Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/May 2010

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikimania 2010

Wikimania 2010, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is accepting submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, and tutorials related to the Wikimedia projects or free content topics in general. The conference will be held from July 9-11, 2010 in Gdansk, Poland. For more information, check the official Call for Participation. Cbrown1023 talk 02:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

embedded system

-- 08:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to ask or say about an embedded system ? StuRat 12:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New extensions for Math!


I would like to know where/how should we propose the installation of a MediaWiki extension for use at Wikiversity for creation of Mathematics learning resources?

Probably it is needed some kind of vote/concensus process before requesting this at bugzillla, so what do you think of having one or both of this extensions enabled at Wikiversity?

Any thoughts? --Helder 15:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Meta

There is a RFC for improving wikiversity open on meta at meta:Requests for comment/Improve Wikiversity Regards, NativeForeigner 04:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that kind of discussions take place on wikiversity? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 09:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Hillgentleman. Must admit I'm finding it all difficult to follow - there's also related suggestions on the strategy wiki. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Although I have no activity on wikiversity, I would have to agree it should take place on wikiversity. NativeForeigner 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Triassic Period:Historical geology

What do we want to do about that page? Some of it is copied from Wiki, but that isn't too much of a problem as the thing at the top instead of a lead (something messed up?) and the title "category" as it is not a category. I tried to think of a solution and I couldn't really come up with anything worth while. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd start first with asking the human who created it. Understand the (internal/external) reasons why that approach was selected.
And there are times when just letting things flow is the best when not sure what to do. It is so easy to destroy than to keep. Though destruction can also be begin of something else - good or bad. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 07:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There are several such pages (e.g. Category:Proterozoic Eon:Historical geology, and maybe more). It seems to me that it is a kind of school project (? not sure about this). I would leave them until it is in the development stage and later move to main namespace. Or just move rght now and notify the author? --Gbaor 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cross wiki collaborations

One of the Users at wikibooks has been looking for ways to get more cross wiki collaborations going. I like the idea of cross wiki collaborations, so I would like to call as much attention to the idea as possible. You can read his original discussion (which he started at wikipedia) here. My own specialization is in mathematics, and I started subject specific "Call to Arms" at the mathematics project here. I would like to start a similar subject specific discussion if possible here at wikiversity. On the other hand if wikiversity is like wikibooks, there might not be any active editors in this area at the moment. Where would be the right place to try to start such a discussion, would it be School:Mathematics, Portal:Mathematics, School of Mathematics, or here? Thenub314 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


hello evertbody i'am a chinese student.i'am really happy to be here.i major in english,but my english is really poor that's why i'am here.thanks to wiki for giving such kind of stage for us.i have several ideas for wikiversity.

first,i wonder can we disscus hot-topic online with other can give us a topic which is valuble then we can say something about it.i am from china maybe others from india ,america,or somewhere else,we have different value about things so it must fun. as time limited,the rest points i give in recent days.bye~~ --Hcgod 07:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikiversity Help Desk frequently has discussion-type questions. For example, one recent Q involved ways to solve overpopulation problems, and China's "One Child Policy" was specifically mentioned: Help_Desk#1_Billion_Hungry_people. StuRat 11:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) moved correction of Hcgod's English to User talk:Hcgod --Abd 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It strikes me that under any topic (resource page) there could be a seminar for people who want to communicate about the topic and also practice and improve their English (and this could be done with any of the other language 'versities, for that language). For example, I'm slowly developing a seminar on Cold fusion, and a page could be started Cold fusion/English for people who want to discuss or explore the topic, but whose English might be non-standard, and who would like correction to improve style or vocabulary. (Or there are other alternatives.) (Much research on cold fusion, i.e., low energy nuclear reactions, is taking place in China.) Hcgod's English is fine, I had absolutely no trouble understanding it, even though it wasn't formally "correct," mostly due to nonstandard capitalization. If it's any consolation, I resisted the use of capital letters entirely for many years, but, since I write for other people, I gave up. Anyone is welcome to edit the regular resource pages to improve them, don't worry about English style, just do your best and others will correct it. --Abd 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that my subpage suggestion is a good one, because it would be better to encourage non-native speakers to be full participants in regular resource pages. In particular, for the subject example, I'm going to create Cold fusion/China, and solicit participation especially from Chinese readers, to cover the substantial research that is on-going in China. That way they can help me and the rest of us gain access to this material, and if participants want correction of their English, that can be on their Talk pages. --Abd 14:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
discussion of correction of English

I've collapsed this because it's off-topic here, I suggest that, other than very brief asides, personal comments not of general value, likely to be a distraction on this page, be made on user talk pages, or possibly Wikiversity talk:Colloquium, it depends on where the value in the comment lies. An attempt to help a user improve specific English usage would generally be more useful to the user on the user's talk. Comments about generally using Wikiversity to help people improve English might be more appropriate here or on the attached Talk. --Abd 13:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

1) Just being able to understand what somebody means isn't the same as them being good at English. For example, if they want to get a job where proper English is required, they would need to improve their skills, first.
2) There was at least one phrase which could easily be misunderstood: "the rest points i give in recent days." This could mean "I have given in recent days" or "I will give in the next few days". StuRat 16:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure. My understanding is that this is the Colloquium page, intended for "questions, comments, or suggestions about Wikiversity." Correction of a user's English has often been considered somewhat rude, though asking for clarification, if necessary, would not. (I've had extensive correspondence with non-English speakers, and always ask before offering general English corrections, and I'm grateful that someone who isn't facile in English will make the effort to communicate in it, since the reverse effort would be almost impossible for me, with little exception. Using Google translate I made a brief contribution to de.wikipedia, that's about it.) I took StuRat's comment here as made in good faith, and I maintain that opinion, and moved the restatement in corrected English to User talk:Hcgod, where it would be more likely to be seen by the user. Generally, this is not the place for chat like that. English is itself a topic, to be sure, and I took the idea that StuRat's comment implied and suggested how to make it more routine and inviting, as well as helpful for the development of Wikiversity, and I made the point about Hcgod's English to encourage Hcgod not to be shy about writing here, for every exposure to English and effort to communicate in it will improve it. Yes, Hcgod did use "recent" when s/he meant something like "upcoming." But the meaning was clear, since Hcgod has made no other contributions (logged-in, anyway). --Abd 13:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
When they specifically say they are here to work on their English skills, then it's not rude to correct their English. And when they can't be clearly understood (without investigating their contribution history), then the clarification of the question belongs here. StuRat 20:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox server

There has been a bit of discussion on the mailing list about the Sandbox server - see [1] and keep clicking 'next message'. Wikimedia Deutschland have kindly offered to reimburse us the cost of renting a server that we could use to augment Wikiversity with other technologies, etc. What we now need are clear descriptions of projects that would be hosted on the server, as well as people to manage and report on each project. What could/should we use this server for? Please pitch in... :-) Cormaggio talk 14:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Cormaggio has said, it looks like Wiki Campus Radio will be back, but we need more such projects. This server should be an opportunity for the learning community to expand beyond mere wiki text. There are many different things that could be explored -- other learning systems, like moodle, a place to host a compiler (for computer science courses) -- let your imagination run free. Then write a proposal, telling us how it would be run, and how Wikiversity participants could use it. Historybuff 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year contest open!

Dear Wikiversity users,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2009 Picture of the Year competition has now opened. Any user registered at a Wikimedia wiki since 2009 or before with more than 200 edits before 16 January 2010 (UTC) is welcome to vote.

Over 890 images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are fighting to impress the highest number of voters. From professional animal and plants shots, over breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying world's best architecture, maps, emblems and diagrams created with the most modern technology and impressing human portrays, Commons features pictures for all flavours.

Check your eligibility now and if you're allowed to vote, you may use one of your accounts for the voting. The vote page is located at: Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Voting.

Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. In the final round, when only 20 images are left, you must decide for one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Wikimedia Commons is looking forward for your decision in determinating the ultimate featured picture of 2009.

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee --The Evil IP address 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Repeal Bill

Have just come across Great Repeal Bill, which currently looks like it's being used as a forum for developing party-political legislation; it seems the page was moved here after being deleted from Wikipedia. Is this the right wiki for that? I'd be a bit concerned if so - I don't feel it gives a very good image of Wikimedia in general, but then I'm used to Wikipedia rather than Wikiversity. One of the custodians suggested I bring the matter up here. Pseudomonas 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely the right wiki for this, my opinion. Wikiversity resource pages need not be NPOV, and Original Research is allowed. I'd recommend, though, that the main resource page itself be developed as NPOV, and tagged as such. However, notability rules don't necessarily apply here, and sourcing for an opinion could be to a Wikiversity participant, for example, and notability (in this case, worthiness of inclusion on the main resource page) can be determined by consensus among participants. A seminar on the Great Repeal Bill at a university would certainly hear the opinions of participants. I'd suggest various ways to improve this seminar, with new suggestions, for the bill, not already present in the public arena, being moved to Talk or to subpages, as well as discussions that don't reflect consensus yet. Organization of knowledge and reflection on knowledge is a very important part of the educational process, and when we move to education at a university level, all participants are moving into open arenas, where all participants, including "teachers," as well as others who may obtain access to material used or developed by, say, a seminar, may discover and learn.
If this is well-done, the resource page with subpages and discussion may become a valuable resource for any class or individual interested in studying the topic, and because it can explore the edges of the topic, places where it is developing and controversial and innovative or otherwise illuminating, without having made it into Wikipedia Reliable Source, it can possibly be a deeper introduction. As with any academic endeavor, it may ultimately have political implications, but Wikiversity itself should not be used for political purpose, but only for education that might, incidentally, serve some political purposes. Our overall neutrality policy should keep a resource here from becoming truly partisan, i.e., people who are, say, opposed to the Great Reform Bill should be allowed to study it there, in an atmosphere of academic collaboration. But individual participants may certainly be partisan.
That the page may have been deleted from Wikipedia is not relevant here, and I have not reviewed that deletion. If something on the page is improper, it should be discussed there first, and only if a conflict cannot be resolved among the participants should a dispute be escalated to the wider community. I will read and watch that page, and assist if I see it as useful.
I have seen many Wikipedia pages deleted, on various topics where I'm knowledgeable, and, thinking back over it, many of them would make a basis for a fine Wikiversity page, because they were on topics where there is widespread knowledge, among experts, that isn't well-covered in reliable source. Peer-reviewed papers often reference sources that would not be accepted on Wikipedia, such as conference papers and private communications. A good Wikiversity seminar can become something roughly equivalent, when fully developed, to a thorough peer-reviewed secondary review of a field, with the peer-review process being fully visible. But this could take years. Wikiversity pages should generally grow and develop and be organized as they deepen. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is constantly being pruned, which is necessary there. Here, side-discussions will generally be filed away where they can be found by an interested reader, looking for such detail. Only truly offensive or illegal material should be deleted here, or radically off-topic material, such as vandalism.
If it is considered that a page is useless for developing an educational resource, it may be nominated for deletion. --Abd 14:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the subject on which this resource might educate? Pseudomonas 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Politics and public policy. --Abd 13:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


To improve incorporation of Wikiversity content in external sites (such as learning management systems, in RSS readers, blog-rolls, micro-blogs etc.) it would be ideal if more flexible and functional feeds out of Wikiversity could be generated. The stable Extension:WikiFeeds appears to offer such functionality. What do others think? ---- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • A big yes, and for educational uses, the ability to monitor pages and categories with this widget would be of benefit Leighblackall 02:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons deletions and change to Founder status

After the Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments‎ Community Review (which remains open), there were some related developments at commons: which are summarised in the recent Wikipedia Signpost article: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-05-10/Commons_deletions Commons deletions (Wikipedia Signpost, 2010-05-10)]]. Amongst the upshots that may be of interest to the Wikiversity community are that the meta:Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag received further attention, leading to User:Jimbo Wales to request that the Founder status

no longer confers the ability to delete content, hide content, perform checkusers, or change group membership for users. It also no longer confers the ability to edit protected pages, but that may change on request.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What's truly remarkable about this is that the RfC began over issues here at Wikiversity, where Jimbo asserted Founder rights to block users, to desysop, and to delete pages. However, until Jimbo also took unilateral action at Commons, removing images that were alleged to be pornography, the !vote was running about 3:2 against the proposal. Elsewhere I commented, "You can take away our academic freedom, but don't touch our porn!" Seriously, the Wikiversity community is very small, the Commons community is much larger, and Commons images are in use in many different 'pedias, and images that were in use in articles were being deleted.
The issue was really the same as here at Wikiversity, the right of each community of editors to make changes by consensus, wiki by wiki. There are, of course, "meta issues," but personally butting heads with an entire community was unwise, and I think Jimbo eventually realized it.
Comments are still being made in the RfC. The !vote today stands at 397:122 in favor of removal. The action Jimbo requested, removal of certain active rights, as distinct from passive rights to essentially see everything, has been interpreted as mooting the RfC, though technically it doesn't, since Jimbo still has "Founder" rights, they were simply redefined. The right to oversight pages (hide them so that even administrators can't read them) remains, because it was technically not possible to remove that right without removing the right to see those pages. --Abd 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity as an option for emphasising a classical school of thought about measurement?

Hi. I'm an Assoc Prof at an Australian University, and one of a group active in emphasising the classical definition of measurement in science. We particularly emphasise the fact that social sciences have lost sight of this definition, a point made in the literature but not mainstream in the fields purporting to deal with measurement in the social sciences (e.g. psychometrics and econometrics). I have edited Wikipedia a fair bit in the past. However, that is probably not the place to include a single overview of the content matter aimed at the target audience, precisely because it has historically been ignored by that audience. Part of what we want to do is draw wider attention to the history that led to the current state of affairs. We have a newly created discussion forum and one of the things I hope to do is organise referenced posts into a coherent article or set of articles. I've considered a few options. If we were to place content in Wikversity, does anyone have suggestions regarding the way to do so? I would most probably create an institute in the interdisciplinary studies section with articles based on primary sources and an overview. On the other hand, one objective is to provide a basic overview of the basics of how measurement is approached in physics, particularly the basis for establishing systems of units. It would connect to Topic:Metrology. Any thoughts/recommendations/tips would be greatly appreciated (including other Wikimedia etc options). Cheers Steve Humphry 12:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  • You may start what I call a "seminar" exploring any topic of reasonable educational value. If there is content elsewhere, I suggest not moving it here, but rather referencing it. (But if there is risk of it becoming unavailable elsewhere, you may, subject to licensing and permission rules, put it here or possibly on Wikisource or Wikibooks). You may find it much easier to create a resource here than on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a university or collection of "seminars" on the topics, and even seminar-like discussion on Wikipedia is sometimes actively discouraged. However, a developed seminar here may lead to creation of content, here or elsewhere, that could become the core or seed of an article on Wikipedia. One way to do this is to NPOV-tag a page, either at the top of your seminar (the basic resource page), as an overview of the subject, as a subpage, that is an exploration of the topic under NPOV rules, and you can also try to follow WP sourcing rules. (You can also do that in Wikipedia User space, but I'd recommend against it.) If you set up a seminar at your university, how would it appear in the university catalog? Let that guide your top-level resource page construction. Original research is allowed here, and even welcome. Whatever you could teach or discuss in a seminar at your university, you could teach or discuss here. You can have your "real students" participate, perhaps writing essays or reports of research into the literature. Etc. Welcome. --Abd 15:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Abd. I appreciate your taking the time to outline the option you think makes sense and why. I have a good sense of what you mean. I get the sense it is not that important what category the material is under, just start the pages and make it explicit what the purpose is? Again, thanks 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Categories can be important, but it is not essential that they be the first thing. And multiple categories are fine. That is, a page may have multiple category tags and be listed under various resources. Yes. Just start the pages and make the purpose clear. If that statement belongs on the resource page itself, fine. Otherwise put it on an attached Talk page. People will help you, usually, if you do something considered inappropriate. Even if a page gets deleted, it can be undeleted if it has any legitimate purpose. If controversy appears, discuss it! Ask a user for help if something is confusing or difficult. I'm fairly new here myself, but you can always ask me, I do have other wiki experience. --Abd 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Abd's advice is good here. Really, just start creating your content - it can always be moved around, renamed, have other categories added etc. as you go along. Basically, as long as their is clear educational and/or research intent (which there is), then it is welcome on Wikiversity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity vs Wikibooks

I am confused between the differences between these two projects. Wikiversity seems to be a place where courses are developed (with practice problems or quizzes or the like) and where you can learn with people due to the active participants list. Wikibooks seems to be a place where they make textbooks on the information. The information on Wikibooks seems to be much more thorough and in-depth than the equivalent courses on Wikiversity. For example, School:Electrical engineering is an extremely organized school. Don't get me wrong, it has helped me understand the material. But the equivalent on Wikibooks is much more complete and in-depth. The only difference between the two is that Wikiversity has an active participants list so you can learn with people, and there are some exercise problems. If we just add both to Wikibooks though, and set up a course curriculum, wouldn't it be better? Right now many Wikiversity courses are just dumbed down versions of their counterparts on Wikibooks. --Charcoal 22:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikibooks builds free text books. We build lesson plans and other things. One is an organized system of dozens or hundreds of pages that has a continuity. The other is a series of smaller parts, more versatile, etc. We also host lectures and other academic material. Furthermore, there are a lot of things not carried on Wikibooks that are discussed here. Religion and Literature are two such fields. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not particularly familiar with Wikibooks, but my impression is that it is, yes, for the development and publication of free textbooks. A textbook is, at least, an overview of a topic, and it may possibly become quite thorough. A Wikiversity resource is more like a seminar on the topic, where students of a topic may discuss the material, so Wikiversity may be much more ragged, so to speak. A seminar doesn't need to be balanced, per se, it could spend all its time exploring a fringe theory, for example, or some obscure aspect of a field that interests the students. Seminar material, edited and organized, might indeed make its way into a Wikibook, and I'd think that a seminar here would cite any relevant Wikibook as "reading for the seminar," as well as Wikipedia articles and other sources. I'm becoming quite interested in the seminar possibilities, but I also see that Wikiversity is being actually used by in-progress university classes, particularly for exercises and the like. Educational materials. Again, what ends up being useful from this might make its way to Wikibooks, since a textbook can include sets of exercises. If a Wikiversity resource presents the same material as a Wikibook or a Wikipedia article, the redundancy should be removed here (not truly deleted unless formed as a copy of, say, the Wikipedia article, without separate justification), it would remain in History and probably with reference to it. So someone coming here will find, not duplicated material; rather they will find references to material elsewhere, for study, and then new material as it is developed, before being incorporated elsewhere, or simply as discussions.
I can tell you that the Wikiversity resource on Cold fusion is not going to be a dumbed down version of a Wikibook. The reverse, it will be a deeper exploration; I intend to have experts in the field come to the "class" and discuss and answer questions (the actual communication will probably be, generally, by email). (If I can get them to come, that is, they are quite busy lately.) Note that an interview with an expert could even become a kind of reliable source for Wikipedia, as the attributed opinion or report of the expert. This is, in fact, a way to gather expert opinion that is sometimes difficult to get from the ordinarily published literature, and I hope that Wikipedia editors may start to use Wikiversity in this way. There are, to be sure, problems, but I believe they can be resolved. The body of expert opinion is indeed an aspect of "human knowledge," and the editors of print encyclopedias certainly solicited and used expert opinion.
As another field where this could be highly useful, there is a large body of knowledge about voting systems that is verifiable for anyone who wants to do the work, but that isn't formally published. That's a problem where it's really impossible to explain, say, the differences between voting methods without having this background; at the very least, such expert opinion and verifiable understanding could inform the article consensus at Wikipedia, otherwise we sometimes end up with articles that any expert will recognize as "dumb."
Many Wikiversity resources are just stubs, or have inadequate participation. But any one of these might become a useful resource eventually, given time and attention. True and hopeless junk is deleted as it's found (generally without controversy). This isn't Wikipedia, there is no pressure to be complete here. --Abd 14:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's some more projects on Wikiversity maybe worth comparing with Wikibooks - Featured content. Hopefully the material across the sister projects becomes complementary. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Wikibooks is able to be used in our classes and learning projects just as Wikipedia and Wikisource. Those other projects provide tools for us. We are definitely a culmination project, so it doesn't matter if topics are covered elsewhere because we an lean and use them for reference. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. What should be avoided (or fixed) is simply duplicating content here that exists there. Content outside of Wikiversity can be "incorporated" by reference. An exception: a seminar could study a Wikipedia article, for example, marking it up here. That could start by coping the article here (following licensing rules, pointing to a permanent link to the original), but I'd prefer to see this copy never be a top-level resource, it would be a subpage of some resource, and it wouldn't remain if it weren't edited with new content. --Abd 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the responses, but I am still not understanding it fully. For example, there is a Wikibooks:General Chemistry and a School:Chemistry here. Now in the school of chemistry, there is a section called Basic chemistry which links to various different articles on basic chemistry. These articles pretty much say the same thing as the Wikibook General chemistry. I don't know which one is more in-depth, but that is irrelevant. My confusion is that wouldn't the best idea be to quit one project and focus on the other, instead of having two articles which say the same thing? If we did not spend our time fixing the basic chemistry in School:Chemistry but rather spent it to refine Wikibooks:General Chemistry, the Wikibook would be closer to complete and we could use the Wikibook in Wikiversity. We could cite the Wikibook in the section Basic Chemistry in Wikiversity (basically treat it as a textbook) and add exercises in the basic chemistry section in Wikiversity. Now we have a complete textbook (the Wikibook), exercises (which will be in Wikiversity), and a place to discuss the material and learn with others in a seminar-like fashion (Wikiversity), similar to what Abd said. It just seems to me that many articles in Wikiversity are the same as Wikibooks. If we spent time on the appropriate Wikibook, cited the book here, added exercises here, added an active participants list here, added other Wikiversity-unique things here, we wouldn't repeat any information and would have a more complete textbook to work with in the specific course. --Charcoal 01:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you have a decent idea. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to replace content here with links to Wikibooks, avoiding losing anything significant, and then using the Wikibook as a text, together with others, possibly. Feel free to organize things along this line! That's the real problem, shortage of hands on deck. Gradually, as more realize the potential of Wikiversity, that may change. Right now it seems to be a highly collaborative place. Sometimes strays from Wikipedia show up here and seen to think that a resource here should be a Wikipedia clone, i.e., rigorously NPOV, fully sourced from reliable source, etc. That's a misconception. This is more like what people might say to each other in a seminar, and it all can work together to deepen education. --Abd 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pages in a book are suppose to gradually build information from one page to the next with some dependency on having read the previous page. I think a Wikiversity resource should be more or less a self-contained unit about a relatively narrow topic. Multiple units about the same narrow topic can co-exist. People should be able to pick and choose which resources to use or not to use in what combinations. Educational institutions should be able to easily create derived works to meet there unique needs. Think about school, you are likely to be given a textbook that you can use for the whole school year, but the teacher/instructor is also likely to hand out papers throughout the year that discuss the same things as the textbook does. These papers might include lessons or information on stuff you should know by tomorrow or the end of the week. The textbook and the papers might over the same material, but the approach, methodology, and how the material is divided up is different. I imagine a teacher isn't going to say, "you need to read book X. I'll see you in a year's time, goodbye" without anything more for the entire year. I see the idea of relying entirely on textbooks as suggesting just that though. That is missing the point of having a class. If you aren't interesting in taking classes, than ya textbooks might be all you need to learn. -- darklama  16:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're making a valid point. If the information is organized in a different manner on Wikiversity than the Wikibook equivalent, I fully understand that it should be kept. However, many of what I see written in Wikiversity is very similar to what the Wikibook information has. I think the best idea would be to link Wikibooks on the Wikiversity article and add learning materials similar to what a teacher/instructor would hand out to you (papers that discuss the same thing as a textbook does, just in a different, more learning oriented manner). Now for the specific course we would have a textbook, handouts (which are unique from the textbook), and other learning resources. I guess the answer to my question is that there needs to be a lot more cleanup on Wikiversity and many of the articles created shouldn't be here. Unfortunately, that means deleting many articles which have had a lot of time put into them. --Charcoal 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think many articles do belong here and don't need to be deleted. Within the context of the world wide web using substructures to organize related material is pretty common, whether that material is a book or lessons. Personally I think the tutorial elements from Wikibooks' Blender 3D: Noob to Pro book ought to be here for example. -- darklama  00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, but when there is no difference between one article and another, it begins to be redundant and I can't help but feel how far one of the articles would be if all the time was put into one of the articles instead of both. Many of the basic chemistry articles are this way.--Charcoal 01:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
How do you define "no difference" (ignoring for the moment that books and lessons aren't articles)? How do you define "redundant"? Lets say for the moment that everyone agreed to work together and to put the time into providing complete information in one place to one work. Would you tell people unable to learn from this one and only work "tough luck"? Many works exist because not everyone learns the same way and people think they can do better.
I think cross project collaboration makes more sense, but I believe what discourages that is often the amount of time and effort required. A Chemistry book is likely to consist of hundreds of pages. A single Chemistry lesson is likely to consist of a few pages at most. A chemistry entry in a general encyclopedia is likely to be only one page. A book might consist of a few millions words that need to be written, a lesson might be ten thousand words that need to be written, an encyclopedia article might be a few thousand words at most. I have seen Wikipedians unwilling to contribute to Wikibooks because they know a book requires more work to get to a useful state. Creating lessons plans from Wikipedia articles, and than creating books from Wikiversity lessons could possibly make the process of getting works to a useful state a lot easier. -- darklama  11:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You bring up an excellent point, Darklama. Should there be only one book on a topic at Wikibooks? It seems to be implied!
In the real academic world, many books are written and published on topics, and a "course" may choose to use one or more of them. For an encyclopedia, it makes some sense to have only one article. That article should, for further reading, refer to major books and materials on a topic, and maybe even some minor ones, in some cases (never implying that a minority point of view is other than that). Following this thinking, Wikiversity might have more than one course on a topic, just as a university might have more than one course with different professors or teachers. The university coordinates this and makes it available. It tends to have only one at a time, though.
Nevertheless, there are university instructors using Wikiversity to develop course materials for use in their own classes. What will we do when two professors with different ideas about how to approach a topic try to cover the same topic here? Force them to agree? I'd suggest, instead, that we would set up a higher-level page that then lists the available "sections," moving the existing resource down a level. Sections may have some identified approach or "bias," or might simply reflect different personalities. This is the integrative approach and we can do it here, taking advantage of the wiki page structure to allow deeper resources to be built. If the professors decide to cooperate to build a common resource, fine, it can be integrated, and they may both benefit. We won't have forced a starfish to marry a lobster, but, hey, if they fall in love, wouldn't the result be interesting? --Abd 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)