Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/July 2011

Wikimania Scholarships

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference. To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply. For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

Yours very truly, Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

One-sided enforcement, prevent selective blocking

Mikeu Mu301 and the entire active Wikiversity administrative community, with maybe one exception, stood by by while Ottava Rima engaged in a massive attack on Wikiversity, lying about policy here and on meta, repeating old discredited allegations, over and over, wikilawyering, quite effectively, by setting up an appearance of recusal failure by filing a topic ban here after being warned for disruption, and I know that some were, indeed aware, and, to boot, bringing in obviously canvassed inactive or new users. At that point I'd been begging, for days, for neutral custodian action. Instead, custodians watched. Were they enjoying the show?

Hence I now join with JWS, Ottava, and probably Moulton, two boot, in concluding (as Ottava has claimed on meta and with a series of Community Reviews here) that the whole structure is corrupt. I therefore propose that:

Existing custodians are prohibited from blocking established users, other than short blocks for blatant vandalism, and from closing discussions if they are involved in conflict with a user, until Wikiversity has developed clear policy, and the guts to enforce it, so that individual custodians cannot abuse users they dislike and selectively enforce policies against some users while they tolerate the same behavior or worse from others.

Support

Support as proposer. --Abd 21:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other comment

Conceiving governance structures as hierarchical rather than separate and balanced guarantees decisions that will create corruption. The assumptions behind this entire discussion are flawed. WAS 4.250 10:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started this for complex reasons, so I'm not sure that my "assumptions" are visible. It's really an expression of a point of view, and I have at least two eyes. Care to explain more, WAS? What do you get when you see things from more than one point of view? --Abd 21:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the complex which compelled you to start this vexatious process? —Albatross 10:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Moulton/Schmidt/Ottovan complex. I credit you all for pioneering the process. I'm only standing on the shoulders of giants. --Abd 13:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't beat 'em, purloin 'em. —Montana Mouse 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As to nobody answering my question about seeing from two points of view (which enormously complicates polemic, eh?), color me "bemused." --Abd 13:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to crank up your polyonic reverb unit. —Barsoom Tork 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The antidote to a slew of corrupt managerial practices is to require all supervising personnel to take and pass a rigorous course in managerial ethics. —Moulton 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, bosh. Such a course would help, but do you imagine that any amount of "course work" would prevent corruption? Do you think that the corrupt are, what, less educated? Less educated than whom? There are classic solutions that we have ignored. It's time we start to bring in what's known about consensus and deliberative process. We neglect the relevant sciences to our great loss. --Abd 21:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical reasoning relies on the faculty of model-based reasoning. —Moulton 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Process note. Isn't it rather silly to oppose and discuss a proposition when it has no second? What interesting here is that there are users who have been promoting what I proposed here, but ... so far, no second. If that condition remains, I'm quite interested as to what it would mean. As I wrote about the events of 2000, perhaps it depends on whose Gore is being axed. --Abd 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello the above appears to be superfluous content or perhaps this is relevant? Marsupiens 22:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this funded by?

Who are you funded by?

Thanks in advance.

Comment added 14:58, 3 July 2011 by 76.126.56.40 --note by Abd 02:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure this is clear, the WMF provides servers, server administration, and internet access for Wikiversity. Wikiversity itself is maintained as to content by a community of unpaid volunteers which anyone may join. --Abd 02:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size of an atom?

--87.93.48.90 18:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC) What is the size of a atom and proton?[reply]

For the question regarding the size of an atom it depends on your definition according to w:Atomic radius. The proton, according to w:Proton, "is about 1.6–1.7 fm in diameter". I hope this helps. Devourer09 (t·c) 02:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--110.36.97.252 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"English language" articles

I see two articles with similar names: English language and Topic:English Language . Maybe move some items from English language to Topic:English Language and write the redirect on the English language article? --Averaver 03:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages with the same name are generally fine. English language consisted of only links already mentioned at the topic page though, so I went ahead and redirected. -- dark lama 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity in Higher Education

Wikimedia organized the first ever "Wikipedia in Higher Education" summit this past weekend, hosted at Simmons College in Boston. It was a remarkable event, attended by dozens of professors and over 50 student ambassadors and participants from the past year's Public Policy Initiative. The overall theme was exploring how Higher Education could integrate Wikipedia into its classes and curriculum, making publishing material and revisions to Wikipedia articles part of undergrad and graduate classes.

I mentioned Wikiversity on a few occasions, especially whenever students or professors commented on a class that might realy love do run a Wikipedia project, except for the fact that they were doing original research; or studying cutting edge things that had not yet been well published in the formal literature. There was great enthusiasm for the concept of WV, and at least one prof and a regional ambassador who left the summit looking for classes that might be a good fit. I also suggested that all of the profs engaged in a "WP in Education" program could publish their course notes, syllabi, &c on Wikiversity.

Thoughts? Are there existing wikiprojects here that such groups could work with? If not we might start one and welcome them to join. [I would also welcome those profs who already use WV for their classes and students every semester to join up...] –SJ +> 18:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add classes that you know have used or posted to Wikiversity here: Wikiversity:University projects –SJ +>

That's great, Sj, much appreciated. I don't know about "wikiprojects," as such, but many of us do everything we can to help teachers and students and just plain interested people to work on educational resources here. Real education can involve a lot of discussion, and, of course, students do original research as homework, lab work, and for theses. A Wikiversity project on a topic can prepare and explore the vast background to what would be in a Wikipedia article, and could even draft suggested alternate articles, in a space where consensus process can actually function. The problem on Wikipedia is that it is all focused on a creating and maintaining a single text, some presumed "consensus position," when, to express the true variety of knowledge and opinion available on a topic in a single encyclopedic text can be very difficult, thus setting up intrinsic conflict. Here, we deal with such conflicts by forking and attribution to participants, instead of seeking some single "consensus" statement, except where there is true consensus, i.e., no more conflict at all. We can use subpages here to create complex resources to supplement a single Wikipedia article, and discussion of the topic, often disallowed on Wikipedia, can be helpful here and is typically encouraged. We still have a neutrality policy, but it has very different implications here.

I've at various times begun to encourage academic participation here, and have been discouraged, sometimes, when this wiki starts to be afflicted by the same kinds of problems seen on Wikipedia and, to some degree, on the other wikis. I have not wanted to encourage my academic contacts to invest time in resources here if they are going to be deleted because somebody doesn't like the points of view they see or imagine are expressed. The community has backed this position by making many decisions at RfD that reflect radical inclusion policy, but I still sometimes feel shaky about it. Academic freedom is a crucial value for academia. --Abd 18:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section for that with many more classes already listed at Wikiversity:School and university projects#Projects. I turned the new page into a redirect to that section. -- dark lama 22:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I've sorted the section and broke it out into its own page: Wikiversity:School and university projects/List of projects There are some remarkable projects happening, that seem to be pretty isolated as they unfold. Based on the weekend's discussions, I think finding ways to spend a few hours with them will make a tremendous difference in their experience, whether they do it again, and whether they engage other profs and students in their school to try something similar. –SJ +> 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Education/For_educators on the Outreach wiki. There seem to be a number of initiatives coming up with which WV could become involved. I do not see the development of a single text built around consensus as a problem with wikipedia, it is just that what is suitable for an encyclopaedia is not suitable for the development of learning resources. The question which springs to my mind is how can we develop WV to become a more useful location for Open educational resources.Leutha 07:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thanks for that link. We could definitely use a variation of those materials for helping profs learn to use WV. –SJ +> 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divide and conquer

This WV is a bit confusing because it seems to mix textbooks with handbook entries and scientific articles and it won't work.

This has to be clearly divided.

If open access is to really succeed for scientific articles (papers) you need a wikireasearch area for the articles also placed in the scientifical journal literature (think NATURE).

Naturally Wikihandbook, WikiTextbook etc. The Wikiversity umbrella is too wide to make a distinct impression.

p.s. Pardon my non-native English

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heismark (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Textbooks, Papers, Projects, Courses, seem to be the categories. Also, content seems to be split into a huge number of 'departments', making what you want hard to find. Splitting materials by type, perhaps by applying templates then using a bot to apply structure, would seem like the logical next step. 86.29.138.44

Well guys, someone should do that at first. They have started with this back to 2008, but the user who was doing that left the project after the conflict. But the question might be, how to push participants of the future to create new textbooks, papers, courses, research, lectures and flag it by template, category or setting to appropriate ns?--Juan de Vojníkov 09:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best course for the future?

which is the best course that will useful for future — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.92.0 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (Note: This was originally posted as a separate page which has been deleted and the content moved here, with IP talk page notified. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think it will be different for each individual, and so I do not think we shall ever find a meaningful generic answer.Leutha 23:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Devourer09 (t·c) 02:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, thats up to you, but for sure we dont have that course:-)--Juan de Vojníkov 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitext problem

[1]. The interwiki links are not displaying, and the page content is complex as hell, in ways that I have managed to avoid learning about so far. What's going on here? Is it intentional that the interwiki links are not displaying? Or is there some error here? I played with it a little bit and didn't see quickly what was happening and I've Other Stuff to do for now. --Abd 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem in Vector and FF 6. What skin you are using?--Juan de Vojníkov 09:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conflicted information

{{Sisterprojects}} say to use another template. {{Sisterprojects/Projects}} same.
Main Page/Sisterprojects 0.5 and {{Sisterprojects}} create interwiki conflit so rename the first to the second to make one sisterprojects template.

Crochet.david 18:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you recomend to do whit that?--Juan de Vojníkov 09:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each new topic here would be subpage

I propose to make each new topic to be a subpage here. It has been years I was looking foor a technical tools which offer us to see recent changes of each topic. But this seems to me technically very difficult, while having each topic on a subpage offers to "watch" just those youve been editing. This would help to some of us to work faster in here. What do you think? Did you get what I wanted to say?--Juan de Vojníkov 09:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps editors to this page could consider themselves whether their new topic bore sufficient weight to warrant a separate subpage, and then take responsibility themselves for starting that subpage.Leutha 13:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the technical issue. Imagine this page having 30 topics. You reply to 5 of them and you are having this page on wachlist. Everytime someone edit this page, you see a change on your watchlist, but you dont know if someone was editing those you are interested in. If you were able to watch just those you are interested in via your watchlist it would shorten your time here. In the case you are not interested in other 25 topics.--Juan de Vojníkov 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's a great idea. How to make it happen? We have lots of chiefs (people with great ideas) and too few Indians (people to make them happen). What this idea takes is a clerk, someone to take responsibility for organizing the Colloquium. If that person works as a "chief," it will cause conflict, the person must see himself or herself as a servant of the community, and must function in that way. There will be objections to the clerk's actions, we can predict, but if the clerk is working properly, those won't become full-blown conflicts. The clerk should not consider his or her opinions superior to those of *any other user.* However, where disagreements arise, the clerk will submit them to the community. This is like a chairperson in standard deliberative process, the chair makes decisions on behalf of the group, but refers any disagreement, immediately, to the group, and only acts contrary to the view of any member if confirmed by the group.

I see the clerk as working by taking topics started here and classifying them into specific topics, creating subpages, and linking those subpages from here. A clerk could go back and refactor the archives into these subtopic pages, leaving behind links. It's a big job, to be sure, but it could be done a little at a time, and there could be more than one clerk.

Wouldn't you like to have a MediaWiki user function, "Watch this page and all subpages, including newly created ones?" -- which could then be overridden by removing a subpage from the watchlist? Does that exist? --Abd 14:23, 17 Ju

Last time in 2008 there wasnt such function. But there is no need of a clerk Abd.--Juan de Vojníkov 14:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could work if most people are able and willing to use subpages, understand how to use subpages, and understand how to add new topics and maintain the system. Another option is to split the Colloquium up into smaller discussion areas based on broad topics rather than narrow topics. Wikinews and Wikibooks do this. For example there could be Colloquium/Proposals, Colloquium/Resources, and Colloquium/Questions. -- dark lama 16:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add a new topic cant create a subpage?--Juan de Vojníkov 16:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, "add new topic" can't create a subpage nor ensure the subpage is included from the parent page at the same time. I or somebody else had proposed enabling liquid threads some time ago, which would be easier to maintain than one subpage per topic. -- dark lama 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was you and I would opose liqud threads. They are enabled in mediawiki.org and I see they are not good.--Juan de Vojníkov 07:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is being requested is structured discussion, in the absence of widespread knowledge or established agreement on how to do it. That's why a clerk would be needed, someone specifically empowered to create coherent structure that works. It is not going to happen by itself. If the MediaWiki developers create a tool, maybe, but that's just someone else figuring out what would be needed and providing software. We can to it without software, and if we do it well, then maybe the developers will be inspired to make it easier.

Juan, at least at the beginning, new topics would be created by placing a subpage link here, then starting up the discussion on the subpage. If it's done right, users who see this in their watchlist can go to the subpage immediately from the watchlist. A clerk would simply do this for users, according to a coherent scheme. Others could certainly help, but if it's random ad-hoc, each user doing what they think best at each incident, it is very unlikely to be coherent and easy to follow. Wikis work in certain ways and don't work in others....

Can you point to information on liquid threads, Darklama? --Abd 17:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LiquidThreads. LiquidThreads FAQ which also includes it in action at the bottom of the page. -- dark lama 18:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that, I recommend that we request liquid threads be enabled on an opt-in basis here, for experimental use. Thanks, Darklama. I'm not sure we should do it with the Colloquium first, until I have some actual experience with it.... --Abd 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I may have suggested doing that before, after it was clear there was some opposition to it, but I think by than interest in discussing it had died. I am certainly open to opt-in and experimentation. It would at least give Wikiversity participants more options. -- dark lama 14:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a prior discussion? Implementing it as the default, yes, I'd be opposed myself, but as an opt-in experiment for specific talk pages as we decide? I can see no reason why not. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abd (talk • contribs) 18 July 2011.)

Prior proposal. -- dark lama 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having had experience of Liquid Threads on Wikieducator and is one of the reasons why I moved the focus of my educational activity from there to here. Having looked at the Wiknews link, I feel that would be a good step forward. But please note, this page starts with "Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity?" It does not present itself as a location for more extensive discussions (like this one!). So perhaps the issue is how can we organise these discussions more effectively? There has of course been some discussion of this at Wikiversity:Policies/How Wikiversity makes policy even though not much has gone on for nearly three years.Leutha 10:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Well, why not to try it.--Juan de Vojníkov 20:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a policy discussion page at Wikiversity:Liquid Threads. I think we need to be clear about what is being proposed. For myself, I do not think that it deals with the problem that originally sparked off this discussion. I regard Wikinews as offering a much better way forward. However, neither approach will prove effective unless we develop a much better shared decision making process.Leutha 23:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic formula 5:1 v.2

Regarding Magic formula 5:1 Jtneill probably ment wikiversity settings. Thats a very difficult question man! What are positives and what are negatives for us. As a real Czech I can see just negatives:

Wikiversity looks like Wikipedia, thus people expect content (in the means of content-focused project)
technicaly Wikiversity works like Wikipedia, thus it is very hard to make social interaction (as we are also people-focused project)
we are called Wikiversity, thus we may miss elementary school learners and researchers

err, now I may come up with positives, but what are they? Are they real contradict positives?--Juan de Vojníkov 14:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length of a course

I come up on it.wv to a very interesting discussion about the length of a course. They were morelike interested in technical ways, but Ive been already thinking about the fact that long studying of one subject is not effective and you must stop. Get out of that and after some time, you may come back. w:cs:User:Limojoe told me it is a known effect in pedagogy, so do our en scholars know somethig about that?--Juan de Vojníkov 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question, is a step to the staircase of knowledge--Gaon Abhinava 06:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(m)+Q?+A!= ( M )+Q?+A!= ( --M-- )+Q?+A!=  ( ^--M--^ )+Q?+A!= ( *^--M--^* ) ....Mind Growth = MG

()()()()()()()()()()()()()() I have found, That I learn much more effective when I let my tenacious curiosity lead my education.... A fleeting thought, a brilliant idea, A restless wonder... In this way I expand my Mind and satisfy my Hunger for Knowledge. Some structure is essential, and people learn in different ways. But our "Education" must never block the path of our True Learning, which would then be counter productive. We must seek simplicity and Clarity of understanding to grow. How much do you retain? How can we produce the best results? The best questions lead to exponential mind growth.()()()()

 Kind regards, intelligent discussion welcomed

Gaon Yincang Abhinava 01:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) WV, Instructor, Survival Intelligence, (S.I) 7/22/2011 8:42pm[reply]

Advanced InterWiki template

Hi. The Wikibooks has the best InterWiki horizontal template - b:Template:Associated Wikimedia. Is there similar useful group template (horizontal or vertical) in Wikiversity? Could you please create a new template similar as the b:Template:Associated Wikimedia template? --Averaver 15:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Workbench

Molecular Workbench (MW) provides visual, interactive computational experiments for teaching and learning science: Possibly interesting as a precursor for something. --Bernhard Fastenrath 16:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memories - A Psychedelic gift from God.

--202.131.111.246 07:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Memories - A Psychedelic gift give from god to everyone all creator of god.. .Including Human and rest of the creatures.[reply]

A blessing and a curse, depending on how we use them. --Abd 13:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

em+em+em+em+em+Em+em+em+em+   =  Human personality = HP

The Human personality is basically a combination, and sum total, of Experienced Memories, without our memories, we would have no Foundation of Mind in which to conduct experimentation in the "reality" we call earth.--Gaon Abhinava 02:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)W V . Instructor, Survival Intelligence (S.I)[reply]

The Advent of WikiCredentials ( Wikicreds. ) --Gaon Abhinava 04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic was started by Gaon Abhinava, somewhat duplicating writing from other WV page, which I have renamed Wikiversity:Wikicredentials. The discussion here has been moved to Talk for that page. Gaon is encouraged to refactor all that so that there is a project page with summaries and clear proposals, with discussion being on the Talk page. I also encourage Gaon to place a brief summary of his proposal here, as a response to this note, so that it may invite or inspire users to comment or participate on the specific page. --Abd 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st Proposal - Wikiversity: Wikicredentials...--Gaon Abhinava 01:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, this proposal explains in clear, simple detail, how we Will change the entire educational system in the world, and it all fits on one sheet of paper --Gaon Abhinava 01:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acting on Marketing ideas that would Brand Wikiversity as the global leader of distance education, and establish effective policies.
Leveraging Software and info. Tech., to manage and serve the mass population of millions/billions of students. ( use every screen on earth, as Wikiversity learning platforms, combined with android software, Face Book, Linked in, etc...)
The creation of Teacher and Administrator, Jobs.
The Genius of quantitive collection : The more attendence Wikiversity has, the less expensive tuition would be, the more Students that pay into the System, the less tuition would cost (example ) 1 Billion Students , each pay $2.00 , Two Dollars.... Per semester ....All Virtual text books, counceling, assessment and testing provided for ..... for $2.00 each. Per student.
The Genius of Wikicredentials : They could be many things, or they could, simply just be a virtual Progress Report, stating your test results, Education Goals, Mind Growth, Completion of Wikiversity Courses, I.Q. Point progress.....etc.... Just an official Report from Wikiversity on your developement.... Because if you think about it, what more do you really need? True Education is all about Mind Developement....Any other definition of "Education" , is inaccurate, limitation producing, counter productive, possibly manipulation and a Complete waste of , suddenly complicated time..... WikiCredentials, is so Simple, I will explain it simpler , upon your request.
Internet Freedom Preservation: Organizing Very smart and diplomatic Professionals who share the same vision of freedom in Wikicreds., who Proactively Work to ensure Every persons freedom to use the internet for True Education, with out the force of any outside manipulation or oppression on their free will to learn whatever they choose.
The Proposal to Men of Genius for Investing.: Presenting this proposal to men of genius, such as Donald Trump and Warren Buffet, for the careful consideration of all the above mentioned inter-connected equations, in an effort to partner with them in a strategic Investment formulation.--Gaon Abhinava 13:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(idea # 5 ) This would be very easy to accomplish and is probably the first Step to Take to Fulfill this Vision. --Gaon Abhinava 15:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Solved the Equation

( Idea.1) + (Idea.2) + (Idea.3) + (Idea.4) + (idea.5) + (Idea.6) + (Idea.7) = WikiCredentials  !

Yay ! Simple right.--Gaon Abhinava 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All questions and comments welcome: please see Wikiversity:Wikicredentials Leutha 16:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meta RFC: global ban for poetlister

A Meta RFC has been started to discuss a global ban for poetlister, a user active on this wiki, due to ~~identity~~ theft and impersonation of the images of others, significant disruption of three other wikimedia projects over the past six years. Responses and comments are welcome there. –SJ +> 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sj, for this notice. The offenses of the user have often been described as "identity theft," but identity theft is generally highly illegal, and involves important elements missing from what the user actually did. The user created a false identity, but did not steal the identity of another. Rather, the user used an image of a real person, but did not claim to be that real person. An image is not an identity. The user long ago apologized for the possible negative impact on that person, but has continued to be attacked for it. This, justified or not, is all irrelevant to the user's participation here.

The concept of a global ban is being pioneered by this RfC on meta, and is troubling to me. There is substantial precedent, however, that global locks are not a global ban, per se, that local wikis may undo the effect, and this has, so far, been unchallenged. If a local wiki is being used to attack or harass users at another wiki, this becomes a cross-wiki issue, but, here, it seems, meta is being used to harass a user here. The global lock on this account, issued last month, out of process, based on no stated current disruption, was lifted, and I appreciate Sj's role in that. The meta community will make its own decision, and, per long tradition, any of the local wikis may explicitly override that decision, it is as with the global blacklist or global blocks. I have seen grossly abusive global decisions made, with some level of protection against harmful effect being possible due to the effective sovereignty of the wikis over their own process. This is by design.

I suggest that if true conflict arises between the wikis, that this would be a Foundation issue. I would urge the Foundation to act only with great care and caution, a Foundation-level ban could create significant legal issues. --Abd 12:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikiversity:Requests for deletion#A Translation of the Bible. There are fundamental issues here regarding the function and role of Wikiversity. --Abd 12:5´7, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first global ban resolved on Meta. They have occasionally been handled in the past (see PauloHelene last year). There is a tradition of local project independence, balanced by a tradition of exceptional decisions which apply across all projects, generally by collective discussion and consensus. Just as we occasionally have global policies that are enforced across projects, we have occasional global bans that are enforced across projects. It is requested very rarely, but this is one of those cases. –SJ +>

The user long ago apologized for the possible negative impact on that person, --> After the images were noticed by the person whose personality rights were violated, they were years later discovered to be back online. That is more than a casual theft of someones image, it is the development of a persistent, high profile and googlable identity bound to that persons face. There may have been an apology, but the user has been found continuing to pretend to be multiple other personas online. While I do not know of another verified instance of identity ~~theft~~ deception or personality rights abuse, it is well recorded that the user caused significant social harm to wikimedia projects on more than 5 separate occasions, and apologized very convincingly after each one. That indicates a pathological fondness for deceit, devaluing any apology for the personal harm to the one woman we are certain was affected. –SJ +> 14:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sj, can you point to evidence that the original photo was reposted by Poetlister and not by someone else? Is there evidence that another photo later used, perhaps by Poetlister, was improperly obtained? Is there any evidence of continued "pathological deceit," other than the normal denial that often accompanies unexpected reversals of fortune? I.e., Longfellow was *legitimately* socking, and was at first not forthcoming about his identity as Poetlister, which had been properly revealed to checkusers.

Poetlister has been and is being libelled in these discussions, my opinion, without justifying necessity and even contrary to fact. As I think you know, he was blackmailed by a Wikipedia administrator to force the prior revelation of all socks. Have you checked with Foundation counsel about this? --Abd 23:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sj, you have again asserted w:identity theft, compounding it with "a pathological fondness for deceit." Those are libelous assertions about the person. There is no "verified instance of identity theft," a crime in the jurisdictions involved, not to mention "another instance." If Poetlister had committed identity theft, or even with what he actually did, and if she had been actually harmed, the apology to the original woman could have created increased liability for the tort, so it is impossible to "devalue" it, it represented a genuine cost for him which we cannot take away by reinterpretation. As documented in recent ArbComm leaks, Poetlister was subject to extreme harassment, that rose to the level of blackmail, and which, again, could have created liability for the WMF for tolerating it. The combination of the RfD here with the RfC on meta, when there is no disruption here and the interpretations in the RfD and on meta are shaky, shows me that there is there is continued harassment, perhaps a hostile agenda at play here, with some level of the hostility directed toward Wikiversity, as seen in the Foundation-l discussion.

I'm surprised, Sj, that you, of all people, would open this can of worms. The only recent problem we had seen here was an apparent SPA sock that appeared to poke at me and Poetlister, and we will not tolerate harassment of our users, the last RfD was, as you know, complicated by assertions about prior Poetlister misbehavior. --Abd 16:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, you seem to be amplifying his imagined injury while minimizing his harm to others. You are welcome to your views, but I am sorry you have chosen to champion this cause. I will use 'identity deception' rather than 'theft' since many of the definitions on the page you link to do not apply, and that distinction is not the heart of my concern with the user behavior in question. But I note that stealing and continuing to use the image of someone you know against their will goes well beyond deception. –SJ +> 23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of wiki independence is crucial, that's the cause I'm protecting. Wikis, in general, dislike going back to look at old behavior, for very good reasons. It can be a huge waste of time, when what's important is what is happening recently.

I've been reading many of the past discussions, and behaviors came to light that were quite unacceptable, the desysopping of Cato, Poetlister, and Runcorn were appropriate. However, many of the discussions included substantial opinion that the editor should be allowed to edit if they used only a single account. Now, it appears, the editor is using a single account, isn't currently disruptive, not for a long time, and is still condemned. There is no evidence presented in the RfC justifying such an assault on Wikiversity's right to determine its own affairs. --Abd 23:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Scott MacDonald/Doc glasgow opened it up with the mailing list thread. This RFC at Meta will hopefully get wider comment from the community on the issue. Adrignola 19:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my hope. –SJ +> 23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it's the wrong venue to determine what is effectively only a proposed drastic and inflexible block on Wikiversity, there are no other wikis where Poetlister is editing. --Abd 23:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you believe that if Poetlister were blocked from Wikiversity, he wouldn't take up residence at some other obscure Wikimedia project? Kaldari 07:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? If Poetlister is "globally banned," as proposed on meta, and it is not defeated in effect, as has been done with other "global bans," he would very likely create a new account and edit unhindered and unwatched. He's an expert editor, highly experienced, and was a checkuser, he knows the ropes. If he's left unmolested here, he's far more visible, if people are worried about him socking. Uh, Kaldari, is this an "obscure project"? Not to us! I see you have already been welcomed! (and see the next comment after that "welcome.") --Abd 00:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore the threat. Ironically, I actually use Wikiversity, which is why I think it's so disappointing that it's become the preferred hangout for Wikimedia trolls. Kaldari 07:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Threat"? What threat? Glad you actually use WV, others do as well. And academic institutions have a long history of being attacked by society at large for harboring dissidents. If Poetlister disrupts Wikiversity, his welcome here will disappear, but if others disrupt Wikiversity, in order to expel him without local consensus, I predict that this will go no better than similar efforts in the past, and, history shows, the process can damage the place. The charge of "hangout for trolls" is highly offensive, this doesn't bode well. --Abd 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC closed with a decision for a global ban, so Poetlister cannot currently use his account. I'm in email communication with him, and he's willing to be patient, and states that he's not socking here. I requested that the closing steward delink the account, and his first response was to decline that, so I'll be asking 'crats here to delink, which the closing steward suggested, clearly believing it was allowed. From precedent and the fact that this user hasn't a whisper of disruptive activity here (and no recent disruptive activity anywhere was shown in the RfC, and the truly offensive things this user allegedly did were years ago), I expect that strong discussed consensus here would be to allow the user to edit. As SBJ wrote before, which was about another "globally banned user," it should take a consensus to block, not a consensus to unblock. Therefore I will first ask the 'crats privately. However, in any such request, I will point to this discussion for review of local consideration on the matter; the 'crats will make their decision, I presume, based on what is best for Wikiversity. Prior discussions on global bans have been disruptive, here and on Wikibooks, because there is a vocal minority that wants global bans enforced, period, no matter what, no exceptions.
Note that it is trivial to reverse the effect of delinking, any custodian here could block the delinked account, and, in fact, a block is more flexible. The last alleged "crime" of Poetlister, which was never substantiated, was that he used email to "manipulate" the community, perhaps on Wikisource. The global lock does not prevent emailing. A block could, for example, disallow email but allow talk page access (I think), so that all communication authenticated as from the account would be required to be public. --Abd 18:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Perception and Invisible Mind Sight of Genius: Purging The Shadow of the Origin and Obvious Reality of EVIL. by--Gaon Abhinava 11:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of the contentious nature of this contribution, it seemed inappropriate to keep this material on the Colloquium, which needs to focus on wikiversity issues. Therefore I have moved it to User:Gaon Yincang Abhinava/Origin of Evil. Leutha 22:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move of topics to subpage for Gaon Yincang Abhinava

I have moved eight of the nine topics started here by this scholar to Wikiversity:Colloquium/Gaon Yincang Abhinava. A list of them, with links, follows:

I'm suggesting that this user use that subpage for his extensive posting, to avoid flooding the Colloquium. Periodicially, I or others may assist Gaon by posting references to new discussion or developments on his subpage, and I thank him for his cooperation. --Abd 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a useful approach, particularly after the discussion above. We can then use the Colloquium as a first point of call for discussions, allowing a more detailed debate of any proposals in their own dedicated space.Leutha 16:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Leutha. It's early to be sure, but it looks like Gaon has accepted several of the suggestions. And he's "thinking," which is great! Rather than "debate," I'd like to think of this as "exploration." We are properly way before a debate stage, and debating brainstorming is offensive. Okay, sometimes it's necessary to toss a little cold water, but we should be gentle about that. After all, the future begins now, with possibilities. If all we have is the past, it's terribly limiting!
By the way, I don't agree with "each new topic here would be a subpage." But subpages are a way to keep this page relatively clean while allowing deeper exploration. --Abd 20:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I think you are right, the idea is still in the incubation phase, before an concrete proposal emerges. And yes I agree, it is not necessary for each new topic to have its own page, but this is a good way of dedicating space to some point which needs further contributions.Leutha 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved additional material added by Gaon here, to his subpage. The material is complex enough and was spread through the Colloquium, and it included broken headers which damaged the TOC, so it's not impossible that I've missed something. I've requested Gaon not edit the colloquium at all except for brief responses on existing topics here, until he's become more familiar with our customs and what works. --Abd 16:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikiversity Careers and Virtual Educational Employment Structure, also moved to the subpage.

philosophy

what is philosophy? and what is it impact in our daily lives.

--Jeffsackey 12:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy, is simply, just ideas, gathered from the curiousity of human experience, that collect and combine with other ideas, forming complex and detailed understandings, with which they all become animated, in many human minds, through study, thus producing, innovations, inventions, and improvements, Changing and improving the earth, through the tools and bridges of the human mind, and body, thus giving birth to deeper forms of philosophy, seeing that maniacle barbarism does not seek to wipe it out.--Gaon Abhinava 13:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC) WV, Instructor, Survival Intelligence, (S.I)[reply]

You may find it useful to visit our School of Philosophy.Leutha 10:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

restoral of section removed by TCNSV

An IP user asked a technical question on the Colloquium.[2] SBJ gave the question a header.[3] I responded to the question, asking the purpose, and asking where the community thinks questions like this should go.[4]

TelComNasSprVen removed the entire section with summary: Separation: rm troll; obviously this person does not understand the use of section headers)[5]

I've been concerned about TCNSV behavior for some time. Relating to RfD, where he has been quite active, he put up an RfD on a page without expressing any opinion about the page itself, based on his notice of an IP editor who had vandalized the page -- or, charitably, blanked it as objectionable, perhaps. (I'm not documenting all this with diffs, but I can upon request.)

When I moved the request to Talk, because it was an RfD not following the RfD instructions, nor understanding the way RfD works in this community, he reverted that, based on his claimed desire to help the "newbie," and accusing me of biting the newbie, in comment on this on my Talk page. Given the nature of that page, it's unlikely this was an actual WMF newcomer, though the person might not have Wikiversity experience. But here, a person showing no sign of knowing anything about Wikiversity, who simply asks a technical question, is called a "troll," and the question is removed, with the responses.

TCNSV bears watching, and I'm seeing signs at meta that this isn't just happening here. He's already done damage here, indirectly, through arranging at meta for some practically-unused Wikiversity accounts, never used elsewhere, to be globally locked, through a checkuser request not documented or announced here, with no warning. The second time he tried that, though, ~~he was slapped down~~ his request was rejected and criticized by the steward. redacted per edit of my comment by TCNSV. It is not proper to edit the comments of others, absent necessity.

Because the removal of the section today was so clearly outside of normal practice, I restored the section. I have no problem with the removal of this, long-term, but for now, it should remain where it was placed so that the IP editor can find it if he looks. Calling this IP editor a troll on such thin evidence is beyond the pale. --Abd 15:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, you can’t just start applying double-standards to people; and you are guilty of removing comments made by IP editors as well. Furthermore, you inappropriately and condescendingly leave a comment in the edit summary calling him “sweetie”, which leaves much to be desired. I had removed the comment because it 1) was off-topic and 2) contained a real name. As to the RfD, whether or not the person was new to WMF does not matter; you should have extended your good faith to the newbie all the same. I’m going to revert your other removal as well to allow equal examination of your actions. TeleComNasSprVen 19:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCNSV is casually ~~revert warring~~ reverting or restoring inappropriate content. He did, in fact, revert the "other edit."[6], thus restoring what seems like vandalism or relationship spam, playing off of w:Vina Morales.redacted because "revert warring," as such, had not appeared from TCNSV, here.
On the other edit, people have used the Colloquium to ask miscellaneous questions; it has generally been tolerated. Moving the question to a better location is a possibility, and I asked about that in my response. TCNSV, you removed the header added by SBJ, which implicitly accepted the question, and you removed my response.[7] I recommend you not repeat that.::*Users may use their own real names, and the only exception arises when they are known to be minors.
The section I removed was not a good-faith question, but a personal invitation as found in relationship spam. There was no response that would properly take place on the Colloquium, and if someone wants to "chat," the appropriate place would be a user Talk page, where it would be fine. That's what my removal summary suggested.[8] Half tongue-in-cheek, so to speak. The text should go, but there is no reason to be mean about it. "Sweetie" is "condescending"? "Him?" You think "darlen" is a guy? On what planet?
If the relationship spam was inappropriate for the page, restoring it "to allow equal examination of your actions" is disrupting Wikiversity to make a point. How about reverting inappropriate edits and leaving appropriate edits alone? The point is the content, not me. Have you lost sight of that, TCNSV? Why are you here, anyway?
Folks, this is the tip of the iceberg here. I've seen a lot of erratic actions like this, that don't consider the welfare of the community, especially, but some private and apparently very personal agenda. I have not been bringing them to WV:RCA, but perhaps it's time. It's starting to become obvious, the strange threat on the Colloquium page is yet another example.[9] --Abd 20:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you make one too many assumptions, often in contradiction to Wikiversity's civility policy. Was it of any need to suddenly modify this edit by Moulton, or even remove completely the section on the Colloquium that I had just pointed out? There was plenty of NPOV comments, grammar mistakes and the like made, so I simply adjusted them. In what way would a single revert on the Colloquium page be considered "revert warring"? Void of reasoning or careful observation and full of off-handed assumptions and odd premises, you make another assumption that whatever "darlen" has made this edit is in fact a female; if this IP is in fact not what you expected, then, yes, "sweetie" would be considered a very condescending term toward him. I have a cousin named "Shirley"; does that automatically somehow mean that he is a "girl"? And finally, in what way would this minor comment on the Colloquium be considered "vandalism" or "relationship spam"? Please explain to me how it would fit inside the scope of Wikiversity:Vandalism. As for the CU on Meta, the first was obviously from disruption observed on Wikisource, and would fit within the policy for globally locking said accounts on the basis of crosswiki sockpuppetry/disruption, and the second request was on the advice of a global sysop, who I had discussed in private. In short, instead of discussing the content of the subsequent reversions, you choose to make it a discussion about me. TeleComNasSprVen 22:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to quickly become argument for the sake of argument, where it's effectively demanded that a user explain this or that. I'm responding, but mostly in collapse. I'm not convinced that there is benefit to the wiki here. Right now, the situation is that what seems to be vandalism or trolling or spam, all that is clear is that it isn't appropriate for Wikiversity, has been restored to the Colloquium by TCNSV,[10] and that's equivalent to vandalism, itself, and instead of attending to that -- I can't, personally, remove this again without getting into revert warring -- he's belaboring whether or not "darlen" is female, which is clearly unknown, all that would be known is the appearance created by the IP user, which would be, indeed, female. So? And couldn't I call a male IP editor "sweetie"? What has this place become? --Abd 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed response

this edit by Moulton TCNSV has obviously combed my contributions looking for stuff that would "look bad." In isolation, that edit certainly looks weird. Why did I use "who?!?" in the section title? Just looking at the diff, you might think that I replaced "Moulton" with "who?!?" -- just like that. In fact, Moulton had created this section with that in the header. I was restoring the section to what I imagined might be Moulton's intention, my edit was seeking a compromise. As sometimes happened, he didn't see it that way. The overall effect of edits up to and including mine was to allow Moulton his joke, but also identify the edit (as it was identified in history). There was, here, a series of header edits by users, sometimes imposing "sober order" (which I had originally tried, with Moulton reverting), sometimes making jokes, see WAS's edit with his section, for example.[11] The serious part of this was my long-term effort to interdict classic sock puppetry on the part of Moulton, where he would create the appearance of multiple users supporting his position. He would claim that if people followed the links, there would be no appearance, since they would eventually find out that it was all him. My position was -- and remains -- that this was creating a deceptive appearance and should be avoided. I was actually compromising here, in the edit cited by TCNSV, allowing a level of appearance to exist. Moulton did not accept that and reverted my edit, as I'd specifically suggested he could do if he wanted. This is a great example of how TCNSV is attempting to create, from good-faith edits, seeking compromise, an appearance of bad faith and disruption.
or even remove completely the section on the Colloquium that I had just pointed out? There is certainly some confusion. What does TCNSV mean here? What section had he pointed out, and how? TCNSV removed a section, with the summary: Separation: rm troll; obviously this person does not understand the use of section headers.[12] This was after my removal of a different section.[13] I'd also responded to the user with the question about glycerin, and this section, containing the section header supplied by SBJ,[14] and my response,[15] is what TCNSV removed. I'm getting the impression that TCNSV literally does not know what he's doing, some of the time. Seriously.
"Sweetie" is a term of affection in the circles in which I move. This can vary drastically with culture, but this is the bottom line here: I could easily have removed that section with "Rvv" or "revert vandalism." But I prefer to leave some door open for positive communication. I have no idea who or what was behind that edit, there is a whole universe of possibilities. In practically none of them would "sweetie" have made the situation worse. A vandal might have laughed, and a serious chat-seeker would have been very likely to take it better than being called a vandal, as I've seen many times.
If TCNSV doesn't understand why the comment from "darlen," seeking "chat", under the section title of a movie star, wasn't seriously out of place there, I throw up my hands in despair at explaining it. Judging such things requires understanding colloquial language and social context, it's complex as hell to explain in detail, and I'm not going to bother. Others will judge it, I'm sure. And some will look at the Colloquium and say, "Shame, they aren't even removing vandalism and spam from the Colloquium, tsk, tsk." While it stands.
As to the CU requests, with the first, there was a problem on another wiki, but it was far from clear, and the evidence posted pointed to Wikiversity, thus prompting the CU to do a CU on Wikiversity users (violating meta CU policy, by the way, because there had not been local efforts to deal with this, and the users checked were not being disruptive), and the CU then locked some WV users simply, my guess, because they were from the same IP/agent as a problem user on some other wikis, and without actual cross-wiki vandalism. Given that the IP was an elementary school, and possibly that a series of students who knew each other, very young, were sharing the same class computer, this was all easily understandable, and the socks/related users had already been identified behaviorally by me, and documented, so that the activity could be tracked and kept within bounds. My goal was to encourage these very young users to stay within behavior that would not damage wikiversity or other wikis, and it seems to be working. Mostly. It is very difficult to regulate the behavior of a bright seven-year-old, I know, I have one. But it's worth it, and if not for these efforts, I suspect, there would have been far more "vandalism" and "nonsense pages" for administrators to clean up elsewhere, unless someone is prepared to globally lock an entire IP range for a public school district. Welcoming them onto Wikiversity, where they can happily make pages in user space, learning to edit, to use wiki markup, to spell, to write, as well as to respect community norms, seems to have defused this one "vandal." So far. It's my project, "success" is not guaranteed. Others are certainly welcome to help! It's actually quite rewarding when a young user recognizes what's being done, and is thankful. I was far from sure that this would happen, because this user had been burned on the other wikis (understandable, they just are not set up for that age range, but, hey, they could be nicer about it!), and at first reacted to my work as being "private police," by which he didn't mean that he liked it!
The second request, however, wasn't based on any significant disruptive editing outside of Wikiversity, and what activity existed was old. And the steward who handled the request (Fr33kman) wasn't happy about it.... But I made a new friend, he was pretty interested in what I was doing with these young users, and something quite good may come of this.
This will stay here, hidden in collapse on this page, unless TCNSV continues to escalate the disruptive behavior.
Something very strange is going on, and I don't know what it is, I could only speculate. --Abd 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, TCNSV is correct about revert warring, in this case. In the confusion over WTF he's talking about, I thought he intended to re-revert his removal of the glycerin question. Instead, he was intending, apparently, to restore the vina morales section, which wouldn't be revert warring because he did not create that section. A single original revert of what another editor does is not revert warring. But if I reverted him, restoring my preferred version, in which I was involved, it would be revert warring. And, yes, that means that I was revert warring, or at least on the edge, in my other edit, because I'd written part of what he removed that I restored. But his removal was so far out of normal practice that I tolerated my own doing of it, given that his revert, removing a section that had been touched by two users, one of them a 'crat, was not discussed, but asserted in a strange way that I found incomprehensible, and, yet, that's why I was careful to discuss it here. I do not revert war unless I have strong reason to believe that the community will support the position, if it comes to wide consideration (and it better be important!). In this case, eventually that section might be removed, because it doesn't have long-term value, perhaps; such value is merely speculative at this point and the user should be given time to respond, and maybe we will move the question to a more appropriate page. --Abd 00:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible behavior the the new norm, sweetie. WAS 4.250 03:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Momma said there'd be days like this, honey. --Abd 12:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean. Suddenly every edit that you make is considered "right" or "justifiable", because Moulton did this and that, or because he’s been indefinitely blocked and you’re not, whilst other edits made by other users are demonstrably "wrong" or "incorrect". It’s a Wikiversity Community Review page, for God’s sakes! None of the comments there on the page should be altered, because they are the views of certain members of the community and this is a page in the Wikiversity namespace. Only comments made on the talkpage ought to be signed, or indicated as to who is the user speaking. This is applying double-standards to other contributors. You restored a dubiously placed section with a perhaps somewhat questionable content and turn around to call my subsequent restoration "vandalism", whilst you wikilawyer on and on about why your version is the "right one". Whatever the gender of the person behind the IP in question is, does not matter. Abd, why don’t you create WV:POINT and find out for yourself whether or not that applies here?

This section is quickly becoming intolerably off-topic. I’m going to leave it open for others to judge whether such content should stay on the Colloquium page. TeleComNasSprVen 03:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Community Review page"? This is the Talk page for the Colloquium (and Lost Sheep, apparently). The immediate topic here is this edit. Is that okay? Should it stand? --Abd 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You really have trouble following me when I had said you modified Moulton's edit don't you? But anyways, don't think you're exempt from scrutiny also, or impervious to custodian acion. The immediate topic here is this edit. Is that okay? Should it stand? TeleComNasSprVen 14:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider that the topic as well. I was reverting your removal of an IP user's question and my response, plus, of course, you removed the header that was placed by SBJ, who apparently considered the question to be in order. As to Moulton's edit, I explained that in collapse. There were many section headers and comments being altered in that sequence by several editors, including a 'crat, as I recall. You've picked out one edit by me as if it were somehow egregious. And that's, again, irrelevant here. The general rule is that we don't alter the comments of others, as you did in this very section, with no necessity at all.[16] There are exceptions, and apparently quite a few editors, not just me, considered the Community Review discussion you cited to be one of them. --Abd 16:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous questions, where to ask?

Most libraries have a reference desk where you can ask questions about just about anything. The Colloquium is not designed for that, but for questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity. There is a page that seems to have been started with something like this in mind, but under neutrality and sourced restrictions, User:ShakespeareFan00/Wikiversity_All_Subject_Original_Research_Desk, but it occurs to me to do something more decentralized. A page may be created, if one does not already exist, for "miscellaneous questions." Individual users may then "take" these questions and answer them in user space, or perhaps on a Talk page for a relevant resource. As such, it is not necessary to enforce neutrality policy, because anyone else who disagrees with a response may also "take" the question and answer it to balance it. The centralized page would not be for discussion, just a place to ask questions and link to responses. In some cases a brief and neutral comment on responses may be in order. The page could be called Reference desk or Research desk. Then, when miscellaneous questions are asked here on the Colloquium, as happens fairly frequently, anyone can move the questions to the RD, leaving behind a note for a time here. Those notes would ultimately be removed; the link is left for a while to make it easy for IP editors and others to find the question and answer while it's fresh.

Any objections? --Abd 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a question asking page, entitled " Steps to the Staircase of knowledge ", meaning , a place to ask questions to get knowledge, and there are many things we can do to simplify the way links and informational designed sections are distibuted and connected.--Gaon Abhinava 07:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]