Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/April 2020

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Preprint repository hosting invite?[edit source]

The Center for Open Science has started charging hosting fees to preprint repositories, many of them English-language; some are unable to pay and are looking for new hosting.[1] We could invite them to move here; Wikiversity already hosts preprints. How do people feel about this? It would mean an initial burden in terms of helping new users, and of course the WMF would have to pay the hosting costs, but it could win us new users long-term. It might also help reduce cost barriers and systemic bias in academia. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to be within the Wikiversity:Mission for English-language resources, depending on original content license. They could look to the other Wikiversities for non-English content. The biggest burden will be the limitation on new users uploading files. Someone associated with this effort will need to take the lead in either coordinating the uploads or explaining to the new users the delays involved before they have upload rights. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the heads-up; I am not familiar with this limitation. I can't seem to find anything at Wikiversity:Uploading files or Wikiversity:User access levels that would prevent new registered users from uploading files; could you possibly link to the relevant policy, Dave Braunschweig? If the content is under a suitable open-access license, most of the images should be too, so they could be uploaded to Commons, which allows uploads by new users. Images that Wikiversity allows but Commons forbids (see here) should be fairly rare; if someone from each of the repositories has upload rights, they could take responsibility for doing it for the preprints they are accepting. Most of these repositories seem to be run by volunteers, who help the academics who write the pre-prints publish them. I'm willing to help the repository volunteers figure out wiki editing, though depending on the uptake I might need help. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there is a written "policy". It's the default software settings. See Special:ListGroupRights. I think the default settings are appropriate. If users want to upload files here, they need to spend a little time and become familiar with the Wikiversity community. Think about what you would want them to read, what edits you would want them to make (such as creating their user page), editing some page that describes and links to what they upload, etc. They also need to understand how to properly indicate the license for their files, or the files will be deleted after seven days. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The triggering of filters to prevent uploads by new users would be likely biggest barrier to uptake (considering many preprint servers handle hundreds of new uploads per week). With the rise of Wikidata and structured data on commons it'd probably possible to make the process of uploading the files and curating metadata sufficiently streamlined with a bit of effot (possibly using some of the same tools as the Wiki Loves X competitions). It's be a big task through to get the system as frictionless as current competitors then do the necessary outreach at scale (indeed, some of the same challenges that the WikiJournals are working with). It could be possible to reconfigure WikiJournal Preprints as a more generalised preprint repository (i.e. for items stored as PDFs as well as in wikimarkup). It's actually been a huge lost opportunity that Wikimedia hasn't been a key player in hosting green OA postprints and published PhD theses. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that a four-day delay on new users uploading some types of content could be problematic, if not insuperably problematic, in this application. Thanks for the link; Wikiversity:Autoconfirmed users is also helpful. It seems like these repositories are facing a big task anyway; they are looking at moving to new servers, changing their operating structures, or in some cases shutting down. Can you estimate the proportion of the work needed could be done by repository volunteers with little Mediawiki experience, T.Shafee? This also seems like something the WMF might be willing to put resources into, or at least a press release. I'm going to ping Trizek (WMF) here, as he may have useful comments. Agreed on missed opportunities. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how rigid or flexible we want the structure to be and if files would be kept on commons or here. One of the things that all the current repositories do is force uploaders to include a certain minimal set of metadata. For example, for green OA postprints, you'd need at least the following:
  • date of publication for published version
  • doi link to published version
  • author names
  • choose from a controlled set of ~100 categories (e.g. FoR codes)
  • some tickbox to confirm that you've checked the journal's embargo policy on sherpa/romeo
Here's an example in figshare). Open theses would be similar, as would posters and presentations. For open data (supplementary datasets attached to publications or independent datasets unattached to any publication) our limited acceptable file types would be a more noticeable restriction. Indeed, things that standard repos enable but mediawiki system can yet do:
  • automatic embargoing (i.e. item only becomes visible and licensed after a set time delay) but I'd guess that a day's google hackathon could put something together
  • any file format accepted, especially for datasets (this would be an insurmountable issue and major drawback on any WMF server, where we can only host open formats)
  • mint DOIs automatically and at scale (one of the key benefits of figshare, osf etc) but that would not be impossible to get working with some APIs
Structured data on commons integration with wikidata, would be a key' 'unique selling point'. However, if files were on Commons, there could be a risk of over-zealous editors removing items if they didn't believe that the authors had copyright. I'd estimate that to make a service with 95% of OSF or figshare or Dspace functionality would only cost a few months of developer's time. Conceivably some wikiwand type visual interface could actually address many of the visual deficits of wiki displays. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion from Commons is a real possibility but we can have local uploads if/when that happens. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there anything in Wikiwand which is missing from the new Timeless skin? I'm not sure accepting any file format would be a good idea; a smaller range to which we can be sure we will retain access might be better. Some conversion tools, or perhaps at first just a guide to converting your files offline, might be an acceptable substitute; there are lots of god open-source converters for a lot of formats. Mediawiki will do us a custom upload form, complete with mandatory fields, without much work. If the WMF can't already issue DOIs, we might be able to find some organization which will issue them for us. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 03:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: with regards to contacting repositories, it'll be necessary to have afew screenshots and an example workflow so that they can see the process. Ideally also curate a small set of items as an exemplar. Probably figshare is the main benchmark to think about in terms of process and versatility. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such a series of screenshots would be useful for a how-to, too. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 03:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please! If I can be in any way associated with promulgating open access, I'd be honored. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit source]

This discussion has run for over a week. Am I right in saying:
  1. No-one objects to inviting repositories to en-Wikiversity
  2. It is possible to host repositories here (and, indeed, it is already being done).
    1. There are some problems (some big, some small, most technical, some policy-based) to be dealt with in the process of moving a repository here
    2. There are some established volunteers willing to help the volunteers and/or staff of any repository moving to Wikiversity
    3. We wouldn't object to the Wikimedia Foundation putting resources into it, either
  3. We would like to extend an invitation to repositories looking for a new home.
If this is a reasonable summary of consensus, would anyone object to my relaying it, and asking the Foundation to extend Wikiversity's invitation to the repositories? HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I say gopher it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done; no response yet. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 03:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still none. Any suggestions on next steps? HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ: A classic move when someone isn't responding is to cc: that person's boss on a message. With whom exactly were you trying to communicate? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, I tried the most relevant-looking person in the Communications Department, the WMF press-contact e-mail, and Trizek, who's been helpful on this in the past. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ: Oooooooooh, I thought you meant external parties weren't responding, in which case, any kind of scheme to get their preprints here would be impossible. My bad. Why are you contacting them? Just so we can get some buy-in from the WMF and we can get more resources to help us? If the papers are freely licensed, we can do this thing now. It seems kind of time-sensitive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, though actually Trizek did ping me on his userpage on meta, and I didn't see. I should just get together a list of e-mail addresses myself. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity, or MediaWiki in general, is not a suitable place for preprint hosting. We don't even have OAI-PMH! It's a no brainer, don't use it. Use a proper open repository software like DSpace: there are several hosting services which cost one or two orders of magnitude less than what COS is proposing, see https://duraspace.org/dspace/resources/service-providers/ . You can also open a community on Zenodo, which is free and also gratis if you don't have so much content https://help.zenodo.org/features/ . Nemo bis (discuss • contribs) 08:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rude answer. Whether or not we have Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, why negotiate against ourselves? If they are willing to use us as their repository, then let them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing rude in pointing out what is or isn't adequately supported in our software. MediaWiki is objectively not a replacement for DSpace and friends. As for "negotating against ourselves", it's self-defeating to try to lure people into using inadequate software. Were researchers to use inadequate software to host their preprints or other green OA copies, we would only have succeeded in making open access less strong, in making it harder for Wikimedia projects to have access to sources. Let's instead continue on the proven successful path of using a real open access repository to increase green open access sources. Nemo bis (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"No, just no" is rude: I don't know what to tell you. If you have a counter-proposal, that's fine but there's no reason to be so dismissive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Wikiversity/Wikibook/WikiJournal) If it is a scientific-paper-like publication,
* the WikiJournal of Science could be a place to publish preprints on Wikiversity.
* If the scope of the preprints is Medicine and Health the WikiJournal of Medicine within Wikiversity would also be an option
* if the preprint is of larger size the preprint could be publish as a WikiBook
In any case it makes sense to convert the publication from the source format into Wiki Markdown. See w:en:Help:WordToWiki#Pandoc Word2MediaWiki Info or export the Word document in HTML and use the Online-PanDoc-Converter to convert the HTML-export of the Word-document into a MediaWiki markdown format, that can be used in the source editor of Wikiversity or for the chapters in a Wiki-Book.
(mathematical expressions) If the preprints contain many mathematical expressions then the source format of the document is often LaTeX. Even then if the preprint can be converted with the Online-PanDoc-Converter from the source format LaTeX in the MediaWiki syntax.
FINALLY: the power of Wiki community comes from a collaborative spirit to makes things work within the legal given framework. Maybe the licencing of the content of the preprints is important to communicate to the authors, because with the publication the content is irrevocably released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL and others author that create derivated work should refer to the publication in a scientific way to the preprint contributions. Permanent links in Wikiversity, Wikipedia in general allow to create a reference to a specific version of the document. Take care, Bert --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 07:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the technical resources, Bert Niehaus. Some of these journals are dedicated to topics relating to a specific developing country, for example, and might want to be an individual journal; some do have a lot of content. I expect that the licensing will not be a big problem, as many already seem to be using CC BY-SA. HLHJ (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf, I'm sorry you felt my proposal was dismissive. What I'm trying to say is that I think this proposal is also rudely dismissive: it ignores the perfectly good alternative projects which exist in this space, and as such I feel it's offensive. We should support and cherish those who are already successfully working with our same values.
For instance, the Zenodo community for COVID-19 and various other repositories increased deposit rates by order of magnitudes. While we're here talking, other people are getting stuff done. Everyone here who's interested in this topic can just go talk to people and tell them to deposit their preprints on the existing open archives like Zenodo and OSF, and have an impact right now. Nemo bis (discuss • contribs) 04:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo bis: Thanks for saying that. I am not arguing that this is the best venue for preprints and I'm only peripherally knowledgeable about academic publisheing, so it may not the best option. You clearly have knowledge that I don't have. I hope you can understand why when I see someone respond to a good faith response with "No, just no", I respond in a way that's pretty heated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ: (New Journal in Wikiversity) Setting up a new journal for a specific topic is possible. (Community of Peer-Reviewers) take care that the scientific community is large enough and you have a substantial number of reviewers within Wikiversity that work on quality assurance in your new Journal. I guess WikiJournal of Medicine was the first in Wikiversity to establish that approach here. You can adapt their approach and learn from them how they established the workflows. (Integration of Preprints into related Learning Resource) The other option is to integrate the preprints in the content network within Wikiversity. E.g. if the article refers to Swarm Intelligence then you add a link from there to the new preprint that addresses the topic of "Swarm Intelligence" and adds value to the learning resource about Swarm Intelligence to the preprint and you explain what new insights can be gain, when reading the preprint. Preprints have a specific purpose, explain the purpose of the article within Wikiversity so that learners can benefit from the document. With that "integration" approach you do not create orphan pages in Wikiversity. At the same time you can add the preprints on a portal page with a short abstract about what can be learned by reading the preprint. I would appreciate if all authors of preprints are requested to do a content analysis in Wikiversity before to identify best links to existing content elements. With that cross-references to existing content within Wikiversity we can improve the semantic network of learning resources instead of having a disconnected list of preprints. (Draft) Work in progress can also be placed in the Draft Wikiversity until it is mature enough. Of course you can use others alternatives mentioned above. I hope that makes sense to you. All the best --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

remote learning[edit source]

Today we had our first positive test of COVID-19 on campus. My institution had been in the process of transitioning to distance learning for the rest of the semester. That plan is now accelerating. All in person classes have been canceled and students have been directed to return home for spring break and to continue course work remotely. I'll be working from home to create content for remote education. My city and state have declared a state of emergency. All public schools in Rhode Island are closed and some are considering online learning through the spring. Wikiversity can fill a critical role in providing educational resources for educators and students of all ages throughout affected areas and we should consider coordinating activity to meet these needs. --mikeu talk 01:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed. We need to develop best practices and pre-made space ready for other institutions to use this platform. Unfortunately, that is a lot easier said than done. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if any scripts would be helpful --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 07:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With no classes meeting this week we've been told to use this time to develop our remote learning plan for the rest of the semester. The following week is spring break. We need to be ready to start by March 30.
I'm going to reach out to science teachers that are local to figure out what they need. I'm also going to try to pool the resources of astronomy and other science experts to cooperate on developing resources that can be freely shared here. I expect a great deal of disruption through the end of the month. I suspect that few educators even know we exist. We should spread the word cross-wiki and through our circles of colleagues. We might want to identify the best resources that are already ready to go and promote them. I also plan on reaching out to the wiki education team. --mikeu talk 20:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mu301: Scripts and tools are definitely helpful. What I had in mind was more of a community and some best practices but all of them are useful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend adding a banner section near the top of the Wikiversity:Main Page welcoming teachers who want to use Wikiversity for their classes. Does anyone have suggestions for how this should be worded? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the banner, we might want to distinguish between
  1. (Portal) a Portal for e-Learning in COVID-19 Time
  2. (Wiki2Reveal) examples to teach with Wikiversity like Wiki2Reveal Course i.e. standard MediaWiki pages in Wikiversity with short sections that can be converted into slides https://github.com/niebert/Wiki2Reveal which are learning resources that can be used directly in Wikiveristy and
  3. (Videos as Learning Resources - Screencasting) Support teachers in creating learning videos e.g. with OpenSource tools like OBS Studio that runs on Linux, Windows and Mac,
  4. (AudioSlides4Web and 2D Animation) support of teachers and lecturers that want to shared slides with audio comments just with the students of their classes (and not on Wikiversity). Nevertheless we can support them e.g. by generating AudioSlides4Web in 5min - i.e. combine a list of slides in PNG, JPG format or GIF-Animations with audio comments with AudioSlides4Web for a school server (see als) combined with Learning Management System (e.g. OpenSource Moodle) without sharing the content in Wikiversity itself. Lean webbased presentations that can be shared online, exchanged as a ZIP-file and viewed offline, modified and adapted by updating a single slide or adding slide or rearraging slides using https://niebert.github.io/audioslides4web again (see Tutorial and Online example of AudioSLides4Web output). Most schools do not have video streaming infrastructure and maintenance of videos for learning resources can be quite time consuming.
Karlsburg Durlach - Germany - as source of a 3D model
Regard3D Output of a Buildung - Created with a standard Camera (not Smartphone)
  1. (Guidance for Teachers and Lecturers) Support teachers in finding their way through the variety of options is also a learning objective that is highly required in COVID-19 times.
  2. (Video Conferencing with 100 Students) Support to setup own OpenSource video conferencing facilities (like Big Blue Button with slide sharing and partipants up to 100 simultaneously) can support educational infrastructure without need to allow Commercial Data Harvesting in an educational infrastructure.
  3. (COVID-19/IT-Infrastructure) Add the support links also COVID-19/IT-Infrastructure
  4. (3D Modelling) Using digital 3D Models in learning environment AR.js Aframe, ...
  5. (Dual Use of Learning Resource) Some learning resources have also a dual value
  • (Regard3D) Support learner in creating a [[Regard3D|3D models of building with a standard camera (Photogrammetry with Regard3D)]],
  • Use these 3D models in a learning environment itself
  • Putting 3D learning objects on a marker and explore the objects by turning the markes
  • Explore other places with 360 degree images in learning resources by application of Hugin and standard cameras or by application of 360 degree cameras.
take care and stay at home in COVID-19 times e-Learning --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page "Lectures"[edit source]

Hello, the decision was made two years ago to move, what were called "Main page lectures" into draft space [2], to safeguard quality from unqualified lectures. However, this has failed in some areas. Humanities such as philosophy no longer have a page. Also fringe sciences remains red. Philosophy for instance has at least half a dozen subpages. The drive with this issue seems to have been avoiding non-standardised and speculative guidance. Sadly, in the case of philosophy, Wikiversity represents an opportunity to attempt redefinition and challenge the modern trivialisation of philosophy in a way which is not possible following mainstream sources on Wikipedia. The page should be an advert for that. I am not sure such intentions translate into other disciplines, but having a red link does no service to the topic. Ideally, much as this part may be disagreed upon, philosophy should be a subject of contention or radicalisation on this site. Or maybe not? ~ R.T.G 14:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, referring to the discussion which supported this change, the issue was not that these "main" pages represented a lecturing tone, which of course should be preferential, but was a challenge to their quality. Of course, challenging the quality of such pages is also preferential... however, given the note for the deletion/moving of philosophy to draft space, quality does not seem to have been challenged individually at all, and arbitrarily chosen subjects seem to have had their pages removed as a matter of course, without any scrutiny at all. This cannot be preferential. The discussion was held as a deletion discussion, but it is a significant change to how the site operates. It shold have been discussed here, and should have been canvassed to your more significant contributors. ~ R.T.G 15:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RTG: Welcome back! The articles targeted for main page lectures were not at all arbitrary. They had been self-identified by the author as lectures, and have/had a consistent approach that prevented collaboration and opportunities for improvement by others. Moving them to draft space has opened up those opportunities. You are absolutely correct in noting that, in many cases, no one has stepped up yet to fill the void, but the opportunity is there. Since you have expressed an interest in Philosophy, specifically, perhaps you would like to start there and create the front page that you envision for this subject. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dave Braunschweig. And amusedly, I might even try that, ~ R.T.G 23:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting flashcard stule quiz for all Wikipedia pages.[edit source]

Wikipedia can be more interactive if each chapter can have a Quiz section. This proposal was discussed in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Wikimuseum,_Wikiquiz_and_Wiki-interative. And also discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Want_Quiz_for_every_article.

Here is a sample (proposed) layout but it may be altered on consensus.

Wiki Quiz Sample (proposed)

RIT RAJARSHI (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank all RIT RAJARSHI (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Braunschweig: Informed fabricator at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T249264 . RIT RAJARSHI (discuss • contribs) 04:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to make Wikiversity equivalent to indeed an excellent University?[edit source]

Pardon if it is off-topic here. I am new to Wikiversity. Feel free to move if more appropriate place exists.

It is unfortunate that many of the Wikiversity articles are just like Wikipedia stub class articles, and not even close to comparable with a real life University level lecture.

But to make University level education accessible for all, we need to improve the following aspects.

1. We need to increase participation and engagement to increase number of readers and volunteers.

2. We need to colaborate with real life college teachers and university professors about what is our goal, why it is necessary for us to make knowledge universally accessible; and first of all, Wikiversity is a thing that exists and can be used. We may collaborate with various Universities to use Wikiversity as a platform to distribute open-access study materials.

3. We may reach out to students to inform them Wikiversity is a thing, and they too can read from it and can participate it.

4. We may require to advertise our website to other websites so that more people can know that Wikiversity is a thing.

Regards.

RIT RAJARSHI (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An idea for a project... (Time travelling talk page)[edit source]

I had an idea for an interesting new project, but wanted to ask if it fitted with the things that could be done at Wikiversity.

The project would be to create a "time-travelling" talk page or WP:REFDESk like 'thread', whereby a nominal 2020 readership or contributor, could pose questions and get a carefully written "period appropriate" response as thought it were being written by someone from a certain period. (The responses of course would be written by those on Wikiversity or other Wikimedia projects that were familiar with a given period or historical events, situations.)

The aim here would be to essentially do a form of 'distance historical interpretation" for a high-school audience.

I already had some periods in mind for where possible answers could come from, but I am open to suggestions based on the interests of potential contributors (and availability of appropriate sources.)

History isn't my subject, so I would like the support of History minded contributors that would be interested in something like this.

ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lint cleanup - Technical writing/Style[edit source]

This was a mess , so I removed ALL the DIV based formatting. However someone needs to look over it and figure out what was supposed to be in highlight boxes. I'd like someone else to do this so it'sw consistent with the normal formatting standards applied on Wikiversity. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "normal formatting standards" other than standard wikitext. Anything beyond that would be dependent upon the implementer for a specific resource. Any formatting that is difficult to maintain is often removed when the original implementer stops maintaining it. Removing the unnecessarily complex formatting from Technical writing/Style was the correct approach. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Maintenance[edit source]

A maintenance operation is being performed on all Wikimedia wikis on Thursday 30th April at 05:00 AM UTC. The database will be in read-only mode, expected to last one minute. See phabricator:T250733 for more information. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/April_2020&oldid=2389606"