Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/July 2007

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main page project

I wonder if we can get a rough idea of the number of Wikiversiters interested in upgrading our main page layout and design here? --HappyCamper 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. --JWSchmidt 13:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support McCormack 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (on condition that I can be called a Wikiversitarian ;-))[reply]
  3. -- Question: What does "upgrade" mean? The Jade Knight 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See Main page design changes and Draft version for some ideas. --JWSchmidt 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Definitely. It's not bad now, but it could certainly use some work. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep, it needs work - I initiated Wikiversity:Introduction Overhaul Taskforce to possibly act as a coordinating space for improving the main page and other pages... Cormaggio talk 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've chatted and (I think) left wiki comments and such. We should also think about the navigation stuff (links on the left side) too, in this context. Historybuff 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMoko learning projects

We've been talking about doing various openmoko learning projects over the past few months -- time to dust off those ideas and revisit them. The openmoko team have finally made solid contact with me and they are very enthused to work with Wikiversity/Wikimedia in developing the Open Source Openmoko software. We're going to try and see if we can have something ready for Wikimania, but if not, we'll have plenty of things to do around here with them. I'll post links to the current ideas later today. Historybuff 14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMoko would be a primary resource; Open_projects is another top priority. As a Fundraising avenue, we've thought about a few projects, including the OpenMoko/Internet Kiosk. There was mapping (land maps), street maps, and some other apps that we've thrown around in various discussions. Feel free to poke in at any of these, or suggest new bits. Historybuff 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiation from Wikibooks

Is there any page here where the difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks is clearly laid out, i.e. what sort of material belongs there but not here, and vice versa? Angr 17:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, if it belongs in a book, it doesn't belong here, unless there's some reason they don't like it at Wikibooks. If it's something that you couldn't print out and include in a physical book, it belongs here. The Jade Knight 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikibooks. When Jimbo decided that Wikivesity should not stay as part of Wikibooks, he said that Wikibooks has a clear mission (textbooks) and that all the "other stuff" that was growing within the Wikiversity pages at the Wikibooks website did not belong there. Last year he described Wikiversity this way, "..... the idea here is to also host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things. We're also going to be hosting and fostering research into how these kinds of things can be used more effectively" (source).--JWSchmidt 22:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


-- 17:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Dear Sir,[reply]

I wish to know if an online degree on tourism  is attainable .

Thanking you Regards nads

Wikiversity does not yet confer degrees in anything. You are, however, welcome to check out the School of Tourism. The Jade Knight 22:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There might be an online degree on tourism, just not here. --Rayc 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Photoproject

Everyone is welcome to post and discuss photographs at the Photoproject Elatanatari 03:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which picture is this

-- 05:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What picture? You can find out info about the pic at the top of the page by clicking on it. The Jade Knight 06:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto contest: wrap up?

The motto contest page has been mostly inactive for a month. The last motto discussion string in the colloquium has been inactive, Motto and slogan contests: discussion of outcomes.

It does not seem to be the time to start another round of the contest. The last round was to be a final polishing round. I want to check with folks about how to go forward.

At this time, I think two steps are a good way to proceed:

  • 1) Accept the selections with majority of support from the last round ("set learning free" for slogan & "open learning community" for motto) as the finalists of the current contest.
  • 2) Summarize the issues and criticisms that have been raised in the last few rounds. And, propose that, based on the evolving nature and understanding of what is Wikiversity, that sometime down the road (sooner or later) a motto and slogan discussion process (which includes people listing support for options) be held for revising or replacing the motto & slogan.

What do you all think of this? --Reswik 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug - that sounds fine to me. It could even be that the discussion you envisage continues immediately from now, but that the proposals above are the decisions for now. Cormaggio talk 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: "decisions for now" is good way to put it. More discussion soon would be good. I was supposing that we might not see very much talk, given the absence of talk recently. I hope a good discussion and possible further developments unfold some time. --Reswik 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem creating an account

I am totally unable to create account. I keep entering information and I am rejected. I am about to give up my level of fustration has been reached

What web browser are you using? Make sure you set the browser to accept cookies from Wikiversity. I can see that your account is created. If your browser is not accepting cookies, then you can create an account but not login to that account. You may have seen this message after you created your account:

--JWSchmidt 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Wikiversity, or some other wiki project, ought to provide a way for interested people to conduct original research. For every subject, there should be a portal for research. It doesn't have to be groundbreaking stuff, just a place to find interested people and talk about a hypothesis with them, create a test, and log results. Anyone could do the tests and record their results, which would provide a great amount of data. If each "department" in wikiversity drew up its own form for experiments, then even a casual user could get involved in posing a hypothesis, planning an experiment, or conducting part or all of it. Then the users could post results, peers could review it, try it themselves, and all significant results could be published in a section in that department. The non-conclusive research would be good for learning what doesn't work. Wikis seem like the perfect place for people who have access to research tools to collaborate no matter where they live, and add to the general body of knowledge and get your name out to interested people, and get some experience and have fun, too. Evan Bacon Cal State Bakersfield

Wikiversity is open to original research projects. A good place to start is Portal:Research. --JWSchmidt 08:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just wanted to inform all sysops here that Special:DeletedContributions is now available to you on Wikiversity. It will hopefully be of use. AmiDaniel (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLOSS summer university

Hi all, I've been made aware of a FLOSS summer university (FLOSS is "Open Source"), which people here might be interested in. There's also a wiki, though I'm not sure where or how to get involved. Could be good... Cormaggio talk 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rename me?

Where do you request renaming? If this is where, can I get renamed from Skunkmaster to Skunkmaster V?

It would probably be quicker to create a new account, and especially encouraged since your account does not have too many edits associated with it. However, if you would like to wait instead, I'm sure User:Cormaggio or User:Sebmol would be more than happy to help you! --HappyCamper 04:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cormaggio talk 11:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Effort

wikiversity is no doubt trying to do a great thing by encouraging ppl to learn through such innovative means but i was just checking the portal and most classes are inactive. are ppl not just taking enough interest? Monali6a 08:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)monaMonali6a 08:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated with this observation, I would suggest that the WV convention of including participant's lists in the main namespace is an error. Participants are transient. Transient information turns into obsolete information. Obsolete information makes a page look "inactive" and of low value. It might be better practice to keep all transient information, and especially participants' lists, on talk pages rather than the main namespace, unless there is a high chance (as with blogs, or this colloquium) that proper archiving will be conducted. The practice of participants lists might have been drawn from VLE's, but WV is not a conventional VLE - it's something else, even if we haven't quite yet worked out quite what. McCormack 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over at the School of History I've suggested transforming the participants list for this reason (among others, perhaps). The Jade Knight 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of participants can become outdated, it is true - but I think it's still useful to have some indication for people who are just coming to the page for the first time as to who else might be interested in pursuing a learning project on this subject. Monali6a's question is quite complex, however - I think it's evident that we are still figuring out how to set up an "architecture for participation" in Wikiversity in order to see a portal/school/community flourish. On the back of another discussion, I wonder if this idea should be the underlying focus of this "great effort"? What practical steps can we take to truly create an architecture for participation? Cormaggio talk 10:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question. The Jade Knight 12:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"architecture for participation" <-- We could start with a new Main Page that invites participation and has links to other pages that explain how to edit and participate at Wikiversity. The current Main Page was made by Wikipedians for Wikipedians and does not serve the needs of Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose a revision of the main page. At all. The Jade Knight 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made Main page project today. It's a start at least. --HappyCamper 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Participants could periodically manually Update the Dates & Times of their presences on the various Participant's Lists so as to cause them to reflect Activity rather than let their Signing Up remain only a record of their First Contacts.
The Manual Aspect of such Updates would keep them a function of whether the Participant had determined that something had happened.
(s) Dionysios (talk), a Participant in the Wikiversity School of Advanced General Studies, Date: 2007-07-13 (July 13, 2007) Time: 1451 UTC
Can you explain what you mean? ---HappyCamper 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When one Edits a Page upon which there is a Participant's List upon which one appears, one could Update the time.
Example: This Participant just visited The Wikiversity School of Law. In the Active Participants Section, the following Text appeared:
" *Dionysios (talk) 2007-07-10 (July 10, 2007) Time: 1534 UTC "
This This Participant didn't really do anything at The Wikiversity School of Law this time; but, just as a demonstration, he Edited the Test to:
" *Dionysios (talk) 2007-07-10 (July 13, 2007) Time: 1753 UTC "
just to show that he was still Active. {A minor edit: Summary: "(Update User Dionysios.)"} This makes This Participant's entries on Participant's Lists reflect (at least minimal) Activity rather his letting his Signing On as a Participant remain only a record of his First Contact with a Wikiendeavor.
It is a small idea; but, it is conversation responsive to the above "Participant's Lists" Discussion. Your Main Page Project page is large; and This Participant is much more interested in that than in making Participant's Lists more useful (although he remains interested in making Participant's Lists more useful). You may expect This Participant's participation in the Main Page Project .
Best regards, (s) Dionysios (talk) 2007-07-10 (July 13, 2007) Time: 1818 UTC
An interesting thought, but it would be somewhat of a hassle. If there were a way for this to be automated, it would be wonderful. I'm not sure how that would work, however. The Jade Knight 06:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checking someone's contributions is a fairly straightforward way of checking if someone's active - this can be done by going to their user page and clicking the "User Contributions' link in the left-hand side toolbar. However, it isn't ideal when trying to find someone active from a longish list. On something "automated", I wonder if something could be coded for this (such as an extension that sees when someone has been inactive for, say, two months and flags them on the appropriate pages as inactive). I imagine it's possible... Cormaggio talk 10:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it could be automated like that, it's not a bad idea. Of course, someone could be "active", and not active on the topic in question. The Jade Knight 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on creating this new course, but I don't know where to list it or advertise it. Should I list it in the engineering and technology portal? Anything else I should know about starting and maintaining a new course? --Whiteknight 14:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people who may go directly to Portal:Computer Science might want to see a link to your robotics content. I suspect that many Wikiversity participants go to school and topic pages to participate in content development rather than going to portal pages to look for existing content. I'd suggest trying to establish a way to link to your robotics content from School:Computer science. It seems like there should be a page such as Topic:Robotics that would be the central content development project for everyone who is interested in developing learning resources for robotics. Also, please take a look at existing pages such as Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Laboratory and Automatic Control and Robotics. I'm not sure what the "Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Laboratory" page is trying to looks like an attempt to involve Wikiversity participants in some sort of robotics-related research. --JWSchmidt 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Wikiversity

There's an article about Wikiversity online - it's pretty honest about what Wikiversity actually delivers in practice to a prospective student - worth reading. Cormaggio talk 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation: The established MIT OpenCourseWare online archive of classes offers deep content and real courses on nearly anything under the sun, so perhaps sharing content with projects such as this could help broaden the offerings for Wikiversity. [1]
This was the (only?) recommendation for improving WV in the article, the criticism being that WV has very big holes. For those not familiar with the issues, MIT OCW is published under CC-BY-NC-SA, which is not compatible with GFDL. That is the one and only thing in the way of a mass import (because permission is already given). iTunes University podcasts were also discussed - anyone know what the licencing is there? McCormack 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can make out, iTunesU is simply an Apple hosting service for universities - the licensing is determined by the university/lecturers etc. Apple give guidelines (pdf) about copyright and licensing, but that's about it.. Cormaggio talk 12:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania workshop

Hi all, I'll be at the upcoming Wikimania conference in Taipei, where I'll be presenting around a paper and facilitating a workshop. I'd particularly appreciate feedback about the workshop - ideas for how to make it more engaging, useful, interesting, participative, etc. would be great. I'm hoping that it will be open to remote (ie online) participation - there will hopefully be live audio/video streaming, and I'll try to monitor IRC during the session so that comments there can form part of the discussion in the room. Comments about how to improve this aspect would also be very welcome. Cormaggio talk 12:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colour problem

Another problem for me. I am having a few Spanish words and now I want to have them recorded. The problem is, that I am losing then the user color. Study it here: Spanish: An Introduction/Pronunciation. Is there a way, how to have them in different color, or would it be a problem for end users?--Juan 13:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template audiobox needed

Hi, could anyone help. There is a need in Spanish cource of a template for audio articles. It would be nice to place on pages audio in a box, which would offer:

  • name of a file
  • info - how to play it
  • language flag - a picture of a flag to recognise language used.

For the future other info would be edited. Maybe the syntax to call this template can be: {{template name|file name.ogg}}. Could you help. I would be glad. Many thanks.--Juan 13:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Template:Audio:
About this sound Click here to play pinao music . Help with ogg file format audio play.
and Template:Listen
Which of these two do you like as a starting point for your version with a flag? --JWSchmidt 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Many thanks. Template:Listen might be usefull.--Juan 13:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the vote for a wikipedia's motto isn't enabled for the wikiversities in other languages?

I think we all should vote and decide it.--El Racionalista Prenihilista 14:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its beiing disscused on Wikiversity beta, which seems me enough.--Juan 11:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imported template

I just imported {{FancyLink}} from Wikibooks, after discussing (i.e. griping about) some issues I've been having with templates lately with Whiteknight. It's a pretty powerful tool for anyone wanting to create "homogenous" pages within a learning project. --SB_Johnny | PA! 23:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template uses a number of special "features" to allow it to do some fancy things. For instance, it can:
  1. Make a special "create" link instead of just an ordinary red link if the page does not already exist.
  2. Preload a new page with a text template (useful for when multiple pages need to be formatted the same)
  3. Display a custom message at the top of the screen, to provide additional instructions to editors specific to that page
  4. Create an "edit" link instead of a regular blue link
If anybody has any questions about this, let me know. --Whiteknight 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already requested a link to some documentation for this template on its talk page. I think it is better to document templates than to expect people hunt someone down for help. --JWSchmidt 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. I've already added a little documentation to it, i'll add more as i get around to it. --Whiteknight 23:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Documentation" <-- see also m:help:parser function#URLs etc.Hillgentleman|Talk 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using categories, subpages, and DynamicPageList to keep track of policy and other discussions

As I've been experimenting with the use of DPL on the bloom clock, other uses for it throughout the wikiversity project have been coming to mind, and in particular the organization of our policy discussions and other issues that affect or represent the whole project (such as user-interface issues, slogans, and so on).

What I'd like to propose as a start is categorizing all policy discussion pages with Category:Policy discussions (we can add subcategories later). We could then have something like a "communal watchlist" using a DPL-generated page using the folloring code:

category=Category:Policy Discussions

This list would then show anyone who loads the page what policy discussion was the most recently edited.

As a second step, I'd like to reorganize the colloquium archives into thread-specific subpages. Thus this thread would be archived to Wikiversity:Colloquium/Using categories, subpages, and DynamicPageList to keep track of policy and other discussions, and categorized as a policy discussion, a technical discussion, archived Colloquium threads, and perhaps even as a discussion about DynamicPageList. This way, if (say) someone was looking for discussions about DPL, they could go either to the category, or to a DPL-generated list which would show which DPL-related topics were discussed most recently. The archives themselves could then be made into transclusion pages (for an example of this, compare Bloom Clock/White flowers seen in July in Southeastern Pennsylvania (a DPL-assisted transclusion page) with Bloom Clock/White flowers seen in July in Southeastern Pennsylvania/DPL (the actual DPL page... hit the edit button on each of those pages to see what's actually going on there, because what appears on the content page bears little resemblance to what you'll see in the edit window!)

I know this probably sounds rather confusing and technical, but I figured I't start the discussion with a brain spill and see where it can go :). --SB_Johnny | PA! 17:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth trying. What we really need is a threaded discussion system (that is easy to search) built into Wikiversity, but this (above) would be useful until we have a real threaded discussion system. --JWSchmidt 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly worth trying, it would be useful to have such a "communal watchlist". How do you propose the archiving would be done? --Draicone (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{:Wikiversity:Colloquium/This thread is archived}}

I got a start on this this morning, but it's hard to decide exactly what colloquium threads are policy discussions, and what category to use for other discussions. Thus far the categories I've made are:

My suggestion is to use lots of categories, since we're going to be using DPL to organize this. So, for example, we could have a DPL page for Policy discussions in general (using "lastedit" as a way to track activity in policy discussions), but also one for vandalism discussions in particular (more of a research tool to see if a particular issue related to vandalism was brought up before). Keep in mind that even though one is actually a subcategory of the other a page on vandalism policy should be in both categories... when DPL is involved, redundance in categorization is actually not redundant, because each cat is serving a different purpose.

I only archived a few threads, and when I did I replaced the actual thread on the archive with a page inclusion (the categories themselves are not included).

Looking over the old threads, some categories that come to mind are "Community discussions/Defining Wikiversity", "Community discussions/Wikiversity structure", "Policy discussions/Research", and some sort of category for Wikiversity's place in the world (media reports, interwiki relations, etc.).

One final note: the earliest archive was fully protected. Should the subpages also be fully protected? Should the archive discussions be kept locked up for prosperity, or allowed to be picked up again and expanded? It's not as if we can't keep track of them with DPL (though I should point out that the lastedit function won't give accurate results at first, since the page creations are themselves edits). --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing unless someone objects (I'm a Wikibookian at heart, and therefore perfectly comfy making up my own rules as I go along), but I really would appreciate some input about whether the community likes what I'm doing or not. OTOH, I suppose most of my mistakes will be bot-fixable :). --SB_Johnny | PA! 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think for most people it is still rather theoretical when you say that you plan to make "DPL pages". --JWSchmidt 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What it would do is generate a list of pages within a particular category (for example, Policy discussions, and automatically move the most recently changed page to the top. This way someone can track all policy discussions without necessarily having them all on their watchlist. --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Wiki Campus Radio sessions

After a bit of off-wiki work, I'm trying to rekindle the WCR stuff. We have a bunch of topics that should be on tap, anyone feel like doing a show or two about them?

I'm happy to talk someone's ear off, but more contributors would be better. See Wiki Campus Radio for the general idea, and Talk:Wiki Campus Radio for shows which have been proposed. Historybuff 23:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could discuss how to propose the Sandbox Server to the Foundation. --JWSchmidt 15:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for it. --Rayc 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Should we discuss a time/date? Maybe we can decide on a block of time each week for shows? Historybuff 16:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best time/day for you? --JWSchmidt 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, my schedule is pretty variable. I might be able to commit to a 10pm EDT session throughout the week. I could do earlier times, but my participation might not be constant during an earlier session. Does that work for everyone -- too late, too early, too blue? Historybuff 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful to start meeting at that time in IRC #wikiversity-en and see what develops. --JWSchmidt 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still up for WCR work, but since relocating to the New Orleans area, I'm not set up with audio yet. If all goes according to plan, we should have a complete music and audio production facility in due time. Please see the Across the Wikiverse page for some ideas for now. CQ 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone names a day, I'll try and get everything organized on the server side and see if we can't fire it up. I'm thinking of doing some kind of a tech-review show on a periodic basis, if anyone is interested in that. (This is in addition to our topical shows, which we are far behind on). Historybuff 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10pm EDT Friday? --JWSchmidt 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about specific. Ok, 10pm EDT Friday is too early for me (the one day that it might be). Thursday, Sunday or Monday? Historybuff 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned 10pm because that was suggested by you, above. If later is better for you, then pick a later time. Monday, Thursday, Friday, Sunday are fine for me, 10 pm or later. --JWSchmidt 01:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good news and bad news -- first, the bad.

Our original host server has crashed, and it seems we might not be able to get the data, so all of the old users would have to re-sign up.

Good news - we'll have a replacement soon that will hopefully have a bit more policy flexibility, which might allow some more dynamic shows/content creation.

Lastly - Thursday might work for me this week. Would earlier work, or is 10pm EDT a good time for everybody? (And what should our topic be?) Historybuff 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10pm EDT is fine for me. "everybody" <-- The half dozen or so other past participants may not even be aware of the concept of doing another session this week. "topic" <-- I'd be up for brainstorming on how to submit the sandbox server proposal to the Foundation.

Ok - Thursday was a wash, but our topic is now set -- brainstorming the Sandbox server submission. I'm wondering if we might not even submit it to third parties, if we can garner board support. Now, when should we have the session? Historybuff 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have User:Cormaggio send an email to the special projects committee mailing list and see if we can get one or two people with SPC experience to join us for a discussion session. We could explain the proposal and they could give advice on how to move ahead. --JWSchmidt 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I'm only just back after my brain got fried somewhere between Taiwan, my resulting inbox, and RealLifeStuffTM. I'd be happy to participate in this discussion, though 22:00 EDT is probably too late for me. The SPC is effectively dead, but I like the idea of at least pooling thoughts and past experience. If we have a definite time/date then I will mail the list. Cormaggio talk 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had a test of the live voice chat system last night with participants from Germany, Canada and USA. The main topic was Wikimania and efforts to allow remote participation in Wikimania and Wikimania-like events. If you would like to experiment with voice chat, please join the fun. More live chat sessions coming soon via Wiki Campus Radio. --JWSchmidt 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What time would work for you Cormaggio? Even if we don't regularly schedule for that time, we can do an exception for at least one session. Historybuff, 15:11, 7 September 2007

Successful test

JWS and I did an impromptu test session, and we had a third participant from Germany drop in for a short while. It was good stuff, and was just to get things restarted again. We're planning on having another session, but recorded this time, on the status and strategy for the Sandbox Server. Does anyone have suggestions for time/date? Historybuff, 15:11, 7 September 2007

I would like to join in again - have vacation also next week. Timezone is GMT+1, Germany. I think I could be in any time. Who needs sleep :-) ----Erkan Yilmaz (evaluate me!, discussion) 15:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can try to plan times and dates, but often what happens is that sessions start when a group of people happen to be available in the #wikiversity-en chat channel. Usually people are given the VoIP connection information via IRC chat, so if you want to participate in live voice chat, a good first step is joining in with the "old fashioned" IRC text-based chat. --JWSchmidt 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I'll be working on -- for now, people have to join the IRC channel (you can do this through the CGI-IRC link above from the chat link above), but we will be making this easier. I'm not sure if we'll require a Wikiversity account to join, but it'll be some kind of web based signup that I'm aiming for.
Maybe we can propose a date, and we can give a rough starting time, and we'll "start" when we have a good mix of participants? Historybuff 05:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]