Portal talk:Research

New versions of the Research Portal

If you want to experiment with a radical new version of Portal:Research you can work at Portal:Researchnew.

Thanks for the above comment. I looked and it seemed very similar :-) --McCormack 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the clueless: Portal:Researchnew started as an exact copy of the Portal:Research. It is an available workspace for planning new content for this portal. --JWSchmidt 15:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you update featured content on this portal, make sure that you update Portal:Research/Featured. --JWSchmidt 14:41, 27 January 2007

---

I just made this comment on the Researchnew portal, I just noticed that the graph of the number of pages online at Wikiversity only encompasses a page count before December 2006. Shouldn't a new version be availible? --Sgutkind 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

These are not very good graphs. Here is the most recent info from stats.wikimedia.org:

--JWSchmidt 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Research tasks

I was coming here to add participation at http://galaxyzoo.org/ to the list of "Research tasks", but I don't see any such list. Should we add one to the new design?--Rayc 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Liberal Arts Faculty Votes to Distribute Research Free

Harvard Liberal Arts Faculty Votes to Distribute Research Free .. sort of interesting item related to research. Would there be a better place to put items like these? --Remi 09:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposals

There should be a process to get research topics approved by peers. This would allow for better organization of research and collaboration among users researchers. Proposals are often used to get funding for research, Wikiversity should use proposals to get pages made for research. This will eliminate all bogus research and increase the credibility of the research. Wbeadle3 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See this page at beta Wikiversity and Wikiversity:Review board. --JWSchmidt 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Research could be Sold for Fundraising

Current fundraising needs beg a saleable product of value in the free-market. Under US tax laws, the only items allowed to be sold are those created with volunteer labor. Principally within wikimedia projects, the work product of volunteer labor is information, yet the purpose of these resources is to be free for all (nmtp). A potential source of fundraising income is available in Custom Research Projects which might be commissioned by parties in exchange for a donation. Although granted, the majority of work products within the Wiki family will be freely available to the public, the result of the collaborative efforts in this venue are eventually to be Research Reports which could be produced according to contracted specifications and for the purpose of supporting the foundation. These should be freely available but could also be the property of the comissioning donor. --Gustable 20:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though I know little about the details. The Jade Knight 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I live this idea but how will funds be distributed? Wbeadle3

Radical new version (April 2008)

General ideas of the new version: (1) update antiquated references, (2) improve visual appear, (3) improve ergonomy, (4) improve overview of and access to content (category tree system), (5) incorporate some dynamic rotating content (features, quotes), (6) visually connect the portal into the other five top-level "resources by level" portals. --McCormack 14:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the moment I have left out the content of Portal:Research/Research news and Portal:Research/Did you know. If someone reckons this content needs adding, it's still there on the subpages. At the moment this page seems a little overloading, so some trimming seemed in order. --McCormack 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have combined the following pages under the heading of "research administration" to try and simplify things a little: Portal:Research/WikiProjects, Portal:Research/Categories, Portal:Research/Selected biography. In the future it might be a good idea to actually consolidate the content of these pages into something more digestible for a new researcher trying to get to grips with what can and cannot be done at Wikiversity. Incidentally, the selected biography page had nothing to do with biographies! --McCormack 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive of older content

To access old content (i.e. pre-radical revision), you can use the page history, or alternatively the redundant subpages listed above. The subpages have mostly been left alone - i.e. quite a bit of "productive forking" has been done. Other subpages have simply been incorporated intact into the new design. --McCormack 12:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Category:Research needs a thorough tidy-up. One useful recategorisation that could be performed is changing the category to Category:Research project for specific projects. -- Jtneill - Talk 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

research initiative

Before there was a WikiMedia project (Wikiversity) that was open to original research, wiki participants with an interest in doing research on wikis congregated at the Meta wiki. It would make sense to bring those folks to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How to display and coordinate researches

1. The hierarchical WV file organization, including Portal, School, Project, Topic, Category, etc., is far more complex than the simple WP one, perhaps too complex for simpletons like me, hence a great barrier to maximal process and progress in concert.

   "far more complex than the simple WP one" <-- Not correct. The only significant difference is that Wikiversity has the topic and school namespaces for content development projects. Wikiversity participants have created many topic and school pages because there is a large amount of content development work that needs to be organized at Wikiversity. "a great barrier to maximal process and progress" <-- KYPark, please explain how organizing content development projects in the topic and school namespaces is a barrier to "process and progress". --JWSchmidt 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   To be or not to be "correct"
   That is not the question.
   For I'm supposed to be invited to the brainstorming, hence have to feel so free that even simpletons and newbies should rarely be upset, opposed, discouraged, shamed or blamed for their folly, but just welcome to talk anything hopefully good, in good faith. Obviously I mistook Project as a namespace. Should you or anyone take that so seriously here, JWS? The guest here should speak of her opinion rather than interfere with others disruptively. The hostess should take whatever is good and just ignore the rest. Pretentious, few would come to help her. She must behave like a business girl, as it were!
   The "content development' is any wiki's business. What exactly do you mean by that? You may be too clever to understand how complicated or confused the hierarchical organization of WV looks to me as a simpleton as I confessed. Should Topic and School not be structural or complicated at all, Category would be just as good as Topic and School, which thus look so redundant as to obstruct the process and progress! -- KYPark [T] 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

   • "Should you or anyone take that so seriously here, JWS?" <-- KYPark, I don't know what you mean by "that". If you mean the claim that Wikiversity has a namespace organization "far more complex" than that of Wikipedia, then I take such claims seriously and I provided links to a page that explains how the topic and school namespaces can help organize content development efforts. If you follow those two links then you can find additional links to a page that explains what is meant by "content development". "What exactly do you mean by that?" <-- I mean people editing collaboratively to develop learning resources. I'm not surprised when people are confused about the school and topic namespaces. It would be useful if those namespaces and content development were mentioned on the main page since 99.9999% of Wikiversity remains to be developed. "Should you or anyone take that so seriously here, JWS?" <-- KYPark, if by "that" you mean confusion about multiple ways to use the word "project", including the project namespace, then I take seriously the danger that people can be confused when a word is used in several ways. There are many kinds of projects at Wikiversity. At Wikipedia, content development projects are called "WikiProjects". Is that any less confusing than making use of the school and topic namespaces to organize "content development projects"? KYPark, you say, "Category would be just as good as Topic and School", but when Wikiversity started it was organized around schools and a decision was made to create the school and topic namespaces rather than just try to make use of categories like "Directories of content development projects" and "Content development projects". That was a decision similar to deciding to drive on the right or left side of a road. Is it really worth arguing about the benefits from driving on one side of the road or the other? --JWSchmidt 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
     • By "that" I mean the fact that I mistook Project for a namespace so that neither of your understandings is relevant, I'm afraid. -- KYPark [T] 08:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
     • I'm not really arguing for the abolition of School and Topic namespaces, but pointing out the complication thereby which might be hinder the novice editor in particular from organizing resources easily and freely. Anyone may take this opportunity to review them in this perspective, which is also a self-referential research in kind! -- KYPark [T] 08:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

   "hinder the novice editor in particular from organizing resources" <-- KYPark, what do you mean by "the novice editor"? A "novice editor" who has not participated in collaborative development of learning resources? A "novice editor" who arrives from Wikipedia and cannot be bothered to learn what is different between Wikipedia and Wikiversity? A "novice editor" who feels free to delete and disrupt the work of Wikiversity community members without first helping to create any learning resources? Such editors are hindered by much more than the existence of the school and topic namespaces. I'm highly skeptical about the ability of any novice editor to be "organizing resources" when they have never demonstrated any understanding of what Wikiversity is or how learning resources are collaboratively developed. KYPark, in exactly what sense is "organizing resources" a job for "novice editors"? --JWSchmidt 14:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

   JWSchmidt, your argument against novice editors sounds too challenging for me. Sooner or later, however, I may try to address it very carefully perhaps at #Who notices novices? (under construction). Meanwhile, knowing is one thing, teaching is another, editing is still another, and so on. A novice editor is not always a novice of learning. Most elders of high literacy in scholarship suffer high illiteracy in computing. To use that literacy is to ease that illiteracy as far as possible, by easing computing. Such would be the case with simpletons and newbies. The easiest is editing on the main namespace, regardless of School, Topic, and the like, which others would better bother from the file-organizational perspective. This would be a maximal collaboration by division of work as per varied capacity or competence. You'd better not long for Leibnizean talents or polymaths. Or, you'd suffer from the absolute manpower shortage. Never forget WV is far less popular than WP anyway. (BTW, note that your comment beginning with ":" would destroy my numbering beginning with "#". Thanks.) -- KYPark [T] 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

2. We may better not isolate information searching, understanding, learning, researching, and teaching from one another, but integrate all into the same thread while highlighting the point of intensive research required. (Alternatively, a link to the research page may be added to the headline of the other relevant pages.)

   "integrate all into the same thread" <-- If you are not interested in the research portal then move on. You are free to "integrate all" on some other page if you want to do so. The research portal is simply a directory for Wikiversity research. If you have no interest in the page then you need never visit it. --JWSchmidt 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   Your advice is not welcome at all, for again this is brainstorming. You just take whatever good there is if any fortunately. JWS, you'd better talk about your opinion to the headline invitation than such opposition to others that is just improper, if not uncivil, unreasonable or unseasonable on this occasion. -- KYPark [T] 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

3. It would be very hard to describe or prescribe a research agenda from scratch as well as an information search query from the "anomalous state of knowledge" (ASK) as pointed out by Nicholas J. Belkin of the UCL school of, so to speak, uncertain legacy, say, hypo-text.
4. An ambitious goal setting or seeking would be implausible at first. Another way of reading the intra- or inter-text, hypo-text or subtext should also be taken seriously as sort of research.
5. Editors would better write up to show up their research competence or qualification on the user page. The red link to it is a shame.

   "The red link to it is a shame" <-- What red link? --JWSchmidt 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   I meant what I said. -- KYPark [T] 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

6. The research coordinator should do their best.

-- KYPark [T] 13:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"far more complex than the simple WP one" <-- Not correct. The only significant difference is that Wikiversity has the topic and school namespaces for content development projects. Wikiversity participants have created many topic and school pages because there is a large amount of content development work that needs to be organized at Wikiversity. "a great barrier to maximal process and progress" <-- KYPark, please explain how organizing content development projects in the topic and school namespaces is a barrier to "process and progress". "integrate all into the same thread" <-- If you are not interested in the research portal then move on. You are free to "integrate all" on some other page if you want to do so. The research portal is simply a directory for Wikiversity research. If you have no interest in the page then you need never visit it. "The red link to it is a shame" <-- What red link? --JWSchmidt 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As a devoted contextualist, I dislike you drawing the points at issue out of context, as I elsewhere complained and asked for your cooperation or adaptation to my texture. (As a Darwinist you'd know how vital it is.) So I have to post each point back or close to the context, as above. -- KYPark [T] 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm proud to have participated in this brainstorming alone so far, whether wisely or foolishly. -- KYPark [T] 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My contextualist information strategy

• search and research of information
• reference thereto and inference therefrom
• teaching and learning

by not just roughly doing but toughly

linking and sinking

the relevant, in context in concert or in consilience, hence the names

hypertext and hypotext, respectively!

Note

The file organization, if too complicated, may become a curse rather than a blessing. For simple is beautiful! And it appears self-manifest why and how the relevant be well coordinated within and without research projects.

-- KYPark [T] 03:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! As far as hyperlinking is concerned, see Category:Linda Smith 1980#Literature and its edit box to find how easily the relevant are bilaterally linked. See also User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima/Colloquium#KYPark 2 and the other relevant here and there!

-- KYPark [T] 04:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Research Ideas

Hello: I'm starting to collect ideas from a long thread from September 2012 in the wiki-research-l list, in which many different proposals related to Open Access Journals and the "wiki way" of doing research were circulated. I will start adding content to meta:Wiki Research Ideas, please feel free to join me! Arided (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)