Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
I'd like to propose Jade Knight for custodianship. I think he's been doing good work in the History-related areas of Wikiversity - as well as contributing to community policies and discussions. He's also been level-headed in his understanding of custodianship, and appropriate use of the tools. I hope he could help out in this way, and he seems willing to do so. Cormaggiotalk 12:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What areas of Wikiversity would you be helping with? Geo.plrd 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't foresee significantly changing the areas I currently help with, though I'd be taking on a few more administrative (custodial) tasks as a Custodian. The Jade Knight(d'viser) 08:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
What is your vision for wikiversity?
Which learning projects did you contribute most?
In this wikiversity, the deletion discussion works towards consensus. Yet, even if the custodians should respect consensus, custodians still need to rely on his own judgements from time to time. What is your idea on the threshold for deleting a page? Would you lean towards keeping or deleting a page which may become useful but for the moment has only a generic sentence?
It is important for a custodian to be a good listener. Now, in this edit , you have misrepresented my comment: I said if not enough evidence had been supplied and you said that it implies that there is no evidence. Does it constitute a strawman (To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute.), or were you a little tired at the time and didn't read carefully what I wrote? Best,Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see Wikiversity become a number of things. I'd like to see it become a testing-ground for respectful learning content. I'd like it to become a learning hub, where those with knowledge and those with a thirst for knowledge (often the same individuals, I think) can come together and share. I'd like it to become a repository of interactive and/or innovative learning resources. I'd like it to become the first stop of anyone who is interested in seriously learning about anything. Wikiversity should be the center that leads to all other learning, in my mind.
I have been active a number of places. I have created the English Language Division and the English Language Reference Desk. I created the European History Department. I have (quite) recently launched the French Mentoring Project, and am planning on canvassing the French stream (which I initially organized and updated, and have worked hard to keep organized) to find more participants for the Mentoring Project. I have generally been active at the English Language Division, the School of History, and to a lesser extent, the French Department, and I have contributed most to these projects, though I have contributed to a some degree in a number of areas here at Wikiversity. I think my greatest area of contribution has definitely been the School of History, though. I've done a lot of work to try to improve organization there and make it generally more useful for those interested in learning or contributing.
Great questions. If the page is a clear "speedy delete" (and has been labeled as such), I would delete it. If the page has been listed for deletion discussion, I will do my best to follow community consensus; if consensus (sans myself) favors deleting the page, I would be most likely to delete the page. If consensus (again sans myself) favors keeping the page, I would be most likely to keep the page. If there appears to be no consensus, I would be most likely to not delete the page.
I wish you would have replied to my comment and clarified your position; I simply asked "for clarification as to what you feel is missing". I had no intention to misconstrue anything you said, which is exactly why I asked for clarification: it seemed to me that I did not entirely grasp what you had intended with your comment, and so made a stab at what it could be, and asked for further clarification. This is called active listening. I consider good listening to be very important for any Wikiversity participant, so I practice active listening where I can to make sure I understand what people are saying; active listening has the advantage of reducing the likelihood that one will continue to engage in conversation without understanding the view of another: it invites clarification. A straw man (as I'm sure you know) is a clear misrepresentation of an opposing viewpoint (without any invitation for clarification or confirmation, often even after a response) which is then undermined (so that the opposing viewpoint may gain greater rhetorical weight). I'd love it if you'd clarify when I ask for clarification—I can't very well understand your viewpoint better without your input, I don't think.