The basic definition of a wiki is software that allows collaborative creation of online documents. Wikiversity combines wiki technology and culture with a variety of learning communities and projects." I think those sentences could be refined. So, I obviously do agree that we need to explain the use and importance wiki. But, it is an error in classification to say that an online "university" (or learning organization) is a website. Wikiversity provides and uses a website and various other online and offline media. This is an important distinction. It is an online community/network/learning organization (or network). More work needs to go into defining collectively that Wikiversity is a social organization for learning & teaching which uses online media, and wiki technology and culture primarily, at this point. Reswik 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] featured mainspace

Sorry, I didn't notice it on may main page! It wasn't on my talk page. Yes, I was thinking of someway for getting people from the main page to active projects. It's looks like browse is doing that now, and portal isn't that much visited--Rayc 04:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

I think learning by doing would be an acceptable motto- it motivates me, and it describes wikiversity. It is mentioned a lot; was it ever proposed?--Hillgentleman 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. This option could be suggested as an option in the learn and teach motto discussion section. -- Reswik 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Learning to learn a wiki way

Hi Doug, Cormaggio suggested that you might be interested in helping out with the Learning to learn a wiki way project. This project aims to discover effective methods of developing active learning projects. I've recently updated the Learning to learn a wiki way project page and kicked of the talk section. I've begun recruiting people by asking them why they are interested in the project and what they want from the project. Could you help out with invitations to your contacts. Mystictim 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was reviewing this talk page and I am sorry to have overlooked your post. Been quite busy elsewhere. Thanks for the heads up about this. Sounds interesting. I'll check it out as time allows. --Reswik 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research

Hey, I'm terribly intrigued by the research aspect of Wikiversity, particulary in creating a medium for bringing external research to the Wiki community. I figured you would be the best guy to talk to :). I'm a little apprehensive since Wikia has begun the same idea and seems to have progressed quite far with it (again, in external research). So here I have to ask, in essence are we trying to create the same service or do we have our own angle?

Personally, I envision researchers bringing their research to Wikiversity and publishing it as they would with any other Journal. As in all other Wikimedia, we would present broad topics within which the research is included (entitled Journals, for example Journal of Physics), and as Wikiversity Research continued to expand we would incorporate journals of further and further narrowed topics.

Work within each individual journal would be categorized by extent of their completeness, for example there would a be a section for research in progress wherein the work thus far would be presented and peers could assist the author with problems or establish connections between different research projects. A second section for completed research papers that have yet to be reviewed by peers and/or an editor of that particular journal. The final section would be of 'published' research papers, those that have been deemed by the peers and/or the editor of that specific journal as finalized products that can now be utilized by the academic community as knowledge. A fourth section that included Dissertations and Thesises (Thesi?, 'Thesis's?) would also be greatly useful, especially since currently they are mostly secluded to the universities in which they were produced.

Wikiversity Research would of course offer assistance and guidelines on how to conduct research, how to publish (both with Wikiversity and independent Journals), network with the portion of Wikiversity that is creating the section on Grants, and extensive interfacing between research (most coveted, bibliographies that actually link you to the various research papers listed in the bibliography).

As for format of research paper presentation, I believe it would be best to draw from the formats presented in all other Wikimedia, which is broad enough that it can be applied for all of our fields (physical sciences, social sciences, studies of literature and linguistics, mathematics, etc. etc.). This would behoove us in several ways, first it would allow a cohesive trans-Wikimedia format, and second it would let us avoid the narrowness of such subject-specific guidelines as APA or MLA. As Wikiversity Research advances, we can always have the experts in each field of academia provide subject-specific details to our formats, while adhereing to the overarching template. Although we may wish to simply retain a very generalized template, and forego the sub-specilizations of format for the sake of universality.

I must admit I'm not quite knowegeable about copyright law dealing with research papers and articles, but I certainly wouldn't mind authors publishing their research papers on Wikiversity as well as having the same works published by corporate journals. Ideally, it would be amazing if we could somehow begin to incorporate and offer already published work, but that seems quite impossible. I believe that is why I am so drawn to this particular aspect of the project, the academic world seems so fragmented. For any given topic, even something as narrow as Cell Molecular Biology, there are literally dozens of different journals, each requiring a subscription, each cointaining mainly exclusive articles and papers. The only feasible way to access this glut of knowledge is through a university, which is usually only available to students and faculty. I see the potential of Wikiversity Research to help bridge that chasm in academia, to bring together researchers from all arenas, at all stages of research, to collaborate, to learn from eachother, to help eachother, to publish, etc., etc.

Anyways, so I guess that's both my desires and some general ideas I have about the project. If I can help in any way, or you have any suggestions, I'd greatly appreciate it. So thanks for your time, I really didn't intend to write so much :P, and I can't wait to work with you. --Relex 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC) P.s. It might be better if you respond on this page...

Sorry for the delay in responding -- been rather busy elsewhere and will be so for awhile. 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 this one (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 would be a good place to notice that. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, --Reswik 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More research :-)

Hi Doug, long time, eh? I just thought I'd stop by to mention a project that I think you might be interested in commenting on - or even participating in. Developing Wikiversity through action research is a broadly-conceived project (it's to feed into my dissertation, but it's also fundamentally about developing Wikiversity - obviously, collaboratively). Maybe you might have some ideas of your own.

I was also thinking about what we talked about at Wikimania - ie a Wikiversity conference. I was thinking of doing something like this in the coming Wikimania (if I can get funding to go) - do you think you might make it? (If you didn't know, it's gonna be in Taipei - details here.) Or, do you think it might be worth doing at another time? Do you think a virtual conference might be doable/useful? Or, at least, some sort of IRC meeting - perhaps, on a reasonably regular basis? Just thinking out loud here - but I think one or a few of these ideas could really serve to move things forward - as I think both of us envisaged. Let me know what you think.. :-) Cormaggio beep 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cormac :) A few thoughts: I think it would be good to explore various participatory methods in Wikiversity. That's one reason I outlined some ethnography content pages gere, and I look forward to getting back to those sometime. I'll check out the action research and related Wv pages sometime in the next few months, as time allows. Sort of snowed under now.
Regarding conferences: I wonder if yearly or bi-yearly online conference(s) might be good first steps for wikimedia research. Then, when a research community gets more interactive, that could be the basis for research pre-conferences for Wikimania 2008 or 2009 or whenever. However, if someone wants to dive in and organize a pre-conference without testing the water with an online conference, perhaps enough people would show up to make it successful. Perhaps this is a question to ask via individual emails and on the listserv: to see what people prefer. --Reswik 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motto and slogan

(copied answer from Colloquium)

A bit belated this - but I think advertising on any other project than Wikiversity would be pretty pointless at this stage - we'd be starting from scratch. But yes, why haven't we advertised on Beta? In any case, I've re-added it to the sitenotice here. Cormaggio beep 12:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the contests on Beta. This seems to have drawn some participation today.
I don't think that promoting would mean starting from scratch. We could ask people to help with the last round. On the other hand, I have refrained from promotion personally as I did not feel comfortable doing that but also, I assumed it was better for people drawn to Wikiversity or involved in WV somehow to participate in this process. It is true that a contest is a way to invite participation. But, I think it is key that people with some sort of involvement will think in more reflective way about the mission of this project, which is quite distinct from other wikimedia projects. So, while participation has been unfolding very slow in this round of the contest (until today), I won't promote unless others suggest we do so. --Reswik 04:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slogan

Hi,

I am a custodian on the French Wikiversity and I wonder what we should do of the slogan Set learning free. Are we supposed to translate it by ourselves and use it or should we ask for a translation on beta or meta ? Thanks for your help. Julien1311 talk 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not been sure how to reply to your question. Is it appropriate for each language version to have a separate decision process about mottos? A discussion on beta about this is perhaps best. --Reswik 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania workshop

Hi Doug, I just added my plans for a workshop for this year's Wikimania - I saw you on Recentchanges, and thought you might be interested. Thanks again for all your work on the Motto contest. :-) Cormaggio talk 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look this weekend. :) --Reswik 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, the workshop raises interesting topics for discussion. Couple of thoughts as a first impression: I'm not sure if 20 min is enough time for discussion. On topic 1, I think any of the foci could be enough to discuss, e.g., only discuss "learning activity". Finally, I wonder if most people attending will have a grasp of these issues.
I wonder if doing actual learning activities together for 1/2 the period (on workstations in small groups) and then having a feedback summary from those groups and then having a round robind discussion might be another type of workshop format that could work?
Given time limits, I wonder if considering how WV interfaces with other Wikimedia projects might be something to approach in another session. --Reswik 01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I've copied your comments, and replied at Talk:Wikiversity workshop at Wikimania 2007 - I'll see anything you add there. :-) Cormaggio talk 10:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ping

Hey Reswik. Just wondering if you are still around and see if you have any thoughts about how Wikiversity has progressed from its genesis (per our conversations here) and how it looks now. --CQ 17:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Reswik"