Wikiversity:Colloquium

From Wikiversity

Shortcut: WV:C

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: What is Wikiversity? Wikiversity Introduction Questions about Mediawiki software Also: Chat | Mailing list | Twitter Organization of Wikiversity Portal News Chat Policies Discussions Support staff

Purge Cache - Colloquium Archives - RSS version

Contents 1 Sandboxes 2 Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2010: Call for Proposals 3 strategy.wikimedia.org 4 Redirect WV to Wikiversity space 5 "Ali" in Iraq 6 Biblical Studies and bias 7 Wikiversity:Original research 7.1 Original research: Where to start? 8 iPad -- does it have any upside to education? 9 Motivation for contributing to Wikipedia/Wikiversity 10 Japanese edits 11 CSD of images by user request 12 Wikiversity discussion at strategy.wiki 13 UK government adopts Creative Commons licenses for open data 14 "Contact us" page needed 15 English language and literature for teens 16 Advancement in reviewing questions

[edit] Sandboxes

Is there a type of page that is not "crawled" by search engines through, say, entries in robots.txt? I might (or probably will) do critical writing that I don't want the world to see until I have fully edited it. My option is to install a wiki on my web site with a password, but that would discourage critical inquiry into my critical inquiry... --JohnBessa^talk 15:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can add __NOINDEX__ to any page to make search engines like Google not index the page. -- darklama  16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ty--JohnBessa^talk 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Other option is to install Wiki to a USB sitck, so you can edit it in very similar environment, but offline. --Gbaor 17:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"...that I don't want the world to see until I have fully edited it." <- publishing some text and releasing it under the GFDL is mutually incompatible with this statement. If you really don't want the world to see (and edit) the text you should think twice about hosting it on a public server that is open to all. WMF projects are built on the founding principle of collaborative editing and sharing contributions so that they may be reused. That is the reason why the statement "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." appears every time you click an edit tab. -mikeu

[edit] Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2010: Call for Proposals

~~ Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2010: Call for Proposals ~~

* where: London, UK
* when: Saturday 24th April, 2010
* www: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/
* last year: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/2009/
* cfp: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/cfp/ (deadline: Jan 31st 2010)
* hashtag: #okcon2010

• • Introduction

OKCon, now in its fifth year, is the interdisciplinary conference that brings together individuals from across the open knowledge spectrum for a day of presentations and workshops.

• • • Culture and Education

* Open educational tools and resources
* Business models for open content
* Incentive and rewards open-knowledge contributors
* Open textbooks
* Public domain digitisation initiatives

This is just a snippet -- I thought this might be of interest to some. Historybuff 19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be interesting, hope next year will have some investments to travel more. Thanks Histo:-)--Juan de Vojníkov 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] strategy.wikimedia.org

I wanted to ask for members of Wikiversity to take a look at strategy.wikimedia.org. Right now, there are many plans and discussions that involve academia, academics, and the university environment. Our project at Wikiversity caters to various academics and teachers and tries to support them in their use of Wikis to further their role as educators. I was hoping that many here could contribute and share their experiences (pros and cons) to help with development of the various projects as a whole. I believe the future of the WMF projects is in the education environment and we are definitely key to achieving that goal. If anyone wants to individually contact the various teachers using our project, that would be helpful. :) An example of topics at strategy.wikimedia.org to pay attention to are [1] or [2]. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect WV to Wikiversity space

I propose that the WV prefix redirect to the Wikiversity namespace. This will help in navigation and creation of redirects (if required). Regards, Pmlineditor 11:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that no one else commented and that one week has gone, bug filed. Pmlineditor ∞ 14:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Ali" in Iraq

--213.89.224.57 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Does anyone know how many percent is called Ali in Iraq? Please if u know the answer, write it, because I REALLY want to know...

This isn't the right place for this kind of general knowledge question. The Help Desk is the right place. However, in this case, I doubt if they will be able to answer. I looked for an Iraq phone book, but couldn't find one. You might want to ask an Iraqi, if you know one. Just off the top of my head, though, I can only name one, W:Chemical Ali, so it's not likely to be all that high of a percentage. W:Ali_(name) lists many famous people named Ali, but only Chemical Ali is Iraqi, as far as I can tell. StuRat 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Studies and bias

I came across Biblical Studies (NT)/I. AUTHORSHIP AND HISTORICAL SETTING, and was shocked to see it representative of a very conservative Christian POV (i.e. the majority of mainstream scholars date the gospels to 70-100, while this 'course' dates them all pre-70, and states traditional apostolic authorship, where most scholars do not believe the gospels were written by apostles or eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, etc). I've done a lot of work on the wikipedia gospel articles in the past, and am quite familiar with the literature, so it was surprising to see these views here that are basically only found in conservative bible commentaries, not college level text-books. So is this normal for Wikiversity, or is it problematic (excuse me for being a newbie), and is there anything I can do to help? Oddly enough, the header at Biblical Studies reads Due to the diverse nature of Wikiversity's participants, these lessons should remain free of personal or sectarian bias, and be as objective as humanly possible., yet this simply is not the case for the subpage content. -Andrew c 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, mainstream scholars date Mark to the 40s, Matthew and Luke to 50-60, and John to around 70. This isn't a conservative estimate, but based on information that would have come directly from Paul and tracing his availability and influence in various areas. There are other historical factors that allowed for the dating. This dates have been unchallenged for quite a long time in mainstream theological and archaeological circles. Your challenge to them is rather strange. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem now. The Wiki articles do not use authority and mainstream academic publications. I guess its a bias of our times to go after slick published works and flimsy websites instead of works by people with strong backgrounds and reputations. Its a shame that the page is filled with pseudo-speculation on "secret" interpretations of words from bad translations. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am really confused by your comments (ha, it makes me question everything I've read and learned on this topic). What are you sources? I thought I was quite familiar with the mainstream literature. The likes of Raymond E. Brown, Bart D. Ehrman, Stephen Harris, you know people that write college textbooks on the New Testament. Raymond Brown is on the conservative side of things, and a Catholic priest, while Bart D. Ehrman is a bit more liberal and was the Chair of the Religious Studies department at UNC. And these are the guys writing stuff like "Therefore, there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70." So with my sources in my hand, you telling me "your challenge to them is rather strange", I have to say the exact same thing to you, ha! I must disagree with your assessment, The Wiki articles do not use authority and mainstream academic publications. -Andrew c 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My sources were various works I read when studying the Bible as part of my classics degree. I also read it in both Greek and Latin, and how it was interpreted in early Christian works. The school I received my MA in classics was not religious nor affiliated with any religion, and was one of the oldest secular schools in the US. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way "college text books on the new testament" - textbooks are not authoritative, and rarely do they have any in-depth information. Most of them also tend to have major problems. A textbook on the New Testament would be in such a low, non-in-demand area that it would be even more prone to problems. There are many, many major journals that deal with the issue. That is where the real information is. By the way, your statement about Ehrman about a book like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is rather silly, especially how it has been condemned as academically corrupt by many people. Now, lets look at the Brown claim. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary has, on page 164, the end of Carroll Stuhlmueller's essay "The Gospel According to Luke". So, we already have one factual inaccuracy. The essay on Mark is by Edward Mally. It is, unsurprisingly, at the beginning of the volume starting with page 21. The essay uses biblical evidence to state defend the early Church's attribution of the work to John Mark, of Acts of the Apostles and friend of Paul as mentioned in Col 4:10. The work then says tradition attributed the publishing of the work to just after Peter's death in 64 AD. It then says "Accordingly, Mk is commonly dated between AD 65 and 70". This would mean that the Wiki citation is a direct fraud. As a furthernote, the section tries to claim it was based on Matthew, whereas the Jerome makes it clear Matthew was based on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"textbooks are not authoritative". Excuse my ignorance. I though college level texts would go hand in hand with "Wikiversity". But I guess I have a lot to learn. It sounds like you are trying to pick a fight or something. Not a great introduction to Wikiversity for sure. If you have issues with the Wikipedia articles, I encourage you to post come criticisms on the corresponding talk pages, or jump right in with your apparent expertise. The last half of your post doesn't make sense to me, and I don't want to engage you further in that capacity. I bid you well. -Andrew c 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A textbook tends to be a summation of thousands of different topics. It would be impossible for the editors of a textbook to be an expert on every little matter and know ever major theory and thought in them. They are not to be used for expertise and cannot replace critical books and critical articles on the matter. And the last half of my post doesn't make sense? I quoted directly proof that the Wikipedia article is factually incorrect and uses a reference that doesn't even come close to saying what the article claims. You are here bashing one of our authors based on a source of information that isn't even close to academic. That is extremely rude and improper. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for Ottava Rima, it sounds to me like he is trying to pick a fight, too (but, hopefully, this isn't actually the case). As for using textbooks as a source, I'd certainly have more faith in college-level texts than those for lower levels. However, good textbooks will list their sources, so I'd then track those down and use them as references here. StuRat 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, StuRat. If you look at his global contribs, you will notice that he has come from Wikipedia after expressing a strong POV there. He has also made claims about works like the Jerome Biblical Commentary and referred to it as by "Raymond Brown", who is merely an editor. Those familiar with the work would know that it contains individual articles by individual authors and would have referred to each on their own. This is one of several problems. He has contributed nothing except this line of commentary. It is safe to say that of the work, Edward Mally (of Jerome) states that the work contains passages that would place it between 65-70, but this allows for it to be written and revised over many years. Likewise, it also places Matthew and Luke after (according to John McKenzie and Carroll Stuhlmueller of their individual sections) and allows for them to be pre-70 AD. This is not represented on Wikipedia, even though this same book is used to make a claim of post 70 AD and also that Matthew came before Mark. That would mean that the discussions, partly joined by Andrew c, are claiming to have authority with this volume yet do not say anything close to what the volume actually says. I find such matter distasteful. I will not pursue the matter any further. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, as you apparently are confused, the quote in my post above, from Raymond Brown, regarding the wide scholarly agreement is on page 164 of An Introduction to the New Testament ISBN 0-385-24767-2. I can see how the footnote in the Wikipedia Gospel of Mark article was confusing, so I fixed that, but it took me a minute to figure out you were referencing that in the first place, as I was talking about the texts I have sitting on my desk (by Brown and Ehrman), not the Wikipedia articles, nor the Jerome Biblical Commentary, nor McKenzie, nor Stuhlmueller. You are going on and on nitpicking some text that I never brought up, nor own. I'm glad you take issues with it, and have associated it with me, but you are mistaken, and I will not be drawn into such a debate further (I just wanted to post to try to clear things up). -Andrew c 04:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"The other end of the spectrum is more problematic, for there is no way of knowing with certainty how early Mark was written." p. 164 in An Introduction to the New Testament. "This remains true depsite the claim of J. O'Callaghan in 1972 to have found a few words of Mark 6:52-53 on a Qumran (DSS) Greek papyrus fragment (7Q5) that paleographically has been dated between 50 BC and AD 50 (give or take twenty-five years). Such identification might imply that the Gospel was in circulation a decade or more before the destruction of the Qumran community in 68. " Furthermore, the quote actually is "Therefore, there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70."

What I need to know from you, Andrew, is if you are here to cause disruption (as you blatantly misconstrued the quote in a highly inappropriate manner to skew it towards your own POV) or if you are here to actually benefit the community. Since the above quote does not match what you claim the work actually said, and left a lot out, I will ask you to stop this immediately. If you want to put up your own project about the New Testament, you are welcome to do so. But I will not appreciate someone coming in here and only contributing attacks on one of our users based on half-truths about what a work does or does not say. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are drawing at straws, and I'll gladly leave you alone. -Andrew c 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The page you mentioned seems to have been solely edited by User:Gmasterman (with the exception of someone who added a category to it), so will tend to reflect only his POV or the POV from which he derived his info. He does appear to have been a Wikiversity contributor for a long time, so I don't have any reason to think he's intentionally putting false information out. I suggest you talk with him on his talk page, provide references to support your POV, and hopefully you two can come to an agreement on what the article should say. One suggestion is to include both POVs. StuRat 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Excuse my ignorance. I was just unsure of the workings of Wikiversity and basic policies and dispute resolution here and so forth. Still is a bit overwhelming, but contacting the contributor would be a good start, thanks! -Andrew c 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm also curious about your usage of the terms "conservative" and "liberal". In the US, they tend to mean Republican and Democrat, but I doubt if you are using them that way. There's also the meaning "sticking with the old ways (or interpretations, in this case)" for conservative and "choosing the new" for liberal. A third meaning could be that "conservative"=religious and "liberal" = secular. A fourth could be "conservative" = "literal interpretation of the Bible" and "liberal" = "purely symbolic interpretation". So, which defs are you using ? StuRat 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity includes resources for people at any point of their education. Wikiversity is not limited to college or university level materials. Works are allowed to be biased. If works are intended to be biased they should clearly disclose the intended bias. Multiple works on the same subject can coexist on Wikiversity. I think what the views are, what is agreed on, what is disagreed on, and the fact there are agreements and disagreements should all be included in this work since the work clearly discloses the intent to be objective. That way people can independently come to their own conclusions without being lead. As for dispute resolution, I suggest looking for common ground and what you do agree with first, and work from there. If collaborations seem unlikely I suggest starting a separate learning project where your views can be nurtured and grow in peace. -- darklama  16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity:Original research

Dear all! As we all know, one of the "advantages" on WV is, that it accepts original research - as we keep saying all the time. The other fact is, that the policy itself is not official! I think it is about time to change it. After the rollback policy discussion some time ago nothing happened in this field... Please read through the proposed policy, and discuss/vote on its talk page. Any suggestions welcomed! --Gbaor 09:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there are several problems with this.

1. English Wikiversity has several overlapping proposals that I think should be merged
2. Some English Wikiversity's proposals are intended as a guideline and others as a policy. So to what extent any statements should/must be followed seems undecided
3. These English Wikiversity proposals seem to be dated and as is might be of historical value so should be preserved yet need to be updated as well.
4. Research guidelines that are suppose to apply to all Wikiversity projects, including English Wikiversity, already exists at Beta Wikiversity.

-- darklama  14:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Some good points!

1+2 This needs to be clarified. Which overlapping proposals you have in mind?

3 I am not sure about the historical value of a page in this particular case, because this can be traced down via page history itself (for example this was the first edit on the Colloquium). The pages has to be up to date for policies and guidelines, according to me.

4 Now this is interesting, we can definitely use it. Just don't know if we have to transwiki it, or a copy paste is sufficient? --Gbaor 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I started Wikiversity:Research process yesterday to address the overlapping proposals, and to provide a fresh start. You can find some of the proposals in Category:Research policy proposals and others in Category:Research. There may be even more uncategorized.

I don't think there is a need to transwiki the research guidelines from Beta Wikiversity. Links to the guidelines as is already done should be sufficient. -- darklama  17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then... First I thought that it could be confusing for the reader, when reading about the original research at WV and to have the research guidelines on an another site (BetaWV in this case). But if we clarify this, as you said above ("that are suppose to apply to all Wikiversity projects, including English Wikiversity") it should be sufficient. --Gbaor 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Original research: Where to start?

Hi all, is there any page (that I would have then missed unfortunately) playing the 'role' of Postgraduate Coordinator of the Faculty of Research?
To answer questions like: I have a project of research (cross-diciplinary in my case) and I already hold a reasonnable level/experience in research (as well as using Wiki editors), where (which school, etc) do I start? -- Silwilhith 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Feel free to contribute any kind of original research to WV. The best is to place it to the main namespace (without any prefix), and link it to WV pages and external sites. Don't forget to categorize it as well, even with multiple categories - as you see fit. The details around original research are under discussion, you are welcomed there as well. --Gbaor 12:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] iPad -- does it have any upside to education?

[This article] argues that the iPad has dissapointed the eLearning industry. This is a commercial perspective, but would such a device have any worth in Learning?

One interesting point that they make is that the iPad has no Flash support, and that makes it less attractive. Personally, while I've seen some well executed Flash, there is lots of flash that is poorly done or just fluff. Does eLearning really need Flash to reach it's goals? Historybuff 18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if textbooks and literature can be displayed on it, that would make it of some value. Printed textbooks are a problem due to their expense and weight. The iPad, like the Kindle, could certainly help with the weight issue and perhaps reduce the expense a bit. A bonus is that it's good for the environment to toss out one iPad every few years instead of a few dozen books. Of course, eventually students may all just carry a notebook computer, or at least a netbook, which would make the iPad redundant. Thus it's only advantage would be in having a price point below those items. StuRat 14:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Its just a tablet, so I don't really see what is so big or new (we've had them for many, many years). By the way, books tend not to strain the eyes as much as computers do, and computers have been known to have ill effects on the brain, so the old fashion way is always superior. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly informed about the iPad, but since/if (?) it has internet access, we might want to be aware how WV pages will appear on the iPad...though on devices like the iTouch and iPhone it's probably more important, since there's more reformatting involved. Just a thought. --Trinity507 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation for contributing to Wikipedia/Wikiversity

I was told this is the place to ask questions. This is to people who are contributing.

Needless to mention that I'm a newbie. I was really impressed by the contributions people had in WIKIPEDIA.

The question isn't a productive one for either of us or shall I say it is in a way. I could write for improvement on articles for no less than 16hrs/day.

Q: Do you get paid for this work? OR What are the benefits, monetary or otherwise, one could have by a great contribution like yours?

The answer can't be recognition as all this can and will be deleted or changed or updated, probably before I die. It is true that change is constant and inevitable but creation that lasts the longest is more powerful. Thinking of writing an article or contributing so much that lasts for 100 years after I die (like you did) but need more out of it for the time I live.

I could do a lot of this if I get anything out of it, I think. Rather this is what I love to do. But I also love money. I don't want to do it as a selfless service as of now. I'd better have my own blog to document my thought process that no one could edit. I know wikipedia is an encyclopedia, needs existing knowledge and isn't a book about undocumented inventions, theories or simply ideas but I'm equally good at this. I've thoroughly studied all the articles from Getting started onwards (still a lot to learn on formatting). I was learning some Wikipedia's own rule for using bold and italic. I simply loved the fundas.

IF there is no answer then I probably have this feeling of 'giving back to the society and getting contentment by the selfless work' post 65yrs of age.

Hopefully I'll have an honest and helpful answer.

P.S: I do not want you to take this message de-motivating in anyway. If you have a slightest of that feeling in the corner of your heart please feel free to delete it and do not care to reply. You've done an amazing job buddy and I don't want you to rethink on your credits due to this scribble of mine.

--Amit Bhise 07:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiversity, Amit. Wikiversity is a non-profit organization. I don't get paid for contributing to Wikiversity. There may be some people who are paid by their job to contribute to Wikiversity, but Wikiversity does not pay anyone, and I don't know of anyone who is paid by their job to contribute.

People have different motivations for contributing to Wikiversity (and for supporting Wikiversity with monetary donations for that matter). Some people may be motivated because they feel contributing will earn them recognition. Some people may be motivated by selflessness. Some people may feel that learning should be free, or that charging people for an education is wrong, and will be motivated by that to volunteer their time helping to make learning free. Some people may feel like they have an obligation to help others and be motivated by that.

What motivates a person can directly effect what benefit that person sees in contributing to Wikiversity. A person being paid by their job might see a limited monetary benefit to contributing to Wikiversity. Someone whose motivated by a feeling of obligation might see helping others as the benefit. Someone who feels that learning should be free might see contributing to a free resource for learning as a benefit. There is no one correct answer. The answer depends on the person and what you make of the answer. Giving back is also a possible answer.

All in all, people find Wikiversity a useful resource.

Wikiversity does welcome your ideas and theories as part of any learning you wish to do. Wikiversity is different from Wikipedia in that way. -- darklama  12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First, do you realize that this is Wikiversity, not Wikipedia ? Here the rules are a bit different, and you can indeed have your own research or project area that nobody else can edit.

Now, as for the basic motivation, I recently watched a documentary, "The Human Spark", which studied differences between humans and other animals. One that's pertinent here is that humans seem to have an innate desire to teach. Why should this be ? Well, being that we are social animals and rely on one another for survival, helping out other humans is likely to help you and your family, say if they return the favor and help you out some day. This was far more likely when we lived in small groups, but, thankfully, many people still feel the desire to help others who are very distant from them.

Another way to look at it is that it's essentially the same motivation as those who give to charity, such as donations to Haiti. Some give out of altruistic motivations, some so they will feel better about themselves, some so they will be recognized by others, etc.

Finally, I suggest you use better titles for any additional questions, as "A question" tells us nothing about what you are asking. "Motivation for contributing to Wikipedia/Wikiversity ?" would be a good title. StuRat 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese edits

User:Okanosato was previously blocked (June 2009) for 6 months for putting up copyrighted material in their user section. They are now posting up quite a fair amount of Japanese pages. Another user, Gogochiben, did the same and I blocked them for one day until I sort everything out (others can extend it if necessary). However, both cause us a certain problem - we are not the Japanese Wikiversity, and it is hard for us to check copyright. How shall we deal with this issue as a community? Should we contact the Japanese Wikiversity? Beta? Ask for some cross over? Etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, contact either (or both) Japanese WV or WP to help sort things out. --Gbaor 09:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] CSD of images by user request

I wanted to ask how the community feels about possible CSD via user request. I deleted three images - File:6barvariableE.jpg, File:6bartrussEAConst.jpg, File:5 bar awesomeness.jpg, based on the uploader stating they were no longer needed. Their project still links the pages. Should we delete such images based on the uploader request or should we keep them for longevity (i.e. document what was there before)? If that is what we decide, then we should discuss the matter with the instructors of classes uploading such images. By the way, if anyone wants the images restored then I have no problem with that. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, if the uploader wants an image deleted, it should definitely be, imho. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should depend on the file. I would be inclined to favor keeping files which are of a good quality, and have a decently descriptive name. Once a person submits or uploads their own work they have given everyone a right to reuse their work, and they cannot just decide to take that back. -- darklama  13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity discussion at strategy.wiki

Please come and visit the Wikiversity discussion at strategy.wiki so we can make any suggestions, recommendations, etc, to the WMF for future planning. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I put a few words in. Mbrad 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] UK government adopts Creative Commons licenses for open data

Just a short note that might interest people in here. Free databases! --Gbaor 09:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Contact us" page needed

I have recently found out that we lack a "contact us" page and anything notifying people about OTRS and other information that would help allow for the creation of educational content here. I was advised that Wiktionary's model would be a good model to follow. We should also develop an information page that would allow for educators to process their work through OTRS to allow previously released items to be released under Wikiversity's GFDL requirements. Once a "contact us" page is created, it would be necessary to have it on the Navigation bar to the left of the screen. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity already has Wikiversity:Contact. I assume there was/is likely a reason why there isn't a link on the navigation bar. I don't know what that reason is though. Why is having this on the navigation bar necessary? I only ask to encourage community discussion. -- darklama  22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What if we added a list of active users (maybe sysops?) to the contact page, along with links to their talk page and email addresses? That might make this page more useful. Not sure we should have that page on the nav bar - colloquium/help desk should be enough for most Q&A needs - but maybe this page should have a more prominent link somewhere? --Trinity507 00:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] English language and literature for teens

English language and literature for teens: My new pet project, in addition to the School:Ethnology - I noticed there doesn't seem to be a lot of secondary-level English. Two questions of mine would be, one, are there any teen participants on WV that would like to help me out? And two, I was also thinking of running a "school newspaper" through this department, if I could find enough teenaged partipants (I'm a teen not actually at university but at the tertiary level in everything except math, for the record), and on a slightly less important level, if I could think of a good title for such a newsletter/paper/blog/etc. A little help? --Trinity507 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of, an interesting w:Wikipedia:Wikivoices episode about minors and Wikimedia (specifically Wikipedia) that might be relevant to this project: w:Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode 50 --Trinity507 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Advancement in reviewing questions

At project opening it has been declared:

Eventually, it may become possible for the Wikiversity research community to facilitate publishing of peer-reviewed research reports that would be recognized as a reliable source, able to be cited in sister projects such as Wikipedia and Wikibooks.

I wish to ask, whether there is an advancement in this direction at other language sections of Wikiversity SergeyJ 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any advancement in that area yet. I don't think any Wikiversities have even a decent answer yet as to how Wikiversity can facilitate peer-review. Whether Wikiversity will ever be recognized as a reliable source will probably be up to sister projects to decide. I think the only thing Wikiversity can do is to try to meet some standard that sister projects can accept. I think that might require Wikiversity initiating discussion with other projects on what it can do to become recognized as a reliable source. -- darklama  17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether and there are in English Wikiversity reviews, researches which could be recognised by authentic sources? (Would like such to become?) Can be eat desire to discuss this point in question from English Wikipedie (me it difficult as I do not know English)? SergeyJ 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)