Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2008

You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.

Extension:EasyTimeline

Personally, I've been wanting to be able to do graphing on Wikiversity for some time. With User:Hillgentleman's encouragement, I added a bug request for mw:Extension:EasyTimeline to be enabled, and have been asked to point to the (as yet largely non-existent ) community discussion about this! So, I invite you over to Wikiversity:EasyTimeline to add support, questions, or concerns. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for distraction, but it was already enabled! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I believe it has just been installed. An hour ago, the graph on this page [1] didn't appear.Hillgentleman|Talk 07:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiScience launched

WikiScience, a project to bring together researchers on wikis and tools for researching wikis, particularly Wikimedia projects, has just been launched. The site itself is here, some initial context (from WikiSym) is here, and some further clarification on its scope etc here (albeit with formatting problems). As this latter link shows, there's been some discussion on the wiki-research mailing list about what it proposes to do that's different from Wikiversity - but it does seem to have momentum, ideas, and tools of its own. Looks like a promising area for collaboration... Cormaggio ^talk 10:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the introduce GPRS, and What diffferent btn Bluetooth and GPRS

Iam ask why the introduce that devices.What the different btn Bluetooth because iam not very familly with those staff. Which one is faster than other I remain Ayasi Ramadhani-Mbeya,Tanzania,East Africa --80.69.8.190 07:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ImageMap upgrade?

For the MediaWiki-tech-types, I'm having a problem with using ImageMap in a template here: Template:SPP/Participant/Email and as explained at that I link, I think to resolve we need an updated version of the extension on the WV server. What do you think? Should I file a bug report? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this problem seems to be solved by Darklama. --Gbaor 17:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Gbaor, sorry, should have posted this back here. I'm most appreciative of Darklama's wiki-wizardry assistance and also on some related questions on that template recently from Hillgentleman. Darklama and others, I would like to more about #tag - I could not find much on searching mw: -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Magic words. #tag is used to work around the common problem of not being able to use wiki code inside tags, like template parameters. {{#tag:tag-name|normal stuff inside tag with wiki code support|arg1=val1|arg2=val2|argN=valN}}} translates into <tag-name arg1=val1 arg2=val2 argN=valN>normal stuff inside tag with wiki code support</tag-name> --dark

lama 01:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digesting :).... would this help here? Template_talk:Note or is there another fix? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't help there, tag refers to html/xml like <tags>. The problem there is the "=", because of that it thinks everything before it is the parameter name and everything after the parameter value, and since the parameter name is not 1, 1 isn't set. To work around that you need to be explicit by adding 1=, than the next "=" will be seen as part of the parameter value. --dark

lama 14:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Department of American History

After a period of stagnance, I am restarting the Department of American History. The first course will be a survey of US History that I am teaching. If you are interested in US History and can design more courses, come on down. Geo.plrd 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC) --Geo.plrd 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learning to learn a wiki way

Learning to learn a wiki way appears to have become inactive... it seems the project has gained a new nuance. not only "how do you learn best though wikiversity".. but also "how do you learn in a project, if no one is participating"... its just begging questions about leadership and ethical and moral considerations about moving an interesting project forward, without the project author.

as a newcomer, its truly hard to completely understand the wiki way, with experts who 'volunteer' as such. possibly to find themselves much less knowledgeable than many others. 'interested' in contributing then becomes perhaps the most important of all qualifications for any particular 'job'...

so what if all the educators whom started that project are too busy too contribute- do I have expertise because I find the project intriguing?? But despite NOT being an educator, doesn't an interested newcomer need to thoroughly understand that topic? --Jolie 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are excellent questions. I think there's certainly something to be said for the value of the participant over the non-participating "expert". You raise on question I'm very interested in, however: what effect do abandoned projects have on participants who find them? Are they discouraging? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Myself, I pondered the project for awhile before proceeding. It is easier to join an active project. I admit to being a little discouraged. However, As a newcomer to wikiversity I have alot of enthusiasm and interest in experiences I have not experienced.

An abandoned project does not neccessarily need to linger on uncompleted; however I think it is normal for strong alteration. It is not my intent to alter this project but as a scientist in a technical field; I am not familiar with PAR (participatory action research).

while a novice may be able to adapt to a new approach given good instruction; he/she still must proceed with an approach that he/she can understand.

Forums such as this that still hold references back to this project, offer hope for any uncompleted project. It is possible that an abandoned project might greatly modify the intended vision of that project by a new project leader with a different point of view.

--Jolie 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)::[reply]

Indeed; I do not really see anything wrong with a project changing course if it can be brought to grow again. I think the large number of stagnant projects here is sad, but getting consistent participation can be very difficult. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Community Review‎

I have brought two items up for community review. Emesee 02:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is currently a vote about should JWSchmidt be unblocked?. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost discussions

--U3006567 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to re-locate my previous e-portfolio homepage so that I can edit the entries --U3006567 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)gladys[reply]

Social Contract Course

I am considering creating a course on social contracts. These are an important part of history and philosophy. As the cumulative project, we will be creating a social contract on Google Knol that would be applicable for Wikiversity. Please contact me if you are interested in being a part of this course. Geo.plrd 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what social contract is exactly. but I am sure that I am getting a little busy, I don't want to be too busy to do a good job on existing commitments and inquiries. Good luck on your new course.--Jolie 10:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

organizational question

Dear Custodians,

I'm a college educator in Seattle, and new to Wikiversity. I decided recently that I wanted to post content from my on-the-ground classes here, and began doing so this week. Before I get too far, though, I wanted to make sure I was stumbling down the right road, in terms of naming conventions and my general approach.

Here's what I've put up so far:

My hope ultimately is to create a page that lists all of the courses (eventually there will be 8 or so), where my students can go as a starting point to access these resources. Is that possible?

Thank you, Steven R. Arntson Stevenarntson 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to the colloquium to discuss this! Generally, Wikiversity prefers that all projects are made as open as possible: in other words, if you'd like to make the materials accessible to everyone, you should probably not include "Arntson:" at the beginning of your project names, but rather make them English Composition, Analytical Writing, Freshman Seminar, etc. It would be ideal if you could work with the Department of English Literature (which includes aspects of Writing) in developing content. Now, if your only goal for Wikiversity is to create a hub for your students to interact on, and you aren't particularly interested in developing content for everyone here, this may also be okay; in that case, all of your project pages should probably be a subpage of your profile page. Specifically, you'd want to move your pages (using the "move" tab) to User:Stevenarntson/English Composition, User:Stevenarntson/Analytical Writing, User:Stevenarntson/Freshman Seminar, etc. Personally, of course, I'd prefer to see you develop content in conjunction with either of the English Departments here right now, but if that's not your goal, you're still welcome to bring your class here to explore education in another fashion. BTW, there are currently pages in development at Composition and Writing. You're welcome to restructure or contribute to those pages in whatever way seems preferable to you.

BTW, consider using as resources the English Language Department (which hosts the English Language Reference Desk), and the Writing Center. The Writing Center has several writing-related resources, and the Reference Desk is a place where your students (or you, of course), are welcome to ask any questions they might have about the English language—including grammar and punctuation questions, of course. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice; my understanding is slowly increasing! I think for the moment I'll begin developing subpages on my User page, so I can address specific scheduling concerns for the courses, and then look for ways I can contribute elsewhere, and direct students to resources in the wider Wikiversity. I've appreciated the openness I've encountered here so far. Best, Stevenarntson 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, I'd say you don't need to do this in your userspace - there are many groups of pages in Wikiversity which have been worked on for a discrete length of time, by a discrete group of people. You could think of an intuitive 'parent' page title like Seattle English class or College level English writing (or whatever) and make the other pages subpages of this. Or you could create an organiser 'topic' page (eg Topic:Seattle college English, or something), which links to simpler titled pages (such as English Composition. I'd say the main thing is to be explicit about what you're doing on the 'parent'/'organiser' page - ie put a note there saying that these pages are in development, by these people, within a certain framework. That means that people who stumble over them will be able to figure out what's going on. Also, for other people's sake, it'd be helpful if you could say whether you want to invite open collaboration, or whether you'd prefer your group to develop the pages for a certain length of time, and then for them to be openly editable after that. Does this make sense? Cormaggio ^talk 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think for now I'm going to do some development on my user page, especially for parts of the course the vicissitudes of which are the on-ground demands of the schools I'm working through--then I'll see what resources I can link to as I learn the lay of the land a little more. I'll put a clear statement on the main page in terms of what kinds of editing I'd like to encourage. I'm very excited to be doing this; it's the first online application I've seen that really makes sense to me, and seems truly progressive in terms of advancing the cause of free culture. Thanks so much for all your help. Stevenarntson 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review of some recent actions by Emesee

A steward has temporarily removed Emesee's administrator access until the community can review. This was done for a number of troubling actions including a two week page protection of Wikiversity:Community Review. Please see the Review of some recent actions by Emesee and comment. There is also a request to remove tools from all accounts he controls while the review is conducted. Also note that the request for CheckUser access has been withdrawn. --mikeu ^talk 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

There are two nominations that are now open for discussion. Ottava Rima for Full Custodianship and Cormaggio for CheckUser. Please vote and comment. --mikeu ^talk 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New journal article about Wikiversity

An article has just been published in First Monday, an online, peer-reviewed journal, called "Wikiversity; or education meets the free culture movement: An ethnographic investigation". It's based on experiences of the time-specific course on Composing free and open online educational resources, which ran earlier this year. Congratulations! Cormaggio ^talk 10:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image mystery

Why doesn't the icon show for this project box?

The image works here:

and other images work in the project boxe.g.,

This user is a participant in the Social psychology unit.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project box icon displays just fine for me. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird. I could have sworn it did not render this morning when I looked (using the Opera browswer) but now it looks ok with Firefox. I'll check again later. --mikeu ^talk 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seemed to be that at the time that it would display any image that was already used on WV from Commons (elsewhere previouslY), but that it wouldn't display an image that wasn't yet used from commons within the projectbox - as though there was some caching problem. But the image would display on its own (outside of the projectbox). This is still a problem if we now pick a new image from commons, e.g. at the time of posting, this doesn't display (in FF):

This user is a participant in the Social psychology unit.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks OK now I've saved, but didn't display on "Show preview". -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been a temporary problem. All seems fine with using images now. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there were some transient issues with the thumbnailing servers. Seems fixed now. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this has anything to do with the above, but I have noticed I frequently need to use ?action=purge after editing subpages that are transcluded in another page. For instance WV:CR. It seems like I have had to do this more often recently, than in the past. --mikeu ^talk 02:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I've noticed that I have to achieve the same thing more often too - usually I do this by editing and previewing the page - then it seems to do the purge (I can't remember the code! :)). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's unrelated to the thumbnail issue. However, that issue occurs when the job queue can't update the cached page fast enough to serve the new version when you request it (which is a normal failure). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 04:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one use this action purge business? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Append ?action=purge to the URL. I'll add a gadget to add a purge tab shortly, if there isn't one already. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a search link internal

How could this link be made internally? [2] -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Simple searches like Special:Search/Mike can be done internally; complex searches must be external links. You can use <span class="plainlinks"></span> to make it look better. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 04:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A template could possibly be made to help with this, as well. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Status

I've thrown my thoughts and explanation of this issue down here. Feedback would be appreciated. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RSS broken?

I raised this some time back, but still wondering - the rss feed link for this page seems to be outdated: rss feed. Any ideas? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes use the rss feed on my cell phone, and it seems to be working ok. But, mostly I use the IRC recent changes channel. --mikeu ^talk 17:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A family wiki

I'm a bit in my own head these days (and otherwise busy), but I've been thinking a lot about making "family wikis" for both sides of my family, to share stories about about what we were like as little children, what deceased family members were like, genealogies, shared photo albums, and so on. I think this would be a wonderful way to use wiki technology, and I would love to see a step-by-step-ish resource set up for this.

I think the best way forward would be to have users set up these wikis, and have some "support staff" here to both answer questions as they come up, but then take those questions and incorporate it into the learning resource. I could be of some assistance (I have a private, "locked down" wiki, so I know at least a few tricks), but I think assistance would be needed from folks like darklama and others who are true code-whizzes.

Anyone interested? I'm going to make this my "everyone's Christmas present" this year, and even if you pay the $$$ for the wiki server, it's still cheap and fun. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it makes the information of users too public. On Wikipedia there were people who tried to hurt others in real life. That would be easier when private information of users become more known. I do like the idea though, but i don't think it is good to show it all to the whole world.--Daanschr 19:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are ways of making wikis private: for example, you can set the localsettings file to restrict which usergroups can view pages. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been playing with my localhost wiki for the past ~6 months, and I can help with setup, configuration, use (user & basic sysadmin stuff) if you like. There's a few wikibooks that might be helpful as well (though last I looked they were in rather bad shape) – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Than it will be a very good idea!--Daanschr 07:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis to help families reunite

I owned the domain wikifamilies.info awhile ago when a group of people tried to created resources to bring families back together. We got as far as a ballot measure. Lawyers offered free help, but they turned it into something people didn't want to support anymore. The group didn't have millions of $$$ to fund resources to get the raw signatures on the street within the limited time to achieve fully official status. One thing we tried to do is distributed the network of resources. We created a hub for the wiki, blog, and newgroups. All that work, and my children are missing. =( Dzonatas 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an entirely different thing. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess if you have a perfect family, that is how you will see it. You started this about being able to share with the family. Dzonatas 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Travancore

The Travancore kingdom was established by Marthanda Varma after he vanquished his rivals, the Thampi brothers and their supporters, the Ettuveettil Pillamars. Marthanda Varma was the nephew of the previous ruler of Venad and as per the Marumakkathayam system prevailing then, he assumed himself to the rightful successor to the kingdom. The earlier ruler married a visiting princess from the north of India after he promised her that her sons will inherit the principality of Venad. This assurance of the old ruler was supported by the Ettuveettil Pillamars. The Thampi brothers were the sons of the old ruler. Thus, both Marthanda Varma and the Thampi brothers felt that they were right in claiming the kingdom. --Vishnumane 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean to write an article for Wikipedia? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting and detailed section on the History of Travancore at wikipedia. --mikeu ^talk 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Respect people

There is an ongoing discussion about a new proposed policy at Wikiversity:Respect people. Please review and comment at Wikiversity talk:Respect people. --mikeu ^talk 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a particular question being asked there of whether or not the article should explicitly state "respect consensus". The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 23:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I have submitted an article, Internal Belief Systems. Now I need some advice.

How does one create citations? Are they just entered as text at the bottom of the article? Or is there a specific link that I am supposed to have noticed?

I have the specifics for citations as used in WikiNews; if nothing else, I can follow those.

The main article that I want to cite is available at <http://www.freemaninstitute.com/lynch.htm>. I found this link via a link on Wikipedia.

--IHSscj 23:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A starting point can be Wikiversity:Cite sources, but I think we need to improve our help / how to documentation about citations and referencing. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Vision/2009

Thuvack had the excellent idea to turn some attention and energy to the Wikiversity vision (and related tasks) for making "Wikiversity 2009". Go and take a look and see what you might be able to help progress, and we can still add ideas. Then we can start closing out for 2009 and setting up for 2010! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French Mentoring

I am launching a discussion of the pending French Mentoring project. This is going to be big, so I'd like as much feedback as possible before going "gold". A link to the formative project and mention of some of the ideas behind it may be found here. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 07:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should I call the Instructer of a course

ok something little that is bugging me. In the context of a course, could I call the Course Instructor by the title "Professor"

While I know that wikiversity does not promote or confer titles. The term Professer seems intuitive and respectful. If the title "Professor" does not strike the wiki community as a very good idea, could we coin an appopriate title for someone whom is generously taking their time to author a course.--Jolie 11:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should pretty up the template, but I just made {{Call me}} for this and similar uses... there are up to 3 parameters. See boxes on below.

Please call me Johnny

Please call me Johnny or SBJ

Please call me Johnny, SBJ, or SB_Johnny

You just add up to 3 options after the template name ({{call me|this|that|the other thing}}, or just {{call me|this}}). --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as a matter of identity your certainly are Johnny,SBJ,SB_Johnny. But, as a matter of role; you call yourself a custodian. this title was concieved to create a sense of authority and respect within the forum without the unneccessary connotations that 'Administrator' carries. Teachers also have and deserve a sense of authority and respect. In a similar discussion to the custodian issue, Can we not find a term that gives prospective instructors respect and authority without unneccesary outside connotations?--Jolie 12:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could use:

Please call me Johnny or Professor

--SB_Johnny ^talk 12:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer mentor was used as the title in all cases if a title is used at all. Even if custodian is a title, people aren't expected to go around saying "Custodian SB_Johnny" everywhere in reference to SB_Johnny. I suspect using titles would be frowned on. Why are titles important to you? --dark

lama 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. If that's what you mean, I don't think you should address me (or any custodian) as "custodian". --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, We need to coin a new name for this. I think Professor, might not be appropriate, as it may daunt new users who could be interested in starting and mantaining an educational resource (even though they may not have any real-time academic recognition). Guardian has also been associated with Custodians (for some time now). We do need a new Name for this purpose. -- Thuvack | ^{talk | Blog} 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For my part. I do somewhat apologize for getting fixated over titles. Perhaps, a lack of titles in wikiversity appeals to some people whom prefer to see this forum as a meeting of equals? I am also quite new to wikiversity and trying to understand the culture.

At any rate, I would not name a person by a role, unless they are acting in that role. Thus SB_Johnny would be SB_Johnny (or some shortened form if it seemed agreeable to him)UNLESS he was performing some duty as a custodian and I needed to talk to him regarding something he was doing. It is also a somewhat irrelevant; I intend to be civil and part of that would be to refer to a user in a way that appeals to them. A persons user name is by definition an appealing name (since it was chosen by the user). In the only course I am taking, the instructor prefers to go by his username and that is fine.

Please do not read an argumentative or trollish tone into this entry as it was entirely pursued on philosophical grounds. Mentor is an interesting title and one that I have seen other places in wikiversity. I am not sure what it means entirely but it does sound like a title of respect and gratitude (which I would have for anyone who freely gave time to help me learn).--Jolie 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its an interesting dilemma. I personally think that titles should be eschewed unless someone is actually a Professor. Geo.plrd 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to distinguish between the various, often-overlapping and simultaneous roles that we all play at various times (ie learner, helper, custodian), and how individual courses themselves are managed with respect to titles. I personally think this latter is up to the course participants - though I wouldn't like there to be a situation where someone demands to be called "professor" on the basis of 'leading' a course, whether or not they claim they are one in real life (in fact, I think this should be explicitly disallowed). I'd say we should default to something pretty neutral for people who are actually designing/running a course - like "facilitator", or perhaps "tutor". Titles are often problematic, and they shouldn't get in the way of a participative cohort - IMHO. Cormaggio ^talk 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikiversity:Who are Wikiversity participants?‎ attempts to distinguish between the various roles that participants play. --dark

lama 19:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the most natural title I can think of is simply Instructor. It is a) straightforward, b) not pretentious, c) natural-sounding. Mentor strikes me as somewhat more intimate than what is intended here, I think. But "Instructor" would work well, I think. Facilitator might work, too. In fact, a variety of terms might work. Perhaps one must choose as the situation seems appropriate? Terms that will be used to describe different contexts within the School of History and Department of French are: Instructor, Facilitator, Mentor, and Liaison. But, again, these represent rôles. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not consider coining something Wikiversity specific? A "wiklar" (wiki-scholar) from way back might be appropriate. Then, we can prepend terms as appropriate. The "head-wiklar" for course X. Or a "student-wiklar" for course X, etc... --HappyCamper 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to call yourself a "wiklar", "wiklain", "wikerary", or "wikistrate", but I'm afraid I'll have to sit out on this one. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 03:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with Jade on "instructor". I was actually planning on proposing this, even before I read Jade's suggestion. I don't have a degree in education, but have (and am currently) teaching computer classes in the "real world", and the term "instructor" is what I use there, although students are also free to use my first name, which most prefer. For those who forget my name or prefer more formality, "instructor" works fine. I would suggest the same system here, where students can call you by your screen name, or, if they prefer, can call you "instuctor". This term may be used more often when discussing the instuctor with somebody else: "Let's see what the instructor thinks about that question". StuRat 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. My belief is that when someone is actually teaching a course, they should be referred to as "instructor" or their screen name. Individuals who hold Professorships or doctorates should always be referred to by their title, Professor or Doctor, respectively. Geo.plrd 18:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the above comments - and they're all absolutely fair - but I will simply reiterate that titles are problematic. It might not always be appropriate, or desirable, to expect people to call you "instructor" or "teacher", when, for example, a model of peer learning is preferred. So, it really depends on the type of course/project/resource, since it's always worth bearing in mind how particular structures and expectations affect the type of learning on offer. Cormaggio ^talk 10:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Cormaggio here. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 10:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cormaggio, I only support the use of instructor when someone is actually teaching a course. Otherwise, you should be called by your preferred name. There are many people who consider it an insult when people do not refer to them by their proper title (Professor/Doctor/Reverend). Geo.plrd 02:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we also need to distinguish between the use of titles at bricks n mortar institutions vs. here. Just because someone has a title there, it does not imply that they are a "Wikiversity Professor" and the use of such titles here could give a misleading impression that wikiversity endorses the use of them. We have talked in the past about the problems associated with verifying credentials. But it also changes the whole dynamic of interactions on wiki. There is a lot of leeway for someone to conduct a course here, either just here or as a complement to an IRL class, but we need to balance that with the desirability to stay open about participation in learning projects. In some case we encourage an instructor to "own" a course. IMHO, this should be done for only a limited time (say a semester, or maybe an academic year) and then the course reverts to being a learning project that "anyone can edit" - or teach. But defining strict roles for user participation in pages will be problematic, esp. as our community grows and we start to see larger numbers of participants who are interested in a particular topic. Forking can prevent disagreements about content, but it can also limit the collaborative editing which can strengthen the quality of the project and expand the breadth of the coverage. --mikeu ^talk 12:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC) ~~Professor of Psychoceramics~~[reply]

I find that I also agree with Mikeu, here. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections, policies, and pillars

The last two months or so have been a very difficult period for Wikiversity, involving a block on Moulton, and then on JWSchmidt - and a number of people leaving Wikiversity, or taking wikibreaks. I've been reflecting on John's block (as well as Moulton's), and trying to think about what we can do to ensure that we don't make the same kinds of mistakes again, or go through the same community trauma as many of us have experienced in this time (for a variety of reasons). One of the main things this extended episode has sharpened in my mind is that we don't have sufficiently robust policies to manage the conflicts that have arisen, or their fallouts - and so I would like to focus on the question of what policies we need in order to maintain both the civility and diversity which have made Wikiversity such a great place to work for the last two years. I propose we need to have a number of "pillars" (in the same way as Wikipedia does), which will clearly define what Wikiversity is and how it works, and which will allow for further developments in our particular domain of education. I would propose Civility and Scholarly ethics as two pillars that would work in tandem - the first of which exists (and backed up by Wikiversity:Respect people), the second of which, with a bit of work, I could see as our equivalent to Wikipedia's NPOV. They're two policies that I'd like to develop in tandem as absolute fundamentals of this community. But what about others? What other policies (whether existing or not) do you think would be useful "pillars" for Wikiversity? And, just as importantly, what policies do you think we need to create or improve in light of the recent events? Perhaps we need to revisit our blocking policy? What are your thoughts and feelings? Cormaggio ^talk 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your statement above could have been said a bit nicer, which would be more civil. I try to stay neutral in the matters that have been at issue with active members, and I do not take part in the blame game as you have so done here. What I see written above, Cormaggio, is no better than what JWSchmidt and Moulton have done. You may not do it in the same style or play the same games, but the effect is the same. I ask you to reconsider your approach. Let it end. If there are policies to be created, they are to be built on sound reasons and not by whim reactions to an experience. People want to know what the problem is with Wikipedia; don't repeat that problem here at Wikiversity. Dzonatas 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see anything uncivil in the least. Perhaps you can clarify what Cormaggio has said which you find disagreeable? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Mike, what if somebody wanted to make you the reason why a policy exists. Have you no empathy to understand this? There was a bit of a 'move on' needed and thought at least that was understood from out of these situation, and there is obviously some, as shown above, who just can't do it and maybe just don't understand how the fullness of being civil. What Cormaggio posted is one reason why I have less hope here. Dzonatas 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can understand that reaction; I simply think it's the wrong conclusion to draw. Regardless of recent events, some discussion of these matters is warranted, in my mind, and I look forward to efforts to clarify the issues Cormaggio has brought up, whatever the reason for doing so. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find that your pointing this out only exacerbates the issue when it is clear (to me) that Cormaggio meant nothing hostile or incivil. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas, if anything, my post above is based more on self-criticism, than it is on criticism of anyone else's activity. I recognise that my reactions to what I saw as problematic were themselves problematic in some ways. I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from here. Cormaggio ^talk 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You opener immediately mentions two users besides yourself, and you continue to mention difficulty an trauma, then you express the need for policy based on such experience. I don't find your self-criticism there. Dzonatas 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I meant that in the context of my reflections at User:Cormaggio/Block on JWSchmidt, which I linked to above; and my advocating that "we don't make the same kinds of mistakes again", in which I very much include myself. When I mention "trauma", I include the fact that others have been traumatised by my own actions, including JWSchmidt. What I'm trying to advocate here is for us to take a long hard look at this whole episode in order to learn from it - individually, and as a community. Cormaggio ^talk 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Please, take a step towards repair and retract or strikeout your earlier statement above[3]. I further would appreciate your participation in a more coherent organization (i.e. [4]) under Wikimedia Ethics to accomplish such learning, as you just stated above, instead of the many forks of similar issues (i.e 'case studies') that occurred in the main namespace and in the Wikiversity: namespace. Dzonatas 18:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly Ethics needs a lot of work before it's ready to become a Wikiversity pillar. I do think Civility is a very important policy, though. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree Scholarly ethics needs work, but I like the idea of it as our equivalent to NPOV - a means by which we can all occupy the same "space", and keep that space productive and educational, even if we deeply disagree. (Hence the link with civility.) Cormaggio ^talk 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the collaborative ethic project that exists is a great thing and hopefully will help with these kinds of isssues. So far, I've not endured any uncivil communications with anybody. It's been great. I've got an enormous amount of respect for the people created many educational resources with WV. If there's any lack, there isn't quite enought people on there and clearly this community is trying to reach out and bring people on board. I'm not sure I understand why people are upset and I think that people that break ethical rules must be dealt with in a transparent way consistent with the ethics policy. As for Wikipedia, if we could be that successful, it would be a great success. --Jolie 17:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in the case of John is that he was in the centre of Wikiversity, being one of the two founders. My suggestion is that when new users are in conflict with each other, only one or two of the active group will be involved to mediate and all others will stay away from the conflict. Also, conflicts could be handled at a special conflict page and not in the Colloquium. I do think major conflicts can arise again, but we shouldn't let the whole active community get involved with a conflict started by the arrival of a new user. In the long run, conflicts can't be avoided, they are just like economical crises, you never know where the pain will start ;-)--Daanschr 19:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how restricting to one or two 'active group mediators' would help resolve a conflict - or how it relates to recent experiences. Cormaggio ^talk 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After watching this recent period (characterised by blocking of two contributors and wiki-breaks/departures by others), I'm thinking that I'd like to see stronger, more transparent "case building" before future undertaking of unilateral action, and for blocking actions like this to proceed more clearly along a progression of warnings, minor penalty, and major penalties if and as warranted. In both cases, there appeared to be some "suddeness" and as a result I'm not entirely clear that the administrator actions are supported by a cogent presentation of evidence about violation of policy and community consensus around appropriate action that can be pointed to. I'm not sure how other wikis work - but perhaps a discussion of how the process might have been different handled on different projects could be of interest/value. In the absence of a case with community consensus which has been acted on (which is sometimes necessary), then the case should still subsequently be brought to light for community review and consensus - which would decide to uphold or overturn the original actions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a "build up", but Wikiversity has no clear "punishment" procedure involving a progressive method. And there's the fact that JWSchmidt and Moulton to this day vehemently deny being particularly disruptive or incivil. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 23:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikiversity:Community Review is an attempt to move in the right direction of encouraging more transparency and community input before actions are taken. I think this is probably going to be a case of figuring things out as one goes, one step at a time. --dark

lama 23:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it wasn't just "pillar" policies, but process that was lacking. Having a specific process for disputes helps keep it a little calmer and less personal, and can also avoid the "suddenness" problem. The community probably needs to be clear regarding principles first, but getting those figured does not finish the job. Editors will need to know how to implement the principles: which steps to take (and in which order).

I'm not advocating a hard-and-fast bureaucracy, as those on WP do when they want to reject dealing with a problem just because the complainant missed a step (if there's good reason to believe a dispute resolution step is unlikely to produce results, it probably should be skipped). This is about ensuring editors know what they should be doing when they have a dispute, in order to encourage productive behavior and discourage lashing out in counter-productive ways. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points there. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw from this discussion and try to focus on more productive pursuits. Hopefully you guys will keep Wikiversity together. I might wake up one morning and find out that i am the only one left here :-)--Daanschr 07:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be here Daanschr. I think I most agree with him. There's almost too much too learn and do here than to focus on conflict that has broke out between other participants in other forums/Discussions. I have read and sought to understand the ethics policy and will try to ensure civility in everything I write. I don't honestly understand all the controversy that has occurred. this is page after page about it. I'm not sure I need to explore it further. Just let me know if you are offended by anything I write or do, and I will sincerely attempt to understand and resolve it. --Jolie 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that anyone would be offended by you.--Daanschr 15:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I used to think about Cormaggio from my interactions with him, but there are clearly things beyond my imagining. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser)

It's a pity that remarks are to stay on a wiki and that people can't communicate immediately after things have been said.--Daanschr 17:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing ethics (A new project?)

Much of this content will now be placed in the forum Wikimedia Ethics specifically, the topic Topic:Editing_disagreements#Practical_options_when_editing_material_during_a_disagreement

for value as a reference I wanted to put forth a simpler model of ethics of 4 points.

1) Don't dominate in your writing. 2) Write to Everyone (no ONE person). exception encouragement and consensus. 3) Don't take anything Personal. 4) Understand and abide by the ethics policy

we also need to discuss appropriate behavior when you disagree with a post... I see 8 options what might be said to be

Defer to the author
Share your thoughts with him on the talk page
Compromise by creating comprimised text on the talk page
Convise the author by citing sources and explaining your researches
Rewrite the material on the talk page, hoping to influence or replace the author's thoughts
New Forum, create altered material on a new forum
Edit, altering the project page
Replace, by destroying the author's material

--Jolie 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of above, and it has a lot of thought. There are three areas I found on Wikiversity for ethics as suggestions for possible move. First has much into philosophy of general psychology, second is research based, and third is immediate to this environment:

Dzonatas 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My approach is not pychological, or philosophical. It is not strictly acedemic either. It is practical, I want to concentrate on learning without upsetting people. So a simple practical approach seems to fit best in Wikimedia Ethics--Jolie 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be people interested in defining under what circumstances each of these major actions were warranted? This seems a very fundemtental and practical project of applied ethics. Go to the link Wikiversity:Editing_Applied_ethics if interested.--Jolie 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but there's something not exactly right about how things are named. Do I need to get permission to begin a project? is it still more of a topic? Tell me how to organize it,And I will make it look a little nicer. --Jolie 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette might also be worth a read. --dark

lama 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and openness

Cormaggio, I am sympathatic to Jtneill. And it is not necessarily policies or things you could do. Just be open about what you do. This is a wiki. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it's a wiki, and of course we should be open - that was never in doubt in anyone's mind, including those who took action here. But even Jtneill acknowledges that it's "sometimes necessary" to take action without clear consensus. What I'm hoping to do is figure out how to mainly prevent that from happening, and then what to do if you/we face that kind of situation. Personally, at the very least, I would have liked to do much more immediate post-hoc community review - and I would still like to do so, and this thread is already throwing up questions and potential solutions. However, I do think we need to shore up our policies and procedures to some extent (and only insofar as is necessary for our context), and that's what I hope to specifically address in this thread. I honestly don't think it's enough to say "be open". Cormaggio ^talk 08:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Community Ban of Moulton

I've proposed a community block of Moulton here. While Moulton is already blocked indefinitely, I feel that it is important that he see a community vote on the matter. So please come over and vote. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realizing that there is already one vote up at that page, I have withdrawn my request until the other vote is resolved. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jade Knight

I wish to no longer respond to User:Jade Knight due to his (or her) discourse towards me on Wikiversity:Nominations_for_checkuser/Cormaggio and others here on Wikiveristy. I do not endorse Jade's statements or viewpoints in any way. Dzonatas 05:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this disclosure. For what it's worth, I'm male. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 08:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All appreciation aside, shouldn't this be on JK's talk page rather then here? --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Something that may be of interest, your question made me reflect upon the history of this colloquium page and other matters that have been brought here. To follow up on your question, I did a little research for it to see if those that initiated sections here, about a user, did try to attempt to communication, with that user on their talk page, before they brought it here. Perhaps some didn't because, like me, they felt that any further direct communication is hopeless with that user. Dzonatas 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity for Schools

Just thought I'd point out this WMF breakthrough in education: 2008-09 Wikipedia for schools goes online. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity as a kindergarten project

I wish to start the "wikiversity as a kindergarten" project. This project is dedicated to comparing the communication between participants of Wikiversity with the communication between little children in a kindergarten. My presumption is that the average 5 year old acts more mature than the average Wikiversity participant, but that has to be proven yet.--Daanschr 06:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose to conduct this study? I am, in particular, interested in what objective, quantitative criteria you will use to determine "maturity". The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 08:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask Moulton on email what kind of criteria he thinks are to determine maturity ;-)--Daanschr 10:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have cookies for snack time please? --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you virtual invisible cookies.--Daanschr 10:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They could be visible? - help yourself. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted chocolate! (waah!) There's a bug in my juice too. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't foget to log the bug at Bug Clock! --mikeu ^talk 21:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the proper response is that if this is kindergarten, we have far too much too learn than to be squabbling.--Jolie 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But, making jokes is also better than squabbling.--Daanschr 09:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need juice!!!! And a blankie. Geo.plrd 23:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Hi!.. I just had a message from someone and read it and then I wanted to see it again, but couldnt find a way to reach there..Can any one help me please?? Thanks!--unknown001 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the message on your talk page, which you can reach at any time by clicking "my talk" in the upper left-hand corner of the screen. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Campus Radio

Wikiversity's broadcasting project Wiki Campus Radio is planning a Halloween playlist currently.

The input of anyone on Wikiversity would be appreciated here: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki_Campus_Radio/Active_audio_stream --ShakespeareFan00 23:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to discuss a new format

Tushant posted this interesting idea to my talk page and I thought it worthy of discussion here:

I request you to open up a page format similar to 'School' in functioning, whose use would be similar to 'Reading group' but taking it to a higher level as people may discuss a large number of books from a specific topic, eg.-'?????:Classical Texts','?????:Math Olympiads','?????:Books on Sherlock Holmes',etc.
I expect a page with whatever name suits it [Library, Academy, or Book Club] from you considering you a custodian of World's largest online Center for Learning.Tushant 12:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the addition of a "Group:" namespace designed to support discussion groups. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the addition of a "Group:" namespace as well. Maybe we could also merge Schools and Topics into "Group:" as well? --dark

lama 00:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree to getting rid of the others; they're useful. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the purpose of the namespace "topic", i.e. organisation and community space on a topic. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should definitely reconsider the namespaces... School and Portal certainly seem to overlap, as does Topic and the main namespace. Simplifying things would make it a lot easier for new contributors to find their way around. I've been here for over 2 years and I'm still not at all clear on what they're supposed to be used for. --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we use the analogy with portals and wikiprojects in wikipedia, topics are oriented towards contributors and portals are oriented towards readers - but these two group also overlap in wikiversity. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that readers and contributors overlap, that is why there is a need to simplify the namespaces. Also I think its worth considering what group of users create and maintain pages in the school, topic and portal namespaces. I would say the same group is responsible for all 3 namespaces. I think the confusion and unclear purposes of each namespaces causes people to give them arbitrary uses. I think its also worth considering that a namespace can be useful to and oriented towards both readers and contributors. Why can't we have one namespace such as "Group:" that is useful to readers and potential contributors in finding pages, and useful to contributors in organizing content? If the concern is having a lot of red links which discourage readers, what about readers who could become contributors if they knew that information was wanted on a subject? What about giving people a choice rather than making assumptions for them? A gadget for instance could be created to filter out such links from the Group namespace and to remove the link while keeping the text that was used as a link from other namespaces. --dark

lama 15:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A problem is that the term "group" suffers from as least as much ambiguity as topic: and school:. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is only a single namespace which has many purposes, does the ambiguity really matter? At the very least confusion of which namespace to use would diminish with only one namespace present. Ambiguity could serve a useful purpose, and encourage imagination uses, which could improve how Wikiversity organizes things, but I don't think ambiguity helps when you have 3 ambiguous and overlapping namespaces. --dark

lama 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikiversity, unlike other wikis, needs to be managed under a variety of namespaces, all with a distinct feature of Collaborator-Student Interaction, Administration, etc.--Tushant 18:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Closure of Beta Wikiversity

The discussion has finally closed with a decision of No consensus. See meta:Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Beta_Wikiversity for details. --mikeu ^talk 16:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity on mobile phones

Not sure whether this is already familiar, but thanks to the Sevenval AG a mobile phone version of Wikiversity is available online: http://en.wikiversity.7val.com/ --Melancholie 17:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is very interesting. I would, however, caution people to think carefully before logging in to wikiversity using this. It is possible for the intermediate site to log passwords. This is also true of most other mobile phone browsers, for instance Opera Mini or carrier specific broswers that are pre-installed on mobile devices. --mikeu ^talk 17:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also the archived thread at Reading Wikiversity on a Palm --mikeu ^talk 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can access WMF wikis on mobile devices directly - no mirror needed. The skins still need work, so please report problems you encounter. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on that? What are the skins that you are referring to? I use Opera Mini on my phone, so I will use it as an example. The way that these browsers work is that the phone does not have the cpu capacity to reformat the pages for the limited screen. So all traffic goes through a proxy. See the Opera Mini FAQ info at: [5] and [6]. Password are encrypted at most stages of the transmission from the browser on the phone to the final website. But, you still need to have some degree of trust that the information on the proxy will be handled in a safe manner. This is a generic concern with mobile phone browsing and not specific to any one software package. --mikeu ^talk 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

general q

Hi, I'm just popping by from the commons and though I'm an admin at en.wiki I have very little idea of what wikiversity is about. I found a bunch of images to categorize that appeared to be homework problem sets, and it looks as though some professor is organizing a class through his userpage. Various student teams seem to exist also, such as User:Eml4500.f08.team.foskey.ckf, and they draft problem set answers in userspace. Is this what wikiversity is about? I'm rather confused. (Really this is all about whether I should be nominating the images they uploaded for the sake of their problem sets as outside the scope of the commons, which is pretty much equal to the scope of wikimedia generally.) Thanks! 66.31.42.26 03:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, 66.31.42.26. Wikiversity is about many things. What do you want to learn? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I just want to know, are classes run on wikiversity, or is it just a place for developing educational materials? It does not appear that this project in userspace has anything to do with any wikiversity mainspace content. (That is, that they are just using wikiversity as a webhost.) Is this allowed? Note that there are students submitting finished problem sets etc etc, not just people developing educational content. 66.31.42.26 04:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, my question is, should commons be hosting all this sort of content? (These images are all answers to problem set questions, apparently.) 66.31.42.26 04:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is about learning in a wiki environment; in particular, Learning by doing. How would you like to participate? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If these could ever be used by another project aside from Wikiversity, then it seems like Commons might be an appropriate enough location. Others may understand the scope of Commons to a greater extent than myself. Emesee 04:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I would say that this example is "what wikiversity is about" but, yes, this use of wikiversity is acceptable. For example, see Wikiversity:Personal learning environment. One idea is that the homework of these students could be reused in other ways. For instance, someone teaching a class on engineering could include these materials as examples to explain concepts in that field. The images on commons that I am aware of are most certainly within the scope of en-wikiversity, and we encourage uploading to commons so that they may be shared on other projects such as wikiversity in different languages. If there are specific images that you have concerns about please let us know, and we will take a look at them. See also commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_11#Lots_of_similiar_usernames. For more information see Wikiversity:About or ask here. --mikeu ^talk 04:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction on the main page of Wikiversity says: "Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project devoted to learning resources, learning projects, and research for use in all levels, types, and styles of education from pre-school to university, including professional training and informal learning. We invite teachers, students, and researchers to join us in creating open educational resources and collaborative learning communities." This could imply that the activity of the user you refer to is within the scope of Wikiversity.--Daanschr 13:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with sentiment expressed by several above that these images are within WV's scope. It seems to me that a key question is whether each image, on its own merits, warrants a place on commons. Licensing aside, this would seem to revolve around whether or not each one has reasonable potential/value for re-use in one or more WMF projects (but I don't know commons policy). I can say that libraries of open-licensed subject-related materials for teaching and learning are very much in need now and will be into the future. But they need to be well-categorised - for me, that's often the biggest practical issue with students' contributions to commons. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blowmoulton

Found this user during recent changes a few days ago. We should block the account, and checkuser it as well, to see if it is a possible sock of him or not. --Sunstar NW XP 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, wouldn't block without a checkuser. We don't know if it's Moulton. I would watch its contribution history carefully, though. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Cat

I declined a CSD for Category:Religion. Right now, there is Category:Religions. I feel that Religions (plural) refers to specific religions, and Religion (singular) allows discussion about religion in general, but not about specific types. This is my opinion, and I want to see if anyone agrees with me or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this... I can see the justification, but am not 100% sure a need for such disambiguation is necessary. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have two other similar cats that may be just as appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's nothing in Religion for now, but in theory it might one day be used, I'd suggest a redirect to Religions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more natural to do the reverse, however. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 09:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Think tank

There is a new initiative at Wikiversity:Think tank to develop learning projects on current events that people might want to learn about. Please visit and include your ideas or suggest topics that you would like to explore. --mikeu ^talk 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new page at Earth-impact events as part of the above initiative. I've filled included facts to think about, and added links to news and commentary to discuss. I'm still trying to sort out how participants will engage in this learning project. Ideas are most welcome. I'll be fleshing out some of the background info in the next few days and would appreciate comments and feedback. The basic ideas are to inform people about asteroids and other objects in the solar system that have the potential of colliding with the Earth and then to analyze the efforts by scientists and the media to inform the public of the risks these objects present. --mikeu ^talk 16:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be watching this closely; I'm not particularly interested in the current topics, mostly, but I'm very interested in seeing how the Think Tank goes, and potentially getting involved. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 07:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another new Think Tank learning project that has been started at Consensus in a wiki environment and subpages. Please take a look and participate. --mikeu ^talk 19:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New material here. A definition I think that will help. 'empirical consensus' (as opposed to normative). Feel free to comment.--Jolie 18:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social psychology - lost student

Thanks for the feedback I am still not sure but I should find my way soon (The preceding unsigned comment was added by U3006567 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 September 2008)