Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/July 2019

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

I suspect that most users on Wikiversity have already seen this Proposal for WikiJournals as a new sister project, however for those that haven't, please see the current discussion and support/oppose/comment. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know about this. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade default gadgets!

I just found Wikiversity could be an ideal place to I start a new project, but it needs more default gadgets, like: WikiEd, ProveIt and Syntax Highlight!

I also asked here: [1]

Thanks —Arthurfragoso (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthurfragoso: We don't currently have anyone with default permission to edit Mediawiki:Common.js. This proposal requires community support. It might help if you describe what each of the gadgets does and why each one should be added. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Voting

Welcoming traffic from Wikipedia

Hello,

In Wikipedia, medical articles cannot contain Primary Sources, much less do original research.

I think there are probably many people who would like to do research on different topics, and many can get frustrated, see an example at: w:Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#System_Still_Broken

So I think Wikipedia should let those people know that Wikiversity welcomes Research! I commented about it at w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Wikipedia_connection_with_Academic_Research_through_Wikiversity

I started to prepare an organization page for Medical Research and Drug discovery.

I'm preparing to propose Wikipedia to let people know about Wikiversity Research at the articles that states that WP does't accept original research: w:WP:NOR, w:WP:MEDRS and w:WP:SCIRS

But for that we need to prepare Wikiversity to welcome new WP Users. I'm still in doubt if those articles should direct people to Wikiversity:Research or Portal:Research

Let your thoughts, and I hope people here embrace this idea. :)

—Arthurfragoso (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, There is one thing that keeps worrying me: how to differentiate Research pages from Educational pages?

Let's say, Diabetes mellitus, should this page be about research on Diabetes, or the current educational page? Should all research pages have a prefix so it doesn't collide? like: Research:Diabetes mellitus

—Arthurfragoso (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prefacing any page with a namespace presents problems. On a page which contains research including original research there are categories that can be used and tags on the page itself which do not hamper search engines or interfere with the freedom to perform research. There are some who use wikipedia to differentiate mainstream research topics from what may not be, but original research is not so easily differentiated. Be bold, but not reckless, and enjoy! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthurfragoso: Wikiversity has had educational and research pages side by side for more than 15 years now. It hasn't presented a problem so far. Unlike Wikipedia, we aren't limited to a single page for a given title, and a given title can have subpages as well as related pages. If there is sufficient demand to add a Research: namespace, we certainly can do that, but I recommend spending some time learning more about what Wikiversity already has and does before pursuing this proposal. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for recruiting Wikipedia editors to Wikiversity

@Arthurfragoso: I strongly endorse your effort to recruit authors to contribute on Wikiversity. The best recruiting tool I can offer is to help users format subpages in userspace or draftspace so that these pages look "special". See for example how a long pagename like Wright_State_University_Lake_Campus/2019-5/Phy_2410/Notes can be reformated so the title appears only as Notes.

To contrast the appearance of Notes with and without the template, compare this rendition of the same page at Special:Permalink/2029163.
Similar such templates can be found at Template:Draftspace.
Another incentive for recruitment is the fact that it is not difficult to get pages protected on Wikiversity, or even earn the status to protect your own pages.
I am not sufficiently active on Wikipedia to even know how to recruit users from Wikipedia (and am too busy even if I knew how). But, if you are interested, we can create a Welcome Page in draftspace where I could explain how to use these templates. See for example Draft:How_to_create_a_Wikiversity_article

Yours truly--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, for WP editors the following question matters. "Yes, WP rules are too stringent. Yes, WV rules are not. But WV rules are very loose, aren't they? What protects my possible clever WV article from being lost among a lot of stupid WV articles?" Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a good answer for that question.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good set of rules is a quite nontrivial compromise between stringent and loose. Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting new editors is not considered w:WP:CANVASSING, right? Just checking. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Canvassing" is attempt to shift the outcome of a discussion inside Wikipedia. Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Location of site traffic

According to Alexa, a plurality of the viewers of this website are in Angola. Is there an explanation for this? SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there are classes in African counties that use Wikiversity. There's nothing obvious or unique in yesterday's page views. We have been experiencing a significant amount of VPN-based disruption coming from non English-speaking countries recently, but I didn't notice Angola-based addresses. Total page views yesterday was 68,503. 10% of that traffic would be 6,850 page views. That's certainly something that could be generated by bot, but nothing in the statistics suggests that's what happened. So, several possibilities, but no obvious explanation. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]