From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Sign your posts with   ~~~~

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


Wikipedia Administrator.svg
Organization of Wikiversity

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

Major changes to Fundamentals of Probability, Statistics, Experiments and Data[edit]

I think both the name and the scope of Fundamentals of Probability, Statistics, Experiments and Data are too broad, and would like to rename the page and place its contents into various subpages. I also want to rewrite at least one section. In-depth discussion of this belongs at Talk:Fundamentals of Probability, Statistics, Experiments and Data, but brief comments concerning the process of rewriting pages, creating subpages, and selecting namespace titles do belong here because others might find it helpful--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate problems. User Aravind V R has contributed in the past and is active so there may be some comments. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. I too think the name should be changed. How about just "Fundamentals of Probability and Statistics". Aravind V R (discusscontribs) 11:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I will change the name, but see no point in breaking it into subpages as I originally suggested.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you concerned about Colloquium discussions getting so long they are hard to follow?[edit]

If so, visit [[user:Guy vandegrift/B]] and put in your two-cents.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been tentatively moved to: Wikiversity:Discussions/151001 Users write essays under their headers --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We also have a Formatted Discussion here: Wikiversity talk:User access levels

For me the discussions are hard to follow, because I don't understand the context of the discussion. Is it about how we should structure a discussion? Timboliu (discusscontribs) 13:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Go to Wikiversity talk:User access levels and remove the "nowiki" around the ~~~. Write anything you want in that space (but don't write too much please).--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistant custodians group[edit]

Here's an update of comments received for T113109 at the phabricator.

"It looks like the WMF will still be happy with this request if (a) assistants go through a community selection process, or (b) they don't have access to deleted content. We'll see what the Wikiversity community has to say." TTO

This is based on these comments from Jrogers-WMF:

  1. It’s extremely important for the health and protection of the projects to limit access to deleted material that may include sensitive content. For this reason, we can’t support a proposal to create an assistant admin class that has access to deleted content before going through any kind of community selection process. We would not have the same concerns with a class of probationary administrators (or custodians) who have undergone a community selection process, even if other “full” administrators were given the right to add and remove their advanced user rights. We applaud the idea of having experienced administrators (or custodians) mentor new users with advanced rights; what is important is that users who receive access to deleted content have gone through a community selection process first.
  2. Our request is that you create a community review process to select all custodians who would have access to deleted content prior to giving them that access. We are fine with this proposal to create different levels of admin rights as long as that community review process is completed.

--Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It would appear from this response that the idea of having a probationary custodian (at any level) approved only by obtaining a mentor is not an accepted approach. I agree. In light of this clarification, do we still want or need multiple levels of administration?
I think there is still a possibility for this. Perhaps we could have an instructor level. Someone who would be able to do content clean-up (delete pages, etc.), but who would not be able to block users or view deleted content. This would allow instructors to better support their students, and distribute some of that custodial work. This role could be assigned directly by custodians, and would not seem to violate the guidelines provided by the phabricator response. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
More instructor involvement with Wikiversity is essential. Perhaps the instructor also could do rollback? I would suggest adding page protection, but we seem to have little need for that at the moment. We also need to verify that the instructors are indeed instructors. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I've created a proposal page for Wikiversity:User access levels. There's no detail yet, but a placeholder for both policy and discussion. The name was chosen based on corresponding Wikipedia page title. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify (as I was the user who originally brought up the issues on the bug) there would be no issue with any of the bits apart from viewdelete (and restore deleted pages). I would happily create a group without this in, if consensus existed. Mdann52 (discusscontribs) 19:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate you mentioning the issues. Let us think through this a bit further before we proceed. The initial request was a response to a specific situation that no longer exists. We now have an opportunity for more prudent consideration. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The proposal for Wikiversity:User access levels is now ready for comments and voting. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on support and feedback received, the new group will be known as Curators. I'll follow up on the Phabricator request. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


I found a very nice platform that can help you find people for a learning project. The platform is called part-up ( A part-up is like a project. The tool supports online collaboration. You can join an existing part-up or you can start one yourself. Hope you like it. Cheers, Timboliu (discusscontribs) 21:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

More information about Part-up can be found on the following page: Part-up. Timboliu (discusscontribs) 12:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

about communism[edit]

--Jinbalemon (discusscontribs) 14:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiversity! See Basic Government Systems/Communism. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


In the most recent actions by CommonsDelinker it has replaced 8 images by newer or renamed images and removed 42, two of which were from lectures or quizzes in the course principles of radiation astronomy. These two amounted to 11 of the 42 actions, 3 more were to subpages of motivation and emotion, 3 more from two other resources. Many were for images on user pages that were either uploaded to Commons or in use from Commons.

Should we Block CommonsDelinker until or unless we get some kind of notice before deletion occurs so that we can where possible upload the image from Commons as fair use. I have about 25% of my images from Commons that are probably not on my Commons Watchlist. While I check it there almost daily, I was blindsided by their deletion of File:NGC 7048.jpg. I had to go to the web to find a copy, then upload it here with the same file name and finally rollback all eleven actions.

The eight replacements CommonDelinker imported are okay but usually are of no difference here. Many times the file is renamed or re-uploaded for larger size or better resolution. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what CommonsDelinker does. My understanding is that it removes or corrects links for files that have been changed at Commons. Blocking it would only prevent Wikiversity articles from reflecting reality. It wouldn't stop any Commons content from being deleted, as we don't control Commons content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it removes links to files that are deleted at Commons. Blocking it here prevents it from removing the link. We get a red link rather than a link that disappears from our resource. I have to go to a previous history to find the original usage and where it was.
Having it replace an image here with another image does no harm usually but may also make no obvious improvement. Many of their changes are a renaming that is of no benefit here.
They've never corrected any of my images.
The only way to prevent a deleted image here is to never use a Commons image, upload here all that are still at Commons and used here before they are deleted there, and send a message to let us know first.
Here's some interesting stats: Wikinews blocked CommonsDelinker at 16:48, 23 September 2013. For the most recent 50 actions of CommonsDelinker on Wikipedia: 1 replacement and 49 removals. That's 49 articles now missing an image. It's the worst case. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What would really help the most is to be able to import files that may become deleted directly here from Commons or if they are still on Wikipedia waiting for export to Commons, import them directly here. The next one I come across on Wikipedia that is a candidate to be uploaded to Commons, I'll try importing it here. What do you think? Can we get a consensus to import files here from Commons? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can import content that users are building learning resources around. We shouldn't import content just to prevent it from being deleted elsewhere unless there is a legitimate learning project the content supports. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

For perspective, Wikinews has a somewhat unique problem wrt CommonsDelinker in that our archive policy prohibits us from changing the choice of image on an article more than 24 hours after the article is published. That means most of the edits that would be made by CommonsDelinker are, in fact, egregious policy violations.

More broadly, Wikinews has hundreds of articles in our archives that have broken links (we've created a special template for the purpose, n:Template:Missing image, to make the holes less ugly) because those images have been deleted by Commons. We have a fair use policy that would have allowed us to locally upload most (though not all) of those images if we'd (a) known about the deletion in advance and (b) had available, sufficiently technically skilled, labor to do so promptly. It's easy to perceive this sort of thing as evidence that Commons doesn't care about local projects, but I suspect more to the point is that they've got a staggeringly huge collection of images and it's all (or more than) they can do just to find the images that blatantly shouldn't be there and delete them, and they can't afford the luxury of anything that increases their work load, such as liasing with client sister projects about possible local upload before deletions.

There was a proposal floating around on Meta earlier this year, I think, to give admins on any sister the ability to access deleted images on Commons; if that were so, then admins on a sister project could make a decision about local upload after a Commons image is deleted. But afaik it fizzled, probably from some mixture of lack of interest (which figures since this isn't much of a problem for Wikipedia, which can afford to be very flexible about images) and confusion over whether the proposal ought to be on Meta or on Commons. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Website Hosting[edit]

Is website hosting for organizations such as Free education/SOAS Occupation within the Wikiversity mission? I wouldn't have any problem with a learning project about free education and occupational movements, but I am concerned that hosting and linking to resources for an event in process is beyond Wikiversity's scope. Is this really educational content? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to confess that I don't know what the Wikiversity mission is. This what I found as I browsed from the main page as if for the first time:

Can anybody add to this list? The only thought I have is that anybody who posts questionable content should be asked to explain how it is educational. A case-by-case approach seems more workable because attempting to post extensive guidelines is time-consuming for us, and will be an invitation for wiki-lawyering.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikiversity:Mission. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I took a quick look at several of the Wikiversity resources listed on Free education/SOAS Occupation. There seem to be at least three separate issues:
  1. management of brick-and-mortar universities being insensitive to unions, students and education in general,
  2. union or union-like demands,
  3. Muslim students in Israel.
The free university occupied is in London as I understand this. Issue number one is standard for brick-and-mortar universities. Most have to charge even if state supported to even contemplate meeting costs and budgets. The others say more about the occupiers than the issues. These can be educational if properly framed. They are all created by user Dx. They are learning by doing for sure so asking user Dx to frame them educationally as the user did with the art course seems fair that way others who read can learn and be educated. Universities throughout time have served as centers for social and cultural change. So that fits. I agree with Guy that a "case-by-case approach seems more workable".
We already are Free education so starting a war with brick-and-mortars is not about free education, it's about something else. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Just for clarification, the correct pronoun for User:Dx is "they". See Art practices/Multiple-use name/Tae Ateh. My question on content hosting was specific to SOAS Occupation, not the larger project. Is this learning by doing, or is it using Wikiversity as a host for other purposes? For example, it might be interpreted as solicitation or promotion of an external organization, particularly with the external links. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The answer to Dave's question is painfully obvious. "Is this learning by doing, or ...using Wikiversity as a host..?". Yes!. Would it make sense to remove the external links? Such a policy could have the effect of imposing a double standard on external links: Resources with marginable suitability for Wikiversity would have stricter standards for external links. I see nothing wrong with such a double standard.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 06:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Request: I just realized that I know them from a previous encounter with Art movements/Neoism. To make a long story short, we had a misunderstanding for which I was partly to blame, and for that reason I want to take extra steps to show that Wikiversity is trying to be reasonable. Regarding the occupation of a building, I'm from U.C. Berkeley circa 1970 and know all about occupying buildings. Been there, done that, stupid idea. (For the record, it was not I, but my roommate and closest friend who actually "did that"). But Wikis have a neutral POV policy. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 06:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Could we just use prod on Free education/SOAS Occupation? Looking over this discussion, I think we just reinvented the idea of taking these things on a case-by-case basis. That is what prod is designed to do.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 10:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Prod is always an option. My initial question was intended to be a quick check on whether the community supported using Wikiversity to host content for an external organization where the content has "marginable suitability for Wikiversity" or whether this qualified as a speedy deletion for solicitation. Apparently, the preference is to look at each of these on a case-by-case basis, which moves it to a Request for Deletion discussion rather than a Colloquium discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
If you intent was a check on policy regarding marginably suitable pages, you should know that in the long run, it might be less work to allow all pages that are not harmful (copyvio, external links, etc.). It is essential that all such violations be easily found and corrected by bots, not by humans. As an experiment, I moved a sample of such a page into A: space that bothered me because it might have scared an expert on the subject out of Wikiversity. Instead of different directories, it might be better to add digits to resource titles, e.g. Quantum mechanics 137. Memory has gotten so cheap the clouds give it away. If anybody is interested, place a comment at User:Guy_vandegrift/A and we will move the discussion to mainspace (not here on the colloquium).
I might add that if we don't fix these things with bots, then marginably suitable pages create more work for us because they needed to monitored for copyio and commercial links. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"This space will be a pedagogical space where we all learn together outside the confines of corporatism. Through this action of creating our own free university, the occupation will show that students and staff are capable of driving our own education and that there is no need for senior management to design our curriculum for us. Anyone who would like to hold an event at the SOAS Student Occupation can email us at or find us on Facebook. This university belongs to those who work here and study here." That makes it pedagogical, and so within scope. Leutha (discusscontribs) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Leutha: If I am not mistaken, copyright law allows me to place your words in the talk page to this resource and remove the speedy delete template (if you have not already done so).--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

my name[edit]

i am catherine rose from india kerala kannur -- (discuss) 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiversity! I am Guy Vandegrift, and my user name is user:Guy vandegrift. I'm glad you found this colloquium. Feel free to respond here or on my private talk page at User talk:Guy vandegrift.
Welcome to Wikiversity! Hope you have a good time here, and if you need any help, just say so. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Importing from Commons[edit]

Currently, Special:Import does not allow us to import images from Commons directly. If we can show a consensus supporting interest in having the Phabricator add Commons to Special:Import we could import (custodians execute Special:Import) any images likely to be deleted or may be up for deletion (perhaps rightly so) beforehand for Fair Use here. As I have a large number of images in use from Commons, this could save on downloading to my computer then re-uploading here before or after deletion on Commons.

  • Phabricator task T115938 has been completed. Using Special:Import commons can now be selected as a project option. Specifying the file exactly as it appears on Commons should result in complete transfer of the file and its history. For deleted files, use their temporary commons:Undeletion requests and state that the file will be used here as Fair use and the exact file title. Then, request import, or import. Let me know if there are any problems. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The ability to import from Commons would be quite useful, as it helps us accurately maintain licensing from the original image. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)- No comment, except to strongly agree with Dave's comment that there is no reason to protect image files. I was thinking of the future. If Wikiversity ever becomes big, we might have to routinely protect anything that involves an upcoming exam. For resources in mainspace, this is easily done by permalinks, but that will leave the images called by those permalinks vulnerable. At the moment, we should protect nothing because protecting a few leaves the rest more vulnerable.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

We may be able to get permission/access with Special:Import to already deleted files on Commons for import here.


I am not against this, except I need to make sure I understand it well enough to be certain that we will have the capability to import an image from commons and then protect that image. Teachers of the future might want to post permalinks to students, and these permalinks are not permanent unless the images are protected. Far more Wikiversarians will be able to protect Wikiversity files than Commons files.

As I understand it, you are importing Commons files into Wikiversity, which is no problem. I guess my only questions is, why would we want to import images from commons, other than for the reason I just stated (to protect them from vandalism on resources that are permalinked by teachers) Is it because they might get deleted from commons for copyvio?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important that we focus / reserve importing to Wikiversity for Fair Use files. We don't need copies of everything, and if we have the ability to recover deleted files, we only need copies of those deletions. Protection is a separate issue. Files can be protected if they become targets for vandalism. I don't recall that happening. We've had images themselves that were vandalism, but not vandalism of someone replacing an image. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Would it not also be relevant to import fair use files from Wikipedia? Leutha (discusscontribs) 10:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer to Leutha's question is yes.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
We can import from Wikipedia already. It is one way to obtain images that are also on Commons. The next one I need, for example, that's already on Wikipedia, I'll try importing from there rather than linking to the image on Commons. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 11:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'm wrong. We cannot import images from Wikipedia. I tried to import w:File:Sicily - NASA orbital photo.jpg from Wikipedia and received only the page starting with Summary. The image, or a copy, was not transferred, or copied, from Wikipedia to Wikiversity. But, the page here is titled File:Sicily - NASA orbital photo.jpg. I have started a task at Phabricator at to see if there is a tool, or a modification to Special:Upload, that will allow a copy to be uploaded from say Commons to here. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a category on this template (when a template is added to a page, the page is added to a category)[edit]

Template:File copyright, tons of pages are currently linked to this template, that are in need of deletion. Should we add a category (so when a template is added to a page, the page that the template is being added on is added to a category) to the template so that it'll be easier to contain all the images needing deletion/copyright or should we not? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, these files that are up for deletion because licensing has not been supplied within 7 days are supposed to be showing up in Category:Pending deletions but are not there! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

YesY Done They are showing up now! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh didn't notice that category, thanks! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Curation of Upper Limb Orthotics[edit]

Upper Limb Orthotics is a learning resource and a course created at 00:30, 15 January 2014‎ by SarahAnderson. She created her user page at 00:23, 15 January 2014‎. Included on it are a description of her credentials and a link to her course here at Wikiversity. Assignments and Schedule components are linked via subpages for organization. Linked to the course (see Special:WhatLinksHere from the course page) are about 40 user pages which constitute cases presented as part of the course for study. I believe the cases are named using pseudonyms.

While going through Category:Pending deletions, I found a number of case images that did not have proper licensing and began to delete them. I stopped when I realized they were part of this course.

I believe all of the images for this course can be licensed as Fair Use properly and would like to do so to keep the course functional.

In addition, I believe the text from each user page could be copied or moved to subpages for the course as cases making them more available to reader's, students, and teachers. As of now, they are not readily available within the course.

Upper Limb Orthotics is currently in the category Category:Health but should also be in Category:Medicine so that it receives wider exposure to potential students and teachers.

User:SarahAnderson's last contribution was at 03:43, 6 March 2014. She may have moved on.

If this proposal meets with consensus I will curate this course as described above as a readily available resource.

Comments, questions, criticisms and suggestions are most welcome. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Category:Health is a category of Category:Medicine. ( so adding Category:Medicine to the course is unnecessary, as it technically is already categorized under Medicine.
I would like to keep these images for the course, instead of deleting them. But that's just me. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Anderson's professional email address is easily found with an Internet search. I recommend contacting her to see if she has any concerns. I don't have any. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it fascinating we have a well educated lecturer here at Wikiversity. Hope she returns to activity! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I sent an email to SarahAnderson on 28 October 2015 at her public email address. It has been 7 days and I have received no response. The curation of the course Upper Limb Orthotics has begun. The first user page to be moved to a subpage is that of AnitaWong to Upper Limb Orthotics/Partial Lesion of C7. I am currently providing Fair Use licensing information to each of her Files. Comments, questions, criticisms and suggestions are most welcome. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
AnitaWong's contribution to Upper Limb Orthotics has been successfully curated to the course with restoration or removal of images from Category:Pending_deletions and Fair Use licensing added. I'll post further updates on the course talk page. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Research on Wikiversity - Sharing Education[edit]

I am currently conducting research at the University of St.Gallen, Switzerland, on sharing education around the globe and specifically with the developing world. With this regard I am also looking to include Wikiversity in my research. Other cases include Coursera and TED Ed. Would someone here from Wikiversity be willing to speak to me for a short interview on the things you are trying to achieve with Wikiversity? I would be really excited to be able to include Wikiversity in my research! The Wikimedia team sent me here to find someone that would be willing to do a short interview with me. Thank you very much in advance, Marie. -- (discuss) 14:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing. Use Special:EmailUser/Dave Braunschweig to send me contact information so we can work out the details. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest, Marie. I'm sure Dave and I are not the only one's delighted that you are interested.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to email me, I'm interested. (FYI you need to create an account to email users) --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


A user has pointed out a problem with Template:Robelbox. The request was specific, but I believe the problem to be universal. I've modified Template:Robelbox to have a default height of auto rather than 100%. This will either work correctly, or instantly mess up thousands of pages of content. If you notice any issues with how boxes are displayed, let me know ASAP or post on WV:RCA and ask a custodian to roll back the change. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for importing an article from en wikipedia[edit]


Season's Greetings, I am new to Wikiversity I do not know if this one is the right forum for the request. I would like to find out if I can import an article presently named on en wikipedia as w:en:Ceremonial pole. It was supposed to be an umbrella article intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations and dances around w:en:Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

Ceremonial &/ ritual &/ festival pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

If you refer to This discussion on en wikipedia, it is either I failed to convince few of en wikipedians or they are unable to comprehend idea behind the article and feel that the article is likely to tilt towards original research. As of now I seem to be alone there, Its true that my initial interest was encyclopedic only but if at all others are feeling article is likely to tilt towards original research then if en wikiversity community allows me I will prefer to import the article for research purpose though most of my writing is likely to remain with reference and of closely encyclopedic.

Please let me know wikiversity openion if it is ok atleast I can build a bettter research article for wikiversity and spend my energy constructively and productively.

If this fourm is not best place for discussion then please help me shift the discussion to appropriate page.

Thanks and Warm regards to all wikiversity users

Mahitgar (discusscontribs) 16:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

YesY Done I Imported it as Ceremonial pole so you can work on it. It might be more appropriate as a subpage on another resource, but we can move it. I believe there is strong consensus on Wikipedia that imported articles should NOT consist of minor variation of the original. I didn't read the imported article, but my experience is that Wikipedia articles could benefit from a great deal of cutting. Good luck. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


--Krishi singhal (discusscontribs) 15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC) why a newly born infant does not remember the pain of being in womb?

Copyright Violation Report[edit]

A Wikipedia user (Eran) has written a bot (EranBot) that uses TurnItIn to scan for potential copyright violations. See for the background story, and User:EranBot/Copyright for a sample run of the bot on recent Wikiversity edits. Is this something we would want to run on Wikiversity on a regular basis, and are any users willing to monitor the reports and review flagged articles? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we have no choice but to do this. How does Wikipedia deal with this issue?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is using the bot for reporting and then manual investigation to see if the items reported are indeed a violation. See Wikipedia:User:EranBot/Copyright.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Based on section 107 of the US copyright law the efforts by TurnItIn and Wikipedia border on usurpation of US constitutionally approved copyright law. The examples cited from Minerals/Carbonides are fully and properly cited quotes from the article. Way less than 100 % or even 5 % of the article. In all of the resources I've viewed here only one or two have been complete copies of copyrighted works which when discovered were put up for speedy deletion and deleted. There are no court cases (case law) supporting specific percentages of published works as copyright violations. This effort is counter productive.

As Wikipedia uses its own ideas on what's a copyright violation, I advocate strongly against any effort to bring those repressive notions here. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are concerned about our rights, have a read of attribution and copyright. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone mentioning using percentages as a guideline. There's no repression involved. The bot only helps identify whether content has been copied from other sources. In both of the examples the bot identified in recent edits, the copied content was quoted, referenced, and used appropriately. But that is not always the case. I suspect that the reason you've only seen a few articles that have been complete copies is because I quickly remove copyright violations when they are added. This bot could make that identification easier. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually the one or two I ran across was while perusing resources during clean up. I marked them for speedy deletion and you deleted them. Both were older uploads by students. While I agree with efforts to find real violations such as have occurred the problem here is that the bot doesn't know the difference between copyright violations and anything else. Someone has to peruse the results and make a decision. All the bot has to do fundamentally is look for a citation. No citation, flag. The quantity of perusals anyone would have to perform could be large. The resources I have contributed to may constitute up to 15 % of our current 22,979 resources. This bot as currently configured is going to list nearly all of these because they contain properly cited quotations. Whoever chooses to peruse these is going to be very busy! Any mislabeling means disruption because I'll be required to defend my work unnecessarily. The possible benefits are severely outweighed by the disruption to resource development. The test run only produced two results. Both of which are okay. If the bot cannot find a significant number of real problems, it's not worth our time. A significant number is at least 51 %. Try a few more runs. Let's see what it finds. Right now it's found 0 %. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The bot only looks at recent changes. It does not go back in time. We would have to write our own bot in order to do that. I'm not opposed to doing that at some point, but it's not high on my list of priorities. The tool the bot uses (TurnItIn) also does not seem to consider citations one way or the other. It just looks at the content. This is typical of the market space TurnItIn is in. It's primarily an education tool rather than a business / publishing tool. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI here is what the bot wrote "C 92% 110 words at". 110 words isn't even close to 92 % of the article. It doesn't even mention or know that these are in quotes. The bot is only looking at the published abstract, not the whole article. The fact that the bot is stating a large percentage of something suggests that a copyright violation has occurred. That's part of its problems. Only 100 % of the whole work is currently agreed upon. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe the percentage example you're referring to is 92% of the section or content added rather than 92% of the total Wikiversity article. See the Reports links inside User:EranBot/Copyright for the comparison made. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The abstract of the cited article is probably ~200 words. I read the 92 % as indicating that of the content added to the Wikiversity resource from the cited article (in quotes), 92 % of this came from the article's abstract as this is all the bot would have access to. But, this does bring up a strange concern. Does the bot identify quoted content or did it search the internet using a portion of the content independent of quotes and find a match of 110 words with 110 words from the abstract? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The report that is linked from the report page shows that TurnItIn ignores quotes, and searches for phrases across a variety of content sources. The 92% of 110 words was found in a combination of locations.
Something else to consider in this discussion isn't simply copyright violation, but Fair Use. We can and do assume that work on Wikiversity is for non-profit educational use and is covered by Fair Use. But to be fair, Fair Use also considers the amount of the work used in relation to the original work as a whole, and any impact that usage has on the value of the original work. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong in tagging pages for copyvio that are actually fair use because those close to the page can come to its defense.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 18:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong about tagging something that's not a copyvio as a copyvio and is Fair Use is that whoever so tags it is actually breaking the US copyright law. If you take a read of attribution and copyright you'll notice a number of authors have made recommendations to be well within the intended letter and spirit of the law especially section 107. But so far the only examples actually found to be a violation have been 100 % copies. One of those I found here was a complete copy of a textbook. I don't recall it even having one of our local site licenses.
Your example is the very act we want to avoid. Firstly, many of those may be mine. It is a disruption of content building to label something a copyvio when it is not. Secondly, making me defend what I shouldn't have to is also a disruption. Thirdly, and this is really important, Section 107 cannot be overruled by consensus. Wikipedia gets away with it because nobody's suffered fiscal harm from their copyright policy which includes me. But, that's not true here. I'm not alone in conducting original research that may be funded. Potentially libelous statements made here, let's say sanctioned by consensus, may likely cause fiscal harm. For this the individual found libelously labeling something a copyvio that's legally not can be successfully sued independent of WMF for fiscal damages caused by their careless labeling. I've covered this in attribution and copyright. Please do not underestimate the significance of this. These same conditions apply to everyone, especially those designing courses. This is the original source for the law, especially Section 107. It helps protect educators who need to use certain materials (as Fair Use) to convey information to their students. I hope this helps.
With regard to any effect on value of the original work, except for 100 % copies without permission, and this is also in attribution and copyright, it is far more likely that partial copies increase the value of the original work rather than decrease it. Why? Because readers are far more likely to consult the original source for the rest of the story. This increases the value of the original. Articles and images in the refereed scientific literature are especially benefiting from such Fair Use. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI but for partials or images licensed as Fair Use, the burden of proof of copyvio is on the labeler of copyvio not on the individual or educator posting the image or partial under Fair Use. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi everyone!

The Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is focused on building improved curation and moderation tools for experienced Wikimedia contributors. We're now starting a Community Wishlist Survey to find the most useful projects that we can work on.

For phase 1 of the survey, we're inviting all active contributors to submit brief proposals, explaining the project that you'd like us to work on, and why it's important. Phase 1 will last for 2 weeks. In phase 2, we'll ask you to vote on the proposals. Afterwards, we'll analyze the top 10 proposals and create a prioritized wishlist.

While most of this process will be conducted in English, we're inviting people from any Wikimedia wiki to submit proposals. We'll also invite volunteer translators to help translate proposals into English.

Your proposal should include: the problem that you want to solve, who would benefit, and a proposed solution, if you have one. You can submit your proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey page, using the entry field and the big blue button. We will be accepting proposals for 2 weeks, ending on November 23.

We're looking forward to hearing your ideas!

MediaWiki message delivery (discusscontribs) 21:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 scholarships ambassadors needed[edit]

Hello! Wikimania 2016 scholarships will soon be open; by the end of the week we'll form the committee and we need your help, see Scholarship committee for details.

If you want to carefully review nearly a thousand applications in January, you might be a perfect committee member. Otherwise, you can volunteer as "ambassador": you will observe all the committee activities, ensure that people from your language or project manage to apply for a scholarship, translate scholarship applications written in your language to English and so on. Ambassadors are allowed to ask for a scholarship, unlike committee members.

Wikimania 2016 scholarships subteam 10:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So this is no longer active?[edit]

Wikiversity:Participants ----Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Atcovi: Evidently not, but it would be easy to start up again by checking Special:ActiveUsers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Action plan for using Wikiversity as a writing platform for student contributions[edit]

One goal of the recent effort to define a new Curators group was to encourage more participation by colleges and university groups. As I followed that discussion I began to think seriously about how to enhance this participation by using Wikiversity as a student writing platform. Since Portal:Tertiary Education had not been edited for 5 years I decided to start the discussion there.

if you know of a place or person who routinely enrolls large groups of students for the purposes of writing assignments please visit,

Portal:Tertiary Education/We need an action plan

and contribute the name of that institution. Also visit the page if you are interested in creating guidlines for those who wish to enroll groups of students (at any level) for writing activities. I think Wikiversity is an underutilized resource for getting students to write, and that it is time to actively recruit institutions to use Wikiversity in this way.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: This effort is now focused on getting the educational extension. See Wikiversity:Education extension for details.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs)

I have a goal, and I need help.[edit]

I'll get right to it. I want to see a web entity that has a lot of Wikiversity's qualities if not just applying those to Wikiversity. I think everyone would like to see this implemented and would appreciate any and all assistance received.

One difference is, I envision a place where the material is constructed to transition into itself effectively forming a curriculum. I believe that leaving the user to pluck out assignments they consider to apply will undoubtedly leave gaps in the knowledge base of what they seek to comprehend. If we can achieve this "built in" student advisor, I feel it would not only appeal to more potential users but would increase the quality of the digestion of information as it would have extensive context. This would likely not be a linier progression but have thoughtful forks in the content paths.

Secondly, verifying the submitter of curriculum to be a subject matter expert in some fashion. This is probably counter intuitive to what you want to provide the public. I understand if you do not agree but if this could be accomplished it might help solve the issue with the transitions mentioned in the first paragraph. If the information were able to be traced back to a source for verification and discussion by other coequals it would lend to credibility. I do not have a verification method in mind and am reaching out to Wikiversity and other communities for solutions to this issue, something simple enough to not deter people from collaborating.

I am looking for ideas, suggestions, criticism, anything in the way of assistance you have for me. There are other things I have thoughts on but this should be enough for now.

Thank you to everyone that has taken the time to read this,

--EricNeel (discusscontribs) 04:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in Wikiversity. I left a note on your talk page right here. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign[edit]

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi everyone!

We're beginning the second part of the Community Tech team's Community Wishlist Survey, and we're inviting all active contributors to vote on the proposals that have been submitted.

Thanks to you and other Wikimedia contributors, 111 proposals were submitted to the team. We've split the proposals into categories, and now it's time to vote! You can vote for any proposal listed on the pages, using the {{Support}} tag. Feel free to add comments pro or con, but only support votes will be counted. The voting period will be 2 weeks, ending on December 14.

The proposals with the most support votes will be the team's top priority backlog to investigate and address. Thank you for participating, and we're looking forward to hearing what you think!

/Johan (WMF) using MediaWiki message delivery (discusscontribs) 14:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is it sock puppetry to discuss this vote here, or should the discussion be restricted to the wikimedia page?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)