User:Guy vandegrift/Blog/Draft space governance

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This blog will be devoted to how decisions are made regarding which articles belong in draft space. The emphasis will be on the decision-making process, not on actual policy and guidelines. One reason for restricting the scope of this blog is that I have an incomplete understanding of bots and search engines (e.g. Google). Questions of what belongs in and out of draftspace, or whether we need more such spaces are also beyond my scope of expertise.

I am also largely ignorant about how decisions are made on Wikipedia, for example how is a C-class project description decided? My knowledge of this stops at suggesting that the answer may be found at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment (something that I have not yet read). But this ignorance of the Wikipedia-way might be an advantage because it permits me to start fresh and generate a Wikiversity-way that is different from the Wikipedia-way. The goals are simple. We need decisions that:

  1. Are made quickly
  2. Have a clear appeals process that does not waste everybody's time
  3. Are configured to minimize the damage done by a poor or incorrect decision.

At this point, I have nothing further to say.17:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


I will try to put more meat on this thought

Wait, I do have something to say: I favor decentralization. For example the WikiJournal Group has a space for preprints. They should govern that space, and we should leave them alone unless we see a pattern of misbehavior (or even incompetent behavior). I also like the idea of collaboration with Miraheze. Articles that don't fit the Wikiversity missionwhatever-the-heck-that-is could be invited to join or create a Miraheze wiki. We could even that a page on Wikiversity that directs interested readers to these alternative wikis--17:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Efforts to foster radical change are more likely to succeed if the change is already happening. Wikiversity suffers from a multiple personality disorder, as would the WMF had it not created the Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects|sister projects. Here are some other examples:


I recently watched the the Netflix Netflix Dark TV series, which had such a contorted storyline that it was necessary to read the Wikipedia before each episode to follow the plot. And, if I needed more help, I could consult the Dark Wiki.


In much the same way, a Miraheze could supplement Wikiversity. Is satire a proper department in a college or university? Probably not. But an English professor might devote a large part of the course on satire. So where do you draw the line between what is and is not appropriate for Wikiversity? The beauty of decentralization, is that the line can be blurred.

this is rough draft
... later I will introduce as an example of satire that is not notable enough for Wikipedia or sufficiently academic for Wikiversity...maybe someday an article on it could go into Wikiversity draft space.  Maybe if we could make Wikiversity better organized, more people would go there, and somehow that draft could be used by or perhaps an English teacher might use it.  Just as WV and sisters have a synergetic relationship, all good wikis should collaborate towards the common goal of creating a common "language" by which people communicate and share ideas.  (time to go to bed and take a little nap before I wake up11:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC))
 See also  Gazetteer of wikis

The WikiJournal Group[edit]

Another obvious example of wiki-decentralization occurring right on Wikversity is WikiJournal User Group with WikiJournal of Medicine and its sisters.

+ Add a commentComments on this blog post
  • As far as assessment goes, and with regard to drafts, it would be possible to make use of the PageAssessments extension (which isn't currently installed here, but is on English Wikipedia) and with that to give pages a 'draft' class. This would work in any namespace, and the draft-tagging could happen on the page itself or on its talk page. Just an idea. :) I think having drafts in their final destination makes sense, but with a big notice at the top that makes it obvious that they're drafts and should not be considered finished (is anything ever finished on a wiki though?). — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Given Wikiversity's mission to promote education, and work by a student should be considered a draft because the student is presumably improving every year. I don't like the garish "draft" statements that Wikipedia uses. A small, tasteful box in the upper right hand corner should be sufficient. It's location in draft space identifies it as a draft. Quite frankly, at least half of what I have done should "live" in draft space.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)