School talk:Computer Science/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Linux Command of the Day

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I'm pretty new to this Wikiversity but, correct me if I am wrong but this is supposed to be a "School" to teach people about Computer Science? If so, I think we should have a little box on the front page that has a new Linux command featured each day and a description of what that particular command does and what platform it will work on after all everyone tring to learn about Computer Science will some day eventually have to find out what Linux is. What a better way to learn some basic skills about the command line? --Crazy LinuxMAN 21:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Crazy LinuxMANReply

I like the idea. Maybe at least have some page with a list of unix commands in some unix category. It's probably there somewhere. I've seen wikipedia pages explaining certain unix commands in detail and giving examples of usage. --82.211.247.19 15:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

2nded. --Devourer09 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with the idea. To quote Edsger Wybe Dijkstra, “Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” I believe that putting ‘fact of the day/month’ on the page might be appropriate, but that putting a ‘Linux command of the day’ on the page would be a little closed-minded.Kinkydarkbird 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of a Learn Linux initiative and have begun such at Topic:Linux. I expanded the article Basic commands in Linux and started and expanded others. If any are enthused with Linux please begin the discussion at Talk:Linux and/or Topic talk:Linux. Remember that "Topic" groups here at Wikiversity are like WikiProjects at Wikipedia. • CQ 12:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Getting started

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, World! Could anyone here please clarify:

Can people add their own names to the participants list?
Can people add departments without explicit consensus?
Can people discuss new theories and do original research?

Thanks. Jafet 11:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Original research seems to be accepted... check. 14:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would answer "yes" to all three points. CQ 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Departmental Organization

Latest comment: 17 years ago32 comments18 people in discussion

I've added the departments programming, logic, complexity theory, compilers, graph theory, cryptography, ai, qc, networking, comp arch, os, concurrency, ui, graphics, db, bioinf. No one appears to have a problem with this.. I will add captions to these pages when I can. This was just my suggestion for the organization. If anyone else has any suggestions.. please... suggest.. -Tastymangojuice 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

We should avoid creating a mass of empty departments until we have content for those topic nodes. Right now, our primary focus should be to create a core course curriculum that the "average" computer science student would take in college. I have left the department listings, but I am building a "master list" of learning projects into the study program node. As the departments are developed, they can draw from this pool of learning project pages. -Freeman 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Organisation proposal

I think it might be better organised into a series of departments and divisions...

Division of Software Development

Division of Network and System Administration

Division of Computing Applications

Division of Computer Design

Thoughts? Karimarie 15:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think we'll need an "Algorithms" section a well. Maybe under Software Development. Jafet 14:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Playing devil's advocate here, how does this organisation relate to providing CS tools and materials? From the approved proposal, the focus seems toward resources and study aids, rather than courses. I get the sense that wikiversity is trying to complement its sister wikis, not compete with formal education. I expect the organisation to reflect the resources on offer and how they contribute to wikiversity's mission statement. (PeterMG 16:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Many people cannot think about education in terms other than courses. Many people come to Wikiversity, create long lists of courses and then depart. I guess that is their way of making requests for free courses! It is up to other people who have a deeper understanding of wiki to actually create the content of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 17:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello and welcome, PeterMG! I followed your track from the creationist unfinishable discussion. Well, I must admit I'm one of the "culprits" of filling the place with courses and courses/lessons lists =) ! See, I've never read any of the "political" material concerning wikiversity, nor intend to do it unless someone points to me I'm doing things really out of place. I just thought once "hell, it would be great to do a wiki university!", a friend told me the idea was already being done, and I ended up here. And (as you've noted) I think we are majority =)! My aim in this project is no other but to compete with formal education! I intend to provide for free what I think nobody should pay for, and have very deep convictions that it must be done. I see this project as a tool for said goal, and ultimately for humankind.

So, you see, there are kind of two groups of wikiversitians here: Those who followed the creation of the project and have its stated purposes in mind, and those who merely saw the name, agreed with what it suggested and do as me.

Regarding the CS School organization, (as it was last time I saw it), it was somehow alien to me, as it seems the organization of university studies varies from country to country, so I decided to don't care the least: As long as we provide the content and the naming and organization is not senseless, I'm OK with it.

And of course, being the kind of contributor which (it seems -I told you I don't know for sure) does things out of the stated scope of the project, I'm OK with the contributors doing "the right thing". It's just I wanted you to know some of us are doing it knowingly =) --Jorge 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"the political material concerning wikiversity" <-- There are really only two types of decisions made about Wikiversity. At the "top", there are decisions made at the level of the Wikimedia Foundation. These "high level" decisions are about things like, "when should we launch the project?" and "should we continue to provide support for this project?" There are very few "high level" decisions that need to be made, but they are each very important. All the other decisions about Wikiversity are made by individual wiki participants and are mainly reflected in the editing of the wiki. "the project and its stated purposes" <-- I view Wikiversity as an experimental exploration of how to use wiki technology to promote learning and education. As long as Wikiversity participants are constructively taking part in that exploration process nobody is going to be "doing things really out of place". The idea that Wikiversity can "compete with formal education" is seductive and it is an idea that has appealed to many participants from the very start of the project when it was still part of Wikibooks. However, "compete with formal education" means different things to different people. "Formal education" usually implies a formally accredited institutional structure that can confer diplomas and academic degrees. So what would it mean to "compete with formal education"? You can either imagine "competing" with or without Wikiversity being an accredited educational institution that confers degrees. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees would not approve a Wikiversity project proposal that included a role for "credentials". This makes sense because Wikimedia wiki projects depend on volunteer editors and I'm sure the Board sees no way to turn such a wiki into an accredited education institution. --JWSchmidt 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's true, I neither see the possibility of WV certifying anything. I see it more like ETS and its TOEFL and GRE exams: You study however you want, and they simply evaluate you. So Wikiversity is one of the ways included in that "however you want". Kind of separation of roles. We offer the possibility to study by pleasure, too, not having to concern yourself with degrees if you don't want.--Jorge 10:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

For me this division is good but in software division I think departments are too much,for example considering a separate department for Graph theory, is not essential, I think following organization can be general and sufficient for this purpose :

Division of Science,Knowledge and Research.

Department of Computer Graphic (Computer Graphic,Game engine theory,Computer Vision Digital Image processing,...)

Department of Computation Concepts (Graph theory,Language theory,Algorithm ,Complexity theory,Cryptography,...)

Department of Advanced Concepts and Research(Bioinformatics,DNA Programming,Thesis,...)

Division of Production,Engineering and Maintenance.

Department of Software Engineering (Software Architecture,Programming,Database Systems ,....)

Department of Computer Engineering (Computer Architecture,Network,Computer Interface,Data transfer)

Department Of Administration and Operations (Network Administration,Database Administration,...)

Division of Presentation and Literature I don't know what I can call it exactly

Department of Computer Science in bushiness (Information technology,MIS,Dataware housing,...)

Department of Computer Science Expansion ( Computer Systems Marketing,IT project Management,Computer Teaching,...)

in this way each department has numbers of programme and courses to present. (Ehsan Bouhendi 08:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC))Reply

Engineering Department within Computer Science School

Support. Hi everyone, this is a good idea, I think. If it works. Start off with preliminary niggles though, Computer Science is a Physical Science, and I think it should be in that category more than Engineering. Most universities in the world seem to agree!Ade1982 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ambigous. I'll add that Computer Science seems to be one major topic that wanders around a bit, in part because it really is an inter-discliplinary subject even though it is grounded strongly in mathmatics. I've seen CS departments in Information Technology collges, Engineering colleges, Science colleges, and even a dedicated "Mathmatical and Computational Sciences" college (made of up math, statistics, and CS depts.). And at the university I last atteneded, there were computer programming majors in no less than five different colleges at the same time! BIS (Business), Computer Science (Science), Computer Engineering (Engineering), Information Technology (also Engineering), and Instructional Technology (Education). Still, you are mostly correct that pure computer science is mostly found in whatever college that the math department is also located in, which is often the science or physcial science college. --Robert Horning 05:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ambiguous. I think it would be best to move math into its own school. Then we could have all of the maths, as well as computer science under the mathematics schpp;. Typically universities will move some departments such as cs or math into other faculties like science or engineering simply because most universities have large science/eng faculties, but small math departments.. In the case of wikiversity, since this "university" will have no specialization, Math should be a school of it's own, with computer science as one of it's departments. Considering anyways, that a lot of high level computer science courses will need math prereqs. --Tastymangojuice 17:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ambiguous. Comp. Sci. draws from both Mathematics and Eng., although in many ways more from Mathematics except for the Computer Arch. courses. --Darrell Ulm 14:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Against. Computer Science is a science, Computer Engineering is an applied science, like all forms of engineering. It is not true that computer science is a physical science as it does not concern itself with how a computer is physically built. I am opposed to Computer Engineering being part of the school of Computer Science, even though the two may share many learning projects in common. Comp.Eng is best off in its own school where it can contain departments on things like chip fab/risc/vlsi/etc. -Freeman 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merge Proposal

It has been suggested that Topic:Computer Science be merged with School:Computer Science, but it is hard to know why since I cannot find any reason given for such a merge. There are aspects of computer science that are of particular interest to mathematics. There is no reason why the School of Mathematics should not have its own division for study of topics in mathematics that are related to computer science. --JWSchmidt 22:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I put the request there, but I didn't have time to explain why here. So, my question is, what is intended to go here that will not be covered in Computer Science School? Is it a particular lesson? Because, if so, then that particular lesson could just be linked to in the School of Mathmatics curriculum or list of prerequisite studies. Will it be "Computer Science in Mathematics"? Then that can be a subject to be taught in Computer science school. It seem to me that this page will just repeat information that should be covered in Computer science school and a student will be better served by being directed there. - Trevor MacInnis 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed that the talk page of Topic:Computer Science is already merged/redirected to the talk page of School:Computer Science and the page should logically follow. I should also note that I'm not suggesting that Mathematics school should not have "its own division for study of topics in mathematics that are related to computer science", but this particular page is just too general for its difference to be discerned - the title "Computer Science" suggests no link to mathematics but a distinct link to Computer Science School. - Trevor MacInnis 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that these are issues best left to the School of Mathematics. There were people there who wanted computer science as a subunit of mathematics while other people objected to that. Giving the School of Mathematics their own division for mathematically-oriented topics related to computer science seems a reasonable compromise. The name of Topic:Computer Science could be changed to reflect its link to the School of Mathematics. When I was in school I took a mathematics course that taught computer methods for linear algebra and that had a computer lab component. Yes, a computer science school could teach such courses, but it is not unusual for mathematics to have its own computer-orinted classes. --JWSchmidt 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sure, that's fine with me, but the title really should be changed. I suggest Topic:Computer Science in Mathematics. It should not have the exact title of another subject if it is not going to be a part of that subject. - Trevor MacInnis 04:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think "Computer Science" in math is computer programing's name, where Computer Science in Engineering covers all aspects of computers. In the US, comSci is programming, where hardware is called "computer engineering".--Rayc 13:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

While it is a common perception that compSci is programming and compEng is hardware, in reality, compSci is really the theoretical underpinnings of how computers work, are programmed, are used, etc.; compEng is the application of that theory. I think of it as the distinction between Numerical Analysis and Calculus in Mathematics, or even as the difference between Mathematics and Engineering. SilasSnider 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, like I said about history, it can be in two cats, as long as people can find it. --Rayc | (Talk) 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, the "old" argument!!! --Darrell Ulm 14:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

To me, computer science means the science of computers. I may know more about the programming aspects of it, but I would not count computer engineering as outside computer science. There are people who study logic, computation complexity, computation geometry, etc, in mathematics. I would consider their works as lying in the intersection of mathematics and computer science.--Hillgentleman|User talk:hillgentleman 12:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there is no need for Topic:Computer Science. I also think that School:Computer Science should be listed under the Faculty of Portal:Science rather than under Engineering. Computer Science is a study of theory, whereas Computer Engineering is a study of application and is technically an applied science. -Freeman 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree --Remi0o 09:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I slightly disagree. Computer Science is a study of the theory of computers and software. The term Computer Engineering (in my experience) has only ever been applied to the design and construction of computing hardware. Software Engineering and Computer Programming are typically used for the actual practice of writing software. -- Dmclean 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

My opinion is its too early to argue too much about this. Where the CS school sits, if its "engineering" or "science", it all depends on how the rest of Wikiversity evolves. What we need is content creation and an overall strategy -- once we sort that out, then we can start the political games involved in titles and which "Faculty" we are associated with. Historybuff 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Computer Science as a School

Computer Science was on the original list of Wikiversity Schools. There were some problems when Wikiversity started, but they have been fixed. You should now feel free to start calling Comupter Science a school! See Template:School boilerplate for ideas on what a Wikiversity school page might look like. Use the "move" button to move Topic:Computer Science to School:Computer Science. Place School:Computer Science in the Category:Wikiversity schools category. --JWSchmidt 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I switched Topic:Computer Science to School:Computer Science. With respect to the idea that School:Computer Science should be "part of" the school of mathematics, these two schools should cooperate, but I think it is best if schools do not claim to contain other schools. --JWSchmidt 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we need to tell people "what computer science is" in the opening paragraph. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it is a portal page to various topics/departments and to learning projects. Are there any complaints? -Freeman 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Requesting computer science help

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How to write quizes on mediawiki, see [1]. Would anyone here be willing to work on this?--Rayc 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Material from Wikibooks

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page Portal:Computer Science was imported from Wikibooks. Please coordinate that page with School:Computer Science. --JWSchmidt 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Programs of studies?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wonder, if they will appear. Also, how can I join as Wikiversity editor? I got some bits about Computer Science! DarkFighter 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

--Simply click Edit on any page and say what you have to say. You can also add yourself to the list of advisors on the mail School of Computer Science Page. Just edit the page and add your name. --jlguinn 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Intro to Computer programming

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just noticed a link for an Intro to computer programming which is currently empty. You might want to checkout the Web Design/Alice in Wonderland Intro to programming activity in case it's useful. Feel free to move the page and change the domain. Michaelnelson 00:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Scientific Computing?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I was browsing the School and noticed there is no Topic:Scientific Computing or, as suggested above, a Division of Scientific Computing. Has this been left to some other school?

In the curriculum Numerical Analysis is present but left to the Mathematicians to take care of, yet there are a number of topics, i.e. numerical algorithms, for which Mathematicians have very little appreciation and who's details are completely within the realm of Computer Science.

I woud suggest a Division/Department of Scientific Computing with the following topics:

Topic:Numerical Algorithms: finite precision arithmetic, interpolation, extrapolation, root finding in one and many dimensions, minimization, numerical quadrature, integration of ODEs, etc...
Topic:Bioinformatics: sequence alignment, sequence searching, phylogeny, structure and function prediction, etc...
Topic:Simulation Science: modelling methods, molecular dynamics, Monte-Carlo simulation, finie differences, finite elements, finite volumes, particle methods, etc...
Topic:Numerical Linear Algebra: representations, reflectors, decompositions (LU, QR, SVD, etc...), conjugate gradients, preconditionners, etc...
Topic:Machine Learning: different algorithms, neural nets, HMMs, validation and testing, etc...

Of course these are all strongly interdisciplinary fields and one could argue that they do not strictly belong to Computer Science. They are, however, an almost endless source of good problems to which good algorithms must be found.

It would be a shame to leave these topis to other Departments (e.g. Bioninformatics to the Biologists, Simulations to the Engineering Sciences, Numerical Algorithms to the Mathematicians, etc...) since their focus would only be on the results obtained using these methods and not on the methods themselves.

I have a bit of experience in this field some time which I could invest into setting up a curriculum, if of course there is interest.

Pedro.Gonnet 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jumped the gun and started Topic:Scientific Computing. I merged Numerical Linear Algebra into Numerical Algorithms and dropped Machine Learning since somebody already started Topic:Artificial Intelligence. Will start building a frame for the Numerical Algorithms branch of courses soon. Comments? Pedro.Gonnet 09:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity:Bachelor of Science in Computer Science

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have moved that page to a subpage for this school since it doesn't really fit into the Wikiversity namespace. You can now find it under School:Computer Science/Bachelor of Science. sebmol ^? 10:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

How do they do that?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think it would be great if our wiki software had a built-in point-and-click system for getting feedback about the usefulness of wiki webpages. Does anyone know how this webpage color-codes the parts of the document that have gotten many comments? --JWSchmidt 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Javascript. My browser blocks Javascript and the colors don't show. In any event it would supersize the bandwidth load on this server, needing to enclose all the text in identifying tags. Jafet 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, looks like javascript. It appears from my lame yard-sale computer (which nearly had a cow loading the page) like the logged in user selects a section of text and the script wraps it in span tags like:

<span id="gpl3.preamble.p0.s2" name="gpl3.preamble.p0.s2">
By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
intended to guarantee your freedom to share and 
change free software--to make sure the software is 
free for all its users.  </span>

Then some enumerator somewhere simply counts the comments made to that span allowing for overlapping and underlapping selections.

The script may, at some point manipulate a style sheet assigning an intensity class via: span class=("a1".."a24"); to each span id. The enumerator may use the span name (the values of id and name are the same for each span).

I dunno. What do they call that? Server Push? Pull? Push/pull? Something to ponder (...and look for some documentation about). CQ 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Linux Server Administration

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I put a placeholder at Topic:Linux Server Administration hoping someone more qualified than me might help get it started. I know there's lots of Linux users here. If no one jumps on it, I'll try to put something useful there, but I'd rather see a comprehensive treatment of the topic by a real learning group. CQ 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Against. Topics are reserved for departments. Linux Server Administration should be a course/learning project and not an entire department. -Freeman 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Freeman. I think it should definetly be covered, but Linux is not a department to itself. Matthewdavid 08:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK. I moved it to Linux Server Administration. CQ 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about covering Linux in a general Unix course? The idea that you guys have might be much more specialized, but it might help to cover the basics first. Just a thought. Historybuff 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It appears that the Topic:Operating Systems department (learning project) has provided the Operating Systems/GNU/Linux as the main resource for Linux-related topics. --CQ 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A comment about GNU/Linux in relation to subgroups -- the "slash" between GNU and Linux implies a subgroup of things GNU. Usually the alternative to a slash when there is confusion is a hyphen or an underscore.--John van v 18:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The page has now been renamed to Operating Systems/GNU-Linux to deal with the forward slash sub-page confusion. -- Jtneill - Talk 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

CQ - I've added a bit to the Topic:Operating Systems page. What I'm still not sure about is whether topics are intended to evolve into courses, or whether topics will simply be covered in a larger course. Historybuff 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am very interested in microkernel systems such as L4. I am on a mailing list at the moment that I think is related to fiasco version. There are a few versions. Interesting to me about l4; when the iPhone was still a mystery many speculated that it would be running L4. L4 is a descendent of the Mach kernel effort.--John van v 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

German Wikiversity course "software test" - you want this also in English?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everybody, I have posted the same topic here (sorry, if you feel like, that I spam).

have a look here please. I would like also to begin with the course here. Perhaps one of the admins can guide me, where it would fit the best? Also I would be more than happy, if some people would join as tutors for the course and also take part in it. --Erkan Yilmaz 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Courses?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I know this is a funny thing to ask about a school, but are there any courses that are going to be offered? As a newbie to Wikiversity, I'm going in circles trying to find stuff about them. There are courses being offered in other parts of Wikiversity, so I know that's a goal. I'd love to be able to help, but I'm not sure even where to begin. Historybuff 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the jungle, Historybuff! Yeah, we're not very organized yet. There is a page and relevant discussion at Computer science program, which looks like it may be developing into a course catalog and gets a lott of hits. Portal:Computer Science also exists in its imported-from-Wikibooks form and mirrors a lot of the same information as the main namespace article above.

Wikiversity:Schools generally build Wikiversity:Major portals which should appear at Wikiversity:Browse. These are supposed to be the "top level" pages which organize and link everything else. One problem we have here is that things were imported from Wikibooks (where Wikiversity was "born") and there is not yet a strategy to form and organize School:Computer Science. -- CQ 17:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone hand me a machete. :)

Thanks for your clarification, that actually helps -- and I did kind of notice the place was in a bit of disarray. The link you've given is a good start. Where would a strategy discussion go?

There are some interesting bits here so far, I'm hoping that I can make a positive contribution. Historybuff 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, there certainly is some dense brush out there. Whew. I touched a little here and there, but the categories don't seem to logical right now. For instance, "API use with VB6" is an article in programming, but there is a Visual Basic subcat. If I can figure out how to create a category, I might go through and organize this a bit. Historybuff 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, courses!!!

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the course of cleaning up the categories, I've started to develop an informal catalog of courses by category . Just slap Category:Computer Science Courses into any stub, 1/2 done or fully done course if you want to help. I'm looking to try and gather up what we have in one spot, and then go through and audit the courses. We have some gems in the mix, but lots of fundamental stuff is desperately needing attention. We really need a complete "intro to CS course", for instance. I'm also toying with the idea of courses with non-CS focus, like a general "into to Computers" and industry-focused/continuing ed type courses. Comments? Historybuff 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking that maybe we should have a intro to certain programs that may be more complicated than others.ex:Topic:How to use FirefoxCupy 52040 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how appropriate "the basics" kind of courses fit into the Comp Sci school, but I definately see the need for them. We should develop these courses based on interest -- but how to gauge interest? Historybuff 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

We could start off with the default Linux browser and Firefox,them being some more complicated and popular than othersCupy 52040 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lessons for the Courses

Great idea! And, of course, lessons are essential along with exercises. I'm wondering how easy would it be to randomly select predefined exercises with predefined links to answers? I mention this, since, for instance looking at content generated for the C programming language, there is both the book in http://www.wikibooks.org and the course. It makes sense, to focus on lessons and exercises in courses, correlating the lessons with books. Interactive lessons and exercises make it easier to understand the content covered in a book.

Cio 15 January 2007

Participants

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How can I join as participant? I am student of computer science but unfortunately not from English speaking country. Whisperer 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Simply add your name to this list along with your field of interest. You may want to create Whisperer and let the community here know something about you, including what your native language is. Welcome! --CQ 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Introduction to Computer Science

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm a bit concerned with Introduction to Computer Science. The way it's evolving doesn't appear to to track well with Computer science (Wikipedia) and the way the science is defined. We have a Computer programming division with a lot of participants. That division should handle developing that content, independently. Intro to CS should form with a pattern something like this. Thoughts? --CQ 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Introduction to Computer Science as it is coming now is sort of a mixed bag. Some of it is appropriate and some of it belongs in other courses. That course should probably stick to the outline from w:Computer_science. Dmclean 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm just trying to complete the course as it was originally outlined, at this point. I agree there is a need for rework, and I'd be happy to jiggle the content off into different courses as appropriate. My focus at this point, in contrast, is to have something that has potential to be re factored. There has been lots of great talk about program and course directions, but not many complete courses to show for it.

I did visit my local library, but many of the books that I was going to use to review the current course were reference, so I'll either have to do my research there or find some other texts. Historybuff 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Server Administration Department

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We now have a Topic:Server administration content development group that will work on materials for different OSs and a bag of common server apps. BTW, we probably need a Topic:Apache to build some materials as well. Any takers? Please have a look! CQ 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah... I forgot the main reason... We also need this department and your support to further develop the Wikiversity:Sandbox Server. Please sign the roster and add your ideas when you get a chance. Thanks in advance! CQ 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion, at this point anyways, is to try and limit the number of new Topic spaces in the short term. We should concentrate on filling in lesson material at this time, and really we should "upgrade" lesson collections to Topics when they get big enough. (This is in ref to Topic:Apache)

As for the Sandbox server, we do need some interested admins to step up so that CS school can handle the load a server will place on resources. I'll drop by and see if I can help in there. Historybuff 14:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Theory of Automata

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I looked at Computer_science_program and I think we need a course in "Theory of Automata and Languages", which also refers to Topic:Compilers_and_Language_Theory (There is a bit of confusion about organization!!)I think it should be an Intermediate Level Course. Zorg 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to make up an outline? If something isn't put in the right area, feel free to juggle it a bit. We're still getting organized, and every little bit helps. Historybuff 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The course is intended to study and define in a very formal way what's an automata,a language,an alfabet, a grammar.It covers things like deterministic and non-deterministic automata,contex-free grammar and languages,parsing,regular expression etc.. and it's used as a base for compilers (I'm studing it so I can be more explicit).I can start to prepare a template for the subject if you agree --Zorg 20:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late reply. Please do start, if you haven't already. Historybuff 04:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I already started one at wikibooks.org a while ago. It was moved here the last I saw of it, and now it's gone. See here: Metric's wikibook Contributions. Anyone know where it went or how to restore it? Metric 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Appearance

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I think that a more stylized appearance would really help to promote the school. If someones going to be reading it for hours it could at least be a bit colourful. It's just an idea, I know that the information is more important, but it can't hurt. Try something like this. Vermishis 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do like well layed out and easy on the eye courses, but our focus should be content, not presentation (at least at this time). If we have good lessons, we can get some people to tweak the layout, while beautiful layouts with poor content aren't a draw. Thanks for the pointer though -- it is a good starting point.

I've now joined this school, I'm going to work on making everything look nicer, while actually being a student here. I think it would be cool If we made the front page look sort of like a portal. I'll run everything by the rest of the school before I make even the slightest change so no worries.--Vermishis 04:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Our "front page" should be at Portal:Computer_Science, where we should be "browseable". Feel free to make edits and be bold ... if you have some new style, edit one page to show what it will look like, and solicit some feedback. Every bit helps. Historybuff 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I took your advice, I have now changed the History of computing page. I will eventually do all the lessons like this if you like it, and if you want me to.--Vermishis 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do the colors mean anything? I do like that it's a bit more snappy, but I'm not sure the design is properly in accordance with Usability guidelines.

We have to strike a balance between making the content look too boring, and making it look too MTV, if that makes sense. I think that for the history of computing, with a bit of tweaking or some explaination, it could work. I'm not sure it's an appropriate style for every lesson, though. (I do think some of our organizational "Topic" areas could use some spicing up though ... and this type of thing would be entirely appropriate for that. Historybuff 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I'll work on a less flashy, simpler design. As for lessons that don't follow those categories, I'll make some sort of ordering system for different types of lessons and make a design for each. Of course, there will always be lessons that don't fit. But I'll either, re-arrange the data (Never erasing any data) or slightly alter the template. As for the meaning of the color, I think so far it will be:

Yellow - Content ( Stuff that must be read, and understood to continue. )
Blue - Extras ( As in things that do not protrude to the lesson but can still help to understand the subject. )
Cornsilk - Assistance ( As in stuff that doesn't teach you anything but, helps you learn/remember (i.e. Tests, Instructions, etc.) content in Yellow boxes. )

--Vermishis 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Syntax Highlighting

The computer language lessons could definitely benefit from having access to syntax highlighting. What would it take to get a mediawiki syntax highlighting plugin (see C++ example there) installed on Wikiversity?
Jean-Loup 04:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ignore the above question. I just found out that the maintainers are already in the process of installing a similar syntax highlighting plugin, see here

Software Essentials?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think that adding a section for recommended open source software, for each subject. I see there is a section for this in resources, but that says to add "Educational Software" not functional software, that can be used during and after the course is finished. I have a lot of open source graphics, 3D graphic design, and (A LOT again) of programming software. THese programs took awhile for me to find, it would be very useful for people just learning. --Vermishis 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. I'm not sure the best way to approach this. We definately need a way to point people to good software, but want some organization to the layout. Maybe ad-hoc is good enough for right now? In any case, if you have good software, don't be afraid to add a link or two. Historybuff 16:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

How about adding a section at the end of every lesson of software that protrudes to that subject? Just an idea. I'm working on a large scale plan of organization, I'll try to fit it, in there.--Vermishis 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Department of Computer Science

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here is the only notable content from the Department of Computer Science:

Vinicius "Corvu" Brenny. Brazilian Parana Federal University's (UFPR) Computer Science Student. Interested in Low Level Programming, Nets, Hardware Building, Driver Writing and Repairing and Specially Systems Emulation. Will soon found the "Pascal" Division.
Birean Patel "BIRS". North Maharastra University's (NMU) Computer Engineering Student. Interested in Hacking, Nets, Hardware Building, Batch Programming,Web Hacking. Will soon found the "Hacking" Division.

(Participants)

The last time the page was edited was on 28 of January. It seems to me that computer science warrents a school, not a department. I am now going to nominate it for deletion. --Remi 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Certifications

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it possible to offer courses that would help people pass certification tests such as CompTIA's, Cisco's, and Microsoft's?

Certainly, as long as the course material was GFDL in nature. Historybuff 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Category duplication

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is both Category:Computer Science and Category:Computer science. According to Wikiversity Naming conventions and Wikipedia, it looks like we should use Category:Computer science, so I'll take a shot at changing use of Category:Computer Science to Category:Computer science. --JWSchmidt 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

NEW

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am new hear and I don't understand the concepts of Wikiversity.--Chocoman 03:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)ChocomanReply

Hello Chocoman, I will write you a welcome message for a first start and also you can contact me at any time, ok ? ----Erkan Yilmaz (evaluate me!, discussion) 06:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

How does this differ from computer science?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This question was asked on the page School:Information_technology#Talk_about_this_school:

How does this differ from computer science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.167.125 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply