From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Wikiversity:C)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles.
Sign your posts with   ~~~~

Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking a question, you can find some general information at:


var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = ""; var wgPageName = "Wikiversity:Colloquium"; var wgTitle = "Wikiversity Colloquium"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var x-feed-reverse = "true"; var x-blog-description = "You have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for!";

"When the pupil is ready to learn, a teacher will appear." — Zen proverb (discuss)

The name of an article on Hedonism[edit source]

I created article "Hedonism (Polansky)" and it was moved to Hedonism/Polansky. I feel unhappy with the new name. What troubles me, I think, is that it gives the impression that there is a larger work or project "Hedonism" and there is a part of it called "Polansky". Whereas my idea was that I published an article on hedonism called "Hedonism", and since I felt I should not occupy the "Hedonism" headword for my work, I used "(Polansky)" for disambiguation.

The following changes come to mine:

  • Name it "Hedonism (Polansky)" again, where the brackets are inspired by Wikipedia article name convention.
  • Name it "Hedonism - Polansky" if preferred.
  • Name it "Hedonism by Polansky" if preferred.
  • Name it "One man's look at hedonism": thus, use ever so slightly original title to make sure the title "Hedonism" is not occupied.

What do you think? Any other proposals? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Polansky Hedonism/Polansky is the accepted approach. We don't name main space resources after users except as subpages. And since "One man's look at hedonism" is still a resource on hedonism, that, too, would be moved to where the page is now. If you'd prefer to rename it, you are welcome to do so, but the location is correct as currently published.
I suppose your other option would be to work with the WikiJournal of Humanities to have it accepted and published there.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. So let me see: would "One man's look at hedonism" be placed to "Hedonism/One man's look at hedonism"? If so, why would one use subpaging when there is categorization for the purpose? I looked around a bit to see what the practice is, and I found e.g. "C language in plain view" not placed at "C language/C language in plain view", and there is "The necessities in Microprocessor Based System Design", not "System Design/The necessities in Microprocessor Based System Design" or the like. The thing is, "Hedonism/One man's look at hedonism" looks kind of clumsy. As clumsy as it looks, it is perhaps better than "Hedonism/Polansky" for the reasons stated: it looks as if there is chapter called "Polansky" or something.
As for WikiJournal of Humanities, that seems too much of a challenge to me; that would require addressing issuess found in a review and committing time and attention to address the issues.
Since you seem rather opposed to "Hedonism (Polansky)", would "One man's look at hedonism" be acceptable even if dispreferred? Or would at least "Hedonism/One man's look at hedonism" be acceptable even if dispreferred? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 14:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C language in plain view and The necessities in Microprocessor Based System Design are both complete, real-world courses taught by a prolific Wikiversity user with 43,000 edits. That's probably not the best comparison for this resource. If you're planning to develop a real-world course on hedonism, please move the page to Draft: space so you can begin your development work.
We don't have any main space pages named after users. If you happen to find one, please let us know and it will be addressed immediately. As indicated above, "If you'd prefer to rename it, you are welcome to do so, but the location is correct as currently published."
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I renamed/moved this to One man's look at hedonism since it addresses my concern and seems acceptable. (I did not mean to imply that my short article that hardly anyone is going to read, I am afraid, is comparable in scope, extent and quality to "C language in plain view"; I was merely looking at naming practice.) --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 06:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using Templates from Wikipedia[edit source]

I can do interwiki link of article by prefixing w: and s: for wikipedia and wikisource, respectively, but how do I use an existing wikipedia template? If not technically supported, can a lua macro be made to enable this?

Many of the original research projects and course curriculums that I'm composing, will be arrangements of existing wikisource texts and wikipedia articles - "choose your own adventures" guides through material thats mostly already present. For example - User:Jaredscribe/Comparative_law

Suggestions? Thanks, Jaredscribe (discusscontribs) 22:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not currently possible. There are outstanding requests for this functionality (e.g. phab:T11890 and phab:T121470), but I wouldn't hold my breath.
In the meantime, I'd recommend that you copy the necessary templates over, or ask a curator to import them for you. It's likely that you'll have to make changes to the template content anyway, e.g. to add interwiki prefixes to links. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 00:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice and phabricator requests @Omphalographer.
I did what you suggested and copied a template over, making changes as needed. Here: Template:Professional_responsibility
I was able to include it on my user subpage's course reading list.
Is this adequate, or is anything other curation needed? Thanks for the help.
Jaredscribe (discusscontribs) 01:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you trying to transclude, like <nowiki>{{w:Disbarment|Disbarment}}? I am as well. Copying pages from Wikipedia seems to be counter-wiki-thinking... I'm trying to pull the section before the first header of wikipedia pages (using {{#lsth:}}) into lecture notes and eventually slides, see User:Stevesuny/sandbox/Conversation/Welcome Stevesuny (discusscontribs) 14:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No history Journal?[edit source]

I was thinking about writing a few pages about various topics of history, when I found out there is no History Journal, can I still publish history related pages? Crainsaw (discusscontribs) 08:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is WikiJournal of Humanities, but it's pretty dormant. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about userpage storage[edit source]

Hello. I attempted storing research on my Wikipedia userpage, but my entire userspace was speedy deleted due to Wikipedia:WP:U5 and Wikipedia:WP:NOTWEBHOST.

I was wondering if I would be free to safely store research on User:Indexcard88 (Wikiversity)?

Thanks, Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 18:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither this project nor Wikipedia are free hosting, but if you have relevant content, there's an indefinite (not infinite) amount of information you can save in the userspace. Do you have in mind content to add to Wikiversity? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Could you verify if both Wikiversity and Wikipedia are publicly, freely and universally collaborative websites? I could see how someone could view using Wikiversity or Wikipedia for taking notes, or as a research journal, might be seen as taking advantage of either platform. Could you link to a similar rule to Wikipedia:WP:NOTWEBHOST that is on Wikiversity? If not, would I be able to archive notes on my userpage? Thanks again. Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 20:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC) ...' To clarify, I was hoping to add content to Wikiversity by archiving notes similar to a research journal. Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 20:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) ... I will go ahead and wait, before doing that, until we agree that it's OK to do that. If you don't agree, still, why is that? Or how could we resolve to an agreement? Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 20:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you verify if both Wikiversity and Wikipedia are publicly, freely and universally collaborative websites? No. Both Wikipedia and Wikiversity have specific, defined purposes; they are not public sandboxes. Please see Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? and Wikiversity:Scope for an overview of what Wikiversity's intended scope and purpose is.
To clarify, I was hoping to add content to Wikiversity by archiving notes similar to a research journal. This is probably a better fit for a personal notebook or a text file on your computer, not a page on a public web site. If your notes progress to the point of a publishable research article, though, you could potentially publish that through the WikiJournal group.
Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 21:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't completely understand your reply to this, with respect to the mission of free information.Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 21:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC) ... I am including the research statement on the article you referenced: Wikiversity:What_is_Wikiversity?#Wikiversity_for_researching Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 21:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC) ... I am storing research information on Indexcard88 Archive which is not under my userpage. Thanks.Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 21:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Indexcard88: our community is small, and we are all too busy to write the detailed policy rules you see on Wikipedia. I for one, support allowing any editor to host education materials indefinitely, with certain restrictions. Here is my effort to outline what those restrictions might be:

  1. All copyright laws must be scrupulously obeyed, and anything that might be interpreted as slander or harmful to any person or organization must be deleted.
  2. Any material that the community deems to be pseudoscience or other falsification of established truth must be clearly labeled as such. Certain other types of material should be banned as inappropriate: Advocation of hate or self harm needs to be controlled, for example. All commercial efforts must be deleted, as should anything deemed by the community to be in "bad taste" (pornography, offensive humor,...)
  3. The general rule is that no incoming links from Wikiversity pages are allowed. In other words, you cannot place a link to your userdpace on a Wikiversity article or resource. We should extend this restriction beyond Wikiversity to any page on the internet. Any such link to your Wikiversity user space publicly reflects on Wikiversity itself.
  4. There needs to be some limit regarding how much material can be stored and how long it is allowed to remain in your userspace. I see no reason why a 8 year old child can't start an educational journal in user space that continues until their education ends. And, education ceases only when you are brain dead. I am 72 years old and I am still learning and documenting my efforts in userspace and draftspace.
  5. Anything that raises objections by the WMF must be removed immediately and without unnecessary debate or discussion. They pay our bills, and that gives them veto power over all our efforts.

We are all to some extent qualified to opine and debate what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate material. But few of us are qualified to set limits on how much or how long material is allowed to remain on userspace. Useless gigabytes of meaningless data incurs costs that I know nothing about calculating, or even estimating:

  1. Storage space must be paid for and maintained by the WMF, and no discussion of "how much" or "how long" material should be allowed must be coordinated with a representative of the WMF.
  2. Wikiversity pages are patrolled by a few brave volunteers, and their requests need to be honored. For example, material in your userspace will contain links to templates and mainspace pages. Your use of these templates and links to mainspace is documented in the "What links here" sidebar, and therefore interferes with the maintenance of those resources. A related issue involves lint errors, which also might Wikiversity maintenance.
  3. Even though we can "hide" userspace from Google search, we cannot prohibit websites from linking into Wikiversity. Links to bad Wikiversity pages hurt our reputation, which in turn dissuades both readers and contributors from using Wikiversity.

The establishment of restrictions on userspace is a complex subject, and what I wrote above is almost certain to contain omissions and errors, but this might be a good place to begin a discission. It is an important topic for those who wish to see Wikiversity thrive and expand, for the simple reason that we might be able to attract talented scholars by offering them free and unlimited workspace for their efforts. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For context, some of the content this user was storing on their Wikipedia user page can be viewed in their deletion logs. It is my opinion that this content would be equally out of scope on Wikiversity, whether in user space or otherwise. While the definition of "research" is hazy, a collection of messages like "Poop is amazing, and my mom does it every day" are clearly not it. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 23:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would ask how much liberty I have in what I include in a research journal, or why omission of data would be scientific.Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 01:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Indexcard88: The titles in the aforementioned deletion logs suggest that you should create a free account using Google documents and post the material there. Wikiversity userspace is hidden from Google searches. In contrast, Google documents can be accessed by the general public if they are placed in shared mode (this link shows how.)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 03:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not seeing what you're referring to. Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 04:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Indexcard88: According to Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Massive_resource_renaming_suggestion_for_those_named_after_Wikiversity_users (Special:diff/2479188), Indexcard88 Archive may not be an acceptable title in mainspace and might be renamed/moved to user space. If there is no objection or renaming by the author, then I may move the pages in the next few days. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 04:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just delete it.
Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 04:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect to special:diff/2532969 by the author, I finished the renaming without redirect. Since I'm not sure if the discussion has ended or not, I thought the content should remain visible at userspace for now. For deletion requests from others, please use WV:RFD. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 07:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I am available on Discord on the Wikimedia Community Server.
Wikimedia account verification:
Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 10:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userpage storage, revisited[edit source]

By now I think we have a fairly representative sample of what form Indexcard88's "information research" takes. Here's a couple examples for reference:

It is my considered opinion that this is not an appropriate use for Wikiversity. While Wikiversity's definition of research is, by design, broad, it does expect research to be a "systematic process of inquiry aimed at discovering, interpreting and revising knowledge". This haphazard collection of web searches, links to Wikipedia pages, and bizarre religious musings (e.g. "God, I sinned by using the bathroom") clearly does not fit that definition. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 19:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally do not see any educational value or means of interactive learning in these documents and it may be best for Indexcard88 to put these writings in a Word Doc or a Google Doc. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per abuse filter log, I also agree to your opinions. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 05:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen many external links at their user pages, I'm afraid to mention that they may violate Wikiversity:External links and may be declared as spamming. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 05:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have sent this discussion to a Computer & Information Science alumni associate with Messiah College (Messiah University) to ask how I should respond.
Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 17:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excuse me, is there any reason that you cannot reply by yourself? Does Messiah University have any relation to your creations? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 05:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not continuing to use Wikiversity right now. Indexcard88 (discusscontribs) 14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Podbrushkin (discusscontribs) 11:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Podbrushkin (discusscontribs) 11:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WorkmarketBot persmission request[edit source]

Hi all. I'm jut flagging the bot application for User:WorkmarketBot request (at Wikiversity:Bots/Status#WorkmarketBot) just to make sure those intersted have seen it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the new Elections Committee members[edit source]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello there,

We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.

Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this a good wikiversity project?[edit source]

I suspect there may be another place to post this message, but haven't found it quite yet. I've created a project that describes a combination of a wikiversity project, a wikibook and a class. Does this seem like an appropriate use of wikiversity? Stevesuny (discusscontribs) 19:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strictly from the standpoint of if this is appropriate, I think it definitely is and I hope you're successful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deploying the Phonos in-line audio player to your Wiki[edit source]


Apologies if this message is not in your language, ⧼Please help translate⧽ to your language.

This wiki will soon be able to use the inline audio player implemented by the Phonos extension. This is part of fulfilling a wishlist proposal of providing audio links that play on click.

With the inline audio player, you can add text-to-speech audio snippets to wiki pages by simply using a tag:

<phonos file="audio file" label="Listen"/>

The above tag will show the text next to a speaker icon, and clicking on it will play the audio instantly without taking you to another page. A common example where you can use this feature is in adding pronunciation to words as illustrated on the English Wiktionary below.

{{audio|en|En-uk-English.oga|Audio (UK)}}

Could become:

<phonos file="En-uk-English.oga" label="Audio (UK)"/>

The inline audio player will be available in your wiki in 2 weeks time; in the meantime, we would like you to read about the features and give us feedback or ask questions about it in this talk page.

Thank you!

UOzurumba (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Language team

02:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know if "scary transclusion" is enabled on Wikiversity?[edit source]$wgEnableScaryTranscluding describes this feature as allowing transclusion of pages from other sites. Stevesuny (discusscontribs) 17:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. See Special:Version. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need some parameters for Wikidebates[edit source]

Sophivorus (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) has put for a lot of effort to build out the Wikidebate learning project, including the Category:Wikidebate templates, etc. He has also been more-or-less personally responsible for Wikidebate/Guidelines. This page mostly contains formal or stylistic guidelines about what makes a stronger or weaker argument, avoiding personal pronouns, etc. What it does not discuss is the kind of things that can or should be debated in the first place. I am not asking are wikidebates a good thing?, but we need to have stronger guidelines on what is a topic of debate and I think that lacking some of our existing wikidebates are inappropriate. Just asking questions like "Can slaves feel pain when whipped?" or "Should women be considered persons?" are not matters of a discussion of values or abstract issues that we can discuss in a rational way. Similarly, Is slavery good? is not an open debate that I think we should host. Similarly, factual questions like Was 9/11 an inside job? or Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? are not fruitful debates that are actually learning exercises but are matters of crackpottery and idle speculation. I guess I'm pleasantly surprised that Do vaccines cause autism? and Does Hilary Clinton eat children? are redlinks for now, but I'd like to formalize it so that they will remain that way and that outrageous and non-factual debate topics are not given free hosting space from the WMF.

  1. Do others see a problem with the guidelines only containing stylistic advice and nothing about the actual content of the debates?
  2. If so, what kind of things are acceptable and not acceptable for debate?

I'm inclined that for the latter, we could agree that simple questions of fact are not open for debate, so vaccines causing autism, gravity existing, subluxations causing deafness, etc. are not actual debates and they do not qualify for being hosted here as a Wikidebate. As for the more deranged wingnut debates, I think we should have an aggressive application of the Universal Code of Conduct that stops us from asking if it's cool to enslave humans or if Jews have rights, etc. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I share these concerns, and I'd add that an unfortunate number of the currently extant Wikidebates fall into one or more of the following problematic categories:
Perhaps a good starting point would be: what would we consider a good Wikidebate? (Are there any?) What are the characteristics which make it that way? What makes this presentation superior to an encyclopedic treatment of a contested topic?
In addition, I would strongly recommend that the {{Vote}} template (e.g. Was 9/11 an inside job?#Votes) be deprecated and removed. If the goal of a debate is to compile arguments, then those arguments should stand on their own - soliciting the "votes" of readers is, at best, a distraction.
Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 00:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! I think we should be very careful about guidelines that prevent debates only because the answer may seem obvious to us. If an idea is absurd, evil or insane, I'd rather just let it get brutally demolished by piles of arguments. Some of the debates being questioned here are also some of the most consulted, which reminds us that some of our readers are wildly different from us. I personally know people who believe that vaccines are dangerous, that the Catholic Apostolic religion is superior, that the COVID pandemic was a conspiracy, that we never reached the moon, and many other things I consider absurd. Even I was once sympathetic with 9/11 conspiracy theories and with the efforts to colonize Mars, but have slowly changed my mind thanks to the debates. Other people may go through a similar process while reading a debate about something they are interested in. I think there lies much of the value of this project, and that sets it apart from Wikipedia, where original content is not allowed and everything must be given due weight (thankfully). We should not silence false, insane, absurd or evil ideas. Quite the contrary, we should write exhaustively about all the reasons why they are so. @Koavf As to the Universal Code of Conduct, I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps point 3.3.3? Surely having debates about offensive topics is not the same as being offensive. Even Wikipedia has articles about Proslavery thought, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Child euthanasia, etc. That being said, we should definitely strive to edit arguments and rename debates to make their language ever more neutral, clear and sober.
@Omphalographer I agree about the Votes section. It was an experiment and it failed, so I just removed it from all wikidebates. The Template:Vote may still be useful elsewhere on Wikiversity, I think.
Ping to @Dan Polansky who contributed a lot to the project and may want to be aware of this conversation or voice an opinion.
Perhaps we should start a Wikidebate about whether or not to enforce some content guidelines?
Kind regards, Sophivorus (discusscontribs) 19:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally agree with Sophivorus for the reasons he presented. I stand by all the debates I created. I do not see a need for debate content policy at this point, except perhaps such obvious things such as that a debate should not be created if there is nothing to be debated. I will make some initial notes and perhaps write more later.
I considered the possible dangers of debates in Are wikidebates a good thing?; however, some of the arguments would be more fit for a more specific debate, like Should topics for wikidebates be censored? or something of the sort. Since, I felt rather uncomfortable when writing some of the debates; I remember feeling vaguely horrified when writing Is aggressive war of territorial expansion good?. In Are wikidebates a good thing? and during creation of debates, I convinced myself that the debates provide a fascinating window into human mind and the argument spaces, and that the risk of harm, if any, is no greater than the likely benefit. In the debates, bad arguments are countered with counterarguments. To be countered, the bad arguments need to be stated. The debates can act as a form of cognitive psychotherapy: things people all too often think are stated rather than being censored and then countered with some of the best arguments one can find. Let me make one quote from that debate: "In Sea-Wolf, Jack London presents the philosophy of Wolf Larsen, a captain who sees no value in human life except to serve his needs and whims and explains why he thinks so. It is not a defense of that kind of philosophy but an implicit criticism of it. This is one more little confirmation that evil ideas and arguments are easily found and authors are not afraid of exposing them."
As for Should infanticide be legal?, there is philosopher Peter Singer who argues that it should be legal in some rare cases if I understand him correctly; I did not know that before I created the debate. Moreover, the debate can be an attempt to understand cultures that do approve of infanticide: what are possibly the arguments that they use to justify such practice? And if a person does kill a newborn, what is it that can be going on in their head? The page could even serve as a form of therapy for someone considering to kill a newborn, by providing counterarguments that the person would not come up with on their own. Moreover, it is interesting to compare the arguments found in Should infanticide be legal? and in Should abortion be legal? and ask: what is it that makes the event of birth morally significant? I for one think to have learned something by having created the debate, and the hope is that the readers also learn something of value.
As for Is the 2022 Russian military operation in Ukraine justified?, I don't see how it "inherently favor a specific point of view". Both implied motions, the affirmative and the negative, are equally represented: there is a support section and an oppose section and the sections have the same features, none being given an advantage over the other. If well done and translated into Russian, such a debate could perhaps serve as a counter-propaganda. The debate also makes it very clear that the West is for the most part not like Russia in that open debate is allowed in the West rather than being censored.
As for Does God exist? (not created by me), I do not see a problem. It does not matter all that much whether someone thinks it cannot be answered; what matters is the exploration of the argument space. If there were no interesting arguments in that space, the debate would be no good, but there are in fact interesting arguments, whether conclusive or less conclusive. Paradoxically, questions that do have clear and unequivocal answers that are not culturally relative are less suited for a debate.
As for Do vaccines cause autism?, I think it is a good debate to be created. Since, there seems to be a widespread belief among all too many that it is so, and it is valuable to examine their arguments and neutralize them with counterarguments. This question is asked e.g. at and; surely WebMD and CDC do not think they are discussing the unspeakable or causing harm.
As for Are metaphors a good thing?, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be. I like what I have discovered while creating the debate. There is some criticism of the use of metaphor in the English-speaking philosophy that I am vaguely aware of yet failed to find online, and I would wish to add it to the debate after I find it. I do not see any harm the debate could make. If someone finds the topic uninteresting, they will not read the debate. It is true that "good" is somewhat vague and can be relativized ("good" for what?), but it does not seem to diminish the value of the debate.
As for Is philosophy any good?, some say philosophy is no good, and the debate is an attempt at a rebuttal, good or less good attempt.
As for Is slavery good?, Aristotle thought so. I do not think discussing this topic is off limits in the academic world. There is something to be learned from examining the relevant argument space. And as Sophivorus pointed out, there is Wikipedia: Proslavery thought article, with many more page views than Is slavery good?.
On another note, there is Wikisource: Author:Adolf Hitler, hosting Hitler's speeches in English. Surely those who entered those speeches do not endorse them and do not try to be offensive. Similarly, by entering arguments into a debate, one does not endorse them.
--Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The perspective "Well, someone thinks [x], therefore, it's something worth debating" is a ridiculous position, as literally anything you can imagine would probably be believed by someone. It is not a debate whether or not vaccines cause autism anymore than they cause earthquakes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not say "someone thinks X" (at least 1 person thinks X) but rather "all too many think X". Thus, debating vaccines link to autism seems worthwhile, and I would not be surprised finding respectable journalists and scientists having debated the proposition at some point. I do not know of anyone ever proposing that vaccines cause earthquakes, whereas the putative link between vaccines and autism was seriously discussed in the media. If I am right in thinking that all too many people still believe that vaccines cause autism, it would seem worthwhile to try to examine their arguments and try to neutralize them with counterarguments. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found Does Vaccination Increase the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder?, 2022. If one considered the question 100% settled and free from being debated (such as that blood circulates in humans and that it is pumped by heart), the article would not have been published in the first place, I think. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 09:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure I can find someone who has published something on the Internet arguing that Jews are subhuman. That does not mean that this is a live debate. By having that debate, you validate that anti-Semitism is a somehow reasonable position to be debated. It's not. Speeches by Hitler have historical importance. Contemporary Nazi rambling does not. We are presently hosting debates that I believe contradict the UCoC and should not be here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the above-debated subject of the potential vaccine debate (not created yet), I linked to what appears to be a scientific article in a scientific journal, a more specific venue than "somewhere on the Internet".
I don't think that debates validate any position. They examine argument spaces. They are a certain kind of studies in anthropology and argumentation theory. The question "Do vaccines cause autism?" does not examine all that much whether vaccines cause autism but rather how do people think about these kinds of questions and what can be said to neutralize faulty thinking; it is not so much part of vaccinology (if that is a thing) as anthropology, epistelomogy and argumentation theory. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add that a serious student of philosophy will run into highly problematic ideas and arguments. Heraclitus taught that war is the father of all things or something of the sort. Aristotle taught that slavery is good. Hegel taught that in order to enter into existence, a nation has to try to exterminate or subjugate other nations, if one believes Popper. To be serious about philosophy, one has to not only learn what the philosophers thought but rather seriously explore the argument spaces, overcoming the fear that what is to be found there is highly distasteful or disconcerting. Examining epistemology is a dangerous thing; if one arrives at a wrong answer about how one knows things, one may as a consequence find oneself believing all sorts of nonsense. If one studies Marxism, one learns ideas that can lead to catastrophic consequences, which has actually happened and may yet happen again since there is no shortage of Marxists and neo-Marxists. Philosophy is dangerous. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heidegger was an unrepentant Nazi and Kant wrote atrociously racist things. Whether or not someone was serious or smart about certain ideas and whether or not those are ideas that we should give credence to as something worth debating are two different things. Grotesquely bigoted and wildly unscientific ideas are not based in logic, so they are not refuted by logic. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok guys, I think we're all experienced enough to know we won't reach an agreement at this point. Perhaps we should let the dust settle and let others voice their opinions, and if nothing comes out of it, bring it up to the UCoC committee or similar. Kind regards, Sophivorus (discusscontribs) 14:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Koavf Hi! It's been three weeks already and no one else has participated. Shall we bring this up to the UCoC committee then? Sophivorus (discusscontribs) 00:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reckon so, actually. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf Looking at wmf:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines and meta:Universal Code of Conduct/U4C Building Committee#Timeline, it seems like the relevant UCoC committee is still being formed. Should we wait for it? Would you like to suggest some other authority? Or what? Kind regards, Sophivorus (discusscontribs) 12:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. I guess we can wait until November. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disengaged from this debate not because I ran out of arguments (I hardly ever do) but rather because it seemed better to let other people join the debate if they wish before it gets overcrowded by me. I am a tireless debater, but that is not always for the best.
What specific point of UCoC is alleged to be violated by the debates? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 18:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
E.g. we need to avoid bias, so having "debates" about if it's totally cool to kill certain classes of human beings is not acceptable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What specific section (section number) of UCoC do you have in mind? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be specific, section 3.3 of the UCoC specifically forbids:
Presenting debates like Is slavery good? whose effective purpose is to air viewpoints which are inherently discriminatory - for instance, that "some people are slaves by nature" - is, at best, treading very close to this line. It is more appropriate to discuss these viewpoints at an arm's length, rather than airing them in a way which can be interpreted as support. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 21:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I think the mistake here is to think that presentation of arguments in a debate is their support; a header used in the debate pages can be expanded to disclaim this notion, e.g. "The arguments for the motion are not endorsed by Wikiversity". In what way is Is slavery good? airing views that are not being aired in W:Proslavery thought?
The further reading contains some interesting links
Does anyone really think that the purpose of, say,, is to air objectionable views and lend them support?
I am not sure I understand the phrase effective purpose; the real purpose of a debate page is to use a debate format as an alternative to monologue to document, examine and neutralize arguments and ideas. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the mistake here is to think that presentation of arguments in a debate is their support - The problem is, in fact, that the format of a wikidebate makes this a very easy mistake to make. When a debate is presented by posing a morally indefensible question like "is slavery good", placing the supporting arguments at the top of the discussion makes it appear that those arguments are an answer to the question, and that they are answering it in the positive. Using green icons for each Argument for and yellow and red icons for each Objection or Argument against worsens the problem by making the arguments "for" appear to be marked as correct, and the counterarguments marked as incorrect.
Since you designed the debate format, you will no doubt object that these are very unlikely misconceptions and that no reasonable person would read the page this way. I counter that they are, in fact, very easy mistakes to make. The vast majority of visitors to Wikiversity, and particularly to keyword-heavy pages like these, are not familiar with the site, nor with the conventions of a wikidebate. Many visitors will skip past the "annoying" banner explaining the debate to read the content, and will leave the site after reading the first few arguments for a position, without scrolling down to read the arguments against it. The structure of a debate, as it stands now, inherently places the "support" arguments on a pedestal.
This is, incidentally, precisely the reason why I removed the lead argument in Was 9/11 an inside job?. At nearly 800 words, this filibuster of an argument forced every single objection onto the second or third page of the debate, making it appear that the entire page was in support of its position.
I'll reiterate that I feel that debates are best understood by discussing them at an arm's length, not by reënacting them. This is particularly true in the case of "hot-button" debates about social or political issues, where it is often critical not only to know what the arguments are, but who first put forth those arguments, and to what ends. Simply reciting an argument loses these critical nuances.
What this means for the Wikidebate format, I'm not sure. But something needs to change.
Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 08:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry to say that, but to my mind, the above is a list of mostly false or at least unobvious statements. Above all, it treats the readers as little children with no intellectual and moral responsibility who cannot figure out that arguments against are as important as arguments for, although the two groups are highlighted by there being separate sections for them. It argues that content being placed visually before another content is making it seem that content is more important, which logically makes no sense; before one has seriously examined the arguments for and against, how would one know that the for-side is the better one?
Specifically, as for 'Many visitors will skip past the "annoying" banner explaining the debate to read the content, and will leave the site after reading the first few arguments for a position, without scrolling down to read the arguments against it.' That is absurd, while it may be true for some visitors. If a visitor is genuinely interested in a topic and likes debates, why would the visitor ignore most of the debate? And if they are not interested, are they genuinely going to be convinced after a very cursory look at a page in whose content they are not genuinely interested? That makes no sense to me. A visitor of a debate who only reads/listens to arguments for their favorite side and ignores the opposition, although one purpose of a debate is to hear both sides, is probably beyond redemption and perhaps a result of a failed educational system.
Are you interested in debates? What is your favorite debate on YouTube, if any? What do you find worthwhile about your favorite debate? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More for the record, I did not design the argument format for Wikiversity; I discovered it and fell in love with it. Many years ago, I fell in love with a dialogue format for doing philosophy after my attempts to use monologue paired with defects/issues raised against it led to results that I found lacking. I have no stakes in the icons being used; for me, the debate works reasonably well without any icons (although I do not find the icons particularly problematic). --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 09:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More on the "arguments for dominate" argument, I can easily turn "Is slavery good?" into "Is slavery bad?", basically swapping the support and oppose sections. I doubt it would help deal with your concerns, although it would address the (arguably incorrect) argument that arguments for dominate. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 09:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for "who first put forth those arguments, and to what ends", that seems logically irrelevant; the logical/epistemic force of an argument does not depend on who made the argument, and what their purpose was. Yes, there is a school of doing philosophy that emphasizes history and persons, but there is a sizeable opposition to that school, and I for one find myself rather on the side of the opposition. The opposition proposes to focus on philosophical problems and conjectures and refutations concerning proposed solutions to these problems. (Although, I have no written a debate on this yet, so I should not really think anything; alas, the sceptical discipline is failing again.) --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now added a disclaimer to Is slavery good?: "Disclaimer: The arguments for the motion do not represent the view of Wikiversity. Wikiversity editors do not assert that slavery is good, just, morally acceptable or that some people are slaves by nature. The purpose of this page is to examine arguments in a debate format, including arguments one disagrees with."
I think the disclaimer was kind of obvious, but it does not harm. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf, and also Sophivorus and Dan Polansky.
"I am not asking are wikidebates a good thing?, but we need to have stronger guidelines on what is a topic of debate and I think that lacking some of our existing wikidebates are inappropriate. Just asking questions like "Can slaves feel pain when whipped?" or "Should women be considered persons?" are not matters of a discussion of values or abstract issues that we can discuss in a rational way. Similarly, Is slavery good? is not an open debate that I think we should host."
They're certainly stupid questions, but I'm equally certain there's a rational answer to all of them.
"Similarly, factual questions like Was 9/11 an inside job? or Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? are not fruitful debates that are actually learning exercises but are matters of crackpottery and idle speculation.".
I beg to differ. For example, the insider trading on 9/10/01 is a matter of public record and certainly worth discussing. Abusus non tollit usum. Your statement here is essentially a bid for censorship contingent upon question-begging criteria like what "we" can or cannot have a "rational discussion" about. I have some misgivings about the wikidebate format, but disagree strongly that some topics must be verboten because someone made a few asinine wikidebates like "Is slavery good". AP295 (discusscontribs)
And we see this sort of circular reasoning far too often. It's given a thin, facile veneer of legitimacy when applied against a copious supply of strawmen like "can slaves feel pain when whipped?", typically using words like irrational, unfruitful, crackpottery, idle speculation, outrageous, non-factual. Rather than trying to defend any given viewpoint against someone's capricious (read: convenient) definition of what is or isn't "rational", It's probably best to just point out that this is question begging. Otherwise people get into the habit of accepting/using bad logic. AP295 (discusscontribs)
What circular reasoning? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The parts I quoted, obviously. I suppose next you'll ask "how are they circular?", which I've already explained. AP295 (discusscontribs)
Writing out the circular logic is not a difficult task. You purported that I begged the question. Which conclusion did I assume in an argument? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've said what I have to say. The reader can make up their mind about who's correct. You should consider letting them do the same. I'll skip getting drawn into the sprawling, back-and-forth pedantry that this would no doubt turn into, littering up the page with semantic dickery and obscuring my original point. AP295 (discusscontribs)
It would have been easier to just substantiate your baseless claim than to ramble like this. In the future, if you have nothing to offer, then offer nothing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally I have a few comments about the format, and I'll start by including some of what I wrote on the Wikidebate talk page (how do I link sections without the full URL?): I have caution about this format of itemized or sequential argument, which is also encouraged in this resource: "Split distinct arguments ― If one argument is essentially two, split them apart. Keeping them separate will enrich the debate, allow others to object to each argument independently and prevent unnecessary confusion." Suppose P(A|B),P(A|C),P(A|D),P(A|E) are all relatively small but P(A|B,C,D,E)=.99, Person 1 provides evidence B, Person 2 concludes that P(A|B) is small and assigning them "winner" suggests that P(A|B) = P(A), and so on until P(A|B,C,D,E) is reduced to merely the prior P(A). Exactly how much this factors into a reader's impression, I do not know. However, it's interesting to consider for example that the overwhelming majority of people fail to answer the original three-door Monte Hall problem correctly. Paul Erdős got it wrong and wouldn't accept the answer until he verified it experimentally. On the other hand, if you tell someone there's a thousand doors and 9998 are opened, even most laymen can get it right. I don't think we should underestimate the question of formatting. Not to labor the point, but it shows how a very slight difference in wording something even as concrete as a math question can make the difference between fooling a professional (and well-respected) mathematician at his craft, and being so obvious that every tom, dick and harry can discern the correct answer offhand. I find that amazing. It also makes a good case for skepticism, in an indirect sort of way. I remember reasoning that it would not be a very interesting question unless the most probable door was the one that you hadn't picked. One need not be a Savant so long as they are capable of taking seemingly unlikely possibilities into consideration. AP295 (discusscontribs)
One more comment in addition to what I've already written. The decision of whether or not to keep a wikidebate resource lies with the users of wikiversity and whoever it empowers with the privelage to remove a resource. Topics like "can slaves feel pain when whipped" indeed (as I've said) have a rational answer, but I think we can remove them on grounds that they're essentially spam. That said, it's dishonest to conflate them with topics like "was 9/11 an inside job", which (considering the evidence of insider trading) should not be written off as something unworthy of debate. Similarly, I can only interpret a statement like "I guess I'm pleasantly surprised that Do vaccines cause autism? and Does Hilary Clinton eat children? are redlinks for now, but I'd like to formalize it so that they will remain that way and that outrageous and non-factual debate topics are not given free hosting space from the WMF." as an attempt to conflate a public health issue like vaccination with a strawman like "Does Hilary Clinton eat children?", as well as a bid for censorship based on false grounds. As an aside, I think the question "Do vaccines cause autism?" is somewhat off the mark. Perhaps a better question might be "should public policy mandate vaccination?", which is also the title I chose for an essay I've started. So to tie up loose ends, I support the removal of the topics "Does Hilary Clinton eat children?" and "can slaves feel pain when whipped", but strongly oppose any policy that prohibits the debate of certain topics or questions. Does this not seem like the most reasonable approach to take? If there's any doubt whatsoever, a debate ought to be kept rather than removed. AP295 (discusscontribs)
I'll try pinging @Omphalographer:, @Dan Polansky:, @Sophivorus: again to solicit their comments on what I've written above (and below), hopefully I've done so correctly. This seems like an important discussion. I don't think it's a hard problem to control spam and other borderline vandalism, but I find it rather disturbing that it's being conflated with certain debates on policy, politics and media, with censorship being proposed as a solution. It would set my mind eat ease to know that others feel similarly. AP295 (discusscontribs)
While I think common sense should suffice, perhaps the following might be a helpful place to start in terms of general guidelines, as opposed to constraints. Debates concerning (but not limited to) the following should not in general be subject to removal: policy or law (particularly policy that is either in effect or has been proposed), honesty in the media, public health, and in general public affairs. This isn't to be taken as a list of "allowed" debates (such a thing would be even more Orwellian than a list of prohibited debates), but as something to consider when trying to judge whether or not a topic is spam or vandalism. For example, a debate entitled "Should the civil rights act be repealed?" is about specific policy/law and therefore a legitimate debate, as are debates about honesty/transparency like "Was 9/11 an inside job?". On other other hand, "do slaves feel pain when whipped?", while a well-formed question and one for which there exists a rational answer, is obvious spam. Conversely, "Which animals can feel pain?" or something along those lines would obviously be fine. Again I reiterate that if at all in doubt, a debate should be left alone. I do believe Wikiversity can and should be a venue for debate, and I would hate to see it spoiled, either by spam or by its own policy. We aren't splitting hairs here. Frankly I think that part two of the UCoC is complete nonsense and that we do not need such vague, open-ended and easily-abused policy to deal with this problem. AP295 (discusscontribs)

RuWikiversity[edit source]

Department for International Relations has been reformed. Now, you can post any exciting ideas for cooperation for our Wikiversities. So, we plan to translate some courses from enWV to ruWV and if you know interesting courses, I will be happy to see them below :) Kylaix (discusscontribs) 16:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use wikidata item or wikipedia article as subject of an article[edit source]

Wikidata and wikipedia are pretty good at concepts and hierarchy of them. In Wikiversity, how can I specify my article is about particular wikidata Item or wikipedia article instead of specifying wikiversity-specific category? Basically, every article has a subject, which is usually a concept well-described in wd/wp. But instead of this interwiki cooperation, wikiversity uses it's own categories, and these categories is a proposed way of defining a subject of an article.

Currently what I've found:

1. You can mention a concept with this template: Template:Wikidata_link. It looks like this {{wdl|Q720314 }} and results in a simple text-wikilink to automatically chosen wikipedia article. Very good, but I'd like to define a subject like that, not a simple mention. Also this mention will be visible in "Page information".

2. You can provide an ui-box which helps to find a topic on Wikipedia with this template: Template:Wikipedia. It always results in "Search for X on Wikipedia" box, it never creates direct connection between material and an article.

3. Some Wikidata items have interwiki links to Wikiversity, like this one: [1]. I assume they should link to Category or Portal and not to specific article or resource.

Podbrushkin (discusscontribs) 11:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee[edit source]

Hello all,

I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.

The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.

Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.


RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the difference between this and Wikipedia?[edit source]

What is the difference between Wikiversity and Wikipedia? From what I've seen, it appears to be more of a community that actively tries to teach as opposed to a community that is just there for reference. Crawwah (discusscontribs) 18:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got the right idea. In short:
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Each page is a standalone overview of a single topic, and contains a summary of information about that topic.
  • Wikiversity is a collection of learning resources. Groups of pages are organized around a course or topic, and can take many forms like a set of lectures, lesson plans, homework assignments, discussions, or other things.
There's some overlap as well with the Wikibooks project, which has some textbooks.
Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 18:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One difference is that Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, whereas we do. Another is that the goal of Wikipedia is to publish a specific reference work: an encyclopedia. Here, we have varied projects that are all about learning and sharing knowledge in many formats. See also:
Justin (koavf)TCM 19:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have registered the following key differences (I hope to get this right): 1) Wikiversity allows publishing of original research; 2) Wikiversity does not require neutrality/lack of bias; 3) Wikiversity does not require an encyclopedic character. Wikiversity content sometimes somewhat overlaps with Wikipedia (but with other requirements) and with Wikibooks (e.g. Python Programming). --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with distinctions above. Wikiversity is for teaching, learning, and research. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic information. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search subtitle[edit source]

When I search for VHDL, the result has a subtitle, correctly "Hardware Description Language".

However when I search for Verilog (Also a Hardware Description Language) there is no subtitle.

How do I add or edit the subtitle for a page result in the search?

Thanks in advance,

Sirnails (discusscontribs) 15:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems you got there; it seems that the description below the keyword in search is simply whatever text is in the page title / heading after the first word. JimKillock (discusscontribs) 15:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim,
i'm not sure thats correct...
I've just noticed a subtle difference between the VHDL page and the Verilog Page on the left "Wikidata item" linking to: wikidata:Special:EntityPage/Q209455
Thanks for replying anyway, I think I understand now!
Can this question be archived/tidied up? how do I do that? Sirnails (discusscontribs) 16:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compiling Incomplete Resources[edit source]

It would be nice to have a compilation of obviously incomplete resources. If there is one, tell me about it. If there isn't, would it be a good idea to make one? Username142857 (discusscontribs) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one is kind of tricky to answer, as one person's "unfinished" is another person's "it's a wiki, so it's okay to not have everything all at once". If you find pages that are abandoned experiments or that have so little content that it cannot realistically be a learning resource, then you should probably propose it for deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the response. I don't really get what is meant by ' person's "unfinished" is another person's "it's a wiki, so it's okay to not have everything all at once".' Also, for the second part, "If you find pages that are abandoned experiments or that have so little content that it cannot realistically be a learning resource, then you should probably propose it for deletion.", wouldn't that imply the following: "If you find pages that have so little content that it cannot realistically be a learning resource, then you should probably propose it for deletion." which would be the case for any recently created resources? And why wouldn't it be a good idea to revive 'abandoned experiments'? Username142857 (discusscontribs) 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I mean is: Person A will say, "This is abandoned junk and it's just sitting here taking up virtual space" and Person B will say, "It may be incomplete, but someone can come along and make it better, since this is a wiki". These are both common and valid approaches to unfinished content. A recently-created page would not be an abandoned experiment. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are categories like Category:Freshly started resources and Category:Partly developed resources, but they aren't used consistently across the project. If you're interested in organizing abandoned resources, adding those templates where appropriate would be a good starting point.
With regard to proposed deletion, there's a 90-day delay between when the {{prod}} template is added and when the resource may be deleted, and the creator or any other editor can remove the template during that time if they're still working on the resource, or if they think it has potential. It has been our experience that 1) editors will frequently create pages with grand plans for a learning resource, but never return to write the content those pages were meant to house; and that 2) it is difficult for other editors to complete those resources after the original editors have departed. It's often easier to build a new resource from scratch than to build upon a shaky foundation. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 20:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graph template[edit source]

I wonder if there is a working template which allows to describe graph in text and it will be shown in graphic way? Most popular graph-describing langs are Graphviz and Mermaid. Specifically I need to draw some nodes and edges. Right now I found this one: Template:Tree_chart. Are there any other available templates/extensions enabled in wikiversity? Is there a place where I should've looked for this? I think I've found a bunch of pages for disabled extensions, this is a mess. Podbrushkin (discusscontribs) 10:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of graph or chart? Bar, line, pie? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need a graph with vertices and edges. Like a family tree, smth like that: A -> {B,C}; B -> C. Actually I am surprised there is no graph library widely used in Wikiversity, because they offer very simple way for creating and editing educational illustrations on any topic. Podbrushkin (discusscontribs) 09:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikiversity is a very small project, so it doesn't have all of the bells and whistles of (e.g.) our older sister Wikipedia. Does this template do what you need? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's syntax is so awful, that it defeats whole purpose of this template. MS Paint will be easier for editing and creating graphs than this. Also, do you mean Wikipedia has a nice template/extension for this? I haven't found it. And tell me please your personal opinion, check out these example pages of most popular graph visualizing libraries: graphviz, mermaid. Does it seem like they can be heavily used in creating learning materials? Podbrushkin (discusscontribs) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia has an identical template: w:en:Template:Tree chart and also has (e.g.) w:en:Template:Lineage. Does this meet your needs? And yes, for sure, they could. No doubt. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Syntax is bad and unreadable, it doesn't make it easier to create or edit graphs, so there are no reasons to learn this syntax (which I will never encounter anywhere else). Even more, maybe these templates should actually be removed/disabled from wikimedia, so no one would invest his time in learning them. I hope one day wikiversity will get support of some adequate chart drawing library, it would be awesome. Podbrushkin (discusscontribs) 12:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think that MediaWiki needs to incorporate an entirely different library, that may be something outside of the scope of the existing templates to even address and you may want to publish a ticket at phab:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon[edit source]

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]