Wikiversity:Colloquium

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Marburger-Religionsgespräch.jpg
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!";

"Education [...] is a process of living and not a preparation for future living." — John Dewey (discuss)


DOI links[edit]

Coming from Wikipedia, I noticed that the DOI number redirects to the current publicly-editable version of the article instead of the actual peer-reviewed version. For example, https://doi.org/10.15347/wjs/2018.006 links to Radiocarbon dating which has been edited after peer review and could be edited by any member of the public. Shouldn't the DOI link to either the PDF or the specific revision that was accepted? Dlthewave (discusscontribs) 17:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I'm not sure who maintains the doi links but it's likely to be someone over at Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science Mvolz (discusscontribs) 07:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the groundrules of the WikiJournal are, but it is a wiki, and the whole purpose is for people to be able to edit it. (Many moons ago we had debates about having content which didn't change, and the policies might be different now, but I'd argue it's still a wiki and everything should be editable). Citation practice is to have a "retrieved on" date; I'd say if you want a _specific_ version, then that is how the source link should be set up. Just my 2cents. Historybuff (discusscontribs) 07:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October[edit]

13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Science[edit]

--Odey370 (discusscontribs) 13:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Please send data so that I can be able to help with the projects

Depending on your interests there are What is science?, Search Wikiversity using the word Science, and Sciences. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Agriculture[edit]

--Odey370 (discusscontribs) 13:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)grade12

For Agriculture, check out the Portal:Agriculture! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

CC-BY 4.0 as default license in upload forms[edit]

I suggest that CC-BY 4.0 should be the default suggested licensing when using the upload forms in Wikimedia projects for own works, instead of the current CC BY-SA 4.0 license (example at Commons), sometimes with dual GFDL licensing (example here at Wikiversity). The main difference would be that derivatives are not required to have the same license. Reasons for changing to CC-BY 4.0 are:

  • It is a more permissive license.
Derivative of medical imaging.jpg
  • It makes it much easier to combine and mix works. The combination of the two images at right, for example, would not have been possible at all if the images were licensed under let's say CC BY-SA 4.0 for the first one and CC BY-NC 2.0 for the other. However, if either was CC-BY 4.0 it would have been permitted. See WP:Adaptation for further information in this regard.
  • CC-BY is by far the most popular licensing for open access journals (see Directory of Open Access Journals - Journal license tab), and is similarly popular in databases (see CC: Data and CC licenses). CC BY-SA is therefore not compatible for inclusion in most open access journals, denying them free access to the sum of Wikimedia knowledge.
  • Most uploaders may very well be as willing to upload under CC-BY, but may not be familiar with the differences between having SA or not. The current upload form layouts thus make lots of works receiving a more restrictive licensing than necessary. Just because uploaders can upload under the most restrictive license Wikimedia has to offer doesn't mean they need to be presented with that option by default. Those who still want to put the additional SA restriction would still be able to actively choose so.
  • The currently suggested dual licensing with CC BY-SA 4.0 with GFDL such as here in Wikiversity (link to form) is actually incompatible in a strict sense (see Wikipedia section on this matter, and is also a lot of extra read for those who want to know what GFDL means, since it doesn't provide the short presentation as given in Creative Commons licenses (compare GFDL license page to the CC BY-SA 4.0 page. It would therefore be both easier for uploaders and more legally correct if we simply dropped GFDL from the default license suggestion. Again, those who do want to choose dual licensing for some reason would still be able to actively choose so.

I want to know if you agree with this suggestion, and we can then bring it to Wikimedia's legal team for review before implementation. I know the change is technically not that hard, since we only need to change the upload form layouts, not the licenses of any already uploaded works, nor the overall licensing of any wiki. I've started a vote on this issue in Wikimedia Commons. Please go to that page to join:

Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 20:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a default option in our Special:Preferences page?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The GFDL license on Commons[edit]

18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In a time before Linne and Darwin[edit]

All thanks to @Dave Braunschweig Cloud forest (discusscontribs) 00:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I´m incursioning at WIKIPEDIA creating the articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammal_species (under debate for deletion AfD) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammal_species/navigation, (proposed for deletion) ((available)) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_(latin) (proposed for deletion) DELETED  (available)
So far, so good. Good day to all! Cloud forest (discusscontribs) 07:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
G4
G5
G14
G17
G21
G22
G23
G24
G25
G27
G28
G29
G31
G33
G34
G35
G36
G37
G38
G39

A ANAS, APICULA, AQUILA, ARANEA, ASINUS
B BLATTA, BUFO
C CAMELLUS, CAMELOPARDALIS, CANCER, CANIS, CAPRA, CERVUS, CIMEX, COCHLEA, CORVUS, COTURNIX, CROCODILUS
D DELPHIN, DROMEDARIUS
E ELEPHANTUS, EQUUS حصان
F FALCO, FELIS, FORMICA
G GALLINA, GRYLLUS
H HIPPOPOTAMUS, HOMO, HYAENA
I IBEX, INSECTUM
L LACERTUS, LEO, LEPUS, LIBELLA, LINX, LUPUS
M MULIER, MUSCA
O OCTOPUS, OSTREA, OVIS
P PALUMBA, PANTHERA, PAPILIO, PASSARE, PAVUS, PHOCA, PISCIS, PORCUS
R RANA, RHINOCEROS
S SALAMANDRA, SCARABAEUS, SCIURUS, SCORPIO, SERPENS, SIMIUS, STRUTHIO
T TALPA, TARTARUCHA, TAURUS, THERMAE, TIGRIS
U URSUS
V VACCA, VERMIS, VESPERTILIO, VULTUR

E1
E6
E7
E8
E12
E13
E14
E17
E22
E24
E25
E26
E27
E28
E29
E30
E32
E33
E34

Cloud forest (discusscontribs) 17:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Fake News in Canada is Ready .. umm, what?[edit]

On the front page, this notice pops up: 23 September: Fake news in Canada is ready!

As I have an interest in Fake News, I visited the page. I just have one question -- what is this?

It appears to be a log of tracking of Fake News site campaigns. There is a brief explanation at the top about "products advertised", but overall it has little if any educational value.

Now, I fully understand that it can take time to flesh out resources, and being a wiki a user can come, create a page and immediately abandon it. My concern is that something of potential interest and seemingly marked as "ready" (by templates?) and placed on the front page is actually of little value, and shouldn't be promoted.

(The upside is that I was so bothered by this I dug out my account details to log in and voice my concern. And I may be bold and rework the resource, if I can figure out what the original author was trying to do.) Am I just not understanding the motivation or missing some context? Historybuff (discusscontribs) 07:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Somebody requested that it be deleted, so I added the {{PROD}} (proposed deletion) template, and assumed there would be discussion on whether it should remain, be deleted, or be moved into DRAFT space. There was a movement afoot to move pages into DRAFT if they could not be demonstrated to have specific pedagogical value. A consensus was reached on using DRAFT space this way. I know of suggestions that we reconsider, but to my knowledge, no discussions have begun.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Historybuff: If you are interested in developing that resource, consider creating an understandable page at Fake News and moving Fake news in Canada to a subpage of it. Whatever FNIC is, it might be nice to create and monitor a main page article on Fake news and allow articles in progress to be subpages of it. Or... we could follow some guidelines and place the works-in-progress in Draft space. Either way is OK with me. But I suspect there will be a consensus to get Fake news in Canada off the top of a mainspace article.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guy ... I've actually done a small project in Fake news, and thought this might be a different take. I've looked at it a few times, and it's different ... but whatever it is, it isn't comprehensible in the form it is, at least to me. I was a bit tired and thought I might be missing something, which is why I left a note here. I looked again, and my best guess is that it was someone's research bits, but without the context of what else is going on, it's of little value to other people. (I like your idea, and if I have some time in the new week, I'll work a bit on it)
The main thing that bothered me enough to mention it was it showing up on the Main page, purporting to be ready, when at best it's still very rough. Whether by design or by accident, this page shouldn't be showing up as ready based on the state it is in. Historybuff (discusscontribs) 05:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Historybuff: This needs to be discussed at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Fake_news_in_Canada

Space for the teacher in a WIKI?[edit]

This might have been mentioned before, but I thought I would share it: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1149466 A paper titled "Is there a Space for the teacher in a WIKI?" I thought it was an interesting title, and right now my University library isn't allowing me access to the ACM collection, but I'll post a synopsis and thoughts when that gets worked out. I just didn't want to forget about it. Historybuff (discusscontribs) 20:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This was published right as Wikiversity launched. It would be interesting to see what has changed in 12 years. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
There's a copy available from PennState. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I finally got a chance to read through the paper (thanks for the Link Dave!). It's an interesting study of high-school aged students, and it characterizes two projects undertaken by classes using wikis. The authors observe how the two subjects evolve from student participation, and detail how the teacher interacted to encourage and motivate use of the wiki. The observation the article makes that parts of content are "owned" by single students is interesting -- it shows how wiki authors view their work, and how others might approach their contribution.
I think a study of Wikiversity would be interesting. It's not something I have capacity for in the short term, but it would be a great learning and research project. I think a study such as this would make a good contrast. Historybuff (discusscontribs) 06:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Monsieur Phi wikified for Philosophy ... and other vulgarization channels[edit]

For those who are not familiar with the channel, I invite you to consult it: Mr. Phi

Recognizing the contribution of a narrative structure in the transmission of this discipline and finding the work of Mr. Phi of great quality, I said to myself:

"A comic-strip version of these episodes would be great (Imagine you have to teach your kids philosophy classes when they're teenagers. You know.). Images and figures + scripts or transcription. This would allow by translating the texts to linguistically derived this production." (it would also be electronically lighter : a few images and text instead of videos)

And to conclude to myself that I had to turn the idea around here (as I did for the french wikiversity). Pursuing the idea, I also thought that it could be extended to other vulgarization chains (i'm quite sure anglophone channels of good quality exist to).

Hoping it inspires you.

BR

--RP87 (discusscontribs) 07:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

template import apology![edit]

Hi, I realise just imported a whole load of templates to "WikiJournal Preprints/Template:XYZ" in stead of just "Template:XYZ". I'm going through and fixing them. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through November 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much time I'd have to write a grant proposal this year, but in the past I've worked on trying to get a Sandbox Server. Might be worth doing something like this to go through the process to learn the ins and outs. Anyone else interested? Historybuff (discusscontribs) 05:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ghost[edit]

I need help with this. --Sunofkings0 (discusscontribs) 13:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sunofkings0: How can I help? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ghost is this appropriate for wikiversity? Sunofkings0 (discusscontribs) 19:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
All you really have here is a definition, which would belong at en:wikt:ghost. If you were going to write an article about ghosts, it would go at en:w:ghost. This would be a learning resource about ghosts--some homework, self-directed experiments, public debates, etc. I'm not sure what you could say about ghosts, as they don't exist but it's not impossible to have a learning resource about ghosts. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)