From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Colloquium)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles.
Sign your posts with   ~~~~

Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking a question, you can find some general information at:


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

"Knowledge grows when shared." — Bhartrihari (discuss)

The right perspective for approaching a wikidebate[edit source]

@Sophivorus: and others:

Dialectic "a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned methods of argumentation"

Eristic "argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth"

To encourage productive discourse in Wikidebates and at large, I'd like to add these definitions to the Wikidebate guidelines, and recommend that contributors use dialectic rather than eristic. In many other venues, political discussion usually takes the form of eristic, and I believe this a very bad cultural habit. Additionally, I don't think contributors should necessarily have to contribute in favor of both (or all) sides of a debate, though it may be useful at times to do so. Thoughts? AP295 (discusscontribs) 17:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't sure whether to put this suggestion on the Wikidebate talk, the Wikidebate guidelines talk, or somewhere else. Please let me know, and I will move it if this is not the right place, though it might attract more commenters here. It may be more useful to have the discussion here, and then move it to the relevant talk page if a consensus is reached, just because there seems to be very little traffic on Wikiversity talk pages at present. AP295 (discusscontribs) 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I'm taking for granted that the objective of a debate should be to establish truth when the issue at hand is a matter of fact, or reach fair compromise where there are conflicting interests, and not merely to practice rhetoric. In grade school we were occasionally assigned to hold a debate and construct arguments. I found this a thoroughly useless exercise, because at no point did our instructors set forward any particular objective or goal aside from "disputing another's argument." We were just arguing for the sake of arguing and accomplished nothing. Did we earn credit for lateral thinking or reaching any particular objective? No, we earned credit for regurgitating all the common talking points. It was an exercise in compliance and mimicry. AP295 (discusscontribs) 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Does Wikiversity support labs and practical activities?[edit source]

I am looking for a wiki for Labs, Workshop, DIY and Factory, that is, for all the practical activities and procedures. I have layed out a draft at WikiSpore:Works Spore. Its scope is all the physical making activities and the purpose to provide "a free platform for makers, DIY, and Open-Source Hardware and Manufacturing enthusiasts to collaboratively design and develop open manufacturing solutions for the humanity; to share knowledge and instructions about Manufacturing." It needs to even provide support Massive open online Labs (MOOL), start task projects to solve human issues, as well as to act as a repository for designs and plans for 3D printing, manufacturing, etc. These all seem to complement the present Wikiversity:Services, but I could not find any procedure or experiment related content on Wikiversity. So, are these allowed in Wikiversity? Thank you! Vis M (discusscontribs) 11:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vis M: See Wikiversity:Mission. Yes, I believe the things you mentioned would be appropriate for Wikiversity. For one example / approach to lab activities, see IT Fundamentals. For a MOOC approach, see Web Science. I do have two cautions, though.
  1. You may have problems uploading 3D printing plans or other binary files. I'm not sure what the file format is, but we're fairly limited in those options. You might want to try one first and see how it goes.
  2. We're careful to only link to other free communities and/or resources. Links to sites that use extensive advertising or other profit approaches for content hosting are best left out.
Go ahead and start creating what you have in mind and let us know how it goes. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thank you! Vis M (discusscontribs) 08:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1[edit source]

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)

22:07, 10 June 2021‎

Please provide input here or on Meta and during an upcoming Global Conversation on 26-27 June 2021 about the Movement Charter drafting committee[edit source]

Hello, I'm one of the Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators working on community engagement for the Movement Charter initiative.

We're inviting input widely from users of many projects about the upcoming formation of the Movement Charter drafting committee. You can provide feedback here, at the central discussion on Meta, at other ongoing local conversations, and during a Global Conversation upcoming on 26 and 27 June 2021.

Further details and context about these questions is on Meta along with a recently-updated overview of the Movement Charter initiative. Feel free to ask questions, and add additional sub-sections as needed for other areas of interest about this topic.

If contributors are interested in participating in a call about these topics ahead of the Global Conversation on 26 and 27 June, please let me know. Xeno (WMF) (discusscontribs) 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The three questions are:

  1. What composition should the committee have in terms of movement roles, gender, regions, affiliations and other diversity factors?
  2. What is the best process to select the committee members to form a competent and diverse team?
  3. How much dedication is it reasonable to expect from committee members, in terms of hours per week and months of work?

Server switch[edit source]

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 01:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

About the tabs accessible on "View History", on each ressource[edit source]

Hello. On fr.wikiversity, on each resource, when one clicks on "View History", there is access, not only to "Search - Statistics - Revisions - Page Views", but also to "Number of contributors who follow this page". If I can't see this tab on en.wikiversity, is it because my IP is abroad (in France), or is it (as I think so) because it would take too much work for the wiki engine? Thanks for your answer. Sincerely, Claude Mariotti (discusscontribs) 07:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@EclairEnZ: Number of page watchers is available under the Page information link on the left of each page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: Wow! Never, never, I would have thought that this link could exist. And then, we ask, without believing, and the miracle happens. I'm telling you and believe me, all you good people, if you were looking for a magician, don't look anymore Face-wink.svg Thanks, Dave. Claude Mariotti (discusscontribs) 22:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiAsk[edit source]

I ran across WikiAsk proposal recently. Some people oppose it with argument that the content fits in Wikiversity scope. So my question is, does Q&A, in the sense of a large shared FAQ, fit in Wikiversity scope? Does any subset of Q&A, e.g. short HOWTOs, fit in Wikiversity scope? Existing Q&A sites like StackOverflow function as a sort of collaborative learning community that produces a resource with educational value as its byproduct, so Q&A is within scope at a very abstract level. It is however my understanding that Wikiversity, like Wikibooks, focuses on linear content that is expected to be consumed sequentially from start to end. Q&A is an obvious reference resource. Absence of any Q&A repository within Wikiversity makes me think this must have been rejected in the past or that Q&A is such a poor fit that nobody even attempted it. — Robert Važan (discusscontribs) 03:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert Važan: Q&A learning projects are supported by the Wikiversity:Mission. There have been a variety of Q&A learning projects at Wikiversity over the years. Try a search for "help desk" for some examples. There have been others targeting junior high and high school audiences as well, but I don't recall the page titles at the moment. Many have since been removed as lacking content (empty placeholders that didn't engage participants). The problem with Q&A is that it requires experts in the topic dedicated to monitoring questions and responding to them, and likely other volunteers to manage the overall content organization to make questions and answers easy to find, merge duplicates, etc. If you'd like to start one or more Q&A learning projects at Wikiversity, please do so. If nothing else, you can use Wikiversity to build and demonstrate the concept. If the model is successful, we can add a link to the home page to draw additional viewers (such as the WikiJournal already enjoys). Let us know whenever you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: I've seen Wikiversity:Help desk, but that's not what I mean by Q&A. WikiAsk proposal is a bit confused in its details and needs some discussion and fine-tuning, but the basic idea is to have one page per question and to have a very large number of such pages (possibly millions). These question pages eventually become the primary source of traffic on the Q&A site. The ongoing influx of readers brings in editors who update the question pages with new information. Discussion threads like this one or the ones on Wikiversity:Help desk are a different kind of resource that lacks the structure and focused writing needed to rank in search engines. Discussion pages are consequently used mostly interactively and archive search plays a minor role. Given this clarification, does Q&A belong in Wikiversity? Wikiversity:Mission talks about "learning materials/resources", but what exactly is a learning material? Individual question pages inherently meet only 3 out of 10 criteria for learning material defined in Wikiversity:Being educational (specifically criteria 1, 5, and 7) and some questions may also meet 3 additional criteria (3, 4, and 10) depending on how they are written. It's a borderline case. — Robert Važan (discusscontribs) 21:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: PS: Then there's the issue of unanswered questions. Q&A sites generally leave unanswered questions around forever. It is not uncommon for people to add an answer months or even years later. Would Wikiversity tolerate pages that merely state a question without providing any answers? — Robert Važan (discusscontribs) 21:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Robert Važan: I didn't reference Wikiversity:Help desk. I was hoping you would search for help desk pages generically. Such a search yields pages including:
It would certainly be possible to have a learning project or projects with one subpage per question. Whether or not there is demand for millions of such pages remains to be seen, but the concept certainly overlaps with Wikiversity's education mission. Whether or not there is demand for a separate wiki project also remains to be seen. Wikiversity started as part of Wikibooks and then split off 15+ years ago as it became clear they should be separate projects. WikiJournal is interested in splitting off, but is building their portfolio while and until such time as a split is approved. Rather than focusing on a platform that doesn't exist, I encourage you to work within the wiki project structure already provided and build what you can here to demonstrate proof of concept, demand, etc.
Regarding Wikiversity structure, please start with a learning project that describes the Q&A approach and then use subpages for the questions and answers. There is usually plenty of leeway for subpages to have little content as long as the overall project demonstrates educational value. On the other hand, if the entire project is abandoned, after 180 days one of us would likely go through and delete unanswered questions that don't appear to add value. As the project grows, we can see the direction it takes and move pages around in the future as necessary to support the interest generated.
Since WikiJournal is using that as the start of all of their pages, and you believe that WikiAsk is the appropriate title for the wiki you want to build, perhaps starting with WikiAsk is the way to go for your project, at least for now.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)