Wikiversity:Colloquium

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

Start your discussion here
Please sign with -- ~~~~
Welcome

Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for! You can also find some general information at

Communication: Chat · Mailing list
Organization of Wikiversity
Conflicts
Discussions
Support staff

Shortcut: WV:C

 On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 21 days old.
Purge Cache - Colloquium Archives - RSS version

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

RSS

Contents

[edit] Requesting a new extension for Wikiversity (do not archive until activated)

Note: people have continued voting although the extension we are talking about now is technically the new http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SubPageList3 (with a 3 at the end) which I am working on to fix everything the devs complained about in the old one. Does anyone have a problem with applying the vote to the upgraded version? --McCormack 11:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For my vote: yes (see below). As discussed in IRC: any code change - can have not yet known effects on Wikiversity. The extension was not yet tested with the Mediawiki version from this Wikiversity (1.12alpha). Perhaps testwikipedia could be asked to use it first ? So we could see there what kind of effects may happen.
I appreciate McCormack's work so far very much, who has given effort to improve this and help WV with it. This is just that unforeseen things may happen in relation with other (newer) software parts. ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erkan. The responsibility for ensuring that extensions do not cause programmatic damage does not lie with the community (thank goodness) but with the MediaWiki developers. The community votes on the basis of things like features and screenshots, taking into account educational value and achievement of the mission. The developers subsequently check the code and may require modifications for safety reasons. These are not things which the community could or should be responsible for or voting about, IMHO. --McCormack 11:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion and voting

Going through the available MediaWiki extensions the other day, I came across this one: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SubPageList2 . This is something we really need. It automatically creates internal navigation for learning projects with subpages. The extension itself creates a simple bulleted menu in its basic version, but has lots of options attached. In actual usage, some of us would build templates around the extension, so that the end-user (teacher) would place something like {{zap}} at the top of their pages (that's seven keys to type - very lazy), and a whole dynamic navigation system would appear for the learning project. This would pretty well revolutionize Wikiversity's ability to internally organize learning projects. To the developers: how soon can we have this? To everyone else: what do you think? --McCormack 09:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It does sound interesting - or at least I'm trusting your judgement on it. :-) I'm not sure if requesting extensions is done through bugzilla - if it hasn't been tested before on wikimedia wikis, then I'd imagine one of the devs would have to have a look at the code... Cormaggio talk 09:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds just what I need. --Bduke 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. --mikeu talk 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But would like to see the new version: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SubPageList3 first in use somewhere . ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Patience, patience. I'm already moving at near light speed. ;-) --McCormack 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
As requested, you can now see it. Link down below. --McCormack 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
--71.164.246.16 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
My support. Anyway as Cormaggio pointed it hasn´t been tested before on wikimedia wikis, so we might be the first to enjoy its proes and contras:-)--Juan 09:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks useful and prudent. --Remi 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This does not appear to meet my needs for structured lesson pages for a course. --Robert Elliott 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All active participants in the Greek Wikiveristy have voted in favor of the activation of the extension. If the bugs/problems you are mentioning are fixed, we will be happy to have the ability to use it in el.wv. I wish I could help you with the cleanup :( . [Here is the link of our voting. --Image:Assassingr_signature.svg-- (profile|chit chat|email) 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Belated, but I vote my support for this extension too. I've read the developer's response. It will take some work, but I believe it would be a valuable addition to the functionality of wikiversity. TWFred 17:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly belated vote in support of implementing this extension in Wikiversity. Countrymike 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical requests

McCormack: is it possible (to implement) to sort the subpages after time of last edit ? ----Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There will be future updates to this extension IF the initial version is approved and activated by Brion Vibber. --McCormack 06:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from the developers

The developers have initially rejected this request on the basis of the internal programming of the extension. Although the extension is listed on MediaWiki and based on a (now de-listed) extension by a MediaWiki developer, it has had some code additions which the current developers do not like. The report below suggests that this is fixable, but we would have to clean up the extension code ourselves. The rejection note is attached below. Do any programmers want to help me clean up the code? --McCormack 05:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a quick review of this extension:
- Unused variables in several places, including variables that get 
 filled with data using string operations (line 547)
- The content of the subpages will be loaded even if no preview is 
 requested (lines 567ff). This costs a lot of ressources.
- Odd code: 
   if ( $this->debug || $this->debug == 1 ) {  
 (line 276). The "|| $this->debug == 1" part is superfluous.
Overall, I don't think that we should activate this code.
JeLuF

[edit] Current developments

I have started a new extension at mw:Extension:SubPageList3 to clean up the old code and make it acceptable. --McCormack 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who asked, and anyone else, you can view examples of the almost finished new version at http://www.qedoc.org/en/index.php?title=Subpagelist_Extension. Please note that extension testing has to take place away from Wikimedia servers, which explains the external link. Comments can be left either just below or at mw:Extension:SubPageList3. --McCormack 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If you still need assistance, let me know. I have a little time here and there, and can help in code reviews or testing. Historybuff 06:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: the current state of affairs is that the extension is now sitting on SVN waiting for activation. Quite a lot of Mediawiki developers have reviewed and helped with the code, bringing it up to their standards of expectation, and the extension was also internationalised (the Greek WV will be happy about that one). However it's not certain yet - the main developers still have to OK this. --McCormack 08:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another update: the code has now been reviewed by the main developers. Changes were requested and made. So as of today the extension is once again queued up for an "OK" or "not OK" to be issued. --McCormack 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messages to archivebot

  • Do not archive. --McCormack 14:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Campus Radio -- Reloaded

I'm launching a drive to get Wiki Campus Radio back off the ground.

My main focus right now is to get this session, or some facsimile, to happen, to kick off the party. Once this bit gets launched, I'm going to open up the airwaves, or podwaves, so that we can use this as a wider community.

I'm being bold, and I hope that I can make arrangements to deploy this wide and far, and in a robust and open manner. I don't think this is undoable. In fact, we have most of the basic pieces already working, to one degree or another. We need a spot to integrate them, and move things forward. I'm hoping we can find a home for this on the Wikiversity:Sandbox Server, either sooner or eventually.

So, what do we need? Guinea Pigs^H^H^H^H^H participants willing to try new software with an open mind. We also need sound editors, maybe someone who can program or write computer scripts? (I can do all of this, but I'd like to have more people help, so more people can help run this, and more learning goes on). Basically, anything for audio/audiobooks would help.

We _may_ have some test sessions, but the goal is to develop some content which we can feed out to the world, either for Learning Projects or as bits to tell people that Wikiversity exists. Historybuff 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Historybuff. I'll state for the record that my experiences with Asterisk (the software 'on trial') have been not great so far - however, this might be down to issues with my computer and/or internet connection. I think people who are part of the test phase will have to be patient - and I think it needs to be considered a test phase - from my experience, we're not yet ready to plan a session as above and be relatively sure that we'll all be able to hear each other ok. I don't mean this feedback to be negative - au contraire - I really hope we can get this working well soon. :-) Cormaggio talk 10:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Histo, as I see you asked begin of February about ssh access on the sandbox server. What happened with it ? Regarding the mails apparently nothing :-(
Count me in for (test) sessions. ----Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Me too (unless it's this Saturday)--Rayc 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Erkan - I haven't heard anything solid, but a brief IRC chat indicated it was possible.

Rayc, Erkan: Do you have times that would be good? Due to a computer problem, I've lost access to a Time converting tool I was working on, but I'm EST (I think that is UTC - 5). Please let me know when would be good.

Cormaggio: I don't think our recent chat is indicative of the quality that is achievable with Asterisk. Most of our testing up until now, the main issue hasn't been hearing each other, but simple things like getting it set up and lag from one particular participant. That isn't to say we won't have any further issues, or that I'm unwilling to consider using other software. I'm actually hoping to get our solution solid enough to work with "alternative" software such as Skype and others, and even the Public Telephone system.

Your point about patience is definitely on point here, though. No matter which software we try, it'll take patience from participants. This is definitely a learning project, and while the end result might be something we use as a tool at Wikiversity, we'll have to learn how to use it first. Historybuff 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Do you have times that would be good?" I live in a timezone with UTC+1. Preferring times in the evening. Contact me in IRC, for faster coordination always. ----Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat 06:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erkan, UTC+1.. I think that means mid-afternoon here, which would be early eve there might work. I had some technical details to work out on this, and I think we're in good shape now. So, all we need is time, and we'll be good to go. Historybuff
Find me in IRC then, ----Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I should have some more time to focus on this after March 25. So, should we aim for March 26 for a session? :)
Right now I'm going to attack this from two sides. I'd like to develop a feedback system, where people can comment/leave a message about something. In parallel, I'll be trying to put together actual programs. This will allow people who can work on a specific schedule the ability to participate, and those who can't hold to a schedule or our chosen schedule isn't good for will also be able to participate. Historybuff 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As said, I am available :-) I would say we talk again the day before.
I am also thinking to use it (once) in the reading group: Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War. Will ask what the others think, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I'm actually back. This week is a bit hectic, but I can try and schedule a session. And Erkan, I'd love to try and facilitate a session fo your reading group. I did notice one participant complained about not having sound on his computer; depending on location, we might be able to connect him by PSTN.
Anyone have a suggestion as to a date? I'm leaning towards the middle of next week (say Wed), but if people have a strong preference we can do it before that. Historybuff 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the reading group does the sessions Saturdays usually. I put it on the agenda for this week, so perhaps on 5th February ? but first we will see what the others say.
PSTN: nice ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey Erkan, I'm assuming you mean April 5th, unless you have the new Gmail time shifter already installed and working. :P
I think that is a good target date. I can block off an hour or so, and am fairly flexible with time. Anyone else want to join in? Historybuff 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the 5th April will work. We didn't come to talk about that - too busy with other things, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tried downloading and listening to a web cast, yet it was in such poor quality that I couldn't listen to it for too long. I think a campus radio for WV is a wonderful idea, why not do it better? EugenSpierer 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Webcast Academy

JWSchmidt/Cormaggio directed us to this website to present this: Webcast Academy My name is James/Eurominuteman. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.52.121.201 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 1 March 2008.)

Welcome. Thank you. --Remi 09:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JEE Course

I would like to create a course for JEE, the new Java Enterprise Edition. Everbody who is interested in contributing or participating, please join in and drop me a note, if you want! --baum 10:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome around here baum. Perhaps it could help others, if you add some content, so others can see how it will go ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Erkan, You're really everywhere, immediately! Yes, that's a good idea. I decided to start on my own, while everybody is welcome to join in --baum 10:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG! --rawrbitch 10:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

I've recently checked the Category:Possible copyright violations and found a few articles have been marked as Copyrighted material since last year, no comments were placed on most of the articles which have been tagged as copyrighted am I alright to erase them. With the above comment I wanted to check to see if it doesn't meet the criteria to be on Wikiversity mainly because of what is on the actual article. Terra 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List the articles on Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion and give the rest of us the usual 5 days to check. Then delete if there are no objections. --McCormack 04:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Note that if you wish to link inline to a category, write [[:Category:...]] with a leading colon. --McCormack 04:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What may happen if the articles are not removed? Can wikiversity be subject to law suits? Or is the contributor to blame? Furthermore, if the articles will someday be hosted on a server placed in a country not adhering to copyright laws, are they still subject to law suits? EugenSpierer 11:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't get to a law suit - it would start with a request or a take-down order from the copyright holder (or a comment from someone who just happens to notice it), which we would surely comply with, if copyright was clear. Legal precedent in Germany (the only country where a court case has ensued from Wikimedia content) has been that Wikimedia has not been held liable for misrepresentation etc on its sites - though there's no guarantee that every country's legal system will judge it this way. I've no idea about the last part of your question - I presume you're referring to mirror sites - but I wouldn't concern myself with this. In general, my attitude to copyright is to address it as quickly but also as methodically as possible - without being too alarmist, while also being sensitive to the tone of the complaint. Sometimes it is possible to convince the copyright holder to release text/images under the GFDL, which is always the preferable option. :-) Cormaggio talk 12:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Level assessment

I think one of the most important things that should be established is a method of reliable student assessment. I propose such a system to include the idea of apprenticeship, where highly ranked contributors could teach newly arrived students about a certain topic and rate their progress formally by assesing the apprentice's contribution to wikiversity. Ofcourse such a system would require a system of contributor ranking which, I suggets, should be based upon a person's contributions to wikiversity in the past and a joint assessment of their quality.

--EugenSpierer 11:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of w:apprenticeship. But I also think that each learning resource and course would want to evolve it's own system and assessment style. -- Jtneill - Talk 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with your idea, Eugen, is one of staffing and time. Even at a university with salaried staff, this would be a rather people-intensive task. At Wikiversity, with a thin scattering of volunteers doing the admin, it's currently not practical. For the moment, the best we can do in the way of tutoring and mentoring is training people to do maintenance tasks - see Wikiversity:maintenance. See also w:Service awards for something fun. --McCormack 06:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that assessment is something we need to think about - it may not currently be practical for a student to expect their contributions to be assessed, but it is at least possible for an active contributor to assess another contributor's progress. I like the idea of apprenticeship, but I think this kind of initiative could include the assessment or feedback of a peer learner, and not necessarily someone who is 'more knowledgeable' (by whatever criteria). This kind of thing could be organised by templates on people's userpages - the question for me is how the process would be validated. Cormaggio talk 12:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts... perhaps some self-assessment models/tools could be part of the 'package'. I see there is Wikiversity:Assessment, but its about assessing wv content, as opposed to assessment of achievement of learning objectives. Is there somewhere else where this topic has been previously discussed? -- Jtneill - Talk 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure - perhaps more on IRC than on-wiki - but this is where JWSchmidt could be helpful with his encyclopedic pointing skills. ;-) The Instructional design people set up an assessment template that worked for their course, but I agree with you that different courses and groups will have their own methods and criteria of assessment. I think that Wikiversity:Assessment should probably be merged with Wikiversity:Feedback and/or Wikiversity:Quality to make way for a more focused discussion on assessment models for Wikiversity. (Actually, Eugen already mentioned a possible "contributor ranking" model which would address validity, and which has been discussed in relation to article validation - however, this needs much thought to work properly, or at all.) Cormaggio talk 12:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of adding multiple answer questionnaires to reading lists, in which learners could test their own process of learning? I am thinking about structuring some bioethics courses for wikiversity, which would consist of solely reading lists, questionnaires for each item in the list and their answers. --EugenSpierer 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds absolutely fine. So, how are people to test their own learning with a questionnaire? Are you thinking more of a quiz? Or do you envisage other processes alongside a questionnaire (such as keeping a reflective diary/blog)? Cormaggio talk 07:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking about a self assessment in quiz form, yes. The learner should read the text, maybe summarize it in his own words and then have the quiz just to make sure he understood the text correctly. In this way, I am both avoiding the need for someone to voluntarily check the learner's understanding of the text, as well as minimizing the amount of initial text that I would have to write in order to get the course up and ready. EugenSpierer 06:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A lack of a preponderance of learning materials may in one sense hinder ability for a lack of reliable assessment. When a diverse set of learning materials are well developed and communities formed around these, perhaps some sort of assessment will naturally emerge. I like your suggestion though. : ) --Remi 09:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Wikiversity

"Hungarian Wikinews, Erzya and Extremaduran and Gan Wikipedia, and Japanese Wikiversity are approved projects currently waiting creation."

Just so you know what is stewing:

[show] Wikiversity Bulgarian 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Catalan 2 Verified as eligible 28-Dec-2007 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Czech 2 Verified as eligible 23-Dec-2006 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Finnish 2 2 Verified as eligible 28-Mar-2008 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Gilaki 2 Verified as eligible 14-Jan-2008 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Haitian Creole 2 Verified as eligible 06-Feb-2008 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Hebrew 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Hungarian 2 Verified as eligible 03-Apr-2008 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Korean 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Limburgish 1 Discussion 01-Mar-2008
[show] Wikiversity Persian 1 Discussion 30-Jul-2007
[show] Wikiversity Polish 2 2 Verified as eligible 04-Apr-2008 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Portuguese 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Swedish 2 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007 analysis
[show] Wikiversity Turkish 2

From: Meta:Requests_for_new_languages#Open

--Remi 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Wikiversity won't be created until GFDL 1.3 is released. Portuguese Wikiversity has been included in the next batch of approvals and Finnish is in a very good way. All the others still have a lot of work to do.--ZaDiak 12:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Browse page

I've been working on a new browse page for Wikiversity for some time. I have activated this today. If you were used to the old one, the novelty will probably shock. You can still access the old one if you prefer it. The new browse page has a number of ideas behind it. (1) It makes heavy use of the category tree extension to list wikiversity content dynamically via the category system, which means the page pretty well maintains itself. (2) It uses multiple paths and metaphors which cater better for the needs of our diverse user types and which avoid any stereotyping of wikiversity (e.g. only for US universities, only for certain resource types, etc). A self-criticism would be that the page feels rather like a train-station now - but then educational institutions do actually need some notice boards which feel like train-stations. Other pages, such as portals, can adopt friendlier, decorative and lounge-like styles. Hopefully people will feel that this is an improvement. --McCormack 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is good (and thanks!) - but I think the most confusing thing about it is not the 'train billboard', but the categories by which we have Wikiversity broken down - by: "University Faculty", "Department", and "University School". Why is it like this? (I realise that that's what we've been doing historically, but I'm asking the question with a fresh impetus.) I'm wondering if it's time to rethink our structures (see eg this proposal). Or perhaps - somewhat less drastically - we might keep some of the structure that's in the top box along these lines, but simplify the rest of the page by facilitating browsing by simply subject, user type, and resource type. What more do people need? And as far as giving a user-friendly overview of Wikiversity to parallel this page, we could make better use of the following: Wikiversity:Examples (an attempt to give some examples of Wikiversity material/activity), and Wikiversity:Featured (an attempt to 'showcase' the best of Wikiversity). Cormaggio talk 14:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The answer to your question "why..." is that while I have a taste for revolution, I don't want to go too far on my own. The new browse page is mainly an exercise in technological innovation, but somewhat respects the status quo in terms of structure. If you wish to extend the revolution to structure, I'm with you. On the other hand, I've seen you over-simplify some things, Cormaggio. For example, after a lot of thinking about things, I reckon that you cannot combine pre-tertiary and tertiary guides - the gulf is simply too great. On the other hand, the reason I kept both "faculty" and "school" was that there was apprently a big fight about this before my time here, and I didn't want to resurrect the fight. There's the additional problem that you can't simplify the browse page until the category system itself is more coherent. The current category system reflects many incomplete attempts to rebuild the haystack, which means that if you cut out some of the multiple guides, you simply make large parts of Wikiversity inaccessible. Put it another way: the revolution must start with categorisation drives, from the bottom of the pyramid. Someone has to visit every single school and department page and recategorise them before those parts of the system can be removed from the browse page. --McCormack 13:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a few things missing, eg. Reading Groups; and it's a bit confusing to see how to edit the page given that its made dynamically from the category tree extension. McCormack, what is the best resource for looking at how one might go about using/editing the category tree extension? and perhaps we should put a link/note about this on the talk page. Countrymike 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
To add things, you need to edit the category system, not the page. The views depend entirely on the category system. If you wish to add a resource type "reading groups", then you must first create a category called "reading groups"; then put the category "reading groups" into the special resource types category, and then add some reading groups to the "reading groups" category. Put it another way: it's up to you (and everyone else) to really dig into the category system. It's no more difficult than just using categories properly. If you say it's "confusing" when trying to edit the page, it's because you should be editing categories instead. The browse page itself won't need much editing, and I can help anyone who's confused by it. --McCormack 13:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added some instructions to the talk page of the browse page. --McCormack 13:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Reading groups appears now in "By Resource Type" (by moving Category:Reading lists below Category:Reading groups), ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Countrymike, You are not supposed to edit it a lot- if you have the good habit of putting things into categories, mediawiki would finish the job for you. Hillgentleman|Talk 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm cool with the categories; I just didn't realize that you needed to add another category to the actual category page to get it to work. Thanks. Countrymike 00:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good work on a portal of portals. Except that I don't agree with your views on schools and faculties: schools are "wikiprojects" organised by subjects, mostly without regard to the level; faculties were just convenient names (which some folks dislike) for portals.Hillgentleman|Talk 16:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I just add that I like the new page - and I like the old page. Do we need to replace the other? Can the old be renamed to something else - or vice-versa? e.g., maybe the new page is a 'navigation' page, maybe the old is a 'browse' page? e.g., the task I set myself on both pages was to find psychology - I found it quicker on the old page. And I haven't worked out yet what category to add to School:Psychology in order to get it showing on the new page. But I do like not only the new page, but also the potential it indicates for greater use of category-tree dynamic navigation. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Jtneill: the answer to this (the psychology problem) is that the current category system is poorly structured and needs an overhaul. The browse page currently simply reflects the category system, which has previously not come under the spotlight. Think of it as taking the clothes off Wikiversity for the first time. Should we just put the clothes back on to hide the many structural issues we'd like to ignore, or should we put Wikiversity through a complete health restoration programme by getting the categories into order? --McCormack 04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hillgentleman: thanks for your comments about schools and faculties. I think it's more complicated than you say, because different people had different concepts at different times. But I'm all for better structuring, provided we can efficiently find everything. --McCormack 04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newcomers and the browse page

Has anyone thought about how newcomers might react on this ? A user probably might click on one of the categories and then I am not sure if every newcomer understands that categories are just a means to structure and not to create content there (we could actually think now: why not create there also content ?)
see e.g. this user and the edits Should we ask some recently new comers about this ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 15:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a newcomer would want to edit that page; but if she really does, it would guide her to form a good wiki-habit: put your page in a suitable category so taht others can find it! Hillgentleman|Talk 16:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
One solution to Erkan's newcomer question is this: important higher level categories should use a template which inserts some explanatory text. --McCormack 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Groups

I think Wikiversity could do a lot better if we encouraged some sort of group system. The system would be something like a page for new people to get into groups with other new people who are interested in the same or similar subjects. They could agree to meet at times, and research different things, then upload the information gathered to the wiki. We would probably want to limit it to a sane amount of people, but other than that there is a lot of room for new stuff. Like some of the users declaring themselves teachers, and some researchers to get information more efficiently, and also encouraging research and learning through interactions with other users. (20-100 users in a group maybe?) --V2os 03:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

>a page for new people to get into groups with other new people
Do you mean using things like this (categories, userboxes, enhancing social features, ...) ? Also the Wikimedian Demographics can be used with its categories to find people. Perhaps it also helps to look at Portal:Reading groups. The page/info you ask for could be mentioned either at registration or in the welcome-message.
Besides that: any user can create a wiki page where others can join - though new users need to know how to find this page. I hope every user can find the central spots to get help from WV participants: e.g. Colloquium, Wikiversity:Help desk, Wikiversity:Request custodian action
May I ask if your comment above results from your activities so far from here ? If you feel like there are not so many people at a learning project where you are yet, you could increase awareness, e.g. do again a post here, look if you have the page listed on all places where it could be or ask participants from other (wikimedia) projects: e.g. find similar topics in Wikipedia and then find interested people either from the talk page or the version history or pages which link to that page. Or even make a note in the mailing list of Blender-group itself ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 06:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a small problem with simply creating pages, you could have a complete beginner that requires level 100 classes join a group that is doing level 400 kind of stuff. It could be worked around if there is only one such person, but it would be much better if they were time sensitive to incorporate more users into similar groups. No, it is not about my articles, the idea comes from how classical universities worked. Simply a bunch of people who wanted to learn got together to do that and research. If the same approach is applied here in a more targeted manner it could work very well.--V2os 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree - it is a real need to allow people to find people who are eager to share a learning process that is appropriate for both/all people (this could bring together two or more people at the same level, or people who are just a bit ahead/behind each other in order for the people that bit ahead to consolidate what they know, and/or which could be validated by someone that bit more 'advanced'). This requires software tools to enable people to find and get in contact with appropriate people - like the ones Erkan mentioned. But perhaps there are simpler, more currently applicable ways for people to at least let others know of their interest; this could include adding your learning idea or question to a page - either a general page, or one focused on the subject of interest. What would be good to have in place in order to facilitate this process better? Cormaggio talk 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this sort of problem, and for a while now I've felt that Wikiversity needs a new "hub of activity" as it were, other than the colloqium,where users could post messages basically along the lines of "I just started this resource and I need new students- anyone who is interested, please come" or "If anyone is interested in _SUBJECT_ please contact me and we can talk about it" or "Would anyone be interested in starting a group to do _blank_". People seem disinterested in this sort of thing when it's posted at the colloqium. Instead of adding this function to the colloqium's uses, it may be better to have it elsewhere- so only those who are interested in finding new groups and projects would have it on their watch pages, and so those who want to join a new, currently active group don't have to look hard to find it. --Luai lashire 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if we can involve also Wikiversity:Page creation requests for the above ideas ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 12:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A group of 100 people is a nice utopian goal, but there are simply too little people on Wikiversity to fill all the vacancies. In order to achieve this goal, there needs to be an appealing way of interesting people to join.--Daanschr 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well there would have to be people in multiple groups, and that number is more about introductory information, with the people being able to branch out into different, more specialized groups once they've learned all the shared knowledge that's used from early classes. --V2os 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To refine the idea a bit more: Wikiversity using a system of individual wiki editors who do not communicate that frequently is not getting us very far in terms of material. Most all of the subjects are incredibly lacking, and only one editor has taken part in many of them. However if we encouraged every user to join a group that corresponds to their field of study (computer science, art, etc...) from the moment they register on wikiversity, we have a much better chance of getting many people to work together on at least the starter classes. Within these groups we need to also encourage the roles of teacher (person who tries to ensure that the others understand and practice the material) and researcher (person who finds material that is important to subject and inputs it somewhere in the wiki.). Of course allowing for multiple teachers and researchers in the same groups. A system like this should be more than 2 times effective than the current setup.--V2os 23:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Terra/Help Contents/1.0

What do user's think of this version for a possible replacement to the original Help:Contents i've included all of the possible links which was on that page, and in my opinion it's ready to be transfered. Terra 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. Good work... On a related note, do you know where I can can get free/open language font packs, or where I might look in the help section to find out? --Remi 20:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Terra. Looks good - well done, and much friendlier than the current Help:Contents. Is there any order in the listing of links within each section? In some places it looks alphabetical, in others it looks like perhaps some other order. I'd suggest alphabetical might be most logical. Either that or perhaps reduce to relatively few 'featured' links per heading such as at w:Help:Contents. These are my initial thoughts on looking at/using the page. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added a header template to the above layout on the User:Terra/Help Contents/1.0 however I'm having problems with aligning the text, I'm wanting the Communications Methods aligned in the same position as the Welcoming on the left, and also the Getting Started I've been trying to align it a bit higher but for some reason the text seems to be going of the page when I try it (in preview). Could any one have a look at it and see if they could fix it. Terra 07:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Terra, I had a look and I think the vertical alignment problem could be due to there being an empty cell at the top of the r.h. column. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've managed to fix it, how does it look now - I've also included the Policy link on it which could have also solved the problem. Terra 11:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In reply to Jtneill, if you want order, then the category tree extension could be used, building on the "help" category. That would result in dynamic content. --McCormack 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks really nice! I didn't know about half of these pages :-o . I am just missing the maintance hub there (maybe in the section "Editing Wikiversity"?) --Gbaor 12:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Done - thanks for noticing didn't realize i've missed that particular page out. Terra 12:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about a link to something like All help pages? Is there any internal way of linking to this? -- Jtneill - Talk 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You may use plainlinks, e.g. : Wikiversity front Hillgentleman|Talk 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice, Hillgentleman, thanks for the plainlinks tip :). -- Jtneill - Talk 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
or you can link using Special:Allpages/Help: which is an internal way to do it. --darklama 01:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So simple, thanks Darklama. Would anyone know a way to show all subpages? e.g., all subpages for a user page. -- Jtneill - Talk 02:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean like all your subpages? --darklama 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe you want just your subpages? Or do you mean something like {{Special:Prefixindex/User:Jtneill}}? --darklama 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's it - lovely, I'm really in heaven now. All of those are very useful options, Darklama. Now, can I push my luck further, while we're here? I've been wondering what is the difference between using subpages (/) and subspaces (:). Usually I see subpages, but sometimes I'm seeing subspaces e.g., in the MediaWiki help pages. -- Jtneill - Talk 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Whilst in wiki bliss, I just wanted to share that I've realised that {{Special:Prefixindex/{{PAGENAME}}}} could be very useful. -- Jtneill - Talk 03:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've included the Special:Allpages/Help: Link in User:Terra/Help Contents/1.0 does it seem alright in it's position. Terra 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine, Terra. I've added some other 'micro' suggestions/comments to User talk:Terra/Help Contents/1.0. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talkpage

A user have asked me to protect their userpage which can be viewed via here - I've asked for a reason for wanting a page protection but there hasn't been any problems to qualify for page protection - I've only semi-protected three of my subpages because they affect my entire userpage and subpages. Terra 08:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this protection request derives from this this edit? Interesting issue. Is there any policy or guidelines about the Wikiquette of editing other's user pages to which we can refer? -- Jtneill - Talk 08:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge - there may be one on this site - but I think i've heard of one on Wikipedia, they have a lot of Policies but that's for Wikipedia though, and the Policies are different on each Wiki sites. Terra 08:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
About editing user pages: see here: I invite others to edit mine.
See also: Wikiversity:Be bold. There is no mine or yours here in wiki-verse : it is all ours (Mediawiki software offers when creating a new page for everyone the "edit this page"-button). I think many problems in the world are because of such thinking ("this is mine and not yours"). But together we can reach a better way - not by bringing "bad behaviours" also into this world. See also Rousseau's quote about fences ("The first man who...") here.
Wikis work best with trust: if we go about what might go wrong in the future (and there surely are many things), we would have to initiate more security mechanisms. And with every of these we become a less freer place. But even if one does these, a smart person always can find a way around this. We can be a place for anyone (see also possible ways to turn v.nd.ls into constructive editors)
"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikiversity".
So, what arguments are there to protect or not to protect that specific user page mentioned above because of that edit ? We recently had a discussion here about protection. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 08:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, great stuff, Erkan, I love the Rousseau quote and am a fan of 'trust is what makes wiki go around'. So, if a user page is just another page which anyone can edit, then we should get over our taboo about editing other user pages. In this case it seems we should be careful not to discourage others who provide accurate edits by protecting against them? The manner of course could have been different, but that's a separate issue. Particularly if this was an accurate edit, then it seems to me that the response should not be to protect against such edits. If a user wants a space which is not edited by others, perhaps it should be on another domain? At the bottom of editing all pages it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." -- Jtneill - Talk 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Erkan, I liked the text on your user page, so I put it here and modified Template:Edit page - see what you think:
This page (and any subpages) are part of Wikiversity. If you have ideas to make the content "better": Be bold, edit!
-- Jtneill - Talk 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the template - and I tell you why, because
  • you left out: "You will get also feedback to your edit."
This was actually still in the thinking process from the real world: "threatening" others that their edits may be controlled again. So I like that you removed this.
  • and added: "(and any subpages)"
this is also going one step further, because the idea counts for all pages
I have replaced the text on "my" user page with this template.
I just see this and other things as a part of developing: everybody starts fresh in the wiki-verse and I think with time and many edits one gets to realize more truths. Though I must say I also still fall back from time to time into old habbits :-( Since Wikiversity is all about learning, let's see where this learning experiment with "explicitly reminding of open user pages" will go (for oneself and others).
I am sure there will also be (good and bad) side effects, so nobody is forced to join so openly. I think for many editing other users pages is easier than to accept that someone edits ones user page. Because that involves that you are able to handle e.g. critiques. People should not forget: we can revert anything in the wiki verse. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 12:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This is nuanced territory. I've always followed the etiquette of not editing another person's user page unless it was reverting vandalism. I don't see it as a taboo, I just think it's being polite, and recognising that another person has organised their user page in this way, which they find appropriate. If I don't understand or disagree with something, I would bring it up on their talk page - clearly, editing it to reflect my view would simply be provocative. I think it's useful to allow people to have their own personal space (such as the nurturing of a personal learning environment) - though which does require some guidelines in order to mitigate badwill. Furthermore, I think a culture of trust needs to be extended to trusting that someone has their page that way for a reason, and that "merciless editing" is not such a productive stance when thinking of the individual. I've had constructive edits of my user page (eg [1] :-)), but clearly the edit which prompted this request was quite sneaky vandalism (to anyone else, it could well have been the user themselves, editing while not logged in). Even still, I'm not sure this is cause for protection, even though I agree with more thought around how pageprotection processes can be used as an educational tool. Cormaggio talk 12:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides reverting vandalism there is also possible to correct typos, making better interwiki links to wikimedia projects (than http:...). In the German Wikiversity I have seen how someone called this "service". Personally I have made all these 3. I just think now what other reasons I had to edit user pages ?
"merciless editing" is definitely a way to scare a newcomer off from the wiki project :-( So, it is definitely a good approach to tell the person whose user page is edited or going to be edited to inform about the change why it was/is going to be done.
"Actually I also want others to learn with this." - this is for me a point where I would like to do more. There could be made e.g. a survey who edited so far user pages or not. And then ask: why ? Probably it is a boundary which users set themselves though technically it is possible in a wiki. Mediawiki enables the "edit this page"-button right from the begin.
Let's see how it goes with that learning project "explicitly reminding of open user pages". Everybody is invited to improve this user page (there is certainly some things to improve). ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 10:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The learning project Did you ever edit another userpage than "yours" ? was initiated - please share your ideas. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 11:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New main page

I've been working on Main Page 0.5 for quite some time now. I'd like to ask people their opinions on activating this as the Wikiversity main page now. The current main page (from December 2007) is my rather hurried attempt at updating the August 2006 version. The new one (Main Page 0.5) has a very great deal more in it. The text is largely an effort between myself and Cormaggio. The colours were discussed some weeks ago in another thread. One of the more radical changes is the substitution of "yesterday's featured project" for Wikiversity's first ever "picture of the day", which is a rotating schudule of (currently) 100 educational images with captions and carefully selected links to useful categories at Commons. The navigation has been updated to use the dynamic category tree extension (on the right), and I have started to create new portals and guides into which this new navigation system can link. Anyway, shall I activate it? What changes would people like to see? --McCormack 13:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Very Impressive, you two have done very well - I think it's ready to be activated. Terra 18:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks quite nice. It would be nice to have an updated main page sooner than later. It displays fine for me on IE but in FireFox there is a horizontal scroll... [ posted by Remi ?]
As far as possible changes, it would be nice if we could have the whole space filled somehow. Additionally, the whole right bar seems a little squished in FireFox, and no horizontal scroll. However, it seems aside from the horizontal scroll it could probably be implemented and be beneficial. --Remi 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Remi. Thanks for the feedback. Yes, you are correct that different browsers and screen resolutions need checking. If you could take a couple of screenshots and post them to my talk page, that would be great! --McCormack 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that horizontal scroll was there yesterday - I suspect its the size of today's picture? 121.223.176.189 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) -- Jtneill - Talk 06:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
On horizontal scrolling: the background is that educational pictures are more detailed than pretty photos, and so they tend to need more space; hence the picture of the day takes up quite a slab of space in the centre. However I think this is worth it. For people with small screen resolutions, this can result in a play-off between an uncomfortably narrow right hand column or horizonal scrolling - i.e. you get one or the other. If people think that horizontal scrolling is better, then I can force a minimum width for the right hand column. --McCormack 06:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I kind of liked the old plain colour scheme because it leaves the dynamic content to stand out e.g., esp. featured project and featured picture. 121.223.176.189 06:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) -- Jtneill - Talk 06:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (grrr, since signing up for unified login, I seem to get regularly logged out???)
Erkan says that on old Safari browsers (3.0.4) the right hand column can just cut over the sister projects box. --McCormack 06:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice, the horizontal scroll issue seems to be fixed. The question popped into my head; how would it be if the help section was moved to the bottom middle? It seems it may balance out the layout some. Oh, I see it is at the main page now. Nice. : ) --Remi 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Remi. On your suggestion about the help box: you've missed my cunning plan, whereby the right-hand column (inc. help box) is also a standard part of all major portals - see, e.g., Portal:Secondary Education. One can also balance things out by deleting some old news items. --McCormack 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We'll by all means... That sounds good and reasonable then. =D --Remi 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Horizontal scroll is back today... --Remi 01:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I still need to fix some of the maximum image widths - did some of the music ones this morning. --McCormack 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion page opened up for this topic

I've created a FAQ and discussion page at Main page learning project/April 2008 Redesign. --McCormack 12:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:OhanaUnited/Sister Projects Interview - the earliest publication date is April 21

Would someone help summarizing the statements made so far on User:OhanaUnited/Sister Projects Interview ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The new date for publication is Apr. 28. --mikeu talk 12:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The first merge was done. Please someone have a look about this - also assume good faith if you find something not mentioned (which is actually important), ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've given this a light copyedit and tidyup; its now over at w:User:OhanaUnited/Sister Projects Interview/Wikiversity. If others get a chance to take a look that would be good. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thx very much, Jtneill. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A thought on transclusions

Subpages used as soley as transclusions should not be given their own page in the namespace at which they are used as transclusions. They should be in the template namespace. They arguably just contribute to clutter, especially if they serve the purpose of soley being used as a transclusion and cannot hold their own and hold no particular use wholly as an individual page. --Remi 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a complicated one. In recent months I've tended towards the view that if a transcluded thing is sufficiently important, it can go in the main namespace. A classic example of not putting transcluded-only pages into the template namespace are staff elections. A more recent example is something like Main Page/News which I moved from the template namespace to the main namespace (along with a few similar pages). The argument against doing things like this is that if someone does a search, by default this search is restricted to the main namespace, so you don't want odd transclusion-only subpages thrown up in the results. However this argument doesn't work with Wikiversity, where all the namespaces are searched by default anyway. The strongest argument for this (and therefore against Remi's suggestion) is that a template is fundamentally intended for multiple use in different contexts (e.g. Template:image), so if a page has mainly text/image content and only has one intended transclusion, it isn't really a template at all. I can see all sorts of ways of arguing this one! --McCormack 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help:Contents

The new version of the Help:Contents is fully activated the old format have been moved to Help:Contents/Old for users who still wish to use it, however though those who have been assisting with the new version will be able to fix or add links directly to the Help:Contents without having going within the user-page Contents - so it may prove useful to some of you with it being updated officially, also I've updated the Header on the Wikiversity:Help desk. Terra 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] A Proposed Course Model

I think that in order for WV to dramatically increase its number of learning projects a non compulsory model should be devised, with which authors could build course and which would not require the author to add a whole lot of content, thus making it easier for him to start a project and rely on learners to add content and discuss it. I am therefore proposing that course be based on reading lists (and potentially external links to the reading list items). Each learner would then be able to read an item from the list and write down a summary of it or correct an existing summary. By standardizing courses, clutter can be avoided and efficiency increased. I am not proposing, however, that this course structure be mandatory. EugenSpierer 08:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this Eugen. I think it's a fine model - have you seen Portal:Reading groups? (A good example of something similar to what you propose is Ivan Illich: Deschooling Society.) However, perhaps you're proposing something different from a reading group, per se. You might also like to take a look at the page on Wikiversity learning model, which I've been hoping to develop and discuss, eg Wikiversity learning model/Discussion group. However, feel free to create a new 'meta' page on, say, "models for developing courses". Cormaggio talk 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read those pages, yes. This is not meant as a reading group but as a proper course structure that would make it easy on anyone who wishes to write a new course. He/She would only need to devise a reading list instead of rewriting any information relevant to the course.
I am currently working on a course based on this model. I'll start with it and see it the model has any potential or if it catches on.
And this brings me to an interesting question. Can a reading list be copyrighted? EugenSpierer 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
We should perhaps talk of resource types rather than course models, and yes, the resource types should be considered an open-ended thing where educators can experiment with and add new ones. The issue of whether or not a reading list could be copyrighted might turn on how original and non-obvious it was, which might in turn depend in part on its length and detail; but I wouldn't recommend googling for every reading list you can find and mass copying them onto Wikiversity on the assumption that they are all public domain, if that's what you have in mind. --McCormack 10:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ofcourse not. The original author's consent should be acquired beforehand. EugenSpierer 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it might be better to actually generate one's own lists, rather than go off googling. Building a collaboratively developed reading list for and by the people interested in that subject strikes me as a better way of developing a learning project/group/community, than simply adding someone else's list, regardless of its licence. Cormaggio talk 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right, but I believe not many people have read enough about a certain subject to write down a big enough reading list for what I have in mind (a very detailed course). The effort can be collaborative or based on an existing reading list, which would give such a course a strong base.EugenSpierer 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topic subpages & research page location

I'm trying to get my head around some structural aspects of WV and am pondering:

  1. Can/should a page in the topic namespace have subpages? Or should it essentially link out to content in the main namespace?
  2. Where could/should a research-focused page for a learning topic be located? e.g., given "Topic:X", where could/should a page about "X research" reside? (Note that "X research" may be a research project; or it may intially just be a summary of research in a field). Should the page be "X research" in the main namespace, or "Topic:X/Research", or something else? -- Jtneill - Talk 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the chance (!), I'd do the following to the topic namespace, in order of preference. (1) Get rid of it. (2) Try not to use it. (3) Redirect to more appropriate namespaces. (4) Use subpages only for subcomponents of pages (as with portals and the main page). I'm not sure I represent consensus here, though! --McCormack 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've understood it, the topic namespace is there effectively as a disambiguation page for multiple resources on the one subject, and as a means of organising links to relevant content (and of course, creating new links). I think the topic namespace is quite handy - I'm not sure what you're suggesting in its place, McCormack. In any case, I think content should be in the main namespace, so a research page on X could be called "X research", "X/Research", or more specifically named variants on these, eg. "A mixed methods approach to understanding inclusion in schools". In the "topic" way of doing things, this would be linked to from Topic:Inclusion, Topic:Research on schools, Topic:Mixed methods research, etc. Cormaggio talk 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, the Topic mainspace is intended as an intermediary between a disambiguation page and a portal. I'd suggest that portals and disambiguation pages are sufficient by themselves and that there is no sufficient gap or gulf between portals and disambiguation pages which justifies a namespace of its own. For example, there is already sufficient flexibility in the portal concept for distinction between major, minor and perhaps further gradations of portal - and this is easier for people to understand. So what are the chances of establishing consensus on exterminating the Topic namespace, do you reckon? --McCormack 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks McCormack and Cormaggio. I think I'm clear now that subpages (whether about research or other matters) would not belong as part of a Topic namespace page (unless perhaps they contained transculadable content used on the Topic page in question). I am still pondering though (like you) what Topic is for. According to Wikiversity:Naming conventions#Topic it could be for a department, division, centre, etc. and contains organisation of the development of materials. I guess I'm curious to know what advantages there are in having such content at Topic:X compared to X? -- Jtneill - Talk 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, a disambiguation page is for topics whose names overlap or have multiple meanings (eg "reflection") - on Wikiversity the scope for overlapping is much greater, encompassing also different learner levels, different audiences, and different perspectives. A topic page is meant to serve all those functions, as well as allowing for links between related subjects, which wouldn't be fully covered under "disambiguation". Also, a topic page is meant to be easily editable so as to facilitate development of new content in a given area - a portal page is meant to be user-friendly to the person looking for content, but it is not so easy for people to edit such template/code-heavy pages in order to develop their own content. Any alternative to the topic namespace would have to have both a highly flexible organisational function, and to be easily editable for a newcomer who wants to add content in a given area. And as a side comment on all this, I think we need to have a fairly intuitive system that encourages people to be as specific as possible in their naming of pages; as well as, recognising that people don't always do this, a manageable system for 'wiki-structuralists' to rename, interlink, and disambiguate pages of a similar topic, in order to help people find and develop related content. Cormaggio talk 09:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean that Wikiversity:Naming_conventions#Conceptual_maps no longer applies? --McCormack 09:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added the first few sentences of your definition to Wikiversity:Topics, because it is the most illuminating thing I have yet seen about topics. Could you extend your comments by explaining how the school namespace fits into this? --McCormack 09:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I would like to see the School namespace phased out, and I am now wondering about Topic too. :-) I've spent the intervening time between my last comment and now reading the naming conventions talk page - for JWSchmidt's background on Topic and School, see Wikiversity_talk:Naming_conventions#History. I've never been fully happy with our structure, which has clearly caused significant and prolonged confusion - I personally dislike calling anything a "faculty", "department" or "school", and would prefer some system for simply aligning a group of people around a particular subject area (see discussion on "groups" above). I'm now wondering if Portal and Category should be our only structuring namespaces, and have organiser pages (analogous to disambiguation pages, but slightly expanded) in the main namespace for the variety of resources etc on any given subject. The most compelling reason I see for having any other structure would be to enable people to guide learners along a certain learning path (sometimes previously referred to as "streams") across existing resources which span several subject areas. You might also call this a "course", but I see the possibility of paths that do not follow the route of courses created so far (eg Filmmaking), which are pretty much self-contained units. "Paths" could be organised by the Topic namespace or a new one - but really, any naming for structuring knowledge or activity is going to be problematic. And, of course, phasing out or replacing the Topic or School namespaces would be a massive undertaking... Cormaggio talk 10:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the Topic namespace was actually very well argued for in SB Johnny's approach, here - a quite simple Topic + Categories idea that required almost no ontological overview of Wikiversity to get things going and somewhat organized. Self-created and maintained portals just get us back to the old department/school/faculty mess that's been bothersome for so long. I'd be more in favour of promoting the use of Topics and then using the type of Category extension being used in Wikiversity:Browse to create portals to content. If possible Portals should be automatically generated while Topics are simple to edit, add learning resources (in the main namespace), etc. SB Johnny put it like this: "Topics are annotated by human editors who create a sensible narrative connecting the resources linked from a topic. Categories are added so that the software can keep track of pages, and so that the software can be employed by human editors to make interpretations using DPL and other functions that enable the MediaWiki to do automated things that human editors don't have time to do." Countrymike 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The arguments for the Topic namespace sound fine - in theory. The practice, however, seems to be rather messier, e.g., what to do with something like this Topic:Visual Basic, which is basically a course. Should it