Wikiversity:Colloquium

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles.
Sign your posts with   ~~~~
Welcome

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:

Shortcut:
WV:C

var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = "http://en.wikiversity.org"; 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!";

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." — Plutarch (discuss)


mediawiki2latex[edit source]

Hi, mediawiki2latex exports Wikiversity to Pdf, Epub, Odt and LaTeX. I suggest to add a new link to the tools in the in the section Tools. You may try this out yourself just now by copying User:Dirk_Hünniger/common.js to common.js in your user namespace or by using the link above. I did a very similar proposal five three years ago, but some work has been done on mediawiki2latex, so I propose it again. Yours Dirk Hünniger (discusscontribs) 14:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the educational perspective the export feature of Wiki Book Creator makes a lot of sense, because teachers can create a tailored Wiki Book for each student, matching requirements and constraints of the learner. E.g. to support in more detail in specific topics and give more advanced learning activities in others. Technically the Wiki Book Creator had already the feature years ago, so the mediawiki2latex makes that usable again for the community. Maybe it make sense for other teachers as well. Thank you, Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 07:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right Wiki Book Creator had these features before. But for many years Wiki Book Creator has disabled any possibilities to download books in any downloadable format. In Wiki Book Creator it is today only possible to order printed copies for a fee. In mediawiki2latex you can still download PDF, EPUB, LaTeX and Odt for free. Dirk Hünniger (discusscontribs) 11:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Color Boxes[edit source]

I am editing a course page, and I am trying to design it so that exercises are "inside the text" so to speak. The intent is that the reader should never just be reading but always participating.

But because of that structure, I feel like it's often visually unclear where the exercise ends and the exposition picks back up. Therefore I'd like to put the exercises into some kind of a delimited box -- like a color box -- very similar to how definitions can be put into a color box with the "Definition" template. However, as far as I can tell there are no templates for exercises.

So I have two questions.

(1) How can I make color boxes? I've googled around for this but most color boxes seem intended for single-line and inline uses, whereas most exercises are multi-line. (I apologize if this is a dumb question, I'm not super handy with the technical aspects of Wikis.)

(2) Would it make sense to make an official exercise template like there is a template for definitions? It seems like that would be a common enough thing that we might want it semi-standardized across Wikiversity. Or perhaps specifically a template for math exercises, if there is a reason for those to be distinctly styled?

Thanks for any help! Addemf (discusscontribs) 18:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest something like Template:inputcolorvariantexercise, with he colors and the design one can play. I would also use the same template for showing exercises. If you then want to change the design, you can do it on the template. The following is the command when you want to include the exercise Functions/R/Strongly increasing/Injective/Exercise. It is best when the exercises are written somewhere else on neutral ground, so everybody can use them by inserting them with different styles.

{{ inputcolorvariantexercise |Functions/R/Strongly increasing/Injective/Exercise|m| }} gives

Exercise[edit source]

Prove that a strictly increasing function
is injective.

One can also do so that you can write the exercise text directly in your main text. It is also possible to make a variant with a solution (to expand, say). Many things are possible. But I would not strive for an offical how to present exercises, as people like different styles. Also note that the style of the exercise itself is different from the style presented by inserting the exercise. Bocardodarapti (discusscontribs) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


A reply

The {{robelbox}} template can be used to put content in colored boxes, like this reply is. However, be aware that it prevents the visual editor from being used normally on your page, and can make text harder to read; I'd recommend that you avoid using it for large stretches of content.

Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 20:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the unprotection of making a blog post[edit source]

Sign Hi folks, i noticed that making a blog post is protected. I understand why but i must request for it to be lifted cause young bloggers like me need the opportunity to get ratings on our work. Yellow Mellow Madie (discusscontribs) 15:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Where are you trying to make a blog post? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informing you about the Mental Health Resource Center and inviting any comments you may have[edit source]

Hello all! I work in the Community Resilience and Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Mental Health Resource Center is a group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community.

The Mental Health Resource Center launched in August 2023. The goal is to review the comments and suggestions to improve the Mental Health Resource Center each quarter. As there have not been many comments yet, I’d like to invite you to provide comments and resource suggestions as you are able to do so on the Mental Health Resource Center talk page. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Thank you! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (discusscontribs) 21:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs community attention rather than custodian action, should this be moved to Wikiversity:Colloquium? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 07:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Doing it now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the move. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 07:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am reaching out to you today to announce that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter is now open. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll now through 2 February 2024. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.

The current version of the U4C Charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.

Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test tools?[edit source]

<span data-templatescript="WikiSign.js" class="sign-button mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive">{{{1|Sign}}}</span>

Does Wikiversity have test tools such as true/false questions, multiple choice, matching, sorting, quizzes, etc.? These are tools that are used in Moodle, for example. Where can I find them and how can I integrate them into Wikiversity? Thanks for help. Matutinho (discusscontribs) 13:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start is Help:Quiz. There is a link at the top of that page to Help:Quiz-Simple, which is a great entry point. I spent a great deal of time making quizzes for physics and astronomy a few years ago. My effort is at Quizbank. I eventually migrated the project to www.myopenmath.com. If you are going to seriously do quizzes, myopenmath.com is superior. I finally settled in on a method whereby the quizzes are on Myopenmath, but the hints and ancillary materials were on Wikiversity's Quizbank (or another Wikiversity page.) To this day I get enough pageviews on some of my Quizbank pages to know that my questions are being used. I don't know how and by whom.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last days to vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee[edit source]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am reaching out to you today to remind you that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) charter will close on 2 February 2024. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.

The current version of the U4C charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.

Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 17:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata for Beginners[edit source]

Hey, I am hosting a Wikidata for Beginners workshop on Wednesday, 14 February 2024, as a part of Love Data Week 2024 (LDW), so you are welcome to attend. I would like to ask you to keep an eye on that landing page to prevent any vandalism, as it's linked to the LDW page, too. Thx. Juandev (discusscontribs) 09:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection checkY Done by special:redirect/logid/3387071. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 09:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the results of the UCoC Coordinating Committee Charter ratification vote[edit source]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Thank you everyone for following the progress of the Universal Code of Conduct. I am writing to you today to announce the outcome of the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. 1746 contributors voted in this ratification vote with 1249 voters supporting the Charter and 420 voters not. The ratification vote process allowed for voters to provide comments about the Charter.

A report of voting statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published on Meta-wiki in the coming weeks.

Please look forward to hearing about the next steps soon.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle very-low-value pages AKA deletion and move to userspace convention[edit source]

I am starting this discussion based on a prelude:

I and Guy vandegrift differ at times about what belongs to mainspace. Guy has been doing a lot of tireless deletion/move-to-userspace work, often based on my proposals; thank you! Some of the deletion proposals resulted in RFD discussions at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. An example of where we see things differently is Student Projects/PhotoTalks, which I find not good enough for mainspace. The relevant guideline (not policy) is Wikiversity:Deletions; the key phrase is "learning outcomes are scarce".

I will let Guy pick the questions he wants to put forward for discussion. Reposts from the linked discussion are perhaps not amiss. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me violate the above a bit, and put one item for me into the discussion. As a point of contrast: I find the page Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Truth, Objectivity, and Relativism to be of rather low quality: there are too many dubious statements and there is a conspicuous lack of good further reading specific to the subject of the subpage. But it is not the kind of page that I would send for deletion as part of the current cleanup effort. The kind of page that I am sending for deletion is Student Projects/PhotoTalks, which is not a "project" in a meaningful sense and from which the reader can hardly learn anything. And I have no qualms with "PhotoTalks" being moved to user space, although I find it too kind anyway; but I have no fundamental problem with this kind of arguably great-than-expected kindness. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I was pinged because I made some comments etc. about deleting media files. Mostly those deletions were suggested because of copyright issues.
I understand that Wikiversity is a place to learn and study and in all levels. And sometimes you can learn by other peoples mistakes. But it raises 2 problems:
  1. If a page is of low quality and it contains mistakes should it at least be flagged as low quality and with mistakes? Otherwise someone may learn something wrong. But who check all the pages and make sure the quality is okay? An when should this happen? If I make a page for a school project then it would not give a fair impression of my skills if other users starts to correct my errors. So it should not happen untill after the project is over and my skills have been evaluated.
  2. Just because we can learn from eachothers mistakes does that mean we should keep everything? On Commons Scope page it says: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." I think the same could apply here.
Anyway I think it is a very good idea to agree on some guide/policy etc. because I think it will make it much easier for everyone. But I do not think I can contribute very much to that because I'm not really active outside the file namespace. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 08:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My answer to all this can be found on Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot to respond to in Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024. I will make it brief, to save the attention of everyone, but I can post more if wished and answer any questions anyone has for me.
    1) The quote "Too many bad articles and we don't have the time to remove them, too few bad articles, and there is no need delete them" provides a recipe to keep a growing number of very-low-value pages in the mainspace, which cannot be a good thing.
    2) Very-low-value pages should IMHO ideally either be moved to user space or deleted; they should not stay in the mainspace.
    3) Page "Finding and using free content" should be deleted; two of the three links do not show valuable content (are quasi-broken) and the 3rd link is an internal one.
    4) No admin should feel compelled to do most of the deletion work alone. One option is to do the deletion work only on, say, Tuesdays and only delete, say, at most 7 pages per Tuesday, to give other admins plenty of time to join the effort.
    --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dan Polansky: I woke up this morning with an idea that is directly related to your point 1) directly above. I believe that idea will render the other points (2-4) moot: Simply move the page to draftspace and leave a redirect. Also, I strongly oppose not leaving a redirect in case the student wants to come back and read or edit the page. (rewritten)-Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the Draft namespace is this (per Wikiversity:Drafts): "Resources which remain in the draft space for over 180 days (6 months) without being substantially edited may be deleted." And thus, the deletion is only deferred anyway (or does "may" mean deletion is just an option taken on a whim?), but not very much, but the process then takes more work/more steps.
    Students can easily find their pages in their contribution list (e.g. Special:Contributions/Dan Polansky), which should be easy to overview unless the student was very prolific. Therefore, keeping redirects seems inessential. And if the moving is to userspace, finding the contribution is also easy, using a template that lists userspace subpages. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three items:
  1. What about moving to userspace with a redirect, and with template at the top of the page identifying that page as being in the person's userspace?
  2. Also, I just got a thank you from a person whose article I moved to userspace instead of deleting.
  3. No consensus is being formed here, and if nothing happens I will no choice but to use my authority as a Custodian and impose something. What I do will be based largely on previous practice, because as you know, our stated policy guidelines were never taken seriously.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a new page and the user was still working on it then I would not judge it too hard. But it has not been edited for many years.
According to Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? Wikiversity is a learning community for learning, teaching, researching, serving and sharing materials and ideas. Can anyone explain why the page meets any of that? Who will learn anything from the page. What would they learn from it? Is there any research in this? Etc.
I do not agree that we gain (almost) nothing by deleting low quality pages. If anyone searches then junk will also show up. If users see too much junk it will give the impression that this project is a low quality project. Personally I would not use a project if I know that there are no minimum/quality requirements.
I fully understand that it is a huge task to clean up and I know there are cases where someone might disagree. But it should be possible for those that disagree to provide some good arguments why the page should not be deleted. So perhaps modify {{Prod}} a bit so that if anyone wants to remove the template they should at least add a reason on the talk page.
So my suggestion is delete vandalism etc. at once. If there could be any doubt add {{Prod}}, wait 30 days (or whatever) then delete. If someone disagree they should be required to provice a realistic argument why it is not a deletion. If nominator does still not agree the page should be kept then start a formal deletion and hope there is anyone else that would like to comment. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 17:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment preceded the previous one, but was placed under the wrong section by the author Guy vandegrift: Why are we talking about Student Projects/Geography??? It's a student project and nobody is going there to look for ideas about teaching. Pageviews count the times an editor looks at the page, but if you look at the pageviews after the page was completed this is what you get.. Also look at Student_Projects#Student_Pages. I think it's almost 300 pages. In the experimental sciences we learn to make estimates. I estimate that it will take 100 person hours to get the references right on all these pages. I don't want to waste one more hour of my time on this. In 2020 a Bureaucrat Dave Braunschweig allowed the page to be at its current location. Why am I being asked to revert that decision? I repeat: Nobody cares about Student_Projects/Geography. It does no harm, except that talking about it wastes time and space on the Colloquium.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I did not nominate User:PURNA BISWAS2/Student Projects/Geography for deletion (when it was at Student Projects/Geography), although it indeed does not belong to mainspace, IMHO. I am focusing on top-level mainspace pages with arguably unacceptable quality/implemented scope. To give an idea for what I mean, I just used "Random page" wiki function to find the following pages arguably worthy of deletion/moving to userspace: The Distribution of Addition and Subtraction over Multiplication in Elementary Algebra, The iam conjecture, Web Design:Useful Books, Internet Abuse, and Wikitext 101. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the "vote" is 2 for deletion, with only me wanting to keep the page. It looks like Wikiversity is now refereeing the quality of student efforts. As per the old (informal) policy, I will move it to the author's userspace. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that Student_Projects/PhotoTalks was created as a Student Project? But even if it was there is no rule saying that it has to be kept online forever? Student Projects could be deleted after some time - one year for example. As you said nobody is going there to look. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 06:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support deleting as little as possible that is not blatant spam. I think deleting user creations discourages users from actively using the wiki. Deleting any content that is not blatant spam that may have been created in good faith may actually be a form of punishment effectively (from a behavioral psychology point of view). If something is not actual spam, then IMO it should not ever be deleted. It should either be moved to draft namespace or user namespace... or like a "Recycle bin" so others could access and reuse/repurpose the content or utilize it later - even if it is just a bare bones minimal page (like a stub). Deleting content I think will continue to hinder this wiki from growing and reaching its potential. ChatGPT reached 100 million users in a few months? And this wiki has existed for how long and has how many users? This wiki has so much potential but I often stop myself from editing here and tell myself it is not a good use of time because something I may create in good faith may be deleted (thereby wasting my time and efforts). Limitless peace. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 15:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key question of this thread is not when things should be outright deleted but rather when can they be moved out of mainspace. And if I read the above correctly, it opposes the former (deletion) but not the latter (move to userspace); correct me if I am wrong. (A wiki is nothing like a chatbot; not much point comparing the two.) --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 16:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In section #Expanding WV:Deletions with provision for moving to user space, I proposed to codify moving to userspace as common. Even stronger language could be used than I used, in favor of moving to user space. This could lead people to think that even if their creation gets removed from mainspace, it will at least end up in their user space. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 16:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I shall clarify. If pages are kept in main namespace, OK. If they are moved to userspace or draft namespace then those pages should be organized and linked to in such a way that they are not effectively impossible or extremely difficult to find or notice (if one's intention is to see less developed content and stubs for possible development). I oppose outright deletion for reasons I noted. Bless up. 06:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What to do about WV:Verifiability[edit source]

My edits to the page have been challenged elsewhere, but a proper venue seems to be Colloquium. We should figure out what to do about them.

1) Revert to the state before my edits. I find this suboptimal since I find these edits to be an improvement, but I am no dictator here.

2) Keep in the state in which I left the page. Still far from ideal, but at least some defects have been addressed.

3) Make amends to the state in which I left the page.

I will point out that even after the changes I made, the page is at odds with the actual widespread practice. One only has to look e.g. at Student Projects and its subpages to see that requirements of either reference-verifiable statements or original "scholarly research" are being largely ignored. To wit, e.g. Student Projects/Geography contains only one external link (to youtube) and surely is not "original scholarly research" by any standard; it is a rather unoriginal yet original in the sense of copyright law writeup, perhaps by a student. Student Projects has other such pages.

Ideally, we would figure out how to amend WV:Verifiability to match the intended tolerance for unreferenced texts in Wikiversity. In the meantime, it seems advisable not to pretend the page is a binding policy that is actually enforced. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on this. If you follow the rules, we should revert your changes because no census was reached. If we follow past policy, no action needs to be taken because much of what was written was never properly voted on. Wikiversity is a very small organization. We are so small in number that we can either improve the wiki or improve the rules, but not both, IMHO. I am getting caught up in all this because I am one of the few Custodians who is deleting pages, and I might stop doing that (I'm only a volunteer.) ... Also, it's OK to discuss things on the Colloquium, but decisions need to be done in Wikiversity space because: (1) That's the way we used to do it, and (2) these decisions take a long time (many months) and discussions get archived or lost before everybody votes.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding WV:Deletions with provision for moving to user space[edit source]

I propose to add something like the following to WV:Deletions:

"==Moving to user space==
"A page that meets the criteria for deletion can be moved to user space instead, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, etc. Rationale: The database storage is not saved by deletion and there is generally no harm in being kind to those who hone their writing and wiki editing skills in Wikiversity."

Thoughts? Any supports? Phrasing modification proposals? Should the rationale be omitted? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you proposed is better than what we have. But I keep coming back to the "calculation" of what is and is not possible. We need to move fast and efficiently because removing less than 10% of the low quality pages accomplish nothing. It is time consuming to go into the history and decide who the author(s) were. I propose Draft:Archive/Pagename for all such pages. This will allow people to search Draft:Archive to locate their work. I also propose that we give high priority to two distinctly different types of pages:
  1. Old pages that have been dormant for 5 years or more.
  2. Vast quantities of new pages that a hyperactive newbie creates. Half of them are doing real harm with nonsense pages, and need to be asked to leave (or at least work in userspace.) The other half need to be encouraged to work under one or two subpages.
--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the pages in "Draft:Archives/..." exempt from "Resources which remain in the draft space for over 180 days (6 months) without being substantially edited may be deleted", which was voted on in Wikiversity talk:Drafts#Draft namespace resource retention in April 2019? If they are not exempt, why should a page creator prefer the Draft page over user space, in which the material can be left alone indefinitely? I for one would prefer my writings to end up in my user space and stay there "forever", publicly accessible.
Yes, you are right that figuring out the right user is more work and sometimes may be harder to do or impossible. For that scenario, the draft space seems to be a fine option.
Shouldn't we codify both options, as "can"? We would start by adding the user space option as proposed above, and I would propose another option for the Draft space in a separate thread? (Or you could do it if preferred.) --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 19:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Draft:Archive would be exempt from removal. Putting the material in Draft:Archive has lots of advantages: (1) Virtually all pages have multiple authors (2) people can easily search this DraftArchive space using either Google or Wikiversity's search option. (3) Nobody in their right mind is going to judge Wikiversity by what they read in a space called "Draft:Archive". What distinguishes Wikiversity from the other wikis is the we "learn by doing", and we all learn from our mistakes. Before we propose this option to the community, I suggest we just do it for about ten pages, and see who complains.
Also, the page created used the singular: See Draft:Archive. Feel free to replace Lorem ipsum with proposed guidlines.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the proposed plan is to let very-low-quality material sit somewhere in the Draft:Archive/... indefinitely, I think the better plan is to let sit all pages in the Draft:... space indefinitely, which would require a formal abolishment of Wikiversity talk:Drafts#Draft namespace resource retention via new voting somewhere. But even if we want to have Draft:Archive/... exempt from expiry, it probably requires a process as formal as the linked vote, doesn't it? I struggle to find the significant difference between the kind of material that belongs to Draft/... and the kind that belongs to Draft/Archive/... --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 20:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way out of any legal conundrums associated with Draft:Archive: Let's consider it my personal project, always under construction. That way I don't need anyone's permission to maintain the page, unless someone can make the argument that it hurts Wikiversity. I haven't read the Wikiversity policy, but I doubt there is a deletion date for drafts that are still being edited. I have certain rules for this project. The following items are not allowed, for example:
  1. Bad attempts at humor, or commercial advertising (this eliminates most spam)
  2. Excessive pages by a single editor
  3. All hate speech, and any pseudoscience that is patently false
  • Also, any link, image, or template that interferes with Wikiversity can be "dewikified" using <nowiki>...</nowiki>
As I was looking for pages to place in this archive, I took a second look at Student Projects/PhotoTalks. Those who want to remove it from its subspace may outnumber me. But they are wrong. I spent several years at a University consulting with primary and secondary teachers on the teaching of math and science (my efforts were largely useless because at that level teaching is 99% babysitting and 1% content.) But assigning a young student to learn how to create a page on Wikiversity with images is an excellent thing to do. Even if the person who created the page was not a child.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to the original topic, do you have any objections to expanding the WV:Deletions page as proposed, to codify moving to user pages? The text says "can" (an option), captures actual recent practice and does not preclude using Draft namespace for a similar purpose. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 14:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I am a newbie and have been somewhat active, I wonder whether I am doing things the right way.
I don't want to bother anyone by asking them to review what is quite a lot of writing. But if I have been doing anything which has stood out as less than ideal, please feel free to let me know. Addemf (discusscontribs) 19:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Addemf: Everything you wrote looks OK to me. Your topic is outside my field of expertise, though. If you need any help, click "discuss" after my username:Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As long as none of the style or ways that I'm editing are upsetting to anyone, I'm pleased!  :) Addemf (discusscontribs) 17:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure junk[edit source]

I think pure junk should be deleted rather than moved to userspace or draftspace.

For instance: Draft:Istanamshjs. The title is nonsense, the "content" is nonsense; not even sentences.

This kind of "contribution" is not worth anyone's time, not even the time to push the "move" button. The only button this deserves is "delete with extreme prejudice".

WV:Deletions does not disagree, or outright agreees.

--Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky: You are asking to delete this page approximately one day after it was created. It is perfectly acceptable to start a draft with an outline. There is a bit of justifiable prejudice against IP editors because they tend not to stay long. But perhaps the person is being cautious about registering with an unfamiliar organization. I still haven't made the decision to sign up for CNN. I admit that the draft looks incoherent, and give this project a 5% chance of going anywhere, and that probability will go down every day this draft is not edited. This leaves me with three questions: (1) What probability of success is the threshold for deleting a draft? (2) How do we obtain that probability? By one person's opinion, or do we need some sort of consensus? (3) At what point do we reach a point of diminishing return on our efforts? In other words, bringing this up on the Colloquium or RFD wastes our time. Just give it a {{subst:prod}} and move on.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy vandegrift: {{ping}} only works if you also sign a post. So if you go back and edit a comment to add a ping, you should also re-sign that post. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I'm confused: I thought I did sign the post. Perhaps my numbered list confused people. I will re-edit, but not resign because that confuses the record.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that Draft:Istanamshjs is not a draft of anything but a pure junk. To my mind, the page is not acceptable at all, and I don't care about whether the author was an IP in this instance.
I brought this to Colloquium so that we can agree that some pages are junk enough to be deleted outright rather than being "salvaged" in Draft space. If there is no such agreement, we can as well rename "Draft" space to "Dustbin".
I find this lenience toward pure junk very perplexing. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I quote this junk in full:

<small>

This page Istanamshjs Does not exist

This Page but,Always you can Make a new draft for                           

Review.


Did you mean Islam JTK?

Islam 1988 Monopoly

Islam 1991 User

Islam 1996 

Islam 1998

Islam 1999

Islam 2000 Event help

Islam 2021

Privacy Policy  Terms  Help of Service   Feedback  Advice  Settings 


Sign in  Sign Up

</small> This is not a draft. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to close a number of discussions at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion. A few of them have unresolved issues, but the discussions are so contorted that we need to resolve those issues with fresh starts for each issue. I will collapse the discussions to leave room for you to list any items that need to be resolved.

  1. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Wikiversity:Deletion_Convention_2024
  2. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Thousands_of_unused_files
  3. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter
  4. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Draft:Proof_for_NP_unequal_P_by_Thomas_Käfer
  5. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#PhotoTalks
  6. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Wikisphere
  7. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Ukulele

Yours truly, Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 04:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolvable outcomes based on existing discussion and WV:Deletions guideline:
Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Wikiversity:Deletion_Convention_2024: not a specific deletion proposal => no action taken.
Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Thousands_of_unused_files: not clear
Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter: not clear; something was already done
Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Draft:Proof_for_NP_unequal_P_by_Thomas_Käfer: delete.
Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#PhotoTalks: move out of mainspace (2:1)
Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Wikisphere: move out of mainspace (already done, but redirect was kept)
Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Ukulele: delete (or move out of mainspace).
On a process/administration note, I do not find collapsing discussions useful at all, not even before archiving. The English Wiktionary does not collapse its RFD discussions. The English Wiktionary closes each discussion with a closure statement, e.g. "RFD-kept" or "RFD-deleted". It would be great to proceed in a similar fashion. From the archives of Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion, I see the English Wikiversity did not use to collapse discussions. For instance, Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/16 uses boxed closures using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} but no collapsed closures; and each boxed closure states the specific outcome. I think even these boxes with blue background are unnecessary and make the archived discussions harder to read. The phrasing of the closing statement is not that important; it can be "Deleted per consensus", "No consensus for deletion". One can emphasize closing if one wishes: "Closed: deleted per consensus", "Closed: no consensus for deletion", etc.
If discussions are to be collapsed, the collapsing should be on a per discussion level rather than multiple discussions being in a single collapsed section (perhaps that was just an editing error?)
On a time note: closing Ukulele is too early IMHO since not even one week elapsed. We should agree on a minimum period for keeping RFD discussions open and keep that period. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion about Ukulele is my fault. I closed the discussion ("turned it blue") and collapsed it because there was a consensus to delete. I will not move the discussion into the archive ("hide it") until it is deleted. I need to prioritise my efforts, and deleting well designed stubs is not a high priority. I said this is my fault because I forgot to change the tag on Ukalele from "rfd" to "speedy". Now anybody who wants to delete will see it on Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter Can be closed. Someone just have to decide if the pages made by MS and/or Kizer should be deleted or not. If someone know the answer to the off topic question it would be Great but if not that page could be discussed in a new RFD.--MGA73 (discusscontribs) 05:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The start of Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter mentions "out invalid fair use files"; are there still any files (not pages) by User:Marshallsumter that someone considers problematic? Either way, it is probably a good idea to close this old RFD thread, and open a new one if required, say, "Files by User:Marshallsumter with invalid fair use". --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 06:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created a space for this discussion at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Archiving_of_Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 08:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good. The title is a bit ambiguous: are we talking files or pages? Anyway, let us see what discussion develops there. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid fair use files are a copyright problem. My plan was to delete pages in user namespace. Once the pages were deleted many files would be orphan and easy to find and delete. Very simple plan - at least in my head :-D However the files have been found and deleted now. --MGA73 (discusscontribs) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem deleting user namespace pages that are causing trouble. In fact, I'm still a bit concerned about moving "dead" pages to either userspace or Draft:Archive for exactly that reason. If anybody ever runs into a problem caused by such pages, let me know.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussions in Requests for Deletion (RFD)[edit source]

I register my opposition to the use of collapsing in Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. Collapsing the discussions makes it harder to skim the RFD page just by scrolling down and see what is going on there. As a weak argument, collapsing RFD discussions is not common in the English Wiktionary. One does not need collapsing to move from one discussion to another: there is a table of contents for that. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 09:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we allow custodians to use mass-delete?[edit source]

At special:permalink/2609683#Does_anybody_know_how_to_delete_all_pages_by_a_single_user?, there was a related discussion about this matter. I'm bringing this agenda here for the community's attention. As can be seen at Special:ListGroupRights, only bureaucrats are allowed to use mass-delete under current settings, but many Wikimedia projects allow this to admins (equal to our custodians). Global sysops can also use mass-delete. What does our community think about this? Should we keep the current settings, or should we grant mass-delete to our custodians as a new standard? MathXplore (discusscontribs) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore Sounds like a good idea to me - I can see value in Special:Nuke being available to custodians on en.wv. Consider starting a proposal at Wikiversity talk:Custodianship. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a proposal at Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship#Proposal_to_allow_custodians_to_use_mass-delete per suggestion. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 07:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Integrating University Knowledge into Wikipedia[edit source]

Hello! I share with you this proposal, it is still not very mature, I would appreciate ideas and suggestions to carry it out. Any opinion is welcome. Thanks

The aim of this proposal is to compile and share all academic content from universities on Wikipedia. This involves adding the syllabi of all subjects from all university degrees to the platform, providing free and open access to university knowledge for anyone or any artificial intelligence.

Implementation:

1. Acquisition and Digitalization of Notes:

  • Students are encouraged to digitize their notes and publish them under the CC BY SA license for inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • Participation from students can be promoted through annual awards for the best notes in each degree, whether in the form of monetary incentives, meal vouchers, or transportation grants. It is crucial to avoid plagiarism and respect copyright.
  • Collaboration with student delegations and the involvement of professors in this task are encouraged.

2. Uploading Content to Wikimedia Commons:

  • Students can upload their notes to the Wikimedia Commons repository with their full name, which enhances their visibility on Google and improves their curriculum vitae.

3. Distribution of Content on Wikipedia:

  • The notes are reviewed and understood, and the information is distributed across related Wikipedia articles.
  • To achieve this, two options can be considered:
  1. Hiring specialized editors.
  2. Requesting the collaboration of Wikipedia volunteers, possibly establishing a Wikiproject dedicated to organizing tasks and coordinating content contributions.

This proposal aims to enrich Wikipedia's content with verified and accessible academic knowledge, benefiting students, researchers, and learning enthusiasts worldwide.

In commons there are already uploaded notes for several subjects, see Lecture Notes Uni4all (discusscontribs) 17:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to start small. Go on Wikiversity and start a small project. Focus on quality versus volume. We are a community that shares your goals, but we live in a much larger and more diverse world that is not ready for your plan.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO to my knowledge, lecture notes could simply be added to this wiki. If there is a better way to think about that please LMK. Bless up! Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 02:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available[edit source]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada survey[edit source]

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discusscontribs) 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive namespace?[edit source]

What about an Archive namespace? ... Its not exactly for drafts... but this could be utilized to sort of wall off Creative Commons content created in good faith from the main namespace that might otherwise be deleted? Or maybe Draft can serve this function, if such a function is desired? bless up. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you already know about an informal version of this I started a few weeks ago at Draft:Archive.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that until today. That is awesome!! thanks and limitless peace! now I know! thanks. Bless up. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 08:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Ten: I hate to bother you about this, but now that you know about Draft:Archive, I presume you are willing to change your vote so that WikiService and be moved to Draft:Archive/2024/WikiService. You can change your vote at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Voting_on_WikiService simply by deleting and rewriting. Equivalently, you can affirm right here that we should move WikiService to Draft:Archive/2024/WikiService, and I will report that affirmation and close the discussion over there. The page has had no significant edits since 2008, and the significant authors have been dormant for a decade (BTW I am OK with deleting something this old.)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 09:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Age and dormant are not deletion criteria per WV:Deletions. A valuable page can be dormant and that is fine per WV:Deletions, unless I have overlooked something. The problem with the page is that it is worthless and will not help readers learn anything; if the page were excellent since 2008 and without further changes, it would be kept. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem with the page is that it is worthless and will not help readers learn anything [...]" I ultimately consider this a subjective value judgement if content (on this wiki that relates to learning, teaching, and/or research) was likely created in good faith and is not spam. Hence I think the proposal modification i noted here (Wikiversity:Colloquium#Expanding_WV:Deletions_with_Moving_to_Draft_archive) may be fruitful. I think "One man's trash is another man's treasure" quite much applies to Creative Commons educational content created in good faith. Suggested Google search which might have some relevant content (as food for thought) in the 3.8 million results I see per Google is as follows, "subjective value educational content site:.edu" (without quotes). Regardless, I appreciate your constructive good faith contributions and perspectives! bless up! Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Draftify[edit source]

I created Template:Draftify today. Does a template like this already exist? I applied this template to Metadata. bless up. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 08:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template should be deleted. Instead, I propose an alternative in #Expanding WV:Deletions with Moving to Draft archive. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding WV:Deletions with Moving to Draft archive[edit source]

I propose to expand WV:Deletion with the following:

"==Moving to Draft archive==
"A page that meets the criteria for deletion can be moved to Draft:Archive instead, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, etc. Rationale: The database storage is not saved by deletion and there is generally no harm in being kind to those who hone their writing and wiki editing skills in Wikiversity."

This matches the practice launched recently by Guy Vandegrift.

This presupposes there will be consensus for this practice.

As a result, we may still use speedy delete and/or rfd process, and handle pages by moving them rather than deleting them. By contrast, this template Draftify introduces a new implied process with unclear rules for what can be moved to Draft space.

--Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky and Michael Ten: As I understand it, the plan is to have three options: Delete, Draftspace, or Draft:Archive. If we have three templates, the person who selects the template will have made a de facto vote on the question. This could speed up the voting process.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 10:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My questions would be these: do you agree with the wording I proposed above? Do you agree that the wording matches the recent practice concerning Draft:Archive or do you think changes need to be made to the wording I proposed? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proposing this, and this seems quite fruitful. I suggested the following amendment or something to this effect (this is just a suggestion and open to constructive changes, unless what you originally proposed is most ideal unmodified).
"==Moving to Draft archive==
"A page that meets the criteria for deletion from the main resource namespace that was most likely created in good faith and is not blatant spam should be moved to the "Draft:" namespace instead of being deleted, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, spam, and/or so forth. The rational for this is as follows. Not deleting Creating Commons Content created in good faith is fruitful to the Creative Commons as a whole, database storage is not reduced by deleting content, and there is generally no harm moving good faith content to the Draft: namespace. Additionally, whether someone created good faith Creative Commons content (related to teaching, learning, or research) to hone their writing and wiki editing skills, simply to plant the seed of an idea for others to build off of later, or so forth, moving such content to the "Draft:" namespace can give others an opportunity to develop the content later, use the content as food for thought that might spark new, useful, or novel ideas, and/or possibly another creative fruitful intellectual processes related to Creative Commons content creation not described here.
Bless up. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped we can agree on something simple, brief and to the point rather than get sidetracked into a discussion about one rationale or the other. And I do not see any substantive defect in my proposal that the above solves. Oh well. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose between the two versions, I would go with the one by User:Dan Polansky. But I have great respect for the judgement and vision for Wikiversity expressed by User:Michael Ten. Also, Dan is fully aware of my personal distaste for the chaotic nature of discussions on all WMF wikis. For that reason, I copied both Dan's and Michael's proposals to Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024, and refuse to further discuss it on this insanely long Colloquium page. Please go to Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024 and lets see if we can work this out!--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some edits were made. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity%3ADeletions&diff=2611619&oldid=2605804 Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 03:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Jtneill took out some of my sarcasm, which is a good thing to do. Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 03:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to become paid editor?[edit source]

Many of them edit wikiversity.But is it possible to earn money by editing ? Musesscab (discusscontribs) 14:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up that I will move this thread once my response is posted. We don't have a local policy page about being a paid editor, but see w:en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which references the Wikimedia Foundation's requirements. So that is how to comply with being a paid editor, but how you could logistically make money editing Wikiversity is an open question. Frankly, I don't think you can. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Musesscab: I moved this from Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making a Discrete Math course + how can I clean up the math portal?[edit source]

Hi all, I'm considering creating a course on discrete mathematics. I see in the math portal (https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics) that there are a number of sub-topics related to discrete math, but none of them is really a course on discrete math, as in a unified and sequential presentation like one would get in a university course or textbook on the subject.

I tried digging through the source code to see how things are organized and I got kind of lost in a forest of links and imported content. I never managed to actually figure out where all the data comes from to make the table of contents. So I am not clear about how one should go about inserting a new course in the table.

Moreover, a lot of the stuff that's currently in the table of contents looks kind of disorganized. I'm not sure if it is intended that single isolated topics would have a whole page dedicated to them -- if not, should they somehow be placed under some kind of larger category? I'd do it myself, but as noted, I don't see how the organization is built from the source.

To give a few specific examples: (1) Group theory is under discrete math but that seems like it should get its own high-level category, at least parallel with things like "Geometry". (2) Under "Applied mathematics" is "Functional analysis" which seems more than a little wrong (not that Functional Analysis can't be "applied", but it is very far from what one would typically call "applied".). (3) If anyone wanted to just learn "Discrete mathematics" it's not clear where in that category they should go or start. Clicking on some things doesn't even really take you to a page but a list of sub-topics, where again one would be naturally confused as to where to start.

So I don't know if there is a page that I haven't found which would explain this, or if anyone can explain to me how to reorganize the page, or if anyone has other ideas about how to make progress there. Or, the least effort solution, maybe someone can just make a discrete math course page in whatever way they think is best and then I can fill it in?

Anyway, I don't want to be a bother but I do look forward to contributing, if anyone would be willing to clear this up! Thanks.

Addemf (discusscontribs) 16:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikiversity! I never dealt with the math portal, but looked at it and made two observations: (1) The portal averages an astonishing 3,000 pageviews per month, and (2) it hasn't been edited since June 2021. So improving it should be a high priority.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just develop the course in userspace from scratch and then worry about where to put it rather than try to refurbish the existing content like Introductory Discrete Mathematics for Computer Science, which is a bit of a mess and includes dead links. It's somewhat a pet peeve of mine when course material belabors simple points but covers more complicated things only superficially. For instance, why have separate pages for AND, OR, etc, but just a single video (whose link is apparently now dead) about "Proving Programs Correct"? Anyone who's cut out for computer science or math will grasp AND, OR, etc. pretty quickly after glancing at their truth tables and can probably move right along to covering the remainder of propositional logic and working out some exercises. Conversely, most undergrads are probably not going to come away really understanding things like Cantor's diagonal argument or how to apply Floyd–Hoare logic unless significant time is spent on those subjects. A decent discrete math course should spend a good chunk of time on logic (starting with the grammar), sets, proofs, induction, etc and provide a thorough set of exercises. AP295 (discusscontribs) 06:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree: Userspace is for individual efforts and draftspace is for collaborative efforts. Perhaps we need to modify {{Welcome}} to emphasize this fact. An exception might be made for individuals working solo on a project, but wish to seek collaborators. Unfortunately, collaborative efforts are rare-to-nonexistent, unless a classroom instructor is assigning tasks for students to complete on Wikiversity. Seeing non-students to collaborate on a project seems like an unlikely dream.... Incidentally, I cannot ask someone to work in draft-space when we have a regulation stating that draft-space projects get deleted after being dormant for 60 days.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 07:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: @Addemf: It is best to get all your work under one top page: In my field, I do everything as a subpage to Physics (when I first came here it was Physics equations, which I used in the classroom.) That way, when it comes time to move your pages, they all can be moved together. There are so many nut-case pages under Physics that I created Physics/A, which is an unorthodox solution to the problem. Unfortunately, very few people on Wikiversity are trying to keep their efforts confined in this manner.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 08:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are so many nut-case pages under Physics". Why not flag them for deletion? AP295 (discusscontribs) 09:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent (though obvious) question! I have two reasons, both involve the same nut-case article:
Collapsed by author Guy vandegrift. The two reasons are bold-faced
Many years ago, I noticed a page that presented an alternate theory of General Relativity (GR), a theory that uses mathematics so complicated that most people with a Ph.D. in physics never encounter during their education. Keep in mind that this is not computer science, where old software becomes obsolete: Curvilinear coordinate systems are used to this day, not only in GR, but in plasma physics (where one of the coordinates follows the magnetic field line.) A Wikiversity article on GR attracted my attention because I used my knowledge of curvilinear coordinates to construct a "derivation" of GR that is only a weak field approximation. I couldn't understand it, but it looked OK (and thankfully wasn't the same as mine.) So the first reason for letting the nut-case pages stay is that (1) Wikiversity is not equipped to referee scientific journals. If you look it up, it turns out that the established scientific journals are not very good at refereeing scientific journals. My second reason for leaving the nut-cases alone, is that a Wikipedia editor contacted me about the same article on GR that I looked at. This editor told me that the GR article I looked at but did not understand was impossible. I was able to google this Wikiversity editor and learned that he had published one or two articles on weak-field GR, so I took their word for it and deleted the article. This caused a long discussion on RFD that finally got the page sent to the author's userspace... Then, about the time when Dave was semi-retiring from Wikiversity, I noticed the same page on Wikiversity. I put it up for RFD (I now realize that I should have unceremoniously deleted it.) The RFD has recently become so bogged down that only two people responded, namely the nut and I. So, I put it into Physics/Essays and went on to find easier tasks. So my second reason for not deleting it is (2) I gave up on trying to remove low quality pages (there are simply too many of them on WV.) I once read (but no longer believe) that most of the internet is devoted to porn. But except for the fact that porn might harm children, porn does not prevent the internet from being useful. We have search engines to find the good stuff. I do delete scientific articles that promote well-known fringe theories because like porn, they are potentially harmful. The bottom line is that I guess Wikiversity should be the place where anything goes. It's a place where students can write anything that is harmless. Our My job is to delete the harmful and separate the harmless from what may or may not (probably the latter) be useful.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. If you come across an article that you're sure is bogus you get rid of it (or at least move it to the author's userspace), right? A meaningful contribution to theoretical physics would presumably be a welcome submission in some or other traditional journal, so in any case the stakes seem quite low for theoretical physicists and anyone else doing legitimate work in the hard sciences. AP295 (discusscontribs) 15:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AP295: I don't know whether to remove the cot/cob template or not. But to address (not answer) your question, I was only a participant in introduction of draftspace, and the practice of allowing low quality material to remain in namepage-subspace under titles like Student Projects and Physics/Essays. I was focused mostly on using Wikipedia to develop course materials. Now I find myself to be the only active custodian on Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. I created What-goes-where 2024 and am waiting for a consensus to form regarding what the community wishes to do.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree, I think there's good stuff in that course that I don't want to disturb, but certainly dead links are always a bad thing. It's also not exactly how I'd design it, so I'm making my own.
I do think I have different sensibilities about things to focus on. There are a lot of very fast and technical "reference" books on discrete math and logic, so I don't think anything is really gained by making yet another one. At least I have nothing to contribute to that.
I do think there's value in developing the subject, in some sense, "out of necessity". First present a need for something, which a completely uninitiated student can understand the need for. For example, rather than jump into boolean operators, first present what use they have, and then develop the theory to fit the need.
That may mean that I emphasize some things, which a professional will think is trivial. But it is meant as an introduction to the uninitiated and not a reference. Addemf (discusscontribs) 16:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Addemf: The worst-case scenario is that you are a student learning to teach mathematics.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not about emphasis per se, just that one should give each topic the attention and detail it's due. Really just common sense, but more than once I've seen someone make hard work of presenting simple ideas yet omit detail and emphasis where they're needed. Consider also that most undergrads (at least in my limited experience) will quickly forget any non-trivial concept if it's just presented as a one-off. AP295 (discusscontribs) 06:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection[edit source]

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

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

  • May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
  • June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
  • June-August 2024: Campaign period
  • End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
  • October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
  • Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote on whether to allow pages in draftspace to remain indefinitely[edit source]

See Wikiversity_talk:Drafts#policy_and_page_change_suggestion. I have been spending a great deal of time attempting to get consensus on deleting articles in mainspace. Your approval of this change in the policy regarding draftspace will make my life much easier. Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 05:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I voted as input for consensus. This seems like it can be a win-win for all interested parties - clean up main namespace, and also preserve good faith content indefinitely in draft namespace until it can be developed enough to be in main-namespace, serves as component of future Creative Commons content, and/or be a catalyst of ideas for future good faith Creative Contributions in Draft namespace and/or main namespace. limitless peace. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 07:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support allowing pages in draftspace to remain indefinitely.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I created Should Wikiversity allow pages in Draft namespace to stay there indefinitely?, a format that I love. There is no voting there, only arguments/reasoning. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky: I had mixed feelings about Wikidebates, but perhaps that was because most debates don't interest me, either because I don't care or because I already made up my mind. But on this topic, I care and I am still a bit undecided. Now I see the value of the Wikidebate, and even added an "objection". Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 04:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More on the draftspace proposal[edit source]

Purging draft-archived pages dewikifies incoming links, category statements, and templates. Unpurged versions are viewable via the history.

First, a heads-up on two other places this proposal is being discussed.

  1. Wikiversity_talk:Drafts#policy_and_page_change_suggestion
  2. Wikiversity_talk:Deletions#Proposed_modifications

Also, I started a flowchart to think about, regardless of how this vote goes. The issue of draftspace is connected to userspace and deletions in general. The flowchart is one of many ways one might think about this problem: User:Mr. Foobar writes the page Foobar. If it is not deleted, it can be moved into either (1) subspace as Foobar Plus/Foobar, (2) userspace as User:Mr. Foobar/Foobar, or (3) draftspace as Draft:Foobar (suitable if there are multiple authors, such as User:Mrs Foobar as shown in the flowchart.) There is a compelling reason for creating a draft-archive space, with pages like Draft:Archive/Foobar. Unfortunately I forgot to document that reason and cannot recall it.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) n Status report: Counting the three polling places, I get the impression is that 4 lean towards the proposal to allow draft-space pages to remain indefinitely, while 2 lean against. I am happy to report that not one of these 6 seem to be stubbornly digging in to defend their positions. One of the 4 in favor openly admits that they are not qualified to have an opinion. I respect that: He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is the fool.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 05:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the flow chart in two ways: (1) A suggestion to include "soft-deletions" is included, and (2) draft-space items will be purged of incoming links, category statements and template use, but in a way that permits readers to see the unpurged version in the page's history. For more information, visit Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 04:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a nice chart design. What software or tool was used to create the chart? Is the chart still indicating that good faith Creative Commons contributions/creations that are in the draft namespace will remain there indefinitely as long as they relate to learning, teaching, research, and/or education (i.e. within the scope of this wiki)? limitless peace. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 21:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two answers: (1) I used the free Inkscape download, (2) the chart makes no promises; it's a way to look at the problem and contemplate the options we have and what decisions we need to make. The image also explains why our RFD process is dysfunctional: We have too many options. I am constructing a place to discuss all this. People who participate in Wikiversity:What-goes-where 2024 even get a free gift: For some reason pages with the "Wikiversity:" prefix don't offer visual editing. What-goes-where is under construction, but if you go there now you can create your own subpage where visual editing is allowed. I created a "Guest" page where people can try it out before they take the plunge and create that private subpage. Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 23:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do with this proposal to allow draft-space articles to remain indefinitely?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trizek (WMF), 00:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graph:Chart not operational - CSV2Chart[edit source]

The template Template:Graph:Chart in Wikipedia and thus the template Template:Graph:Chart in Wikiversity is not operational at the moment. So it does not make sense to use CSV2Chart and Template:Graph:Chart in Wikiversity in Wikiversity under the current status. SVG files are also editable (e.g. with Open Source tools like Inkscape) for multi-language use of diagrams, so that diagrams can be used with SVG format in mathematical learning resources again. Hope that is a feasible workaround for the current status of the template Graph:Chart. Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 07:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the best thing we have and the best thing we will have for quite a while. See phab:T334940 and mw:Extension:Graph/Plans. This is a multi-year issue. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we keep the syntax of the graphs as they are (maybe wrapped as a comment) in the learning resource and temporarily use the SVG until the diagram problem is solved? Alternative could also be to add a parameter as "svgfallback" to the Graph template and in case of template maintenance or temporary deactivation the SVG fallback image is shown. Not sure if that is a better choice to fix, so that deactivation and activation of a template does not need authoring activities in the learning resources in Wikiversity and in Wikipedia at all? --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 08:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no perspective on that; I can just support whatever makes sense to others. I just wanted to give the context that this will not be resolved any time soon. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 10:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added SVG export feature to CSV2Chart WebApp. CSV2Chart was initially created to generate Graph:Chart diagrams from CSV data for wikiversity learning resources. Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 17:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia templates using the graph extension show some kind of warning box that the function is disabled. It would be good to have a similar warning box in the English Wikiversity as well. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done post-importing {{Graphs disabled}} —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have no effect on e.g. COVID-19/All-cause deaths/Albania, where I would expect warning boxes to show up in the places where graphs should be. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 14:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry--you are looking for something inline that displays with the content of the article? There is an equivalent at en.wp f
that as well.r —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is this: in W: COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden#Statistics, there is an information box stating "Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org." And that box seems to be generated by a template that would plot the graph if the extension were functional. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 18:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded Template:Graph:Chart with a notice that graphs are disabled; the notice now appears e.g. in COVID-19/All-cause deaths/Albania. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 18:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something of an aside, I am using Python's matplotlib plotting library instead of the Graph extension, creating SVG files, and it works reasonably well. The data can be embedded in the Python source code. A disadvantage is that one has to upload the SVG file to Commons as a separate editable entity; it is far from as convenient as the Graph extension. On the other hand, the Python code can do additional calculation based on the data and plot the results, e.g. a moving average. A basic use of Python's matplotlib seems to be simple enough for non-programmers; several very simple examples are at Wikibooks:Python Programming/matplotlib and more are at https://matplotlib.org/stable/tutorials/pyplot.html. Ideally, one places the Python code (with the data embedded) to the Commons-uploaded SVG file so that non-programmers can change the embedded data later without having to significantly touch the non-data part of the code. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locking Which is the best religion to follow?[edit source]

I propose to lock Which is the best religion to follow? from anonymous IP editing indefinitely, or at least for a year, or at least for a month. The page is likely to attract low-quality edits from anonymous IP editors; and this has already happened. Anyone serious about making good edits can create an account, or can post using IP on the talk page. This measure is specific to this debate (and not all debates); this one is about a highly controversial subject likely to arouse passions and attract various no-so-gifted would-be contributors. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I not only support the proposal, but would probably agree with just about every kind of restriction on a topic as fraught as that. If it's not intrinsically absurd to try to rigorously analyze a question like that, then at least it requires someone who has demonstrated discipline and credibility. Addemf (discusscontribs) 21:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see some disruptive editing in the history, hence it has been protected short term (already expired) by a colleague. @MathXplore: do you want to weigh in?
I am reluctant to do indefinite protection, but I am willing to do a longer term, let it expire and then see if we have issues again. If there are unconstructive edits shortly thereafter, lengthen the protection again, rinse and repeat. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to a longer semi-protection. If there are no objections in a week, we should start the new semi-protection term. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 01:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]