User talk:Adrignola

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I watch talk pages where I have recently left messages. Please reply in the same section to make discussion easier to follow.
If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here.

Wikibooks and Wikiversity[edit]

Thanks for the edits to Wikibooks and related resources. I think it would be great to get more integration and clarity of the b: and v: relationship. I'm not that familiar with Wikibooks myself but it makes sense that the two should be very complimentary. I'd be interested in your perspectives. Thanks again! CQ 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks' main page[edit]

I could probably help you to understand Wikibooks' main page. -- darklama  21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's very kind of you to offer. I haven't gotten a chance to read the course yet, but if I have problems as I go through it, you will definitely be the first I turn to. You've shown to be quite adept, as seen in your quick solution to the CSS problem this past weekend. Just to let you know, I'm experimenting with a slightly updated layout for Wikibooks' main page; nothing too drastic, I hope (b:Main Page/Draft). But one of the components I'm looking at is a rotating display of a featured recipe, not unlike that seen for the educational picture of the day here. In going along with Wikiversity's active learning theme, I will be seeing if I can get that set up and working at b:Main Page/Recipe. -- Adrignola 01:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can help if needed both in terms of wiki knowledge and having been the main contributor that implemented the current layout and functionality of Wikibooks' main page. -- darklama  01:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


So if I understood you well, you will change the apperance of specia:upload here?--Juan de Vojníkov 16:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All the can be changed on that page is the portion above the form, not the form itself. What was changed at Wikibooks was the group permissions. Adrignola 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


[1]. The user interface should really warn when one adds formatting commands that extend beyond the edit window, such as the example there, smalltext, nowiki, etc. I could not see the effect in my Preview of forgetting to put in the collapse close template, it looked just fine!. I do that every once in a while.... at least I've done it before.... Thanks for seeing and fixing that. --Abd 01:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


Be advised, Thekohser reappeared on Wikiversity (and did so in a rather opportune time). He might be appearing elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. You're aware that I had originally delinked and unblocked his account? I'd be inclined to want him to contribute and not make it appear that things were simply a dog and pony show in unblocking him. However I'm sure the only reason he showed up here is the Wikipedia Review thread Abd started on you, which you should be aware of. It all makes for interesting reading and serves as a stark contrast to the dearth of activity at my hangout, Wikibooks. But maybe no activity is better than a lot of negative activity. Adrignola 21:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I notified thenub so I felt that I would add some balance to the mix. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait, wtf, you have a discussion index? Blah. I wish we had enough discussions for such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It's getting to the point at Wikibooks where we would no longer need one to keep up with things, but rather only to note a change to one of several pages that could host discussions since we don't have a single community discussion page like the Colloquium. Adrignola 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Biblical RFD[edit]

Aaron, you commented on this previously; I reopened the RfD: Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#A_Translation_of_the_Bible SJ+> 11:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to register for the Wikiversity Assembly[edit]

  • The Wikiversity:Assembly has been established as a technique for developing reports on topics of import for Wikiversity administration. The Assembly is not a decision-making body, per se. Rather, it is designed to create or discover or estimate consensus, through focused, facilitated, thorough deliberation. Assembly reports may be referenced in regular Wikiversity discussions, but will not directly control outcomes. Where full consensus is not found, minority reports may be issued.
  • I invite you to register for the Wikiversity:Assembly by adding your user name to the Wikiversity:Delegable proxy/Table.
  • Registering for the Assembly creates no specific obligation, but does consent to direct communication as the Assembly may determine is appropriate. You may opt out of such direct communication by adding "no messages" to the Table when you register, in the user comment field, but it is unlikely that the default (communication allowed) will create burdensome traffic for you.

You are invited to name a proxy[edit]

  • When you register for the Assembly, you may optionally designate a "proxy."
  • I suggest that you nominate, as a proxy, the user whom you most trust to participate positively in a Wikiversity discussion if you are unable to participate yourself. The proxy will not be voting for you in any process. Rather, the proxy will be considered to loosely represent you, as a means of estimating probable large-scale consensus based on small-scale participation, in the event that you do not personally participate.
  • If you name a proxy, you will be consenting to direct communication with you by that proxy. If a named proxy accepts the proxy, you become, as long as you maintain the nomination (you may change it at any time), the "client" of the proxy, and by accepting, a proxy has consented to direct communication from the client.


I hope you will consider this. It's designed to not require a lot of personal participation, unless you are so inclined. --Abd 18:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't really get it, but sure. You know where I'm active outside of Wikiversity, so if you need an opinion you can ping me via email or talk page change. Adrignola 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Most people will need to see something working before they get it. Thanks for trusting this enough to sign up!
The proxy part of the table asks a member of the Assembly if there is some person, who might participate when they can't or don't, whom they would trust to generally make positive contributions. It doesn't have to be perfect, and we aren't going to be proxy voting, as such. The goal for Assembly process is maximized consensus, and delegable proxy allows a better measure of that. Again, not perfect, but quite likely improved.
If you look at the diagram above, suppose the people to the right of the line are those who actually participate in a discussion, and notice that those who participate may loosely be considered to represent, respectively, 3, 1, 1, 12, 1, 1, members each. Suppose that the "committee," I'll call it, takes a poll on two reports. The first and fourth member support Report A and the others support Report B. From direct participation, it would look like Report A is a minority report, Report B is favored by two-thirds of those "present." In fact, if those proxy assignments really do represent some level of trust and rapport, and the issue is submitted to the entire membership, with the proxies communicating with their clients, it is highly likely that the overall decision, on the face, would be support of Report A by 15:4.
Knowing this, it's quite likely that the four favoring report B would try to negotiate a true consensus report. Without delegable proxy, they'd be easily justified in thinking they were in the majority, why should they compromise?
One of the expected effects of delegable proxy is a simplification of discussions. If you become aware of a discussion, and you see that your proxy has already expressed the important arguments, you might just pass on adding a comment because your views are already represented well enough (including numerically!). With DP "me too" and other redundant arguments really aren't necessary at all. Notice that there is a member not participating who, if he or she participates, would represent 8 members. It looks like there is one member who represents a majority all by himself or herself (12:7). However, at any time, the one representing 8 could pop in, and perhaps reverse the apparent result, which could become 7:12. Indeed, if the "proxy minority" were to notice this, one of them might contact the "8" directly, and attempt to persuade him or her to participate. They might negotiate some compromise directly with this person, who might then negotiate with his or her proxy. The final result could come from two people who have mutual trust working out some true consensus solution.
This is all about how delegable proxy might be used. In reality it is just a set of lists, forming a directed graph. There are extant experiments with delegable proxy, and it has a reputation that it works, but this, here, has the potential of becoming the best-documented and most open experiment so far. Thanks again! --Abd 14:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Only at Wikiversity. If it works out it's something to point to with regards to consensus-building. Adrignola 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's part of the point, for me. I may have been incorrect above about prior experiments. While I'm one of the independent inventors of delegable proxy (over twenty years ago for me), there are others, and I haven't been following the field recently. I just found that the w:World Parliament Experiment may be using delegable proxy. I knew about Demoex in Sweden, from Michael Nordfors, and Common Good Bank and some others may have gotten the idea from me. Yes, only at Wikiversity, for now. It was proposed on Wikipedia in early 2008, as an experiment (w:WP:PRX) and was promptly crushed, the vehemence surprised me. --Abd 17:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)