Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/March 2010

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

sorting algorithms

I wanted to insert a chapter about a new sorting algorithm (got that one in proper english) and found out that there is near to nothing in your pages about this topic. I would be willing to write some chapters but I'm no native english speaker and would need somebody to correct the texts. Is there anybody out there to do that job? --JDHenning 12:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm a native speaker of English and a computer programmer who has worked on sorting methods, such as variants of the radix sort, and edited Wikipedia articles on the same, so I'd consider myself qualified to review your text. I am a FORTRAN programmer, but hopefully your text would be written with pseudo-code rather than heavy C code, which would be easier for me (and more importantly, everybody else) to decipher. Just drop me a note on my talk page when you want me to proofread something. StuRat 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notions on designing original research policies, from other realms wherein research is fundamental.

Perhaps it will be useful to look at research policies which have worked well, been up-ended, or found to be problematical. reading the story of grigor perelman's presentation of his proof of the Poincare Conjecture on the Internet, and then the fuss over peer review of the Hamilton-Perelman solution, provides a fascinating exploration of the review guidelines (as well as of the conjecture itself). Involving as it does the quintessence of the NET in the context of this discussion, perhaps there is something instructive there for our own purpose of perfecting wikiversity policies. --SALVADOR BALI 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I am looking for something on the manufacture and moulding of plastic, particularly on the small artistic or prototype scale. A simple search does not return a specific hit. Is there anything in the practical sense on plastic moulding, and maybe recycling, in industry, art or design? RTG 20:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have a bit of a chat about a recent deletion by Ottava - it's this page. We chatted a bit about it here - and to reiterate what I said there - I'd prefer to use this material in that project, rather than have it not be allowed - thoughts? Privatemusings 02:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting issue. Thanks for drawing this to our attention. Can we get a bit more background e.g., the Wikipedia deletion discussion? Is there any relevant WMF policy? The content of the page has advice about how to create a sockpuppet wiki account and use it undetected - viewable here. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the questions about whether such breeching experiments are appropriate, I fail to see in what situation it would be reasonable in the course of such an experiment to attempt to avoid detection by check user. That would be my main problem with this material, suggestions on how to avoid editing in a similar style I can understand because that may be necessary for an experiment to be successful. No experiment like this though should get to the point where attempts are made to avoid detection by check user. If things are heading that way then the experiment should be abandoned. So, at the very least, for this information to be posted here I'd suggest that everything before the "Alter your behavior" section is removed. I do though have serious misgivings about this and similar projects more generally. Adambro 12:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we had such a Sock-puppet attack, recently, and that it extended the difficulty and confusion around control of content on Wikiversity, by using a well known and popular mascot as a sock-puppet, I have to suggest that research into "Hacking" the wikiversity site, be considered as either hostile, or test behavior that is to be done only under very controlled circumstances. It's like the difference between testing the security of a bank, and inviting the crackers in to crack it. The cracker will always claim that he is testing the security, and in some cases can supply paperwork to prove it. That doesn't mean that they should publicly announce when they are going to attack the system, and how.--Graeme E. Smith 14:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the point of sock puppeting is to gain some understanding and learning experience for this learning project. I think similar results can be achieved without having to do it or encouraging people to do it. Former sock puppeteers could share their experiences in the Wikimedia Ethics project. You could examine and analogize the actions and contributions of known sock puppets. I think the POV just needs to change from "hey lets do this! how can we do it?" to "people do this. when do they do it? why do they do it? how do they do it? what ways can this be resolved?" I think this is like the difference between a guide to help black hat hackers break into a system and a guide to help white hat hackers understand how systems are broken into. How about a title like "Wikimedia Ethics/Sock puppets", "Wikimedia Ethics/What can be learned from sock puppets?", or "Wikimedia Ethics/What can sock puppets teach us?" -- darklama  14:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:How to/Plan/Ethical breeching experiments, not only that but on the first page of the project it claims "...and possibly execute ethical breaching experiments... ...on WMF projects." This is not the sort of thing that is permitted on these pages and someone will have to point to the people who put stops on these little sort of experiments, right? Right enough. This rings of one I was looking at recenty, Hot to spend several years snapping monkeys heads with little or no research value. The most compelling result of the research was the emotional detatchment in the the perpetrators. They would pick up the little monkeys and play with them saying things like "This one appears to be suffering a dislocated shoulder," but they were not the sort of cruelty you see of someone that would kick angrily a dog or be cruel for amusement, these folk were truly cold and mechanically detatched and atypical approach, not being purposely nasty on one hand but not particularly moved at all on the other, just snapping monkeys heads all day as if they were students doing some part-time gardening and chatting away about the bushes and stuff, "How they've grown," and "Look at those pretty flowers." Complete fruit loops in the brains of otherwise apparently normal people. How do you like that study of your experiments? I will perhaps add it to your "Reactions" section before I go and try to have it deleted. RTG 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is now under further discussion here: Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Mehul 04:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC) inflammatory bowel disease[reply]

Thankyou for sharing this page - what were your hopes for it? Did you want to contribute powerpoint slides (ppt)? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
moved to Inflammatory bowel disease, original file deleted --Abd 13:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia content scope & supporting new projects

There have been some general strategy discussions about how to allocate resources to smaller/new projects, when to reconsider the approach taken to building a given type of free knowledgebase, when to merge or split projects, and when to move stagnant projects to an incubator. Much of this is relevant to Wikiversity, as the youngest Wikimedia project (and one with its own version of an incubator). These issues will be discussed soon on the strategy wiki in a Task Force about content scope; thoughts on the subject and on how beta is working are welcome. Sj 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have promoted various links to strategy on both en.wikiversity and beta. It managed to prompt some activity so I hope more people will become more active on the above topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information Sj. I have linked that from cs.wv.--Juan de Vojníkov 22:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for these reminders; Wikiversitarians - we should be paying more attention to strategy:Category:Proposals for Wikiversity -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, untill this time it doesn't look WMF would promote small projects.--Juan de Vojníkov 05:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But maybe times are changing and they will try to experiment with Leibig's Minimum principle-:)--Juan de Vojníkov 05:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What made you say that? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 14:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that Jtneill. Maybe make a link from a "prominent" place on WV, that we come over it more often? --Gbaor 18:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help - Wikiversity News

Several people have complained that our news is out of date on the front page. Since McCormack left, very little has been done in this respect. We need some people to step up and try their hand at updating this - e.g., it is a perfect task for budding custodians. Let's see if we can work out how? It may not be that hard... -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News updates can go here: Wikiversity:Announcements to be displayed on Main Page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - here's where it breaks: Main Page/News is shown on front page, but it is static - it is not drawing from Wikiversity:Announcements which is updated more often. How can we make this work better? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when using a subpage with the announcement's content the main page layout gets too much changed :-( [1]
Perhaps the News box on the main page could be set up with a fixed size, so scroll bars could be there? Let's see. Must be somewhere around here: Template:Major Portal Right Column or Main Page/Layout 0.5. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 13:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School of Dermatology

I would like to setup a school of dermatology. At what page location should I do that? ---Kilbad 14:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia: "Dermatology is the branch of medicine dealing with the skin and its diseases." Sounds like Dermatology should be a department within the school of medicine. I suggest Topic:Dermatology. -- darklama  14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Anybody know if this extension is installed or working at WV? --Gbaor 08:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it. Adambro 08:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

requests for learning?

It's perfectly possible that this idea is already in place, in which case I'd love to take a look :-) - but how's about we setup a 'requests for learning' page, where people can drop in (you guessed it!) a 'request for learning' - I hopped into IRC the other day, and Ottava (amongst others) was discussing Obama's recent healthcare bill - and in thinking about how I could engage here on something that's interesting to me, but perhaps not so much to the wmf ;-) - I thought starting a 'perspectives on healthcare' project might be interesting and topical. It struck me from the IRC conversation how little US folk may know about Australian, and UK health care provision, and indeed, how little I know about other systems in place around the world, so maybe I'd submit my 'perspectives on healthcare' idea (where we'd share what we know, talk about the issues, etc.) to a 'requests for learning' page? - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings 07:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold :-)
Some pages which could also be looked at are: Wikiversity:Page creation requests, Portal:Reading groups,
As I see Category:Healthcare is a little under represented atm :-( ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there was created a link Wikiversity:Requests for learning projects, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this and I think it's a great idea.--Jimbo Wales 23:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikiversity, we follow the spirit of "Learning by Doing". Instead of requesting a project, it is better to create the project yourself and collect the resources you want.Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Learning by doing" is probably another name for Active learning. Passive learning is an alternative learning model. -- darklama  23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Requests for learning projects" simply redirects to "Page creation requests". I created a few redirects to that page today because I kept forgetting the right name for the page each time I tried to find it. "Learning requests", "Topic requests", and "Page requests" were some of the other redirects I created. -- darklama  23:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting open source game

Look at this video [2]. That is an open source 3d shooting game. As it is distributed it doesn't look like much (although if you like that kind of thing it's great) but the code developers worked on Far Cry according to the Crysis developers. I am sure myself that anything is capable out of the engine. I always wanted to get involved with it but I could never get the hang of baking textures in Blender and apps like Autocad are gone off the sheet in price and could turn out to be as hard to use as Blender. Anyway, the code is supposed to be very simple and maybe someone will see this and start learning about it and record the how tos for Wikiversity. I would bet that it is the best base for any such project and it is open source since years. It comes up on Sourceforge under "Sauerbraten", "Cube 2", "Blood Frontier", etc. and all the code is written in txt files. ~ R.T.G 07:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Custodian misusing the rollback tool

User:Adambro is misusing the Wikiversity:Rollback tool at Wikiversity:General disclaimer. Nobody should participate at Wikiversity without first reading this disclaimer. The disclaimer is a reasonable place to inform participants about the conditions they will face as Wikiversity editors. --JWSchmidt 14:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna know what other educators, teachers, professors are doing at the Wikiversities in other languages?

The page is in development, drop by anytime: betawikiversity:brick and mortar collaboration, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 5 months left for this special day - wanna contribute with your ideas? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Viva Wikiversity!
{{subst:Game of Life












Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 13:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making a template that runs those? ~ R.T.G 20:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Template:Game of Life is used, more infos here: Conway's Game of Life, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per the 'requests for learning' thread up there a bit - I re-thought some of this stuff, and have started a new project at Wikiversity:Talking point - my idea is to try to engage people in discussion, debate, teaching, learning etc. as well as offering an easy to maintain and very active part of the site if people are dropping in for the first time.

Thoughts / feedback etc. most welcome - I'd really love this to grow into something which could grace the mainpage in due course, to try and grow it a bit to start with, I'll post a few notes here and there - though I'd love every regular / semi-regular contributor to take a look, and dive in if so inclined :-) cheers, Privatemusings 02:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in using various technologies for learning?

e.g. how about: Wikizens with a Second Life account, Google Wave for education. Please add more ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD today

It seems there is a problem with today's POTD. Does somebody have a some replacement in mind? Geography... --Gbaor 16:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one? I can't edit the POTD --Gbaor 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good one - sorry, I didn't notice it at first and meantime I put in this one - Educational Media Awareness Campaign/Geography: General/POTD 3. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 16:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have created a new POTD with this picture but could not include it to the circulation here. Maybe there are also other pictures not included yet... (This is just a guess). --Gbaor 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this now needs editing? Educational Media Awareness Campaign/Geography/POTD -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban of User:RTG

I have stated that I would indef User:RTG if he continued to mislead others about the events on Wikiversity dealing with Privatemusings, Jimbo Wales, and the recent breaching experiment. The facts are as follows:

  1. On March 1, Privatemusings posted a socking guide to aid in a breaching experiment.
  2. It was soon after deleted. The "planning" page that only had a few links (the main one redlinked) and a general discussion page that was part of an older analysis of such experiments were left.
  3. On March 12, RTG posted this deleted item saying that a breaching experiment could be one in which a user manipulates an admin or steward to close down a project.
  4. At the same time, RTG posted this message on Jimbo Wales's Wikipedia user talk page. "I would cordially like to invite you to a workshop where you can learn all about disrupting and decieving Wikimedia with experiments in practice."

The above (number 4) can be seen as RTG claiming that the experiment that Privatemusings thought to possibly start was either ongoing (although the socking guide was deleted) or that he was performing his own stated experiment to deceive an admin into closing a project.

I believe that RTG wanted to cause disruption between Wikiversity, Wikipedia, and now Meta.Wikimedia. He has misrepresented the facts consistently and continues to do so even after being warned. The deleted edit suggests that he intended all of this in hopes he could trick someone to close down a project (Wikiversity being the target, as even the WMF discussed the possibility). This is not behavior that is acceptable.

I propose that the community bans RTG for his cross-wiki disruption and his manipulating others in order to further said disruption. I would personally indef RTG, but I feel that a community ban would carry more authority on the matter and serve to show that Wikiversity does not tolerate users who use this community's processes in order to try and destroy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start this as a WV:CR? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put a note there to come here. It is somewhere in between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have been going over it for a couple of hours with some of you on the IRC and you are probably right that the way I posted on that deleted project was questionable so ban me if that is the best thing to do but I did not post lies to Jimbo Wales talk page or have a guidebook to manipulating him. The project in question certainly was suspect and encouraged people to experiment on the first paragraph. I don't see what else I can have to say. I do not, as Ottava has been suggesting on IRC, wish to see the closure or even the disruption of Wikiversity. I have contributed no content to this site that I can think of or am I likely to be your most valued contributor in the future so do whatever you think is best and it will be no big loss to you. ~ R.T.G 02:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with cross-wiki punishment. Jimmy Wales is an adult person and thus he is responsible for his acts.--Juan de Vojníkov 08:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in any IRC group, so I trust this is an unbiassed view -- RTG knew, or reasonably should have known, that his posts to JW were less than candid. This is, in itself, a misuse of community processes. The disruption to WV was also reasonably foreseeable as a result. By definition, as he declares zero interest in building WV, this is "cross-wiki abuse." Collect 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not liking what I'm seeing here or what I heard from RTG in IRC. His answers seemed evasive at times, and he didn't necessarily stay on point. He also doesn't appear to understand the gravity of this situation. I'd really like to assume good faith here, but even viewing this in the light most favorable to RTG, it just doesn't look good. We've got a project created by Privatemusings that had some questionable bits. In the middle of a RfUD that was heading towards leave undeleted, RTG posts to Jimbo's talk page. I think Jimbo's opinion might have been beneficial, but the wording made it seem like we are a bunch of dingbats who want to disrupt WP. The only possible response I would foresee from this posting is a deletion and groupban. We learn now that RTG made the content seem worse prior to wandering over to Jimbo's talk page, which indicates malicious intent. The impact of this event is massive, and has damaged the community. We're down two custodians, and there are many red faces and bad memories.
(Edit conflict)Every day some or several people come along to Jimbo Wales page to post something about how they love Wikipedia or something unusual they thought might interest him. Those sort of posts are often a little bit crazy in nature and Jimbo responds to almost none of them. There are a hoard of other editors who jump in and respond to the crazies for him. I have posted on his page maybe a dozen times before and he may have replied once, maybe not. It is hardly fair to say that I should be candid or that it is part of some sort of process. Here is what Jimbo says about using his talk page as a part of a process.[3] That is the Jimbo that I was writing to. I do not know what Jimbo you lot seem to see sometimes. I did nothing of the sort, either, of "declares zero interest", "by definition". I do not have it in for Wikiversity. Aside from the edits I made to the Ethical Breeching Experiments pages, or the ensuing debate, is there something to suggest that I am trying to do some harm to this site? Does there seem to be some potential for me to harm the site? I think not. I have made a couple of dozen edits to this site which are unrelated to the Ethics issues. Are any of them controversial? If not, I would thank you to lay off the suggestions that I am scheming against this site. You might decide to ban me for some sort of antics relating to the Ethics project but you should just leave it at that. As most of my edits hae been consecutive on pages outside of the colloquium they can be summarised with eight diffs.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] If you can find some sort of hidden agenda in that, fair play to you. I must admit that the sarcastic posts I made on the Ethical Breaching Experiments were not in order, and when Ottava pointed out to me that Jimbo might have seen these before deciding to delete the pages, I had to admit that problem but after the pages were undeleted by SB_Johnny, these edits of mine were reverted and the pages were deleted again a few days later anyway. As I have said, those edits were inappropriate and I do owe an appology to this site on the whole for that. Ottava wants to attack me for other things and others want to say that if I do not claim to be the star pupil I must be declaring something more profound and indeed sinister. Whatever you do I will take it with a pinch of salt and that attitude may have caused this mess but I wouldn't part with it thanks all the same. I am not a professor or anything. I don't even have an average standard of education so I don't see what I could contribute anyway with all this animosity flying around in such a small room. My intention was to not really post anything more here at all but if the suggestions are that I did more wrong than adding three sections to the deleted project suggesting that they could steal the company car (you didn't quote that one Ottava) or that I am more sinister and masterminded than I let on, I might respond to those. Nobody wants to appear sinister unless they want to appear fearsome, and that is not me, thanks ~ R.T.G 06:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this user has caused much harm to the community, we must keep in mind that blocks are preventative, not punitive. The question becomes whether or not the user needs to be prevented from performing this action again. Judging from the lack of comprehension and evasiveness RTG demonstrated when attempting to discuss this with him, I don't think he will be able to exercise restraint in the future. After considering the amount of damage caused by this incident, we can ill afford a repeat performance. I recommend that RTG be banned until such time as he demonstrates cognizance of the effect of his actions. At that time, he should be unbanned and placed on parole, violation of which shall lead to a block of not less than 1 month nor more than one year. Geoff Plourde 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are suggesting that I declare the whole thing to be my very own doing I will not be able to join you Geoff, sorry. These posts I made to the Ethical Breaching Experiments project were innapropriate, they were intended to be a tease, and Jimbo may have seen them and thought they were part of the project. If you really care for that view you should explain it to Jimbo and he might reverse his position. If you think that I am liable to go around the WV posting like that on projects you are wrong. I know those were disruptive edits and I am sorry although I cannot help my opinion about the project which was formed before I edited anything. If I had merited a ban it should have been in the pipeline two weeks ago when the edits Ottava is quoting were brought to light by (SB_Johnny if I remember correctly). If there is something evasive in my responses to you, you should make it clear. I have obviously gone to some length to respond. I do not want anyone to think that I am trying to disrupt or damage or that I do not know the difference, even if I have nothing to do with the site. ~ R.T.G 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very much welcome that Ottava has raised this here for discussion. I disagree with some of his interpretation of events though. I don't agree that the deleting of the "how to" page put an end to the project. The rest of the project still existed and at that time including references to planning and possibly executing experiments. The potential for the project to be used as a base for planning experiments was only slightly diminished by the deletion of the "how to" page.
I also disagree with the general underlying suggestion that RTG is responsible for the recent incident. RTG certainly played a part but it was Jimbo that took the decision to act. It has been said that RTGs message to Jimbo was misleading but I do recognise that as being the case. The way it was written was clearly tongue in cheek, he wasn't really inviting Jimbo "to a workshop where you can learn all about disrupting and decieving Wikimedia". I would be more concerned about some of the changes that RTG made to the pages in question before Jimbo acted however I'm pretty sure that he knows where to find the page history so probably identified those changes.
If RTG was going to be blocked it should have been when he was unhelpfully editing the breaching experiments pages. Now, all I see is him commenting. I haven't read through all of those comments though so I would appreciate it if those suggestions that he is lying are backed up by diffs and quotes. I'd like to see strong evidence that this user is continuing to act to disrupt the project, not because he is sayings things people don't like, but he is saying things which are untrue and seem intended to mislead. That is the only way it will look like this block is not simply revenge for getting Jimbo involved. As has been mentioned, blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. I remain unconvinced at the moment that this block would satisfy that criteria and some diffs/quotes demonstrating ongoing disruptive behaviour would assist with that. Adambro 11:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< I rather not see RTG blocked or banned - especially because discussion is ongoing. Privatemusings 23:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RTG's deleted comments

I have discussed it over with other admin and I will post publicly the deleted material that RTG add to Wikimedia Ethics/The Ethics of Breaching Experiments/planning which has come into question so others can see what RTG said in his own words at 21:38, 12 March 2010. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:18, 12 March 2010

== Disrupting Wikimedia ==
Dear Jimbo, although not a member myself, I would cordially like to invite you to a workshop where you can learn all about disrupting and decieving Wikimedia with experiments in practice. This workshop is being organised on a website you may be familiar with, Wikiversity. There is no doubt that you would be welcome to participate. Just leave your name on the page[12] Who knows, they might even design a few barnstars for exceptional graduates. If they plant an operative on the permanent staff they might even be able to pinch the petty kitty. There are many such possibilities for reward so get yourself over there before the list fills up. ~ R.T.G 21:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:38, 12 March 2010

==Deleting a project without discussion==

First you would need to find an operative with the sysop tools. Give them a quick story such as, "Some bunch of nuts are creating a project whose goal is to disrupt Wikimedia, would you just delete it for a minute?" Then, once it is deleted, contact the admin again, "Could you just leave it that way for a couple of hours while I check up on something?" Then after a few hours are nearly up contact the admin again, "The Wikimedia Law Enfocement Agency (made up for this experiment) have declared the project to be in ethical breech and insist that you leave it as deleted." The admin claims they do not know the Agency so you have your friend, an admin who has no contact with this admin, to send an email pretending to be from the agency and sanctioning the permanent deletion of the project. And then the whole project is permanently deleted and there never even was such a thing as Wikimedia Law Enforcement Agency.

===Deleting Wikisource===

A similar approach to deleting a project except this time the contact is made with a steward on Meta and the goal is to convince them to delete the Wikisource website.

  • Thanks be to everyone working towards stability. Let me bring to your attention RTG's understanding of Wikimedia, when I told him Wikiversity do not need Jimbo Wales installing himself as leader or head of state, or anything like that: [13]

    I'm sorry Hillgentleman but I read all the original missions of Wikipedia. To gather the sum of human knowledge. To disseminate it effectively and so on. Why should I look into the history of Wikiversity when it is covered and predated by all these foundations? Come off it. The site is a part of Wikimedia and that is a good thing, right? ~ R.T.G 20:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    Surprise, surprise. As we Wikiversiters know, communication starts with a common ground. Don't assume that there is one. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 06:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said that I should look into the history of Wikiversity as regards Jimbo wales posistion as a "head of state" within the WMF.[14] Why should I look into the history of Wikiversity for that? Defending myself out of context is suddenly very petty. ~ R.T.G 06:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresented what I said. Not bad. Defend yourself? Well, I didn't mean to attack you. As I said, communication needs to start from a common ground, and we shouldn't assume too much, as this very edit of yours has shown. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the editing history of RTG from the perspective of his contributions to Wikiversity learning projects. If I understand this correctly, RTG was a participant in the Ethical Breaching Experiments learning project before it was deleted. If so, RTG may have contributed to the success of that project by helping to demonstrate how easily an honest, ethical and scholarly learning project can suffer an out-of-process deletion. Maybe we should give RTG an award in recognition of his masterful teaching skills. I'm not comfortable with blocks and bans that are based on vague claims about "disruption". RTG seems willing to discuss his participation at Wikiversity and I suspect there is more that we can learn from his continued participation at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    RTG's actions were the very type of disruption Wikiversity does not need. We did not need to go through two weeks of strain and tribulation. The only lesson he has taught us is to be more vigilant about people willing to deceive in an attempt to get things deleted or destroyed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Medical opinion: attempts to get things deleted are only a symptom of Wikipedia Disease, not the cause. If we are going to heal Wikiversity then we need to treat the cause of this affliction. The out-of-process deletion of the Ethical Breaching Experiments learning project clearly points to the root cause of Wikipedia Disease. If we remove the root of Wikipedia Disease then the branches will decay and all the petty hangers-on will no longer have any support. --JWSchmidt 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Deletion policy has not yet been formally accepted so there is no official process. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this, "The 'founder' global group was .... Intended to duplicate the local English Wikipedia 'steward' flag". According to this, stewards "are tasked with technical implementation of community consensus, and dealing with emergencies". Jimbo acted at Wikiversity when no emergency existed and he failed to act on community consensus. His deletion of the Ethical Breaching Experiments learning project was out of process. --JWSchmidt 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not turn this into another assessment of Jimbo's actions, let's keep that at CR. Please keep this discussion focused on RTG. Adambro 15:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion remains focused on RTG, and the point is, don't turn RTG into a scapegoat for problems that are caused by others. In this case it is important to keep in mind the problems that are caused by Jimbo's use of his tools. --JWSchmidt 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo's use of the tools was directly prompted by the creative posting of RTG with a message that would lead to Acts of Jimbo being perpetuated on this community. Geoff Plourde 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I mean when I said [15] the steward tools are simply too dangerous in his hands, because he has too much past on his back, and more. But, anyway, how has the fact-finding gone? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remind everyone that my actions taken here were done with the support of the Foundation and were intended to help you find the internal strength to deal with trolling and cross-wiki issues. It isn't your fault that you have been targeted as a community which is vulnerable to this sort of thing. I support that you clean house and strengthen policy.--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wales, Did you obtain support from the wikimedia foundation before or after the event? How many trustees or members of staff have you discussed with? And how did you check that you blocked the right person? Regards, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo: I object to you labeling an honest and sincere Wikiversity participant as "troll". Please provide a link to the public record of a vote by the Board where the Board members stated that someone from outside of the Wikiversity community can, in a non-emergency situation, over-ride the Wikiversity community procedures for page deletion, blocking and desysoping. --JWSchmidt 13:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JWSchmidt - in IRC, you were quoting different policies that have not yet been accepted. We do not have a blocking policy or other such things. We have proposals. That leaves us vulnerable to problems of all type. I think we need to focus on fixing those problems as Jimbo has stated. Would you agree to that, as it seems to be what would be best to fulfill your statements from yesterday? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policies are useful only when people are actually respecting them. I think we need to fix the biggest problems first. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor of developing Wikiversity policy, but I was accused of "policy manipulation" for having done so. Two years ago, Wikiversity was subjected to a hostile take-over; under these conditions is self-governance possible? Many honest Wikiversity participants have been driven away from the project. The fundamental problem is people who fail to do what is in the best interests of the Wikiversity project.....I'm not sure how to solve that problem. --JWSchmidt 14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were those two posts quoted above and another one not quoted suggesting that a saboteur could steal a company car and some petty cash. I honestly think that in some wild way these suggestions were within the scope provided by the project, this was the source of my opposition to the project. I did not at any time believe that the project intended such extremes but I did think, and still do think, that repeats of these hoaxes were the ultimate end of that project no matter what the intentions and Privatemusings userpage on Wikipedia says something like "I am a sockpuppet, Arbcom blocked me for 90 days. Here are all my sockpuppets." I know that I am not supposed to play games like that. The possibility of tricking people did not enter my head for those edits. They were intended to be seen by the small amount of contributors involved at that time i.e. Privatemusing and possibly some admins, who I honestly thought would want to put a fast stop to such a project. The fact that Jimbo was so unimpressed by the project was as surprising to me as anyone but I always thought that the project should go so. I will not be able to claim otherwise. The ideas about my motives on IRC were ranging from that I had plotted the whole thing with Jimbo, had some expertise in manipulating him or I was some sort of sock puppeteer etc. ("How many sock puppets do you have?" etc.) and when I said things like "lol" I was told "This is not funny". That said, I was not so evasive as suggested and I stayed on the IRC until 3am answering questions for the custodians and other regulars of Wikiversity. I haven't really studied much on Wikiversity but I often come and have a look at what is on the main page and have respect for it no matter what you might like to say here. I look to see if some things that interest me have been developed yet and it was in those little looks that I found the Breaching Project. I wish you would do some more of the Daily Doctoral Questions from the Engineering Department which were very interesting and other things. Anyway, I made another post about the Ethical Breaching Experiments which can be seen on this page some sections up. That too was a bit extreme. I do apologise for those sections about deleting Wikisource and stealing cars etc. I do think that you should give me a final warning to make sure that I do not come back here and start playing games with the next thing I don't happen to agree with. I do not think that should apply to informing Jimbo or any other user about a project on any site that I think is questionable. I do not think that should apply to my being sarcastic for emphasis when posting to another user as I am not a robot. I think it is obvious that I am not operating a vandalism-only account. I take this discussion very seriously or I would not post so much to it (some seem to wonder what I am posting here for that it may not be what it seems). I do not think it is required of me to contact Ottava if I have concerns about something, even if he has been involved with it, which he expressed some concern about before. I don't want to be banned. I don't want to disrupt. I don't want to pass any feelings of ill-will to anyone although when I first encountered the Breaching project I did have a low opinion of Privatemusings intentions. Now one way or another I will need to be getting back to my own life soon. I have been on these pages for days now. I can't remember the last constructive edit I made to Wikipedia and yet I seem to have been looking at it for two weeks so whatever you think is best is probably best. Wether it helps or harms me I have posted most likely all I can think of to aid your decision. Rather than imagining myself to be a most valued contributor I just do not want to be ostracised from something I ultimately have respect for. If I appear to be evasive after posting so much I doubt that I will be able to allievate it. All best ~ R.T.G 15:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity of User:RTG

Well your questions should be about wether it is apropriate or not. That is the topic. ~ R.T.G 09:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RTG, What is in question here is your integrity, which is completely relevant to your continued participation in Wikiversity and hence the topic of this very discussion. I have added a subsection header to my question and I hope you can see the relevance and help us. Regards, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying that my comparisons to digging holes in a garden or ringing the fire brigade might apply to my three, or so, edits to the Ethcial Breeching Experiments project and subsequent efforts to draw concern to it, you are absolutely right. At best careless and at worst a concerted effort to bemuse and manipulate, although I continue to point out that deception, i.e. the latter, did not occur to me. I thought objection to the project was pretty straight forward and I just happened to mess about. I have admitted and apologised there is nothing of further, so far as I can tell, that I should add about it. But the other diffs? I do not understand. Do I think that all jargon creators should be working instead on cold fusion? Sure. A lot of them probably are already. Do I think that anti-terrorist (particularly) and childmolester campaigns should be the conduct of secretly trained professionals? Sure. Vigilance is one thing. Amateur vigilantism is another. (?) You are absolutely right to examine me for any wrong doings but the rest is a bit out of it so I don't think that you should be asking me about those things where it is not simply a discussion of opinions. I have thought carefully about answering this so again, did I do some wrong things there? Yes. Is there something wrong with my opinions on those other two things? I have no idea. ~ R.T.G 08:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RTG, Your "three edits" which describes a detailed plan of attacking a wikimedia site, amount to the most serious problem of the page. With that in mind, do you consider your behaviour trolling and do you think you should be blocked for it, according to your own standard? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 17:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying that my comparisons to digging holes in a garden or ringing the fire brigade might apply to my three, or so, edits to the Ethcial Breeching Experiments project and subsequent efforts to draw concern to it, you are absolutely right. At best careless and at worst a concerted effort to bemuse and manipulate, although I continue to point out that deception, i.e. the latter, did not occur to me. I thought objection to the project was pretty straight forward and I just happened to mess about. I have admitted and apologised there is nothing of further, so far as I can tell, that I should add about it. ~ R.T.G 23:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be hard to believe. You thought up a sophisticated plan of Wiki-breaching and then sounded the siren. Very well. But all along the discussion where you took a moral high ground, you completely and conveniently forgot about your own involvement? Do you call that a honest mistake? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 14:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't forget. Where'd you get those quotation marks from? Your use of the word "sophisticated" is is a bit overwrought isn't it. If backing me into a corner with statements like that shows me to have a peculiar "moral high ground", you certainly have the stage. I don't want to be in a personal arguement. I am going to assume that as the only person talking you are the only person listening and if that is a bannable assumption, so be it. I made a lengthy post to every reasonable accusation to admit, apologise, and argue against extra-ordinary accusations or defamation of my views as best I could. The spirit of that apology wains in this thread so if you don't mind I will hang on to it instead and leave you here. Anyone could be an evil sinister mastermind if only they were an evil sinister mastermind. If only we could spot one? Create a few? No. Thanks anyway. ~ R.T.G 23:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RTG, I am just asking you simple, straightforward and reasonable questions concerning your own curious behaviour. If you have a preference of hyperboles to straightforward and simple answers please keep them to yourself as it is certainly not my intention nor within my capability to defame you. It is very strange that you didn't forget but somehow omitted to mention that you yourself had been a party to those you were condemning. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 04:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Migrating the 2005 Wikimania proceedings

Wikimania's proceedings from 2005 were first hosted on wikibooks, then moved to Meta. They really belong here, if WV is open to conference proceedings in general. (So do proceedings from the succeeding conferences -- 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 -- at which point they can usefully be categorized and cross-referenced for the first time :)

--SJ+> 05:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be excellent - from a quick look, clicking through to the presentations leads to well organised, appropriate content. Among other things, this would provide an valuable showcase/demo of how Wikiversity can host conference proceedings. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering - import into main space or maybe a namespace? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of materials also from those two years (2005 and 06) is overwhelming. Still I wouldn't go for a new namespace, but a new portal instead. It will be a huge one, but I am in favor to concentrate stuff to the main space. More easy to find. Sidenote: SJ, do you see any possibilities of "importing" also a few people willing to help with the job? At our current capacities this entire operation would take a lot of time. --Gbaor 09:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything from Wikimania could be organized nicely under Wikimania/Year/. I think the creation of the strategy wiki could of been avoided by starting the process here as well. Wikiversity participants seemed to be interested in researching and suggesting ways to improve the wikimedia projects long before the strategy wiki was created. Work that focuses on improving the Wikimedia projects could probably of improved the health of Wikiversity if it had been done here instead of creating a new wiki for it.
That Wikimania structure sounds fine to me. A scripted import would make sense... I'm sure we could find people to help with it, however -- GChriss for instance cares about arranging for a proper process for hosting conference proceedings and related discussions indefinitely on a publicly editable/commentable wiki [and every open conference needs/wants this]. SJ+> 04:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support any proposal to host Wikimania and Strategy wiki work on Wikiversity. I think everything from Wikimania could be organized nicely under Wikimania/Year/. I think everything from Strategy wiki could be organized nicely under "Wikimedia Strategy/". Hosting and doing the work here could help to improve the health of Wikiversity and the wider community's understanding of Wikiversity. I think presentations, seminars, and projects of the sort that Wikimedia is engaged in are all about teaching and learning, and thus within our scope. -- darklama  18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, migrate it. strategy wiki: would be fine also, but I guess too late now for that? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 14:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are speaking about this right? It appears to be functional and also the need for new strategies may arise. --Gbaor 18:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see now :) Maybe is not the best thing to move the "stage" while the "show" is still going. But maybe we can move the things that are already done and leave a link there. --Gbaor 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm talking about that wiki. The sort of activities going on there are the type of activities that really should be going on at Wikiversity. -- darklama  18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The future of the strategy wiki is under discussion at this point. I'd ask that you not move content; we're still very much using it as a functional wiki and wherever the content is to be finally hosted, it should be cohesive, and not scattered. I will carry the suggestion that wikiversity might be a good home for that content: other suggestions have emerged as well (meta, for instance), so we need to sort through some things and figure out where strategy wiki should ultimately end up. It's not simply a matter of hosting content: there's a large and active strategy wiki community that needs to be involved as well. The final decisions will obviously need to involve them. Thank you for your interest. Philippe (WMF) 18:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC) (Facilitator, Strategy Project)[reply]
Agreed that the Strategy wiki is still quite active and useful where it is. If its editors decide to merge it back into larger wikis for long-term strategizing, I would find Meta a more suitable home for the proposals and multilingual discussion related to Wikimedia-wide strategy work, if the need for a focused Strat-wiki passes; but the research for individual task forces -- and assessment of whether a group's research efforts effectively span the space of relevant sources and possibilities -- would be appropriate for WV. SJ+> 04:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we upload images?

Hello, can someone help me? I have been an editing member at Wiki for many years, but when I created a new article on World Healing Day, I find I am unable to load photographs of past events.

How can I become enabled to do so?


Bill --Worldtaichiday 07:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a button on every page at the top and on the left hand side called "Upload file". You press that and follow the instructions to upload images, videos or audios, or if that is not working for you upload it to Commons using the same button there. It's probably best to upload your images to commons because then your image can be used on any site in any language instead of just en.wikiversity. This page tells you how to upload files to Commons. ~ R.T.G 08:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the 'upload file' link take people directly to commons? Are fair use images allowed here? If not, simply merging with the commons upload process would make many things simpler. (of course the new-message updates don't work so well across projects...) SJ+> 02:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, for instance, a book cover or cover of a CD or magazine etc. can be used to illustrate the appearance. This is legal and normal practice for information and educative resources but it is still copyright. If you took that art cover and started selling copies of it you would be infringing. Commons material is intended to be free to use for anything including selling copies of it. Currently they accept a lot of material under the attribution license (i.e. use and sell all you like so long as you leave the original authors name somewhere) but the spirit of the thing is free material for any purpose. It is useful to see a work of art in description or teaching which is not a good enough reason to post a copyright picture on Commons. ~ R.T.G 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]