From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attribution of content[edit source]

Some content added here is copied from Because that page presently links to this resource, it was obviously copied here with permission, as of this date, and thus is released under the Wikiversity license. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to subpage[edit source]

Great resource!

I am not sure whether the move from SUSTAINed Handbook to a subpage of a distinct resource was appropriate. The original title refers to the SUSTAINed Network, and so is a much more suitable name.

Further, the resource under which it is a subpage:

  1. Has a structure with a navigational template
  2. Has seen little activity since 2012 aside from adding links to this page

My feeling is this:

  1. This page should revert to its original name
  2. Participants might like to consider developing a bespoke navigational template for "SUSTAINed Handbook". I would be happy to help with this
  3. Sustainability should be moved to Sustainability - Activities, Resources and Community as this more acurately reflects its content.
  4. More incoming links are created, i.e from Topic:Ecological sustainability (The tab "What links here" on the side panel lists incoming links)

It would be great to hear what people think about this? Leutha (discusscontribs) 08:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SUSTAINed Handbook is a "handbook" covering what topic? Sustainability! It is highly related to the resource page it is under. Yes, that resource is not well-developed. However, that's a separate issue.

Epistemologically, a particular study or activity relating to a resource would be a subpage of the resource. That's the organizational concept we've been working on. As you can see, the redirect was deleted, indicating both rough approval of the name, and a lack of incoming links.

  • At the time of my move, Sustainability had no link to this handbook. The handbook was floating, unconnected, and the title, to someone familiar with SUSTAINed, would still not be the most appropriate name. If we are to study SUSTAINed, we would have a SUSTAINed resource. If we are to study sustainability, that would be the name of the resource.
  • However, the Handbook was set up to be created by members of SUSTAINed. That's okay, we routinely allow a loose ownership of mainspace pages, but only without objection, and it should never be set up to discourage participation by others. Subpages may be set up with user management, as long as the overall structure is neutral.
  • The purpose of SUSTAINed Handbook was to
"provide ongoing support for tertiary sustainability practitioners to embed sustainability content and principles in tertiary level education curricula, campuses and communities."
And then:
"The concept behind a “living handbook” is that it becomes an open community of practice learning resource that develops through an organic process of practitioners sharing experiences and knowledge to support each other. For this reason an open online platform will be used so that members of the SUSTAINed network can post entries to the handbook and take shared responsibility for developing the content and shaping the direction of the handbook. This idea was proposed by participants at the last national symposium held in October 2014.
I have been actively using Wikiversity for learning since 2010, with a 2-year break. This learning has been general, I learn through site maintenance, and specific, I learn through developing resources. Subpage structure is extraordinarily valuable for this. It allows depth.
The name "Handbook" implies a book, a single document. However, this is a "living" book. Still, Wikibooks was intended for books! A Wikiversity resource, with an extensive subpage structure, is very much like a Wikibook, but we allow original research; in theory Wikibooks does not (in practice, there is little enforcement there).
  • I oppose complicating the name. All mainspace pages are learning resources, which then may include or are encouraged to develop activities, resources, and community. If a specific community is developed to create, maintain, or apply the work in a field, there can be a community subpage. More often, there is a section, "Participants," and if this becomes extensive, it could be moved to a subpage. (Technically, there should be a content split, because we would want those who have signed it to have the subpage on their watchlist, so they will see signups. But I have never seen this done.)
  • One of the missing activities that would greatly increase participation on Wikiversity is the use of sister wiki links. It's trivial to place a template on a Wikipedia article that will show "Wikiversity has a resource on Sustainability" or the like.
  • As to the name of this page, SUSTAINed members (presumably) -- a clever name -- started this page. That original purpose, for maximum impact, would need to be opened up, inviting general participation. However, it is possible that a subpage on SUSTAINed could be created. That would be Sustainability/SUSTAINed. Then the handbook page would be moved to Sustainability/SUSTAINED/Handbook.
  • However, researching this, I find: It looks to me like we may have some of our content being directly copied from there, without attribution, which is a WMF no-no. I see that I made a suggestion about attribution to the user who created the page. You would have seen this, adding your note about the name change. That was not, by the way canvassing (to refer to another current discussion involving me and you). It was proper. But ... the actually serious issue was not addressed. I see how this page came to my attention. When I see redlinked user talk pages, I look at user contributions. If they are at all positive, I welcome them. And I frequently move such pages, because new users frequently have little idea of our existing structure.
  • Notice that the creating user continued working on the page, suffering no inconvenience, as far as we know. Given the copyvio, and if I had time, It'd (1) add attribution, and (2) move our resource toward being something that supplements the SUSTAINed handbook, providing a space for discussion and other forms of participation not so easily found with the original handbook. If the license permits, I might copy the entire content of the handbook here, and then blank it. Why? Because web pages disappear, routinely. These are just ideas about how to support learning on Wikiversity. Thanks for your efforts. If the license does not permit it -- I have not researched the license, if there is any -- I might still copy the entire content, blank it, and then pull it back piece by piece for discussion. That is fair use, you can copy most anything that way. This is obviously not going to work on an encyclopedia, which, explicitly, -- does not discuss topics. It works here. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity SUSTAINed Partnership[edit source]

I am under the impression that the people editing here are involved with SUSTAINed, and indeed view their work here as some form of partnership. This is very welcome, and Wikiversity has worked with a range of not-for-profit educational establishments. I feel that it would be useful if you could confirm this, so that any copyright issues can be resolved. Indeed it may be worth discussing the matter with SUSTAINed whether the network as whole would like to adopt a compatible creative commons license. I feel that adopting an Open educational resources policy has become a crucial element in ussues of both sustainability and education. This would resolve the principle objection raised above. I would be happy to help with any discussions of copyright issues.

As regards "loose ownership of a page", I think what is important is that your initiative is seen as a partnership which should encourage the active participation of other Wikiversitans. However, it is important that such Wikiversitans respect the project which you are engaging in. Speaking from personal experience this has worked well: (See SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming). However, if you feel that a fellow editor is being disruptive, please contact the Custodians who can then take measures to ensure that you can have a mutually beneficial and pleasant experience with the WIkiversity community.

I see the work you are doing with SUSTAINed as very important and I am anxious that you should have a productive relationship with Wikiversity. In that context it might be useful to introduce yourselves on the Wikiversity:Colloquium which would enable you to get a broader range of views as regards how to deepen the collaboration. I feel you should be aware that the two people who have commented on this so far have simply expressed our personal opinions, and that the use of the term "we" does not imply any generalised opinion. Leutha (discusscontribs) 17:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, agreement: comments here are attributed, specifically, they are signed. That indicates they are the personal opinion or testimony of the user who signed them, that can be generally assumed. No user, no matter their position, has the right to individually control content here, nobody speaks with ultimate authority of that kind. Custodians have ad hoc authority, if uninvolved, and that is done to maintain order (And the community may review that and overrule individual custodians.)
Now, disagreement. When I use "we," it is the collective we, expressed through what occurs to me as one highly experienced here and informed through my history of practice, interactions, closing discussions, etc. It does "imply a generalized opinion," though not necessarily with specific authorization. In other words, I could be wrong and I have no "special authority." Or I could become wrong. Consensus can change, etc. These distinctions are all part of sophisticated consensus process. Generalizations do not deny the existence of exceptions or even that the generalization is "usually true," whatever that means.
And as to specific application. Leutha did not point to any alleged misattribution of view with "we." However, I found one instance, referring to subpage structure:
That's the organizational concept we've been working on.
Leutha does not seem to be aware of this effort. It's been going on for years, and over the last few years, it has become routine. Opposition to it has been extremely rare, and, recently, only Leutha has objected. That doesn't mean he's wrong, and he has the right to object. However, he does not have the right to redefine my language and deny my testimony. When I say "we," I mean "we," in the general sense of the Wikiversity community, without claiming established and proven consensus, but only operational fact, or in the specific sense of "myself and others," including several custodians. I am, by the way, not a custodian, though I have been one for periods. Welcome to Wikiversity! --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have, I believe, adequately handled the licensing/attribution issue, with the first section on this page. I put it at the top to make it specially visible. Copying of content here by someone legally an author or co-author of that content is release under our site license. If my inference is incorrect, I'd assume that the linking here on that web site indicates they would know, and would object if there were a problem. Something more specific would do no harm, and would satisfy copyright fanatics. I'm not a fanatic. Some WikiMedia users are. Leutha's suggestion of an explicit release on the web sites, as described, would fully handle this.
If you believe someone is being disruptive, first of all, w:WP:Assume good faith. Discuss it here, on the Talk page. Attempt to find consensus. If that fails, you could go to WV:RCA to request custodian assistance, but custodians have no special authority over content. You may more broadly request attention to your resource on WV:Colloquium where you may find support. Custodians often don't have time to deeply consider issues. I highly recommend gaining support from one or more experienced Wikiversity users before going to custodians for actions like warning or blocking. These efforts can create long-term disruption, and don't generally increase consensus. They should be necessary, not merely allowed.
The page sets up for a change process. That's cumbersome and doesn't fit with how things are usually done here. I'll be looking at this, but discussion of changes really belongs here, not on the resource. The resource should always be, if possible, focused on the resource goals. There are ways of resolving conflicts that may arise, where everyone wins. Sometimes it can take extensive discussion, and that then can make the resource page cluttered and less accessible, it can depress participation. Long conversations here can be archived, etc. A top-level resource on Wikiversity should be rigorously neutral, and the best standard for such is full consensus, with the closest possible approach to that being highly desirable, worth discussing. This is not quite top-level, but has not been set off as opinion, so ... it must still be neutral. Hence what is controversial can be moved to a subpage and neutrally linked. Only on Wikiversity, in the WMF family of wikis, is this possible in mainspace. As a result, we have very little sustained content conflict, and people with opposing points of view may collaborate to create a deep resource.
One more point. With MediaWiki software, all page versions remain visible in History, unless the pages are deleted or a special measure is taken to hide them, which is rare. You may certainly copy pages from here elsewhere, but I'd question the necessity. This resource will not be deleted (and if it were, there would simple ways to recover the content).
I have taken great pains to make Wikiversity a safe place to contribute content, honoring the intentions of the founders. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow boxing[edit source]

I have restyled the quotes using Template:Box-shadow. I hope this makes them easier to read. Leutha (discusscontribs) 08:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]