Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion guideline | Deletion log | Archives

Shortcuts

We welcome and appreciate civil discussion of requests to delete or undelete pages when reasonable objections are made or are likely, the advice in Wikiversity:Deletions is followed, and other options have failed. A good attitude is to explain what you have tried, ask for help or advice from fellow Wikiversity participants on what to do now, keep an open mind, accept any community consensus, and focus on how pages can be improved. Finding ways to improve pages is the preferred outcome of any discussion and consensus here. Pages should always be kept when reasonable concerns are adequately addressed. Reasons and responses should be specific and relate to Wikiversity policy or scope in some way, kept brief, and stated in a positive or neutral way. Vague reasons ("out of scope", "disruptive") may be ignored.

A clear consensus should emerge before archiving a request. Often discussion takes a week or more to reach a clear consensus. Remember to add {{dr}} to the top of pages nominated for deletion. You can put "keep", "delete", or "neutral" at the beginning of your response, but consensus is established by discussion and reasoning, not mere voting.

How to begin discussion

  1. Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or resource nominated for deletion.
  2. Add a new section to the end of this page using the following format:
    == [[Page title]] ==
    reasons why this page ought to be deleted --~~~~

Undeletion requests

If an article has been deleted, and you would like it undeleted, please list it here. Please try to give as close to the title as possible, and list your reasons for why it should be restored.

Wiki Campus Radio/PSA

I had this deleted as author request back in March 2017, Subsequently there was some interest from a contributor on another project. Would it be possible for it to be restored so that the user concerned can comment, or recover some of the ideas? 23:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

checkY Done -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests

Cosmophysics

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further. 
redirection apparently accepted, no further action necessary. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

This page does not provide any education value or learning objectives. Perhaps it could be a redirect to Cosmology, which itself just references the Wikipedia Cosmology Portal --Iggynelix (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iggynelix: The page has a "Prod" tag, which means the page, Cosmophysics, has until February 27, 2018 to provide educational value/learning objectives. We will wait until the period [of development] has finished, then we will decide if the page is deemed suitable for Wikiversity or should be deleted. Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Close as redirected. (which I have done). Had Iggnelix simply redirected the page, nobody would have thought twice about it. This page was created in 2012 and was not developed. A user added a physics box to it in August, but showed no intention to develop. As it is, not deleted but merely redirected (I went ahead and redirected it as suggested), any user that wants this specific page could decide to develop it, but there is no sign of such a user existing. As a redirect, it's harmless, but if anyone disagrees, they could put a prod tag on it. Atcovi, Dave dated Iggynelix's prod tag (which should not have been combined with an RfD filing), then removed it, possibly because this was filed. This discussion was unnecessary. Just clean up! Prod tags are easy, redirect is even easier. RfDs involve far more work. They are really only needed if someone disagrees. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

Extended content
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


I'm going to ignore most of what has been written below as off-topic for an RfD and irrelevant to the discussion. (I will acknowledge that there were a few good points made on both sides, however.) I'm going to be Be bold and close with "At times, it may be useful to amend the Wikiversity research guidelines so as to explicitly exclude some types of fringe research if they disrupt Wikiversity or distract the community from its educational mission" as found in our Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En policy. It is clear that the presence of this project has been drawing disruptive editing and contentious exchanges for years. I agree that in the current state "it is a colossal mess" that can not easily be fixed without a lot of hard work that no one is willing to do. Future work on this topic should more clearly disclose the bias shown in this work and honestly admit the controversy surrounding the topic as our Research Guidlines dictate. Preserving this is just not worth turning Wikiversity into an unproductive battlefield and our staff needs this distraction to stop so we can focus on improving our other resources. Any future work on the topic of Cold Fusion will be subject to pre-approval by a Review board/En. I'm going to hold off on implementing this close for a reasonable amount of time to allow anyone interested to archive the material. The details of what material is subject to this decision will discussed in another forum. I would caution those who request deletion in the future to stick to the merits of the page and follow the instructions in the notebox immediately below. --mikeu talk 02:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This is not actually an educational resource, it's a POV fork from Wikipedia incorporating content that was rejected there as advocating fringe views. It is the work of user:Abd, who was banned form Wikipedia for events surrounding his advocacy of cold fusion.

user:Abd removed this request as "block evasion". That is incorrect. This IP address is a Virgin media cable address, the blocked IPs are O2 mobile and, for the avoidance of doubt, are not me. I am a user in good standing on multiple Wikimedia projects, including enWP, where Abd is banned (ironically, for block evasion [1]).

Obviously Abd needs to recuse form any action in respect of this article, especially given his off-wiki collusion around the subject. 82.21.88.44 (discuss) 07:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it Totally different IP here (I have an en.wp username that I will disclose privately to any admin upon request, but not in public). I just checked that page and found factually inaccurate claims from unreliable sources repeated verbatim in the lead. That's the reddest, flaggiest red flag there is. 74.175.117.2 (discuss) 13:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to the claim of "factually inaccurate claims" on the talk page for that resource [2]. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate Delete - this is really just Abd abusing Wikiversity as a free web host for his rejected version of a Wikipedia article. JzG (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Creation by alleged sock and revert warring here by that sock is now irrelevant to this discussion, because JzG, a Wikipedia administrator and long-standing user there (with thin contributions here), has commented. The IP votes are not from users with any edit history, except for looking at alleged socking. However, I ask @JzG: how he came to know of the existence of this request, because it's looking like there was some canvassing. JzG was highly involved with conflict re cold fusion on en.wikipedia, and was reprimanded by the Arbitration Committee for his activity there, and he was highly involved with my later ban from Wikipedia. All that is only relevant if an assessment of neutrality becomes necessary.
The cold fusion resource is obviously not a fork, nor is it a "rejected version" from Wikipedia, which would be completely obvious to anyone who reads it. It is organized very differently from an "article." Wikiversity allows content that is not allowed on Wikipedia, and the content here was written for here, almost entirely. I am involved with the facilitation of scientific research on cold fusion, off-wiki, that's true, however, I have disclosed that possible conflict of interest, and involvement with a topic is not contrary to participation in the development of educational resources here. We have professors creating resources on the subjects they teach, professionally. And we have amateurs creating resources and discussing topics they love. We are not Wikipedia.
"POV fork" is a valid argument for deletion (or merge) on Wikipedia, not here. We actually and deliberately create attributed POV forks here, as subpages, if scholars cannot agree on a single mainspace page. It is how we avoid most conflict. Wikipedia is neutral by inclusion, not by exclusion. We are not an encyclopedia.
If there are "factually inaccurate claims" in a top-level mainspace page, not attributed as opinion, w:WP:SOFIXIT. Claiming that such exist, with no specifics, is disruptive. I do not own the resource, many have worked on it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first clue I have that this user considers my single email to him through the WMF system "harassing." That email was polite and concerned a matter of apparent concern to him. He replied and we had several mails back and forth. And this is all irrelevant here, but someone is communicating off-wiki to attract people to this RfD whom they think will vote to delete -- with no arguments relevant to Wikiversity deletion policy. Campaign for what? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just am not 82.21.88.44. I am the 02 IPS, none have been banned, it is not a static IP. I was on Wikipedia because I noticed Abd has been attacking Wikipedia users on his website. Abd has been posting libel about my IPS saying I am banned user and the other static IP. I am not that user. Abd is abusing the Meta-Wikimedia website, he has filed a false report here claiming "disruption" [3]. Abd was banned on Wikipedia he is now using this website to promote fringe views and attack users on meta-wiki. I am sending an email about Abd to the Wikimedia Foundation and I recommend others do. 82.132.238.67 (discuss) 00:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abd can you also remove the 02 IPS from your 'study' which contains false information about different people. You are using meta-Wiki to attack innocent users. [4] 82.132.238.67 (discuss) 00:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to discuss a complex issue not related to keep/delete. My talk page here is open, and any autoconfirmed user may edit the LTA study Talk page on meta, or even the study itself. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be an ongoing war attempting to disfigure Abd and his works. Accounts/IP Addresses showing baseless animosity towards Abd (for example, the repeated slogan: "Abd, a blocked user on en.wikipedia!") seem to show a clear pattern of attacking "Cold Fusion" and, obviously, the editor himself... sidenote: canvassing might be taking place as well off-wiki. The project itself seems to comply with Wikiversity's goal of "devoting 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", and there is no citing in WV policy/official document pages (etc., Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not) as to how Cold fusion is out of the scope of Wikiversity. The OP's posts of "a POV fork from Wikipedia incorporating content that was rejected there as advocating fringe views" and the mention of Abd's block on en.wikipedia are not strong enough, in my opinion, to satisfy the deletion policies set forth by the Wikiversity community. Thanks and regards, ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's more the other way round. Abd warred for ages to try to refactor en:cold fusion to be more flattering to the cold fusionists' worldview, and failed, tot he point of being banned. So he brought it here as a POV-fork, and then set about off-wiki stalking of those he holds responsible for suppressing this peerless truth. Citizendium had much the same problem with rebuffed "experts" writing articles that were a reflection of their beliefs rather than reality, including, again, people banned from enWP for POV-pushing (e.g. Dana Ullman, a well-known homeopathy shill). JzG (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
* I'd like to ask why IP 82.132.238.67 was not added to Meta Checkuser request? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
* Might as well add IP 82.132.223.81 to Meta Checkuser request? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have speedy closed this as LTA disruption, though I don't have the rights to do so. Hopefully we can get Dave to come in and stop this mayhem? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated it, I am not "Anglo Pyramidologist". I have posted to that effect on Abd's request for a global block at meta. As I stated there, I am a user in good standing on multiple WMF wikis, banned from none. I emailed the Meta stewards who have been in touch n return. Abd already knew this but chose to start this: [5]. This does not appear to be a good faith request, and it has been closed. 82.21.88.44 (discuss) 01:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment because I'm not sure of the rules here. As someone who has worked with a lot of religion based content, I've seen quite a few reference books, sometimes recent ones, which include material which has been rejected by what used to be called the hard sciences. To my eyes that is almost expected. I do not know if it is acceptable here. If it is in general not acceptable for a non-POV source, then perhaps it might be acceptable of a POV source. I know of several sources in an old series of religion books "Why I am a..." which are very useful to get material on individual denominational thinking. If this subject is one where the editors here think a POV source of that type might be useful, perhaps it could be clearly made into such a source. If that would not be acceptable here and the current form is also dubiously acceptable, I personally as an outsider who knows nothing about the internal workings here would have no real objections to deletion. John Carter (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]
82.21 said he is emailing the Wikimedia Foundation. I am doing the same. [6], Abd is attacking users and writing libel saying different people are the same without any evidence. I believe Abd is going to end up globally blocked. I recommend letting the Wikimedia health and safety team deal with this. 82.132.223.81 (discuss) 20:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is through the exact same phone exchange as IP 82.132.238.67! If the checkuser inquiry verifies even one of the IPs involved here is part of the earlier sock puppetry of October 2017, deception of Wikipedia admins, misrepresentation and impersonations, all IPs involved here are likely to be blocked unless evidence is forthcoming that they are victims rather than perpetrators. Please provide such factual cites ASAP to prevent a block or move on. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have admitted the 02 IPS are me. When I turn my phone on or off or leave for a long time it gives me a new IP. This is well known. I am not socking. 82.21.88.44 is not me, that is a static cable IP. I am not involved in any deception or socking. Abd has filed a checkuser even on 74.175.117.2, this is abuse, the guys over at Meta-wiki are getting tired of Abd filing fake requests. All these are different people in mostly different countries. [7]. As emails have been sent to the wikimedia foundation health and safety team about Abd's behaviour I am sure they will deal with this and may show up here. 82.132.223.81 (discuss) 22:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an exchange, it's O2's mobile pool. O2 are one of the largest cellular providers in the UK. JzG (discuss • contribs)
  • Delete this RfD seems to be irremediably broken, focusing on users rather than contents. Apart from authors, editors, sockmasters (brightly supporting the "keep" with their awkward deeds) and everyone else there's a simple relevant factual problem: stuffs like these are completely unacceptable for any Wikiversity, which are not blogs. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 00:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfD is broken, so put it out of its misery, as I suggested. We do not delete resources because of user misbehavior in an RfD. However, while there is evidence of socking visible, it is all on one side, not "Keep", but "Delete," and it is possibly only a coincidence, that some IP users, SPAs, not Wikiversity users, share IP provider. That is normally handled by templating those votes as SPAs. There is direct evidence of canvassed votes, and all on the Delete side. If this RfD was for the Bliki, I would not care. It's not. Out of 120 pages in the resource, you have picked the most marginal in appearance. Two of them study Wikipedia articles. That has always been considered within scope. Wikiversity allows original research and the expression of opinion, which users from 'pedias often don't understand.--Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do socking, blocks and any other stuff change the simple fact those "picked" pages are not simple original research but actually blog post? Also, I don't see how commentaries about Wikipedia's article may be classified as "original research about cold fusion". --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your factual problem is highly relevant. Abd is a cold fusion True Believer. Educational resources should not be written by True Believers in the hope of changing the real world. It's a bit like an article on evolution written by a creationist or an article on climate change written by the Heritage Foundation. JzG (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment just above directed at Abd is a personal attack! If Mu301 or another bureaucrat or custodian do not block you for personal attacks, and Abd requests it you will be blocked for incivil behavior! Stick to the issues per the alerts at top please! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already requested custodian action, and specifically for warning JzG for his comments, and was "sanctioned", apparently for the request, so I'm not asking again. However, incivility damages the atmosphere at Wikiversity and should not require complaint from the target. Rather, it's the other way around. Incivility should be sanctioned immediately (this is normal, and I have been blocked for an appearance of incivility without warning, which was proper in itself, and if an apparent target says, no, it's okay, then reverse the action (warning or sanction like block).
On the subject, "believer" is not a disqualification for creating resources on Wikiversity. Yes, someone religious could create resources on creationism and an atheist could create balancing resources.
"JzG obviously believes I'm one of those "True Believers" (as he has for years, incorrectly). However, my goal in the resource here has been to study the topic (hence many unfinished resources that someone else could finish or expand, learning in the process as I did creating them, this would never be allowed in polemic).
As to changing the real world, using Wikiversity for that would be a waste of time. I have instead acted, in that "real world," to identify necessary scientific research, as recommended by both U.S. Department of Energy reviews (1989 and 2004) and to support funding, which effort raised $16 million dollars for work under way at Texas Tech under the supervision of Robert Duncan. (My paper suggesting this was published under peer review in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal.) That's how one transforms the real world, not by "promotion" on Wikiversity, where I get a small fraction of the page views I get elsewhere, and where I am not funded, being only a volunteer here.
I am glad to know that canvassing is not prohibited on Wikiversity. Useful. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nuclear fusion can occur at any temperature at which thermalized neutrons are absorbed into light element nuclei. The resource Cold fusion discusses and educates about specific and controversial experiments in an effort to produce controlled fusion at low temperatures. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem has nothing to do with cold fusion theories, the problem are most of current contents being completely out of Wikiversity's scope. There's no point (and, even worse, no realistic chances to find someone interested) in spending months of hard work in trying to get an educative resource out of a personal blog. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No clear scope argument has been presented. First of all, the resource is about 120 pages, linked from the top level page, plus talk pages, which on wikiversity can be part of the resource educational function, they are not merely about "improving the mainspace page* as with the 'pedia projects. I did not create the resource, though I did create most -- not all -- of the page structure. Many others have participated. One of the pages (and only one) is a "bliki," a wiki blog, on cold fusion topics. I'd forgotten about it.
I have an outside blog (http://colfusioncommunity.net) and my expenses there are funded, but the Wikiversity work has been created as a learning project with a mind toward neutrality and behavioral policy, and if some edit violated policy there, it was years ago and this is the first time it has been claimed, though still with no specifics. The argument seems to be that the expression of original research and personal opinion on a topic is "out of scope." It has never been so considered, though there have been failed deletion efforts, which have become rare. When personal opinion is expressed in a top-level resource, we have often forked it, moving the opinion to a subpage (or sometimes to user space). We don't delete it, unless there is simply no educational purpose. Discussion, including discussion of opinion is highly educational.
It has always been the case that any scholar thinking a page improper could tag it for deletion or edit it, even blanking it, replacing it with proper content or just a claim the page is an irrecoverable mess. The problem can then be fixed. We have nondisruptive process for cleaning up the wiki. We have kept, often, pages that are practically incomprehensible. It takes time, and users who want to save their work have plenty of time. It doesn't look like it (one page was nominated), but this is actually a massive deletion request, attacking years of work by many, striking at the heart of Wikiversity academic freedom. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any learning resource, just many blog posts and I cannot find a single line in Wikiversity's policies allowing such this usage of this webspace. Since most of these posts are yours it's obvious you'll consider them as an educative resource of general interest, but avoiding COI also implies the need of 3rd-party opinions about similar issues. We're dealing with really trivial matters but it's important to clarify Wikiversities aren't blogs. Finally "We have kept, often, pages that are practically incomprehensible" is right in comparing these contents to "pages that are practically incomprehensible", but two mistakes never did a right as the socking mess is clearly showing. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marshall. There was an academically-published book, about 1992, "Cold Fusion: Scientific Fiasco of the Century." So, we have a major set of claimed results, an historical event where it's been claimed half the U.S. discretionary research budget was being spent on replication efforts, yet only a relatively brief Wikipedia article? Which doesn't make space for much of what is in that book (which is reliable source, though opinionated) and information in many reviews in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, again reliable source, has been quite actively excluded from Wikipedia. Can we discuss all this on Wikiversity? There is a list of Recent Sources that is part of the resource. Is that out of scope? We need to know, so we don't keep wasting time. But the answer has always been yes, we can, following procedures that maintain site neutrality. The same attack was mounted recently, with similar arguments, on Parapsychology, which eventually was restored after deletion.
That recent sources page is not attributed and thus must be neutral. Is this not neutral, or out of scope? The study there would be relevant for any university course covering the field, and doing the work suggested (linking to available copies, which exist for many of the papers), and searching for replies in journals) would be educational, "learning by doing," which is a major goal for Wikiversity from the beginning.
Cold fusion itself is defined in the resource. What you describe, neutron activation or transmutation, is technically cold fusion, in my view, but is not what is being covered. (There is a theory, Widom-Larsen theory, which essentially claims that, and which then has the problem of understanding how the neutrons could be formed. The theory is not widely accepted, but has been acceptable to some because it is "not fusion," which is a semantic trick. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Larger issue -- The nexus of this "resource" was content that is developed rather cynically (IMHO) to avoid the strict content rules of Wikipedia. The story over there was that about seven or eight years ago, astonishing claims about the viability of the cold fusion enterprise had been introduced into articlespace together with a toning down or eliminating the mainstream understanding of the subject. This resulted in arbitration rulings and judgments which dislodged many of the cold fusion proponents from Wikipedia and provided for a revamping of the content there much to the chagrin of those lead contributors who proceeded to create the Wikiversity "resource". In spite of these true believers' protestations to the contrary, cold fusion is not taken more seriously now than before, and the lipstick-on-a-pig attempts to claim that there is evidence that the excess heat can be used at scale to solve the energy needs of the world stray dangerously into the "free energy" claims of perpetual motion enthusiasts. This is not to say that a cold fusion resource cannot be developed to study cold fusion as a cultural, sociological, or even scientific phenomenon, but the current incarnation here is manifestly not an academic treatment and short of a total overhaul of the pages, it is not going to become such a resource. Instead, the current incarnation brings the Wikiversity project somewhat into disrepute as it seems to indicate that this project is a safe haven for obscurantist claims about the magic of deuterated platinum-group metals in electrolytic cells. If Wikiversity wants to have a resource on cold fusion, it needs to find people who can properly contextualize the subject to make the resource actually usable and not a laughingstock. As it is right now, I steer my colleagues away from this site and use this resource as a textbook example for why they should not be involved with this project. As an act of good faith, deleting this "resource" would cause me to reconsider my stance at the very least, though I note that you have similar issues with parapsychology. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity has a neutrality policy, and allegedly imbalance resources can be balanced in a relatively few minutes, using tools available here and not available on Wikipedia. It does complicate the resource slightly, it would involve moving a hundred pages or more, and I have not done it, because to make it more than useless would require at least one user taking a contrary position and being willing to be responsible for developing it (which would involve coming to consensus to keep top-level material and move the rest to an attributed "section.") That user has never appeared. Wikiversity is not going to "find people." This is a wiki and that is not how wikis work. However, the User With the Unpronounceable Name could volunteer.
He is, relatively speaking, an expert on what might be called Cold Fusion Skepticism. He gets his way on Wikipedia, I get my way being published in a peer-reviewed journal -- and funded as a journalist. Wikiversity is a side-project for me, not crucial.
Expanding that resource -- it was created three years before I edited it -- was very useful to me, in my own learning process, though. Cold fusion is well-known as something not understood, but that has a possibility of being a major energy resource, and that is a unanimous conclusion from the U.S. DoE reviews, and is the position found in mainstream peer-reviewed journals over the last dozen years. Possibility. Not proven, the research is difficult and there no satisfactory theory of mechanism (but there is a general theory of what it does, which is testable and which has been widely confirmed). In that context, those who want to be skeptical can find reasons to remain so, and skepticism is normal. However, genuine skeptics remain aware that "something not understood" cannot be known to be impossible. And those who care to investigate may do so, and what they find sometimes contradicts knee-jerk impressions or prior opinion.
Parapsychology is analogous in that studying it is allowed on Wikversity, even though there is a major faction on Wikipedia that confuses the study of the paranormal with "belief" in the paranormal -- which many scientists not familiar with the field do -- and that then calls parapsychology, "pseudoscience," when it is actually defined as "the scientific study of claims of the paranormal." It is also analogous in that the resource here has been attacked in the past, and, as well, that I have been criticized (mostly off-wiki) as if my support for that creation indicates that I "believe in" the paranormal. No. I trust scientific process, routinely. I'm not a "believer" in the paranormal, but sometimes there are things I don't understand. On occasion, I find them of high interest! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology

Extended content
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.


Closure: This resource violates so many of our policies I'm not even sure where to begin. Let's start with the gofundme link that clearly shows that the main contributor is profiting from wikiversity in a clear ethics violation of undisclosed conflict of interest.[8] Even if this COI were disclosed the resource would still be problematic. Wikiversity is simply not an advertising platform for your personal financial gain. Next we'll take into consideration the effort at "refuting" Wikipedia. Our policy considers "Research that threatens or compromises the reputation or public image of the Wikimedia Foundation or its various projects" to be "Unwelcome Research."[9] I'll also second Dave's comment that the presence of this resource is disruptive to the community. I could go on and on with numerous other reasons, but I'm not going to waste the community's time documenting the obvious. This is clearly inappropriate on many levels. In addition to mass deletion of these pages the main contributor is blocked for multiple policy violations that show a long term pattern of cross-wiki abuse. --mikeu talk 17:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was very pleased to see the close offered above for cold fusion. I note that this resource suffers from the exact same problems: (1) content curated entirely by pseudoscience POV-pushers who could not get their preferred poor-quality sourcing reflected in Wikipedia, (2) content copied from en-Wikipedia over here and used to make an alternative encyclopedia entry (3) use of the pages as a dumping ground for unreliable sources that align with a pseudoacademic approach to the subject. The main problems are that this "resource" is actually in contravention to the roles and ideals of this project. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links would be appreciated for such strong claims. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the resource is provided. What particular claim do you think requires a link? I think most of my points are rather self-evident. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Claims in bold italic: Content curated entirely by pseudoscience POV-pushers. That's libel, and, at the very least, an ad-hominem argument, and just plain false (particularly when "entirely" is included). The retainability of a resource does not vary with the users who worked on it. I designed the top-level page to be rigorously neutral. From article history, users who have edited Parapsychology:
  • Abd. I started the article to facilitate the neutral study of parapsychology. See the first version, 15:39, 24 May 2014‎
  • DeanRadin. This is w:Dean Radin, obviously a notable parapsychologist, thus an expert. Criticism of Radin exists, as can be seen in the Wikipedia article. Criticism is part of science. "pseudoscience POV-pusher" is not science, it is social opinion and a deep insult to any scientist; POV-pusher is a pejorative Wikipedia term. Advocacy of a "point of view" is allowed on Wikiversity unless presented as if "mainstream" without attribution.
  • Ben Steigmann. Real name of a young student interested in studying sources on parapsychology. His subpage, attributed to him, has been the subject of complaints and prior requests for deletion. It was found to be acceptable after full process was followed.
  • Brian Josephson. This is w:Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize winner in physics, with an interest in parapsychology (and that interest has been not uncommon in well-known scientists, who recognize that we do not necessarily understand everything!) Again, he has been criticized, but the nominator here goes far beyond criticism within science.
  • Craig_Weiler. Real name. Wikipedia user in good standing. Notable enough to have a RationalWiki article. (nothing there can be trusted without verification, and evidence pointed to there is often cherry-picked.) Not a scientist, but someone with personal experience of the "paranormal." Which means "unexplained by science."
  • MrRowser edited the resource in 2015. Some of this was accepted, some not. See discussion on the Talk page. MrRowser not pursue further improvement. (This is a global SPA, and has claimed recently, "I am a skeptic who has published a handful of papers debunking psychics." Almost every claim in that linked comment is demonstrably false, but he did "publish" many "papers" on psychics and other targets, on RationalWiki. Not under that name, of course. (The point here is that skeptics have not been excluded.)
  • TreeTrailer edited in 2016. Global SPA making familiar arguments, including personal attacks. See contributions and discussion on Talk. Requested custodian attention from Dave Braunschweig. See Dave's response, with which I fully agreed.
  • Dave Braunschweig, wikiversity custodian (and bureaucrat), addressed concerns. His edit was fully accepted by me.
So the claim of the resource being "curated entirely" by people with some possible point of view is false. That people who hold some opinion about a topic -- or who develop it by study and document that -- might take an interest in a resource is totally normal. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia.
content copied from en-Wikipedia over here and used to make an alternative encyclopedia entry. That is blatantly false. The lede is copied from Wikipedia, as a presumably neutral introduction, that's all. But the resource itself is far larger, and obviously not an encyclopedia entry.
use of the pages as a dumping ground for unreliable sources that align with a pseudoacademic approach to the subject. A study of a subject may include all sources, not just those considered "reliable" by Wikipedia standards. Study of sources is an important part of learning. Sources may be criticized and this was an important and early part of Wikiversity:Scope. "Pseudoacademic" is an opinion, unsupported by sources, and libelous for academics and scientists. The editors who appeared with a "skeptical POV" declined invitations to expand the resource, by providing contrary information and sources, on pages for that purpose. Ben Steigmann actually found a user who had compiled critical sources and included that on his own initiative, as Parapsychology/Sources/WaterPlanet.
The resource is neutral, not an encyclopedia article and the rest of the nomination is irrelevant. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason for deletion under WV:Deletions Deletion policy has been given. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The only reason necessary for delete would be the same as for Cold Fusion above. "At times, it may be useful to amend the Wikiversity research guidelines so as to explicitly exclude some types of fringe research if they disrupt Wikiversity or distract the community from its educational mission." There is no question that this is fringe research, that its presence disrupts Wikiversity, and that it distracts the community from its educational mission. All engagement in this discussion simply validates that these assertions are true, and further justifies a bold close for deletion. I encourage those arguing for keep to focus comments on how the benefits of keeping the resource supersede the disruption it generates. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As for content being copied from Wikipedia, yes that has happened. There are copyvio concerns on this page written by Ben Steigmann. He has taken huge chunks of text from Wikipedia page on the paranormal and then inserted his own claims to try and counter claim it. This is confusing and not an educational resource.
  • There is also copyrighted material on is main parapsychology project. A lot. I can cover this later in depth. Steigmann was banned on a bunch of accounts in November, 2017 on Wikipedia for spamming his content on Wikiversity onto Wikipedia articles. He now claims his edits were "censored" [10] directly on his Wikiversity project and he links to archived versions of his edits on the notorious archive website. How can this be acceptable at Wikiversity?
  • I would also add, that Steigmann is making money out of his parapsychology project. So far over 400$. I won't link to this because I respect his privacy but on Facebook Ben Steigmann advertises his parapsychology project on Wikiversity as "refuting" Wikipedia. I don't think this is a good thing for the Wikimedia Foundation. Also Dean Radin article on Wikiversity [11] is the same is what is hosted on his personal website [12]. He is merely using Wikiversity to promote his own website. In total I see no reason why these pages should be kept. They should all be deleted. 82.132.219.173 (discuss) 17:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assignments

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

I am not sure whether this list of computer hardware would fit wikkiversity's purpose. C933103 (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the resource. It has been abandoned since 2011. Do you know what this assignment is, or is for? You can attach the template {{Prod}} instead if you prefer. If no one attempts to improve, it will be deleted by a custodian in just over three months. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Assignments is/was part of a course called "Value chains and new media" offered here by Gwenaëlle Bauvois of Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland. Would you be interested in updating and improving this course? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 06:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are unrelated, because that assignment in "Value chains and new media" was asking students to write about their experience, while the Assignments article is merely some computer spec sheet that seems to be suitable for doing some particular task according to 2011 standard.C933103 (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assignments was a student homework assignment improperly named and improperly positioned. It fit Wikiversity's mission in terms of hosting a learning project, but it doesn't provide value to others. I've moved it back to the user's space, where it came from originally and should have remained. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Speedy delete of unused redirect -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seems like a good idea to redirect the Assignment page to a page for assignment of a specific course. C933103 (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments just above, and Happy New Year! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 07:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C933103: You are correct. It's not necessary to open a deletion discussion. Just tag resources like this with {{delete|reason}}. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page "Lectures"

Discussion

There are many stand-alone main page resources at Wikiversity apparently designed and/or designated as lectures. Examples include Sciences, Fringe sciences, Art, History, Humanities, etc. The {{scope}} and quality of these resources is being questioned. Potential solutions are:

  • Keep as is - No changes are necessary.
  • Subpage of a main page - Make each current page a subpage of an appropriate main page resource.
  • Subpage of a specific main page - Create a specific main page that all related lecture pages would be moved under.
  • Subpage in user space - Move these lecture pages to the user space of the primary contributor.
  • Blank and replace - Replace the existing content with a new introductory page.
  • Delete - Delete the resource.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive either in examples or potential solutions. While it would be possible to discuss each page individually, it seems that a broader initial discussion and direction is necessary first. Please comment and/or vote on how we should proceed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Keep as is is a poor choice. I like the idea of using subspaces of the specific main page. But that doesn't solve the real problem, which is all the time and effort this community wastes on discussing these things. I have a rather complicated proposal, which will probably get lost in the kilobytes of text that are likely to placed under this thread. My proposal is "half-baked", so I will place it under my own userspace right now under user:Guy vandegrift/Making Wikiversity less chaotic--20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I've read your Arbitration Committee proposal and must respectfully decline its implementation. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating sitenotice. --mikeu talk 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a consensus approved portion of the {{Scope}} proposal discussion: "Templates that target the work of editors for destruction should be used with care. They should not be used as a substitute for first discussing page contents with the editors or fixing something that needs to be fixed. Wikipedia has developed a culture where there is a rush to drop dozens of templates on articles and delete them, without ever discussing the articles with their creators. I do not want to see that culture carried over to Wikiversity. Wikipedia has a very narrow mission: to produce encyclopedia articles. Wikiversity is a much more ambitious project where editors are exploring how to use wiki technology to support learning. If we each assume good faith then we have to open our minds to a very wide range of possible methods and approached to learning. When a page is not doing obvious harm there should be no rush to delete content. Take the time to discuss questionable content with the editors who created it. --JWSchmidt 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" from here. So, please cite specific examples of "The {{scope}} and quality of these resources is being questioned." Also, discussions start on each resources Discuss page, not this Rfd page. Those of Art and Humanities are uncreated. The History Discuss page shows peer review where the apparent concerns brought up above were not mentioned or discussed. "Encouraging people to see how something could be improved, or the benefits of free content etc, is pretty much always a better option than nerve-twitch deletions. If it's clear that the person isn't listening, or nothing is happening to improve the situation, then we can go ahead with taking measures, like deletion. However, the development of friendly templates, encouraging people to see how they can help, is a good step, I think. Cormaggio talk 08:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)" from the same scope discussion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion&oldid=1797207"