Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/April 2010

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ethical breaching experimenty

A guy who sells film work he has produced to Channel 4, goes to Channel 4 to convince someone that he is a guy who sells film work which he produces. [1] I am not looking for a debate about anything here. This just has obvious potential for interest at the moment so why not share it with you as anyone else. And a bit of an insight into the perpetrator.[2] If folk are so interested in what they said, this is prime material. ~ R.T.G 09:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really a proper "breaching experiment" but more of a "Candid Camera" schtick. And if you met anyone in that business, you would know that the stuff being promoted is frequently weirder. Proper breaching experiments aim at providing insight into preventing untoward results (that is, they can result in a plan of positive actions). Did you read up on the actual methodology of breaching experiments? Collect 12:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I cannot think of a breaching experiment which does not somehow fall into the candid camera variety. On Youtube there are sociology class experiments at a dime a dozen and they are all pure candid camera. I would imagine they are as much for the fortitude of the budding psychologist, the ability to reach an arms length whilst evaluating the reactions of another person. I don't see any material on it that doesn't fit the category, "Just acting weird on purpose". The thing with the one above is that, although it is like a candid camera trick, the guy actually is what he is pretending to be. It's like the guy who washes windows for No.42. He goes to No.48 one day and starts washing their windows and when someone comes out to look he says, "I'm a window washer, no really I am." So it's a bit extra weird. Teil'c would say "Indeed he is." ~ R.T.G 23:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the literature on the topic will help you. "Candid Camera" is not a "breaching experiment." Collect 00:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is another one: w:Dihydrogen monoxide hoax ~ R.T.G 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the discussions at AfD about that one <g>. Not a "breaching experiment" either. Collect 00:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


I have been following this thread with much interest and regretfully feel that it has exceeded its functional lifespan. We're just talking around and around here, and I doubt we're going to be able to reach consensus on banning RTG. I am therefore proposing that we reprimand RTG for needlessly escalating the matter and consider this whole event closed. Geoff Plourde 04:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RTG Reprimanded

The Wikiversity Community sternly reprimands RTG for his actions in regards to Ethical Breaching Experiments. His edits to the pages in question increased the perceived danger of such pages. When combined with his post to the talk page of Jimbo Wales, it led to unnecessary Founder level intervention, deeply injuring the Wikiversity community through the desysopping of a longstanding custodian and the resignation of another custodian.

RTG is placed on notice that this conduct is unacceptable and contrary to the spirit of Wikiversity, and that future disruption will be grounds to justify the use of blocking to prevent further damage to the community. We sincerely hope that RTG will learn from this event and become a productive member of this project.

Custodian tools

Dear all! Some time ago I resigned my Custodian tools as a way of protest against the inappropriateness of the actions made just before and during the Community Review process. Now that the issue seems to be solved, I would like to ask for the Custodian tools. I am not sure about the procedure in this case, so I want to ask what you think (i.e. reflag or enter the probationary period again). I would accept any of the alternatives. --Gbaor 21:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support you being a custodian again, but I do not like how you gave it up. Custodianship should be about the doing work to have the community stay in good shape. Using it to put forth a philosophical position is not within the job. I hope you remember that. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is a little different in this. I fully understand the role of Custodians as maintainers of the content, but also think they should be in the first line when something happens. I did what I felt was the best at that point. A lot of things happened during that week. This was also the reason why I asked for opinions about the reflag. --Gbaor 22:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you resigned the tools voluntarily, I don't see why you can't be reflagged, although I don't know that this is clearly addressed in policy - it should be though. Maybe make the request here: Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship#Requests_and_Nominations_for_Probationary_Custodianship. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd be pleased to see Gbaor's custodian status reinstated though I don't think resigning rights in circumstances like this as a protest is particularly helpful. It just ends up creating extra work for people to do whilst probably not having any real impact. Adambro 10:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Gbaor, While I support you as a custodian, I would like to know what exactly did you protest and how has the problem been resolved. Regards, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I made the request as an immediate response to actions of mr. Wales in mid March. See here. Quite a few people expressed their opinions in the discussion before (and after) desysoping SBJ, and at that point I felt that to simply repeat what was said before is not enough. So I underlined the protest with the most valuable thing I had. Some may think this was an unnecessary melodramatical move... The whole issue was resolved here.
Thank you all for your opinions. It seems to me that probably the best alternative in this case will be, if I request the Custodianship via regular way. BUt not immediatelly, because of real world issues. --Gbaor 20:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

about project

-- 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)what project you are going to done?

Hello, which project do you mean? Or are you asking what kind of learning resources can be done at Wikiversity? Did you read already Wikiversity:FAQ or other Help:Contents? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 08:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Template imports

Just alerting that I might have done some overly enthusiastic template importing (Special:Log/import) in an effort to get {{Notice}} working better (which is now seems to e.g., User:Jtneill/Quotes). But, I've had to revert the imported changes to at least this template Template:Ambox bec. it broke the display of some message box template, so please could others keep an eye out in case the imports might have broken anything else. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello wiki;

I'm posting this here because I'm not sure where it should go. I'm sending emails this week to former students I've worked with through the Wikiversity to let them know I'm changing the way I link to the wiki from my website. I sent about 100 emails this morning and got blocked by the Anti-Spam function here. I just wanted to explain what I'm doing, in case it pops up on anyone's radar.

Best! Stevenarntson 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also wondering if I could become "unthrottled" so I can continue contacting these students? Thank you! Stevenarntson 22:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

unthrottle: I guess not, probably wikimedia techies need to do that or put you in a certain group. Try contacting them e.g. by chat in #wikimedia-tech - further info about w:Wikipedia:E-mailing users, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 12:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Custodians have no rate limits so a 'crat could consider granting temporary custodianship to allow this. Perhaps we need a "tutor" user group which custodians can grant to people leading courses on Wikiversity to allow them to do things like this. Adambro 13:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Would tutor be the right word though? I'd think educator would be more appropriate, but its definitely something we need. Geoff Plourde 17:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there supposed to be a class of Mentor that had that role?--Graeme E. Smith 02:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you thinking of Wikiversity:Mentors? -- darklama  03:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Note - moved from Request for Deletions with that diff. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to speedy delete the above, but yeah. It is an off topic encyclopedic article. If someone wants to change it to have it not be an off topic encyclopedic article, that would be fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for vandalism. What you call "off topic encyclopedic article" the creator called a lesson. You made no attempt to discuss the page with its creator and you did not try to improve the page. Click "edit" and improve the lesson. --JWSchmidt 15:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This was a duplicate of an encyclopedic article, which is within speedy deletion. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Please link to the "duplicate" encyclopedic article you are talking about. Speedy deletion is for obvious vandalism, obvious copyright violations or other content that is obviously harming Wikiversity. You failed to first discuss the page before you used the "Deletion request" template. This entire deletion request is out-of-process and a waste of time. If there is a problem with the page then just click "edit" and improve the page. If you have an interest in the topic, join the relevant content development project. --JWSchmidt 20:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
JWS, you know for a fact there is no "deletion process" so please stop trying to quote one. Furthermore, there is a Church of Scientology page on Wikipedia. Thus, having a page here that only provides encyclopedic info is a duplicate. As I showed from other religion pages, this has a lot of work before it is converted over, which is what I am asking people to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
A comment on the talk page, adding a "please improve me" type template, or discussion on the Colloquium seem like more productive ways to ask for a page to be improved. Using RFD to ask people to improve a work seems like a rather bizarre and unproductive way to proceed. RFD is more likely to discourage any contributors to the work from improving it, thus having the opposite effect of what you were looking for. I don't know what your definition of an encyclopedia is, but my definition is a reference that provides general information on a topic. The work doesn't even provide enough information to even be said to include general information on the topic yet, and its usefulness in a reference capacity is not there yet. For those reasons I think the work is not even at a stage yet to call it encyclopedic. Learning resources may at some stage in there development have the capacity to be useful for an encyclopedia, but that would be a good time to fork the work to wikipedia for development there while also continuing to develop the work here to provide more details that are useful for someone wanting to learn the topic and not just use it as a reference work. -- darklama  22:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple pages in the project and many of them don't belong here. If someone wants to pick the ones they do want to fix, that is fine. However, as has been shown the project itself was started by a random IP to attack Scientology and not in a very intellectual way. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Ottava, I'm free to quote processes that benefit the Wikiversity community, unless you want to get involved with more censorship of Wikiversity. Use of the term "duplicate" in this context is not helpful. Wikiversity can certainly have lessons about topics for which Wikipedia has encyclopedia articles. The way to improve a Wikiversity learning resource is to click "edit" and improve the page, not slap a deletion template on it. --JWSchmidt 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Improve the page by clicking "edit". --JWSchmidt 01:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could certainly use a bit more work, but I agree with JWSchmidt, this does have the beginnings of a lesson structure. The page is informative, educational, and has value for this project as a good start to a resource. -- Cirt (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedia pages stay in Wikipedia, not here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems more like a lesson than an encyclopedia article, it isn't really structured in the best format for Wikipedia (shrug). -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, my note here was so that someone -could- turn it into a lesson. It isn't a lesson. And no, it isn't structured the best for Wikipedia because it was started as a content fork after someone created a vandal page to mock Scientology. Instead of deleting that vandal page (I don't know why) people decided to instead put up a promotional page. You can see the history here. Similarly to the above page, this page is just a undefined encyclopedic article. If someone wants to turn this into a decent resource, there are some models to follow: [3] or [4]. As you can see, it takes any info, presents certain aspects of it, has a quiz, etc, so it can be used in a classroom. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Nod, you make some very good points, Ottava Rima. I just do not see an overriding need for deletion at this point in time. The page looks like it has the beginnings of a lesson. Yes, there is some promotional spam cruft, but it could be fixed up a bit. -- Cirt (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, which is what I'm hoping will happen. The notability of the topic and potential was what prevented me from deleting it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
"undefined encyclopedic article" <-- Origins of Scientology is a type of learning project that was explicitly included in the Wikiversity project proposal and is allowed at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 20:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
MergeKeep - The resource is an article at this point in time, but it has the potential to be the basis for learning materials on Scientology in a nut shell. On a tangentially related matter, who is running the Center for Scientology Studies? Is this a Church sanctioned project or an Anonymous one? Geoff Plourde 23:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
It was created by a random IP to attack Scientology. Then a user came by to try and fix some pages but abandoned it in 2007. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've talked with Ottava, and i think the best idea is to merge all these Scientology pages into one resource. Geoff Plourde 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
"all these Scientology pages" <-- which pages? --JWSchmidt 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I would oppose merging random pages together that might have specific purposes to exist as separate pages in the first place. That sounds like quite a vague solution. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The Church of Scientology article and the Origins of Scientology have much overlap, but the second one is just raw citations for the most part. You can see how the second one was pulled from Wikipedia and served as a prep page for them writing pages on Scientology. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
We've got a couple Scientology pages that are each pretty terrible. They have merit as the start of decent resources, but it would seem to be best to merge them into one decent resource at this time. Geoff Plourde 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Church of Scientology -- this one should focus on the organization and its management itself (history of it, setup, how it is controlled, etc.)
  • Origins of Scientology -- this one should focus on history of the overall origins of the movement, etc.

-- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


I'm attempting to find a good way forward from the whole 'breaching experiment' debacle, so have begun work here; Wikimedia_Ethics/Response_Testing_on_WMF_projects - please do dive in and help out, or offer thoughts, ideas, feedback etc. :-) cheers, Privatemusings 01:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Spam-Whitelist for Wikiversity

I see that the issue of external links and spam was brought up about three years ago. I have some substantial experience with blacklist/whitelist issues on en.wikipedia. In spite of an ArbComm decision that the spam blacklist not be used to control content, i.e., through arguments that a web site is not a reliable source or is "fringe," accompanied by arguments that there was "spamming," which was, too often, I found, the arguably legitimate addition of links by a new editor, the blacklist at en.wikipedia still continues to be abused in this way to some degree, and sometimes editors, about to be overruled at the en.wikipedia blacklist, have gone to meta and gained meta blacklisting that covers all WMF sites, including Wikiversity.

I have a need to use such a blacklisted site here. Going to Meta is difficult, because there is high inertia, and, there, it will be argued that if any site wants to use a link, it can locally whitelist it. But if there is no whitelist, that's not possible! And until there are many whitelisted pages, proving a need for use, the admin(s?) at Meta are not inclined to review old decisions.

In the old discussion here, ignorance about how the blacklist/whitelist process works was expressed. It's pretty simple. At Meta, there is a blacklist page that can only be edited by administrators, it's a MediaWiki control page. Links that are defined by regex there will be blocked, they cannot, by default, be added by any edit on any WMF web site. However, there is also a whitelist page that allows exceptions to be defined. On Meta, these would be global exceptions. Then, any individual project may set up its own blacklist and whitelist pages. The local pages supersede the global ones, I believe, and a whitelisting can cover anything from a single URL to an entire site. As an example of the latter, anything from is globally blacklisted. However, on de.wikipedia, where it was known that the blacklisting of this highly notable web site (see was, shall we say, bogus, it is whitelisted. When I became aware of this on en.wikipedia, I requested whitelisting there, and the argument was given that some of the pages were not in English and that therefore the whitelisting of the whole site was not proper. However, the admin kindly whitelisted the English-language interface to Lyrikline, allowing links to be added freely, though possibly only for those who know how to format the links and don't try to copy a page from another language interface.

A whitelist page, if only editable by an administrator, cannot be an open door for spam, because it would take a granted request to whitelist a page. I am willing to help maintain a request page. It should be pretty simple, and if it gets other than simple, there are measures that can be taken to keep it simple. It is not necessary, I believe, for Wikiversity to have a blacklist page, and the complications of making blacklist decisions are enormous.

A local whitelist page is needed, is simple to set up and maintain, and most of the work, all except for the actual adding (or removal) of regex code can be done by any editor, i.e., to respond to requests and make a recommendation, and, if needed, to solicit an admin to approve it and implement it. If a whitelist page is started, then the MediaWiki error message that appears when one tries to add a blacklisted link should also be edited to point to the whitelist page and whitelising procedure. --Abd 19:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext, the message that is displayed when someone tries to add a blacklisted site, to advise users as to what they should do. I've set it to point in the direction of Wikiversity:Request custodian action for any requests. The only reason that a whitelist doesn't exist here is because no one has wanted to whitelist a site yet. The page is at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. I don't believe we need a specific page to request changes to the whitelist/blacklist since it isn't going to be a regular occurance here so I think using Wikiversity:Request custodian action would be preferable to setting up another page that would need monitoring. Adambro 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The default page would be MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, which I just started. When there is a set of instructions on the whitelist talk page, I'll ask you or another custodian to point the block message there, so as to not add unnecessary traffic to the custodian request page. I will watch that talk page as well as using it myself. I will seek approval of another registered editor for any requests of my own, and will only approve requests of others (assuming I see no harm in them, and "no harm" should be the standard for whitelisting by registered editors). If a request is approved there, and no admin appears to decide and implement, I will then request as you suggest, Adambro, and I did that on Wikipedia once, using a noticeboard, when no admin appeared after more than a week -- which is too long -- to respond to a request, and it was promptly granted. --Abd 21:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiki immune systems, improving the deletion process

Ottava's quick response to the initial posting of the 'how to' part of the EBE project was an example of a properly-functioning wiki system: something innapropriate, which had been rejected in the past, was caught and removed. However, looking over the general deletion logs for the last few thousand deletions, I am struck by the ways that deletion on Wikiversity isn't working smoothly.


to avoid destroying the hard work of long-time contributors, and having forests of non-useful pages,
  1. Image deletions should be slowed down and reversed where appropriate;
  2. Text deletion and merging should be taken more seriously

SJ+> 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion is done with abandon

  • Images and files are being deleted aggressively, sometimes without proper notification, often ignoring either edit-summary or other context indicating that uploaded files are the uploader's own work (which seems to be predominantly the case on wv).
  • Uploaders are not being encouraged to move their files to Commons, where the upload process makes it much harder to upload anything wtihout including a license in a 'standard' way
  • The 7-day time limit for uploader to respond to notifications about their files before they are deleted seems much too short for a project like this where discussions sometimes happen over months.
  • When users do defend their uploads and clarify licensing, if they don't do it by adding a license template to the image page, their images may be deleted anyway without further explanation. (see for instance User talk:Mlisak.)

A few examples from a spot survey of recent bulk deletions of 1000 files:

Edits or summaries indicate uploads by the creator:

File:DC 4.png
Source=own work |Date=2009-08-24 |Author=W Reindl ~~~~ |Permission= not copyrighted
File:Mobile devices used in edu.jpg
Information |Description=mobile devices used in learning |Source=ITmedia 2008/6/17 |Date=2008/10/1 |Author=Haruna |Permission=Haruna |other_versions=
('introduce my self')
The uploader was informed that another one of his/her uploads needed a license, but not this one, which was later deleted.

very likely uploaded by creator:

This set of 20 images about voodoo doll-making: User:TerekV
The page containing all of them indicated they were for that user's project, though the image files themselves did not.
("introduction video")

possibly uncopyrightable and probably uploaded by creator:

File:Matlab 1.jpg through File:Matlab 6.jpg
File:Matrix1hw2.jpg, File:Matrix2.jpeg

And from earlier deletions:

File:ADDIE.png, File:Previous.png
See discussion on User talk:Mlisak
I would welcome some wider discussion of how we should handle image deletions going forward. What made it infeasible to do anything other than start deleting these files was that the problem has been allowed to become enormous with little attention being paid to trying to address it. I'm not blaming anyone for that, I would acknowledge that dealing with image copyright issues can be both difficult and dull, but we should try to make it easy for people to do the right thing. I would agree that encouraging freely licensed files to be uploaded to Commons is a good idea. There exists at Commons a community dedicated to managing freely licensed files who have better procedures in place for dealing with them. The benefit from encouraging users to upload images to Commons, and providing more guidance on images more generally, is why work is slowly ongoing to try to redesign the upload form. I recently requested that the developers enable a multi-page upload form on Wikiversity and that is now possible. Lurking in my user space here are some links to pages relevant to redesigning the upload process and anyone is welcome to try to move that forward.
As I've explained on my talk page, in most cases the files that I recently deleted were much older than the seven days time period which I would agree perhaps should be longer. I am aware there are instances where the uploader implies they are the creator of the work but it is necessary to have details of what licence a file is released under in addition to the source information. The bulk deletion was, I would agree, not an ideal solution, but it attempted to balance the desire to preserve useful educational content with the necessity to ensure content has the required source/license information. In most cases the images were uploaded a long time ago and the uploader was notified. I think in general the balance was right but I would acknowledge that there may be some exceptions. Adambro 07:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"Bulk" actions are seldom wise, as witness the exmaple set on WP wrt unsourced BLPs. The deadline for all of Wx is not all that important, is it? Collect 10:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "The deadline for all of Wx is not all that important". There does come a time though when action has to be taken if we are to keep this issue manageable. We unfortunately can't wait forever for uploaders to remember Wikiversity, return, become aware of the problems with their uploads and finally address them. We have a responsibility to try to host content only where there is clarity on its copyright status. I would welcome any suggestions as to how we can reduce this problem. I will shortly be making some proposals. Adambro 10:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
See w:Festina lente. The classical wisdom ought not be forgotten. Collect 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The en:wp BLP deletion situation is very much parallel. Bulk deletions really call for similarly efficient follow-up and monitoring.

My thought would be to undelete and work through the backlog as follows:

  • bulk-undelete all images (so that anyone can view the old images to resolve the license issue) -- many of those listed above were essential to the pages they were part of
  • define a process for working through current and future backlogs
  • for each image deleted, if the uploader set an email pref, email them saying their image is being deleted for license non-compliance, and would they please update the license?
  • overwrite them with a more recent image saying "image license needed"
  • add a template to the image page (which anyone clicking on the 'image license needed' image will see first) which describes how to view the original image, and to update the license.

If we haven't received any complaints about copyright status of these images (almost all of the images I looked at were clearly the work of the uploader, which is why they had remained undeleted for so long), we have no obligation to delete them. We do have an obligation to fix the upload process so that noone wastes their time creating and sharing an image that won't be used in the future.

Replacing images with requests for better licensing compromises b/t the desire for all licenses to be cleanly entered and the desire not to suppress contributions that may be essential to understanding the other work published on WV around it. SJ+> 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

page deletion and merging is hardly done

  • Pages that aren't about learning or wikiversity's focus are sometimes soft-redirected rather than deleted
  • Pages that belong on Wikibooks or Wikipedia are sometimes redirected, but most often simply left
  • Pages that are incomprehensible, not useful, or uncategorized and extremely short can live for a very long time.

For example, here is an unusual (and confusing) template that has been around for a long time: Template:Multilingual messages (formerly named template:transwiki and linking to a 'transwiki:' pseudo-namespace, despite having nothing to do with the transwiki process). It was part of a confused effort to increase multilingual communication in early 2007, and versions of it were created on 4 other language wikiversities. The others were all deleted within 3-18 months, but the English-language template remained until just today.

Introduction to C++

Introduction to C++ is the start of an excellent little wikibook on C++, composed entirely here on Wikiversity. There are 5 other wikibooks on the topic at wikibooks itself.

I would expect to find all textbooks at wikibooks, and course/project/quiz/exam/supplementary-material here. How is this currently assessed / how is duplication avoided? (The same question applies in the other direction -- project-based explorations and classroom materials are not explicitly disallowed on wikibooks.) SJ+> 02:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like lessons to me. I would say this is a potential area of overlap between the two projects in the same way as Annotated Texts overlap between Wikibooks and Wikisource. What distinguishes a textbook from a collection of course lessons is not always clear. -- darklama  03:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
True, there are a few explicit lessons in the book. Most of the pages titled "Lesson X" are more text pages than lessons, however. There are almost no problems, quizzes, or guidelines for classroom use. SJ+> 07:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about it some more, maybe a distinct difference is requirements. Wikibooks has more rigid requirements, NPOV, verifiability by sources, self-contained, and all the things that make a book a book. Wikiversity has more fluid requirements, course lessons can be taught from a specific POV, up to contributors to review and verify by their own knowledge that the work is true, other works may be required for complete understanding, and all the things that make a course a course. -- darklama  18:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
With regards to interactivity, we're somewhat limited by the software. Things like quizzes require specialized knowledge to put into place. Geoff Plourde 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Taking the above points in order:
  • Using a POV to teach a topic can be useful, but acknowledging other POVs when representing 'what is known' about a topic is just as important for other course materials as it is for books.
  • Verifiability is essential. Where does wikiversity say "it's up to contributors to review and verify by their own knowledge that work is true"? That's one of the definitions of a good reference work; if you're going to support original writing or research, that carries an obligation of peer review to verify such things.
  • Learning materials don't need to be self-contained. In what ways does a wikibook need to be?
  • If you identify software needs to improve interactivity, suggest them and detail their use so that the improvements can happen. Quizzes are already possible.
  • Good learning materials require specialized knowledge.
SJ+> 01:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The other points of view can be separate topics though. Like while you could have a learning resource that covers both the big bang theory and intelligent design, you can also have one learning resource that just covers the big bang theory, and another that covers just intelligent design. The scope of a work's topic reflects what should and shouldn't be covered. I believe that is actually the same for both Wikibooks and Wikiversity. What I mean is personal/original opinions or commentary that may not be neutral can be included within a work on Wikiversity, but not for works on Wikibooks.
I might have inaccurately described the verifiability requirements. I think what is meant by verifiability or what it means to be verifiable is more relaxed than other projects. Since works can be original in nature there may be no sources in which to reference. Wikipedia includes footnotes throughout its pages. Wikibooks includes a bibliography style of including references and there may be fewer references used but which still cover the span of knowledge that is covered by the book. Wikiversity may be somewhere in between Wikipedia and Wikibooks in terms of how and what form verifiability takes.
If you read a programming book you shouldn't need to refer to another work to learn how to use if-else or while statements, but you might with learning resources. A book is expected to have everything you need to understand the topic as defined by its scope. Words that readers should know but are not expected to know when reading the book are expected to be defined in the book instead of telling readers to go read a dictionary. A book aimed at beginners may refer people to an intermediate book for readers that have mastered the concepts beginners have learned, but the book is expected to include anything a beginner ought to know. Books usually have a order in which pages are expected to be read to accumulate knowledge. A learning resource often has a more refined scope and might refers to other works that can be used in connection with it to learn more about the topic. You might have one learning resource to explain what an if-else statement is, and another that explains what a while statement is, another learning resource might be created that provides general information about programming that refers to the if-else and while pages for further reading. Learning resources can be very specific, very broad, or anywhere in between. Some learning resources might provide specialized knowledge and some might not. Learning resources might be allow more flexibility in what order you read them and how you accumulate knowledge. References in books are more for people to verify information provided than to learn more about the topic often times. References on Wikiversity can serve both to verify and to refer people to places to learn more about a topic. I suppose a shorter answer to your question would be that in the case of English Wikibooks at least its because the community decided its books should aim to be reasonably complete in coverage. Wikiversity aims to provide coverage of every topic too, but not in the same manner as Wikibooks or Wikipedia. I think the manner in which Wikiversity aims to cover everything is somewhere in between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, or possibly knowledge is more in depth and spread across more pages than what even Wikibooks or Wikipedia does.
-- darklama  03:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. I think a clear division of 'where to work' can be managed following these comments of yours, assuming that scope policies are clarified accordingly. SJ+> 00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we can clarify scope accordingly to show where the dividing line is. I believe on English Wikibooks it has generally been acknowledged that if a book is helpless involved in doing original research the book should be moved to Wikiversity. Original research being outside the scope of Wikibooks is the only clear dividing line I can think of. I'm not sure how to convert what I have said into useful scope rules. -- darklama  01:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I see where SJ is going with this, but I think he is missing an important factor, Wikiversity was created partially because wikibooks was too rigid in its thinking. I haven't dared to put my self-help book Datamining your Intuition into the main wikibooks namespace because when I talked of writing it, they nearly shouted me down. If anything even smacks a little of Wikiversity, they become immediately defensive. On the other side, if there was a place for collections here at Wikiversity I would be glad to upload the PDF, even if I had to re-edit it at home to get the formatting correct. One thing they don't do well at Wikibooks is accept single authors work, every editor gets equal billing even if they changed one comma in the whole book. I would hope that Wikiversity would at least allow co-editors to compile the work instead of demanding that everyone get equal billing.--Graeme E. Smith 03:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where you got your ideas about Wikibooks, but don't paint us all with the same brush. I really don't get the editor billing portion; the collection extension simply lists all the contributors to every page without regard to the significance of their input. And any book can have an authors page where the significant contributors can be listed. Dual-licensing now in place at Wikibooks means that under CC-BY-SA you can provide attribution with a link, rather than listing all the editors with the GFDL. -- Adrignola 14:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
According to its mission, [all] wiki textbooks belong on wikibooks. It would be helpful to discuss there what is in scope of 'educational textbooks in line with Wikimedia's mission', and to discuss here where the line is drawn b/t the two projects. If two projects think they have overlapping scope, that's a good reason to organize a few meetings to reduce that redundancy (perhaps joint irc meetings of some of the veteran editors of both projects?).
I understand the original tension b/t the two projects, but I feel both have come a long way over the past years. Like Adrignola, I don't find Wikibooks to be a monolith (nor do I find its discussions to be defensive about wikiversity; there is just a crisper definition for 'textbook' than for 'learning material'). Almost every text-like learning project here on WV has a subset of material that would benefit from being organized as a textbook (by the wikibooks definition) and stored/categorized/updated there. Then work here on WV could focus on what makes for good non-text learning materials -- something very much needed in classrooms or by independent learnings, yet which some active projects here are not yet producing. SJ+> 01:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I think some of the overlap clearly comes from Wikiversity having been part of Wikibooks at one point. OTOH I think a person can learn the same things a book covers from well developed lesson plans. I think Wikiversity focusing on non-text materials only is an unwise and unreasonable way to differentiate the two projects. Wikibooks certainly doesn't limit itself to text only. See Wikijunior:Alphabet for example. An encyclopedia is a type of book, should we be discussing merging Wikipedia into Wikibooks? I think there should be a way to differentiate books from things like w:open educational resources, w:classroom response system, w:personal learning environment, w:research journal, etc. too. I think there is some concern that Wikiversity could be unnecessarily limited by defining itself in terms of those things only. For example, people are encouraged to use whatever learning approach works for them like using their user space to blog about what they have learned. -- darklama  01:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Re: SJ: "Almost every text-like learning project here on WV has a subset of material that would benefit from being organized as a textbook (by the wikibooks definition) and stored/categorized/updated there. "Some overlapping is unavoidable. Contents started in Wikiversity could very well be developed into a wikibook or a wikipedia entry. But you need someone to do it, though. On the other hand, I have rarely seen this kind of "where does my stuff belong? wikibooks or wikiversity or whatever" questions in real life teachers using wikiversity. They just do whatever they see fit. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 02:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Random log

I'm starting a log of the results of visiting a handful of random pages.

Day 1: 15% of pages nominated for deletion; 25% need serious cleanup, 25% are bloom clock logs, 20% are good and sometimes fascinating models for future work, and 15% are odd and probably out of scope. SJ+> 01:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What I want to know is, exactly what kinds of flowers are people expecting to bloom in New Hampshire in January? Kaldari 22:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Differentiating between learning resources and original research

Wikiversity contains two very different types of content: resources for learning (teaching curriculums, language tutorials, introductions to various fields of study); and original research (some of which includes pseudoscience, fringe science, emerging science, philosophical arguments, etc.). Unfortunately, there is no line drawn between the two and indeed much of the original research goes to great lengths to present itself as mainstream resources for learning. In a real university, original research would require peer review before being published to the masses and presented as legitimate information. Here, we hawk the snake oil right along side the medicine. Are there any plans to set up any type of quality-control system within Wikiversity? Do we really want teachers coming here and teaching their students about the God Gene, the "Myth of Mental Illness", drinking games, cold fusion, and the like? If so, how can anyone take us seriously as an educational resource? Kaldari 21:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You pick a mixed bag to attack. Genetics/religion/numinosity -- can be reading for a course. Mental illness myths and fads -- likewise. Drinking games -- basically not. Cold fusion -- mixed, does get some attention these days (not anathema the way it was a dozen years ago). There are important problems to address, but if you paint with too broad brush it can confuse the discussion. SJ+> 07:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, yes we do. Taken seriously as an educational resource compared to what? If you mean Wikipedia, you should ask some educators why they take Wikiversity more seriously as an educational resource than Wikipedia. I'm not an educator, so I cannot explain why they block access to Wikipedia and contribute to Wikiversity. Maybe the issue is the unfortunate tendency to draw a fine line where a line doesn't exist. Education and knowledge isn't black and white, and is not a constant point. Often what is taught in school is already dated by the time a student leaves school and wants to apply their education for a job or career. What concerns do you specifically have? What exactly to do you think the differences are? -- darklama  22:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So in your opinion, there is no line between information and misinformation? What exactly does the word "educational" mean to you? At what point does a string of words become educational in your view? False information presented as science is not educational. Religious propaganda is not educational. Rules for drinking games are not educational. This project should aspire to be more than simply the dumping ground for everything that is rejected from other Wikimedia projects. Kaldari 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What "education" means to me is complicated and tends to blend various schools of thought. An explanation would most likely involve getting philosophical. A string of words can be educational when new insights are learned. What makes information false or true? What makes something propaganda or not? What is "truth"? See what I mean (about getting philosophical)? -- darklama  23:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean about "religious propaganda"? Geoff Plourde 04:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not so complicated... you see something wrong? {{sofixit}}. I think a lax deletion policy is fine, as long as people are working toward good models for great materials. Noone's going to argue that a simple reading without context is very educational. If you see something that you honestly think was just dumped and has no future, you can always blank it - it takes little time. SJ+> 07:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Educational resource" covers many different kinds of education. A religious sect may start a university and provide courses in the special beliefs of the sect, and it's educational. A public university may provide courses in all kinds of things, including controversial subjects. Ordinarily, a public university will be subject to some restrictions, however. For example, academic freedom is generally respected, but not always. A professor who advocates some unpopular position may be fired, sometimes, and not adequately defended, particularly if the views are unpopular in the university community or sufficiently unpopular in the general community to bring down the specter of serious consequences to the university. Politics does interfere with academic freedom. Generally, but not always, that doesn't apply here. The reality is, of course, that some political considerations do arise here, Kaldari is surely aware of an example.

No student studies a course here as part of their educational requirements unless the course is approved by their instructor (that's happening, just follow Recent Changes here). No courses or resources here are otherwise accredited. No course that is open to editing by anyone could possibly be accredited! Now, on to specific points:

Religious propaganda and rules for drinking games, two of the examples chosen by Kaldari, are indeed (or can be, and especially the former) the subject of real university courses, Kaldari seems to have a very limited and inaccurate view of what goes on at universities in general. Now, if the courses here are started by religious fanatics, or students interested in drinking and describing games just for fun, these resources may indeed be quite biased. But the remedy for that is well-known: unbias them, or tag them as biased so that someone isn't misled as Kaldari suggests. If that's resisted, get help from the community, if it's not possible to negotiate consensus locally at the page.

Kaldari has mentioned a subject on which I'm COI, i.e., I have a conflict of interest. My view is, generally, that experts are almost always COI in some way. Neutrality can be very difficult when one is, say, financially involved with a field or has a reputation to defend or has developed strong opinions, which tends to happen with experts. To be specific, I have started a business selling kits to replicate certain recent -- published in highly reliable source -- experiments in the field called Cold fusion. Is this fringe science? Well, it's certainly controversial, and, for years, as is well-documented in reliable source, academically published, there was heavy discrimination against any research or publication in the field. However, the cold fusion resource here isn't tagged as NPOV. Nevertheless, if anything there is misleading, I'd really welcome improvement, I don't "own" it. I've been considering soliciting participation from some physicists. Those who read the page in the future can't help but benefit from respectful and civil academic exploration of the issues, by those representing all sides of the controversy.

My own position on the "fringe" issue is that it was legitimately described as fringe science at one time, but that a neutral examination now would come to a different conclusion (and a review of the field by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004, plus other reviews since then in peer-reviewed publications shows nothing but this shift, the situation is radically different from 1989, which is pretty much what the Wikipedia article currently represents, every expert who was involved with Cold fusion and who attempted to have the article reflect more recent sources having been banned.) We do not want Wikiversity to take sides in scientific controversies by banning alleged "fringe." However, on Wikipedia, I did not challenge the fringe science category, because it was much more important that the article reflect what is available in reliable source, with preference for high-quality sources, as is common for science articles. I was unable to accomplish this on Wikipedia, for reasons that it is not necessary to belabor here. But, now, having become familiar with the field, being involved commercially with it, knowing most of the major experts (some of who have their own Wikipedia articles), I believe I have something to contribute here.

A religious "fanatic" would, as well. I want to know what this "fanatic" and his or her religious cohorts actually believe, or at least what they say they believe. And they are a better source on that than any book, in some ways. I was quite fortunate in having taken a course in high school on Communism, where we were neutrally informed, and we actually visited real Communists, an American Opinion bookstore, and saw propaganda films on all sides, including a film produced, apparently, by the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities. Real education involves people with the sources, it isn't like an encyclopedia. This is a university, not an encyclopedia, and applying encyclopedic standards is a restriction on academic freedom. Absolutely, if a resource seems biased, find an appropriate category and tag it, or edit it, and get help if it seems you can't do this properly. But please understand that one person's "bias" is another person's "truth." Education provides people with the tools to make their own decisions about that, it does not make the decision for them. Original research is specifically allowed on Wikiversity, just as it takes place at ordinary universities, with those doing the research, often, holding seminars on it. --Abd 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with what you've wrote. Another thing to keep in mind is that Wikiversity is not a university, and applying university standards may or may not make sense for Wikiversity either. Applying University standards could also restrict Wikiversity in ways that are not desired by the community. -- darklama  22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Restrictions can be good and bad. Those that improve the educational value of the project are good. Those that help contributors focus -- such as standards of quality and acceptability -- are also good. Freedom to explore and try new things are good - as DL says, I wouldn't try to line WV up too closely with "academic freedom", whatever that means here - just do what seems appropriate in pursuit of teaching others. (conversely, work that is not useful in teaching others may not be appropriate.) SJ+> 07:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So confusing

Does anyone care to explain the format of information within wikiversity. I am not understanding why schools do not contain courses. I do not understand why there is not a general structure for courses or for schools. I do not understand why there are two schools of math etc. I do not understand how to navigate or how to find organized resources. I do not understand why things are labeled 6 different ways and not organized hierarchically. Could anyone explain how to navigate and how wikiversity is organized? --Bgreeson 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been suggesting for a few years now that Wikiversity's organizational structure needs to be simplified. I think understanding how to navigate Wikiversity is confusing all around. Attempts to organize things hierarchically may very well be what has lead organization astray. Things can be hierarchically organized many ways. I think [5][6][7] make for some good reading. -- darklama  22:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Content creation tends to outstrip content organisation. There are multiple pathways to finding content. e.g., search is in many cases better than manually-created hierarchies. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I will check that out. It just seems like there are too many ways to navigate in general. In reference to the courses, there seems to be no standard organizational structure. Has anyone attempted to implement a standard? DO you have any idea as to how many people use the resources here. I would think wikiversity would be more mature than it is.
I think the electrical engineering school (which I couldn't find from the main page) has a pretty good structure in organizing the courses by level.School:Electrical_engineering In addition I think a university structured naming convention would be useful. That way someone with less knowledge can find what they are looking for. Instead of Intro CHEM, why not have CHEM101 CHEM102 and CHEM201 with appropriate descriptions etc.
Also check out this course Electric_Circuit_Analysis That is the only completed course in School:Electrical_engineering. I think the organization and usefullness is phenomenal, when compared to other courses.--Bgreeson 22:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
@ jt. Searching is fine, but that is the purpose of google. I would look here for complete courses that take me step by step through a heirarchy. SO I am assuming I don't already know what I am looking for, besides education. I also think content creation is pointless without organization. There is plenty of info out there already, organization is what would make a useful resource.--Bgreeson 23:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Any standard needs to be one that anyone even people that have never attended a university can understand with a meaning that most people can quickly recognize. As Jtneil said people often do a search, so the standard and names used should be meaningful, descriptive and pop up when anyone does a search. What is CHEM101 in one school may be something entirely different in another school with different expectations of what will be found. A person that has never attended a university may not know what CHEM101 means at all. Search terms like "Chemistry", "introduction to chemistry", "chemistry introduction", "beginning chemistry", or "what is chemistry" are what I would use for example in Google if I wanted to find websites and web pages that I could use to begin learning chemistry, and I would most likely find something useful rather quickly and easily that way. Wikiversity has search functionality too, but doesn't do much good without names that make sense or if there are lots of false positives. Names that make sense are also useful for browsing what is available. If it were up to me there would be a page that could be referred to that listed all chemistry courses by name and in the order in which the courses should ideally be followed/taken without having to understand terms like 101, who should read it, or what education level the work is intended for. -- darklama  23:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to an organizational structure within a school, not neccesarily a naming convention. Do you have any better ideas? As of now the organization sucks...I don't know if it would even be worth developing content if it isn't findable and useable.--Bgreeson 00:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
My idea involves replacing the school, topic, and portal structures with a single course structure in which works for learning would be organized. Like there would be a Chemistry course in which all Chemistry related works would be listed by name and by ideal order to learn from the works. With that in place than if you wanted to learn Chemistry you would only need to search for Chemistry to find what you are after, or goto the Chemistry page to browse what is available. Simple no? -- darklama  00:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I would start with one school that's doing a good job, and make a model of / copy its structure. Some of the language-learning courses have a good school and course structure. SJ+> 07:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to improve the structure of content, just as folks are free to contribute and use content. As you've observed some content areas have received more navigational development than others. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How to get rid of "300 px" text

I am admittedly unskilled when it comes to most templates, but you'd think I'd be able to figure this out. Can anyone explain where the "300 px" text is coming from on the Plant identification quiz pages? I just created a page for Acer saccharum, and perfectionist that I am, it's really frustrating that I can't get it to go away. It seems to be on all the other pages as well. Could someone please check this out - Plant identification/Acer saccharum - and help me to fix it? --Trinity507 02:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no expert am I, but you are using the whole image page name for a template that already transcludes this information. I've edited it to remove the extra stuff, and it seems to work. --Abd 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cloud Computing

  • Internet-based computing whereby shared resources, software and information are provided to computers and other devices on demand, like a public utility

#How is cloud computing different than using a normal computer?

  • Cloud computing can access from anywhere
  • Cloud computing has a smaller storage than a normal computer but you can always get an extra storage
  • Information on cloud computing can be hacked by others

#How could you turn a classroom into a cloud computing classroom?

  • Teacher can post lessons online
  • Do homework at different places and post it on the internet
  • Have a class dicusstion on the internet


I am looking at Computer Science, does this come with any certificate of completion or credits? --Dvotruba 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity does not provide degrees, certifications, or credits. However teachers, professors or instructors from real schools and universities that make use Wikiversity might do so for their students, but that is separate from Wikiversity. -- darklama  17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


meta:Petition to Shut Down Wikiversity

Might interest some users here, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I recommend focusing effort on improving policies and the average quality of pages here, rather than on a lot of the side discussions happening at the moment. The editors of other projects, who don't yet know how to contribute to Wikiversity, are usually great fans of the vision of this project. They will defend Wikiversity any time a proposal such as that one comes up.
However, only the editors here are in a position to meaningfully recruit more editors, set up better welcoming teams, police files and images so that they can be better licensed without destroying the work of existing contributors and classes, and the like. And only the active editors here are in a position to find important policies that have yet to be fully defined (including WV:IS and WV:NOT) and flesh them out. SJ+> 02:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you very much for sharing, as this is a very disturbing wake-up call to how Wikiversity is perceived by many of the other Wikimedia projects. I disagree with the statements made in this petition, however, I can see where they are coming from, and I think it's important that we work on those issues. It is encouraging to see all of the designatories, though. --Trinity507 03:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
After working on Wikibooks and Wikipedia, I see Wikiversity as a form of duplicated effort. Wikiversity itself doesn't overlap with Wikipedia, since it's supposed to give more in-depth training instead of being a quick reference. Most of the overlap comes with Wikibooks, which can also go in-depth to given topics in almost the same pattern as Wikiversity - a main topic page is compared to the Wikibooks introduction, and subpages on both projects go into more detail. What may help Wikiversity is creation of lesson plans - for given topics or education levels, provide an initial starting point, and allow users to follow entries from there. --Sigma 7 14:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
WikiBooks does not allow for interaction between student and teacher, nor are there really "teachers" or any major verification of such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty is that something which is primarily text is difficult to distinguish from a book. What we have here seems to be akin to publishing your lecture notes online, and that's one of the least effective methods of developing an online course. Perhaps the question should be what other tools are required in order to provide a teaching/learning environment, and will also (as a side effect) serve to better distinguish the project from the others. - Bilby 23:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting a sense of the unique usefulness of Wikiversity in its ability to collaboratively or individually develop various educational resources. I'm slowly working on turning the Cold fusion resource here into a seminar that can educate those who participate. (I've barely begun.) A Wikipedia article is intended to provide information for a reader and the emphasis is on the reliability of this information, and editors discussing the topic is often discouraged. Here, the emphasis can be on learning itself, on the development of a deeper understanding of a topic by the participants. We are not limited here to "reliable sources," we can create them. For example, I intend to develop questions to be asked of experts knowledgeable in the field of low-energy nuclear reactions. And to interview, as well, knowledgeable skeptics. What are the issues? Here, I can do this by myself, as a kind of guide or teacher knowledgeable about the sources, or in collaboration, including collaboration with others whose point of view is very different from mine. I'm sure that the work will be more effective if it is collaborative, and I have the sense that this community values collaboration, having been freed from the demands of textual neutrality that are necessary for the Wikipedia mission. There may be overlap with Wikibooks, and that's fine. I'll start looking more closely at Wikibooks. Having all our eggs in one basket isn't a great idea! Diversity of approach is beneficial to our collective welfare. --Abd 01:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The most likely area of overlap would be in Wikibooks' class projects; books collaboratively developed by real-life students and directed by the instructor. Teaching others requires knowing a topic even better yourself, so the students who actively participated in creating these educational resources did gain something from the effort. Interactions between students and teachers have occurred on talk pages, and between students through peer reviews on talk pages. A recent addition here, I've seen is Haitian Creole, with activities for b:Haitian Creole. Yet I've seen textbooks with review questions and answers at Wikibooks. It will be important to examine not simply what the stated intentions are for each project, but how people are actually using them. -- Adrignola 13:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

meta:Requests for comment/Shut down Wikiversity is now closed as unsuccessful; see the "Closing comments" section of that page for details. --A. B. 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Extension:Collection - Download as pdf

I noticed wikipedia now has "download as pdf" in the sidebar. How can WV get that? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - see their wikipedia:special:version, look for "special:book". Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you know where/how we can request extensions for WV? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Normally at the Wikimedia bugzilla, e.g. a sample request. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 11:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Looks like they will ask for a community vote/consensus. Please indicate here if you would to see the Collection Extension added to en.wikiversity. This extension is already implemented on en.wikipedia and other educational wikis such as WikiEducator. It allows for users to collect together any combination of pages and to then render these collections as pdf. This would allow, for example, multi-page courses to be compiled into a single document for saving and printing.

  • -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Adambro 12:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 12:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • --Gbaor 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, good idea. Pmlineditor  11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • We have enable that on Czech Wikiversity and it works properly. Just sometimes it has a problem to interpres wv dynamic contant - but well, how you would like to put dynamics onto a paper.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Feel free to keep voting and commenting, but on the basis of responses to date, I've made a bugzilla request. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes please. SJ+> 04:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • a belated vote in favor--Graeme E. Smith 03:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Done. Please test/use/promote and add instructions/info Help:Collection. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    Is there anyway we can have a dedicated namespace created for collections to go into? Would be nice for example if there was a Collection: namespace that works could go into instead of putting everything in the Wikiversity: namespace. -- darklama  22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    So, saved books currently would go into a subpage of Wikiversity:Books, see [8]. I agree with darklama - it would be better to see saved Collections going into a Books: or Collections: namespace - others? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    I noticed that we find this function at Special:Book whereas (ironically) at Wikibooks its at b:Special:Collection. On Wikipedia its w:Special:Book I think I'd prefer Collection for Wikiversity - others? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is a timely question especially since SJ has decided my Artificial Consciousness course is now a book and wants to offload it onto wikibooks. If we had a separate Collections namespace we could put all that stuff that we WANT to publish as books there, and then if there was a question as to whether something was a book or a course, the fact that it was in the Wikiversity namespace would mean that it would be seen as a course not a book, and perhaps if there are defects, like there seem to be in my course, someone could improve on the course, by adding the teachers notes etc. I don't think wikibooks would be especially happy with getting that file transwikied over, I know I wouldn't want to turn it into a book, the format is too different from what you would want for a book.--Graeme E. Smith 02:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is actually quite a lot to consider and get our heads around with the collection tool - see Help:Books just copied from content at meta. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
If someone wants something published as a book and it's not original research, I don't see why Wikibooks wouldn't want it. -- Adrignola 14:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Books on Wikipedia

Wikipedia has officially unveiled Wikipedia Books: w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-05-10/Wikipedia_books_launched. It is worth spending some time playing with books on Wikipedia to understand how it can work and how we might replicate/adapt to Wikiversity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have started a book w:Book:Open academia - feel free to help curate appropriate articles. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I am out of time, but thank you for highlighting the books feature! (also there is a new WP look! Yay!) If I will have time, certainly I will check it in more detail, for now 2 suggestions w:Open educational resources and w:Open source curriculum. --Gbaor 16:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)