Talk:8:00 class

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Does re-caps mean that IRC chats are not private? I wasn't intending to licence my IRC comments under the GFDL! McCormack 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also think this should go into the WV namespace. It's far too insider for the mainspace. McCormack 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is private about IRC? "go into the WV namespace" <-- this is being crafted as a learning project. --JWSchmidt 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you log in to the IRC channel, there is no statement akin to the statement on a MediaWiki editing page about releasing content under any particular licence. Under most law, anything not explicitly licenced more freely is "all rights reserved". Further, privacy laws may apply to transient communications - for example, depending on jurisdiction, publishing tapes of phone-calls without getting permission from participants may be illegal and/or unethical. I think this is an inadequacy of Wikimedia's IRC channels - there is no statement at all about privacy, or lack thereof. There should be a guide such as "long-term copies of chats are stored/published" or "participants should not release copies of chats without permission from other participants". Whatever the rules are, they should be clarified. If there are no rules, they should be made. McCormack 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does any of what you said (above) really have implications for making a list of topics that were discussed in an IRC chat channel? This is more of a freedom of speech issue than a privacy issue. --JWSchmidt 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. You're right. But that wasn't my question ;-) I said "does re-caps mean...?" If you're reworking the re-caps in such a way as to anonymize people's names and generally generalize, then there probably isn't a privacy issue. On the other hand, I wouldn't like an institution which could later devolve into a cut-and-paste of chats. McCormack 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the title, I'm really suspicious about this ;-) I mean, if anybody other than yourself came along and created a page called 8:00 class, I'd think to myself, "now shouldn't JWS go along and suggest to them they use a more descriptive title with a few more letters and a few less digits?". Has your account been compromised by someone? Are you the real JWS? McCormack 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha ha. I thought hard about the title. It is meant to be enigmatic and it is for advanced Wikiversity participants, not newbies. --JWSchmidt 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I please move this to 8:30 class instead? --HappyCamper 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cormaggio would never make it. I still think this is an insider page thinly disguised as a learning project and should go in the WV namespace, or acquire a proper title, or both. McCormack 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love this page. I come here everyday now. McCormack 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good page[edit source]

As this page develops, I'm thinking of actually adding it to my watchlist. I only very rarely do that ;-) It looks good. McCormack 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New term?[edit source]

Does WV Fall Term start at the beginning of September? Will this course be offered again? McCormack 06:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I was updating it, I was in need of some motivation to take the time to do things like look through recent changes. In other words, it served its purpose for me and it did not catch on with anyone else at the time. If you would like to help with it, we could start updates again any time. --JWSchmidt 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]