Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/May 2011

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

London Calling

Two upcoming events:

Hope some of you can make it! Leutha 20:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, busy w/ master's --JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Too far away. :( Devourer09 (t·c) 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What about a namespace "Research:"

Hello, for your information we're now voting on fr.v about the "Research:" namespace creation, to separate Portal:Research and the non original articles. JackPotte 19:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Will this decision affect the English WV? Devourer09 (t·c) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
No, not unless we are influenced by it, i.e., discuss it and based a decision of our own upon it. --Abd 02:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

administrating a wikiversity page

--Cjr100B 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Hi -

I am trying to use wikiversity as a major project in course at the University of California, Santa Cruz. I was wondering if there was any way that I (the teaching assistant) and the professor could be administrators of our wikiversity page? Would anyone know anything about this?



You already are. I can assure you that any of the custodians will help you with whatever you need (I am not a custodian).
I think that a big problem we face is that we need to be able to implement some vehicle for contributor evaluation. This can be done awkwardly using the tools that are designed to resolve conflict (which you find under the "view history" tab). If you think of it as "page control" then control needs to be "lowered" to the section level so that evaluations can focus there (as well as conflict resolution).
Also there is a tool called mobwrite which is what allows simultaneous editing of google doc pages which should be implemented if students are likely to step on each other (at the section level).
If you have any input on evaluation strategies, please share it.--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 19:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I could certainly help if you needed any specialized tools. As would any of the other custodians. Most of us who read the colloquium are pretty knowledgeable, and we would be glad to help. To start a new page for your course go to the corresponding page name that you would like, which initially may not exist and start editing. Thenub314 22:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
More advice might depend on what you mean when you say "administrators of our wikiversity page"? What is it you want to do, specifically? There are a number of possibilities.... --Abd 01:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I think Talk:Comparative law and justice has some interesting information in the discussion on that page relating to this topic. Perhaps this question should be answered in the FAQs if there is a clear answer. If there is not a clear answer then I think that a discussion on policy or something should happen. Devourer09 (t·c) 22:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is a question I considered when in a similar positionas regards SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming. In the end I found I did not need any special custodian/administrative access. Also, I would like to have some feedback as regards evaluation. Please see Wiki in the lecture room which is the feedback on the above mentioned course which I gave at the WikimediaUK AGM. I am really keen to see if we can develop some generalisable evaluation so that we can start to collate feedback from various courses to get a clearer understanding of our effectiveness.Leutha 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Languages other than English on the English WV

This page and this page are in Dutch and intended for a Dutch audience I believe. Shouldn't these pages be moved to beta? There isn't a Dutch language WV yet but I think it says on the beta main page that it acts as an incubator for languages which do not have their own language yet. I'm just wanting to confirm this. The people contributing to those pages may not be aware of this. Devourer09 (t·c) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is complicated, which is why I haven't addressed it. Design a Small Solar Vehicle doesn't exist. That's kind of a no-no, my opinion, subpages in mainspace with no mainspace page. BlogGSC definitely doesn't belong where it is. There is a page, Topic:Engineering Education/Engineering Experience 4: Design a Small Solar Vehicle, which lists the working groups. We have a page, Topic:Engineering Education/Engineering Experience 4: Design a Small Solar Vehicle/Engineering Experience 4: Design a Small Solar Vehicle, with content different from the page above it, in spite of the redundant name. In other words, folks, we have some newbies flopping about. Let's help them.
From the list of the teams, some of them are working in English. This may belong here after all, it's an international educational project. Looks great, in fact. What should be here, in mainspace, is a page covering the project. Subpages will exist for teams, and those subpages can be in any language; I suggest that the teams appoint a team leader, ideally someone with good English reading comprehension, to function as a quasi-administrator for the team's page. We will then, mostly, leave those pages alone, unless there is an obvious problem. I'd also recommend that an overall project coordinator be appointed, to interface with the Wikiversity community. A little structure could make this all very simple. No rush, as far as I can see, but it will be helpful if a page structure is determined, what they've done is a bit chaotic.
Just to stuff it somewhere, see a Commons gallery of images for this project. From the global contributions, this user seems to write in English and Dutch. I've welcomed the user and will suggest the user look here. Thanks for bringing this up, Devourer09. --Abd 21:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I was just looking through the recent changes and noticed it. Devourer09 (t·c) 02:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Political Science: open government

Note: it changed to this: -- google, inc is getting seriously messed-up.

Here is a "list server" discussion on open, or "information transparent," government which is very interesting (to me) because it includes secrecy, which (to me) may explain a lot. I think that we should make a home for open government for at least the English-speaking World. --JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more important it seems -- in the scope of Wv. I am concluding that common law (, what we operate under, is actually a whole lot better than oligarchy (roman law) as, at least, it has some relevance to society even if it falls short of democracy most of the time. Law affects us, especially in so-called IP (transformation and fair use, which are different), and politics should be important to us because I believe that we can potentially "make a difference" because our SEO is so high. We are not activist, but we can still promote openness, which is on the wiki agenda.--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 15:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a learning project should be made on the benefits of open policy making. Also, is our SEO really that high? I don't usually see any Wikiversity pages in Google search results when I'm looking for things. Also, when I click on your link it just redirects me to Devourer09 (t·c) 22:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
My pages come up first. --JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 17:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Correction, a t&a corporation is using my language, and as you can expect...

WP as a threatening place

I answered the banner ad WMF had up for a while, and posted this to the page: "I think that if anyone really exposes the problem, then that person will become attacked by the problem, such as with corporate whistleblowing." A negative Gestalt. Here is the material that I collected that I am using to give clues as to why the WP, as a microcosm of civilization, is so messed up. --JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That first link links to a page that doesn't exist. Also, I don't think any of the WMF projects need the article the in front of them (e.g. the Wikipedia). So what you're trying to say that WP as a whole is hostile towards WV? I'm just trying to understand. I will fight for the rights of anyone who is being unjustly attacked. Thanks. :) Devourer09 (t·c) 21:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the link, check it again. --Abd 21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
By writing "the Wikipedia," John exposes himself as an outsider, not knowing the insider language and colloquial usage. He does this in other ways; for example, the post on the strategy wiki is signed. But that's a mainspace page on that wiki, personal comments would be on the Talk page. Now, what will happen as a result will show how "outsiders" are treated. Devourer09, your comment exposes you as a warrior for "fairness," which is, again, likely to make you be seen as an outsider. People who "fight for the rights" of users are seen as naive or as abusive troublemakers themselves. "Battleground mentality," it will be called.
The Wikipedia culture rejects outsider comment, if it's lengthy. It does not act to place comment into an accommodating structure, the core community does not believe that outsiders could possibly know more than them, no matter what prior outside expertise they bring. That "cabal" is highly conservative and structurally resistant to new ideas and change. A member of it who accepts new ideas, or works for change, is likely to be ostracized.
(Jimbo used the term "administrative cabal" when he created it, but use the term on Wikipedia and you are immediately pegged as a clueless outsider, since "There is no cabal", which is the operating cabal position, the balancing essay, "There is a cabal" being diluted in expression and deprecated in practice. You can be banned for claiming there is a cabal, but people have userboxes making fun of cabals, and you can ridicule the very idea of a cabal, and I've never seen anyone even be trout-slapped for it.)
All this could easily be documented, by the way.
Control of language is control of culture. --Abd 22:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that the control is through perversion of meaning -- misinformation, which the WP excels at.--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 23:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I believe that there is a place at Wikiversity for Wiki studies. A problem with this in the past is that such studies have often focused in individual editors or sometimes cliques as if they were "the problem." To my mind, that attitude is part of the problem! No, the problem is structural, either dysfunctional structure or the lack of necessary structure. The Wikipedia governance model, as it developed, is a setup for conflict and for failure to realize the fundamental mission of neutrality. It worked well enough to resemble success, but any subject matter expert who became involved in Wikipedia, and who didn't click with the culture and the active administrative core, ran into the dark side of it. It's easy to blame this or that person or faction, or, on the other hand, the expert or other new editor who "didn't get it." Really, if anything is to blame, it's the structure.
I can make a case that the method of electing administrators, and ArbComm (it's a similar method) intrinsically would be likely to lead to the way that the administrative community operates, over time, and I can predict that it will get worse, if nothing shifts.
It's been thought that "neutrality" is an absolute, that text is either neutral or it isn't. That's defective analysis. Neutrality is relative, and we have a measure of neutrality. If everyone, and especially those familiar with a topic, agree that text is neutral, this is the best we can do. Unless they then all agree that something else is better. So a possible standard for neutrality would be the level of consensus that text enjoys. However, if a point of view is blocked and banned, in effect, by banning those familiar with it, the process breaks down, and "neutrality" becomes the opinion of a faction (which might be in the majority.) If neutrality is fundamental policy, as it is, then the goal should always be an increase in consensus, not satisfaction with some operational victory for some faction's opinion about neutrality.
Wikipedia, however, prohibited discussion of the topics! Experts will typically want to discuss the topic! Wikiversity is, to my mind, a possible solution, because original research and discussion of topics are allowed here, as would be expected of an educational activity. We do have a neutrality policy, as well, but there is no single page to fight over, as there often is at Wikipedia. We can go for "complete" here, and "balance" has to do, here, with overall presentation, not with each individual page. What if, for a practical suggestion, when editors violate article Talk page guidelines by discussing the topic, they were referred to Wikiversity? This is something we can really do, it's practical, and it will help develop Wikiversity, and it will help Wikipedia as well. Instead of people who want to discuss running into a brick wall, they will be shown and open door to a place where discussion can be quite useful. And the people who discuss a topic here can still take what they come up with back to Wikipedia, with, now, a more mature point of view.
John, I hope you will lead or participate in Wiki studies here. Please understand that this must be done in a way that carefully avoids attacking anyone. I'm currently blocked on Wikipedia, under a topic ban which I'm ignoring, though I'm not site-banned, not yet. I'm documenting what I've been doing and the administrative and community response, precisely to develop material for study, it is not being done to "expose" anyone, though in one case it may be exposing certain policy violations (and that's being made clear by the WP community, some who noticed my work). In my view, it is not necessary for administrators to be perfect, they can make mistakes, and none should be condemned for them, though a community may want to see that the mistakes are not repeated. Reform of Wikipedia is not our goal here; rather, our goal is study and learning. What can be learned from the evidence? What objective analysis is possible? What reports of subjective experience are available or can be collected?
In this study, we need be sensitive to objections and criticism. We need be patient and not rush things. I've found that many Wikipedians are thirsty for some kind of change, though many have also given up in despair. Highly experienced users and administrators and functionaries, even, are burning out. The system is abusive to everyone. The world-view that the system fosters in participants is one that continually creates conflict and frustration. Content is being built and improved, I have no doubt about that, but at what cost? Only because the labor of editors is considered "free" can we even think that Wikipedia is viable. As a thought experiment, if editors who edit Wikipedia, as it is, instead contributed $1 per hour of the work that they put in, subject matter experts could be hired to write the articles and an editorial staff could be hired to review it, the quality would be more uniformly better. The system is horrifically inefficient, except in the "outer reaches," where the original wiki vision is still operating, because hardly anyone pays attention to the involved pages. And all those "outer reaches" pages are unstable, because they have not been reworked to meet guidelines as to sourcing and notability.
I note this to bring the situation into focus, not to suggest a solution. I gave up on Wikipedia when I discovered that I could be or become very familiar with the reliable sources in a field, have a goal of neutral presentation, be very willing to compromise and work with others, and still spend months and hundreds of hours in working on the content, with very little being accomplished because of an entrenched faction. If I pursued Dispute Resolution process, the cost of engagement was high, and, bottom line, it was insane. Far easier to give up, which most real experts eventually have done.
That's just my story, but many have told this story. Most simply go away, and it seems that "the problem was resolved" as far as those who are left. The same with those who were blocked and banned. Wikipedia is fouling its nest.
So what to do about it? That's a premature question, in fact. The first stage of understanding the Wikipedia problem is to become very clear about what the reality of Wikipedia is, how it is working and how it is not working. --Abd 21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk about a wall of text!!! Go put that on the WMF. The material that I collected was pretty much experimental to get a good picture of how this paranoia thing works (the world is out to get us so we have to retaliate in advance). --JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 23:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is "on the WMF." I.e., here. I think you may mean something else, like the strategy wiki? Look, this is open content. You can put it there if you want to! There, however, you might want to edit it down. What do they say about writers who are their own editors? --Abd 03:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
So the system is flawed. How can we identify the flaws in the system? And after we identify them we should propose solutions to fix the flaws. Is there a learning resource or project that is covering this topic? Devourer09 (t·c) 02:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Much of the system is flawed, but in the way it is flawed it dominates the normal vast majority. I put specific material below; while there is hope of signalling medication to restore the white-matter, it is not clear that that will solve the problem -- it might just empower it. Humanity has to reduce to 1 to 1/2 billion humans to become sustainable, so a great place to pull back reproduction is with the small minority that appears to be the majority because it is dominant. Its "market" habits are such that it is the most "expensive" part of the human landscape, (equally in NYC and Haiti), so reducing this component to say 10% may have the effect of boosting sustainability so that we don't necessarily have to reduce the human population so far. But, the overall good new appears to be that if families have one child for three generations we are down to ~1 billion humans. Still, it seems that the dominant portion is obsessed with "carrying on the family line" as in royals, so that may ultimately result worse problems despite fewer people. I think we really need to stick with the predatory issues (that I flesh-out below), largely because the predators seem to be several steps ahead. In other words, they have all the empirical information, though they probably cannot communicate it intelligibly, but a fantasy such as CG Jung's Archetypes.--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any specific examples that you mention. Also, I'm not sure how reducing the population of the human race is relevant to WP's flawed system. If reducing the human population is a solution to fixing the flawed system at WP then it's not a realistic one and more realistic and achievable solutions should be focused on. Devourer09 (t·c) 00:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

where the discussion is

Here is were the discussion is. Nothing that we have talked about is mentioned -- they are keeping it all "positive" meaning they may largely be the predators that we have been dealing with (and I have been studying). With this and the open gov't initiative stuff (which I quit because it is an obvious namespace perversion, such as Obama's ""), I am seeing pure corporate structure, which includes "moving forward" with respect of predatory issues. Predatory is easily explained in terms of psychology and sociology (what we do), and is inherited, largely genetic, and is associated to to the failure to signal white matter growth in cases that cannot be resolved by reducing threat. My cat (who is unusually bright) has greater aesthetic feeling than many humans -- how can that be? De-evolution I think is the answer, or what I am experimentally calling "Dawkinist bio-hazard." --JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 15:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

where the threats are

I think it is pretty safe to say that the logical approach to a WP page is to put your ideas on the discussion page, to feel out the other editors to avoid edit combat. What I have found is that the "army" in place (to do whatever it is that they are trying to do) does not contribute, but reverts changes, threatens editors, and then drags them to the WP inquisitional kangaroo court where they, as inquisitors, always win (Plato). Now, if you seek to insert information that you know is correct (for instance, eye witness), it presumably contradicts some other information, and depending on the page (anarchy, libertarianism, objectivism, Ayn Rand--but not Adam Smith) you will be attacked by one of these wandering inquisitors, and they will stalk you for months saying (in this example) that eye witness is original research and hence vandalism (blue sky analogy). Commonsense dictates that you have latitude on discussion pages to introduce new ideas, but this "army" ignores this lattitude to focus hate on new ideas. They will use any excuse, and it will hold up in the kangaroo court because they use tag-team strategies (even if they don't know each other -- which suggests a "national" allegiance). They may not be able to force the critically open editor off WP, but they will probably drive him away, and anyone who witnessed their predatory activity will wonder "what do I need this abuse for?"

The component that I cite seems rag-tag and is only loosely affiliated, but recently I got "text" about missing data in a photograph from someone who actually calls himself a "censor." The evils of censorship notwithstanding, this pretty puts him in line with oligarchs, fascists -- and the WMF in line with those things. This suggests that the loosely affiliated "army" of inquisitors with its kangaroo court system is sanctioned by WMF, and that the WMF is attempting to use it to resolve its accuracy issues. Obviously the crushing of critical inquiry is going to assure inaccuracy, but a form of inaccuracy, or misconception, that is similar the "accepted lie" that we think of as history (philosophy). It is certainly in line with what we think of as oligarchy, which is easily defined in the West as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (and student rape) and Confucianism (and official sadism) in the East, and similar homicidal elites in other places (as it is "phenomic"). I think what I am trying to say in all my policy posts is that we don't want to be affected by this nonsense, even if it is the illogical (subjective) reality (object) we have to deal with in most of daily life. But still, WP is an accurate microcosm and convenient lab, and that is why I don't mind it being broken in the way it is.--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So the flaw in the system would be that when discussion of a new idea is introduced on the talk page, a group of POv pushers, I suppose, adamantly resist the new idea. I can see how this is unfair if a group of people gang up to resist legitimate change to the article. They are not trying to improve the project but being selfish and fighting for their own personal petty causes. One solution to this problem though that I see is w:WP:Mediation. However, I have never personally tried using a neutral third party mediator, so I'm not sure how effective it truly is, or what other problems may cause mediation to fail. Doesn't mediation work though? Devourer09 (t·c) 19:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Devourer09, everyone would think what you are thinking until they tried to use the Mediation process--it does not exist, because there has to be willingness on both sides. The people I am talking about (if they qualify biologically as people), are not about mediation, they are predatory don't mediate. (And then there is the mediator--suppose he has an intolerant POV as typical of WP?) People who mediate usually don't even need mediators, except to show the how. I think what is important is to let go of the misconception that people won't do what they are supposed to do, but can't do it and "save face" by saying they won't. They are humiliated by not being able to, so they find an alternative, which is bashing such as with calling people "trolls." When we become enlighted, we figure this out, and feel sorry for them -- but that's stupid (in my opinion); if they can't do something, they shouldn't, and we shouldn't attempt to empower them to do something they can't. They shouldn't be threated, but as optimistic as I try to be, I get wrapped in that mindset--just like everyone else. I should stress that work (above) that I did is presented as research, not a complaint. I see the WP's problems as a gift, as I think we all should -- even moulton!--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The whole point of mediation is to catalyze the process of reaching w:WP:consensus. To reach consensus editors must make a good-faith effort. What you seem to be saying is that editors are not editing in good faith. I try to demonstrate good faith so I make sure I am helping the project and others will see this. If no one was assuming good faith wouldn't WP fail? Devourer09 (t·c) 20:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I have to say outright that you are not reading either what I wrote here, or the material that I collected. You are just answering your own questions as if we are having a conversation, but we are not. Now that I know you are not reading this (!), I will ask this: why are you not reading this? Is it because you will not (read it) or cannot (comprehend it). Either way, since you are not reading it, there is no point in me trying to explain things to you. But(!) the cannot/will not issue should get your attention, but it won't because it can't. Signing off--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny stuff

Lol, look at what this person wrote: w:Talk:PyPy#detaching_the_abstraction. Devourer09 (t·c) 21:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello to everybody, within the Wikiversity Community. Having just signed up finding my way through this website and be able to contribute to help make it successful.

So i would like to say a big Hello to everyone.


Hello. :) Devourer09 (t·c) 22:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


Can we blacklist the URL There are bots I believe just adding the link to random pages on WV. There is another one that get posted a lot. I think it's called diamond links or something. If I see the URL pop up again I'll post it here. Devourer09 (t·c) 21:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Man I meant to post this to the Custodian action request page... Devourer09 (t·c) 21:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Announcing our new community liaison

I’m delighted to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has engaged Maggie Dennis (User:Moonriddengirl) to serve as our first Community Liaison. The Community Liaison role is envisioned to be a rotating assignment, filled by a new Wikimedian each year, half year or quarter. One of Maggie’s responsibilities is to begin to lay out a process for how this rotating posting would work.

Maggie has been a contributor to the projects since 2007 and is an administrator on the English Wikipedia and an OTRS volunteer. She has over 100,000 edits, including edits to 40 of the language versions of our projects. Her broad experience and knowledge made her a natural fit for this role.

This role is a response to requests from community members who have sometimes felt they didn’t know who to ask about something or weren’t sure the right person to go through to bring up a suggestion or issue. Her initial thrust will be to create systems so that every contributor to the projects has a way to reach the Foundation if they wish and to make sure that the Foundation effectively connects the right resources with people who contact us. If you aren’t sure who to call, Maggie will help you. Obviously, most community members will never need this communications channel - they’re happy editing, doing the things that make the projects great - but we want to make it as easy as possible for people to communicate with the Foundation.

The job of the liaison will have two major parts. First are standard duties that every liaison will perform which may include maintaining a FAQ about what each department does, making sure that inquiries from email or mailing lists are brought to the attention of appropriate staff members, etc. However, we also want liaisons to be free to pursue unique projects suited to their particular skill sets. Maggie will develop such projects in the coming weeks.

Maggie will be on the projects as User:Mdennis (WMF) and can be reached at mdennis (at) Her initial appointment runs for six months. I look forward to working with Maggie in this new role!

Philippe (WMF) 22:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


From Philippe (WMF)'s Template:WOT,

Delighted, engaged:

(User:Moonriddengirl) envisioned:

  • Community Liaison
  • rotating assignment
  1. 100,000 edits
  2. 40 of the language versions
  3. natural fit
  • initial thrust

most community members will never need this

  1. create systems
  2. reach the Foundation
  3. Maggie will help you
  4. make the projects great


  • standard duties
  1. maintaining a FAQ
  • each department
  1. inquiries from email or mailing lists
  • in this new role
  1. pursue unique projects
  2. develop such projects
  3. on the projects as

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Bessa (talkcontribs) (UTC)


--Nurul Hafizah Mohamad Ramli 19:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Err, I'm sorry. I'm interested but what do we do here? Can anyone explain?

Hello. This is probably the page you're looking for. Devourer09 (t·c) 23:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

More ways to learn?

More ways to learn? Personaly, I find Wikiversity partialy unnecessary, because of the fact that I haven`t experienced anything but ordinary articles concentrating on education on the subject. Wikisource atempted to collect as many publications as possible, Wikipedia is the known reference and Wikiquote attemped to collect as many quotes as posible, quotes being too unimportant to deserve their own articles on a general reference website. It seems as if Wikiversity is Wikipedia aimed at students and educators, thereby I don`t feel like it warrants its own webpage. I feel that there is a simple way to ameliorate my believed problem:

Encouraging interaction via specialised forums for those interested in learning with peers (as in, digital "classes")

Some digital classes that I would like to see:

Computers, meant for educating about hardware exclusively. Object Oriented Programing and specialised classes for C, Python, Adobe flash and other programing languages. Economy and digital economy. Because both are similar, they could perhaps be teached in one course? Mathematics,biology,psychology and similar things would too be interesting.

This could also help give money to Wikipedia, via charging money in order to let someone learn with a profesional teacher. What do you think about this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The keyboard toucher (talkcontribs) (UTC)

I think that if the WMF charged people for classes they would no longer be considered a w:Nonprofit organization. The point of Wikiversity is to be free and open so anyone can access it. By putting a price on accessing the content you limit the availability of the resource to the general public. Also, Wikiversity has more freedom than Wikipedia given it's broader scope and is therefore able to do more. You say that Wikiversity is just a rehash of Wikipedia only aimed at a different audience. This is not the case at all seeing as WV:Original research can be done here and the learn by doing model can be used. These are just a couple things that are not possible on Wikipedia. You mentioned wanting to see classes on Python. It so happens that I'm creating a learning project that will use Python and more specifically Pyjamas to design webpages and web apps. I hope to utilize Pyjamas and Google App Engine to create open source projects that participants can collaborate on and develop to help them learn web design, python programming, collaborating on an open source project and learn with others in the Wikiversity community. Devourer09 (t·c) 00:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for contribution, Devourer09. I wasn`t aware of these diferences at the moment of writing, but I would expect that those learning projects would be advertised in a somewhat different sense. When I check the main page, the projects seem to be advertised as a reference or educational material. I expected Wikiversity to be a place in which its users communicated directly to each other in a structured enviroment somewhat like a classroom. On your criticism of my suggestion of payed classes, I did not do that in the belief that this website should be more restricted, but that the Wikimedia foundation could need extra funding, and that there would be people willing to pay to get educated by a profesional educator. All of the content would still be availible to everyone, just that some would be willing to pay someone else in order to profsionally educate, present and inform on the subject. On the other hand, this would cause criticism by people such as you, even possibly reduce the number of people visiting Wikiversity, reducing utility and collaboration. You are correct in criticising my sugestion of charging for being educated by a profesional teacher on Wikiversity. Also, may I please join in on your project/collaboration, even though I have extremely limited practical experience in programing with Python?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The keyboard toucher (talkcontribs) (UTC)
Yes of course you may join the project. I guess the project right now is located at Pyjamas, but I hope with time we can move on to more specific application development. I would really like to continue the project of CisLunarFreighter and in turn help out with Lunar Boom Town. Anyone who is interested is very welcome to join. :) On the point about projects being about communication between members I completely agree. I think what the project pages on WV are usually documentation on what the project is about and how to contribute. Beyond that there would be communication by participants in the project I presume. That is how I think of it. I didn't mean to sound too critical about your idea with people paying instructors to teach them on here. I can see how private instructors would be willing to be paid to teach people on WV and give hands on assistance but I'm not sure how the WMF could hire people to work for them to instruct people in certain topics. I feel like the WMF is there to provide the infrastructure and the legal stuff and that the content and community of these projects is created by volunteers. The willingness of volunteers to contribute is what makes Wikipedia and Wikiversity financially feasible. I'm all for giving money to the WMF to continue these amazing projects because I genuinely believe they help humanity. Devourer09 (t·c) 02:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Devourer09 writes: "I'm all for giving money to the WMF" Fantastic, give them your money.-- 23:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
A semi-for-profit Wikiversity, Wikinews, and more is discussed by Jimbo Wales and others at Wikipedia:Village pump. See Need for-profit Wikiversity-like organizations as Benefit Corporations under Wikimedia Foundation control. See the archives there when it is archived. --Timeshifter 03:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation:

  • could need extra funding

People willing to pay

  • to get educated by a profesional
  • to profsionally on the subject:
  1. educate
  2. present
  3. inform
  • content would still be availible to everyone

--JohnBessa66.pngBessatalk 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)