Jump to content

Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/November 2015

Add links
From Wikiversity

Major changes to Fundamentals of Probability, Statistics, Experiments and Data

[edit source]

I think both the name and the scope of Fundamentals of Probability, Statistics, Experiments and Data are too broad, and would like to rename the page and place its contents into various subpages. I also want to rewrite at least one section. In-depth discussion of this belongs at Talk:Fundamentals of Probability, Statistics, Experiments and Data, but brief comments concerning the process of rewriting pages, creating subpages, and selecting namespace titles do belong here because others might find it helpful--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any immediate problems. User Aravind V R has contributed in the past and is active so there may be some comments. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. I too think the name should be changed. How about just "Fundamentals of Probability and Statistics". Aravind V R (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will change the name, but see no point in breaking it into subpages as I originally suggested.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant custodians group

[edit source]

Here's an update of comments received for T113109 at the phabricator.

"It looks like the WMF will still be happy with this request if (a) assistants go through a community selection process, or (b) they don't have access to deleted content. We'll see what the Wikiversity community has to say." TTO

This is based on these comments from Jrogers-WMF:

  1. It’s extremely important for the health and protection of the projects to limit access to deleted material that may include sensitive content. For this reason, we can’t support a proposal to create an assistant admin class that has access to deleted content before going through any kind of community selection process. We would not have the same concerns with a class of probationary administrators (or custodians) who have undergone a community selection process, even if other “full” administrators were given the right to add and remove their advanced user rights. We applaud the idea of having experienced administrators (or custodians) mentor new users with advanced rights; what is important is that users who receive access to deleted content have gone through a community selection process first.
  2. Our request is that you create a community review process to select all custodians who would have access to deleted content prior to giving them that access. We are fine with this proposal to create different levels of admin rights as long as that community review process is completed.

--Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear from this response that the idea of having a probationary custodian (at any level) approved only by obtaining a mentor is not an accepted approach. I agree. In light of this clarification, do we still want or need multiple levels of administration?
I think there is still a possibility for this. Perhaps we could have an instructor level. Someone who would be able to do content clean-up (delete pages, etc.), but who would not be able to block users or view deleted content. This would allow instructors to better support their students, and distribute some of that custodial work. This role could be assigned directly by custodians, and would not seem to violate the guidelines provided by the phabricator response. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More instructor involvement with Wikiversity is essential. Perhaps the instructor also could do rollback? I would suggest adding page protection, but we seem to have little need for that at the moment. We also need to verify that the instructors are indeed instructors. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a proposal page for Wikiversity:User access levels. There's no detail yet, but a placeholder for both policy and discussion. The name was chosen based on corresponding Wikipedia page title. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify (as I was the user who originally brought up the issues on the bug) there would be no issue with any of the bits apart from viewdelete (and restore deleted pages). I would happily create a group without this in, if consensus existed. Mdann52 (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you mentioning the issues. Let us think through this a bit further before we proceed. The initial request was a response to a specific situation that no longer exists. We now have an opportunity for more prudent consideration. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal for Wikiversity:User access levels is now ready for comments and voting. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on support and feedback received, the new group will be known as Curators. I'll follow up on the Phabricator request. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Importing from Commons

[edit source]

Currently, Special:Import does not allow us to import images from Commons directly. If we can show a consensus supporting interest in having the Phabricator add Commons to Special:Import we could import (custodians execute Special:Import) any images likely to be deleted or may be up for deletion (perhaps rightly so) beforehand for Fair Use here. As I have a large number of images in use from Commons, this could save on downloading to my computer then re-uploading here before or after deletion on Commons.

  • Phabricator task T115938 has been completed. Using Special:Import commons can now be selected as a project option. Specifying the file exactly as it appears on Commons should result in complete transfer of the file and its history. For deleted files, use their temporary commons:Undeletion requests and state that the file will be used here as Fair use and the exact file title. Then, request import, or import. Let me know if there are any problems. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

[edit source]

We may be able to get permission/access with Special:Import to already deleted files on Commons for import here.

Discussion

[edit source]

I am not against this, except I need to make sure I understand it well enough to be certain that we will have the capability to import an image from commons and then protect that image. Teachers of the future might want to post permalinks to students, and these permalinks are not permanent unless the images are protected. Far more Wikiversarians will be able to protect Wikiversity files than Commons files.

As I understand it, you are importing Commons files into Wikiversity, which is no problem. I guess my only questions is, why would we want to import images from commons, other than for the reason I just stated (to protect them from vandalism on resources that are permalinked by teachers) Is it because they might get deleted from commons for copyvio?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that we focus / reserve importing to Wikiversity for Fair Use files. We don't need copies of everything, and if we have the ability to recover deleted files, we only need copies of those deletions. Protection is a separate issue. Files can be protected if they become targets for vandalism. I don't recall that happening. We've had images themselves that were vandalism, but not vandalism of someone replacing an image. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not also be relevant to import fair use files from Wikipedia? Leutha (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer to Leutha's question is yes.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can import from Wikipedia already. It is one way to obtain images that are also on Commons. The next one I need, for example, that's already on Wikipedia, I'll try importing from there rather than linking to the image on Commons. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm wrong. We cannot import images from Wikipedia. I tried to import w:File:Sicily - NASA orbital photo.jpg from Wikipedia and received only the page starting with Summary. The image, or a copy, was not transferred, or copied, from Wikipedia to Wikiversity. But, the page here is titled File:Sicily - NASA orbital photo.jpg. I have started a task at Phabricator at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T115938 to see if there is a tool, or a modification to Special:Upload, that will allow a copy to be uploaded from say Commons to here. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curation of Upper Limb Orthotics

[edit source]

Upper Limb Orthotics is a learning resource and a course created at 00:30, 15 January 2014‎ by SarahAnderson. She created her user page at 00:23, 15 January 2014‎. Included on it are a description of her credentials and a link to her course here at Wikiversity. Assignments and Schedule components are linked via subpages for organization. Linked to the course (see Special:WhatLinksHere from the course page) are about 40 user pages which constitute cases presented as part of the course for study. I believe the cases are named using pseudonyms.

While going through Category:Pending deletions, I found a number of case images that did not have proper licensing and began to delete them. I stopped when I realized they were part of this course.

I believe all of the images for this course can be licensed as Fair Use properly and would like to do so to keep the course functional.

In addition, I believe the text from each user page could be copied or moved to subpages for the course as cases making them more available to reader's, students, and teachers. As of now, they are not readily available within the course.

Upper Limb Orthotics is currently in the category Category:Health but should also be in Category:Medicine so that it receives wider exposure to potential students and teachers.

User:SarahAnderson's last contribution was at 03:43, 6 March 2014. She may have moved on.

If this proposal meets with consensus I will curate this course as described above as a readily available resource.

Comments, questions, criticisms and suggestions are most welcome. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:Health is a category of Category:Medicine. (https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Health&diff=170879&oldid=118268) so adding Category:Medicine to the course is unnecessary, as it technically is already categorized under Medicine.
I would like to keep these images for the course, instead of deleting them. But that's just me. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Anderson's professional email address is easily found with an Internet search. I recommend contacting her to see if she has any concerns. I don't have any. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it fascinating we have a well educated lecturer here at Wikiversity. Hope she returns to activity! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to SarahAnderson on 28 October 2015 at her public email address. It has been 7 days and I have received no response. The curation of the course Upper Limb Orthotics has begun. The first user page to be moved to a subpage is that of AnitaWong to Upper Limb Orthotics/Partial Lesion of C7. I am currently providing Fair Use licensing information to each of her Files. Comments, questions, criticisms and suggestions are most welcome. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AnitaWong's contribution to Upper Limb Orthotics has been successfully curated to the course with restoration or removal of images from Category:Pending_deletions and Fair Use licensing added. I'll post further updates on the course talk page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

research

[edit source]

--Krishi singhal (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC) why a newly born infant does not remember the pain of being in womb?[reply]

[edit source]

A Wikipedia user (Eran) has written a bot (EranBot) that uses TurnItIn to scan for potential copyright violations. See http://www.eschoolnews.com/2015/11/02/turnitin-wikipedia-copyright-068/ for the background story, and User:EranBot/Copyright for a sample run of the bot on recent Wikiversity edits. Is this something we would want to run on Wikiversity on a regular basis, and are any users willing to monitor the reports and review flagged articles? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have no choice but to do this. How does Wikipedia deal with this issue?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is using the bot for reporting and then manual investigation to see if the items reported are indeed a violation. See Wikipedia:User:EranBot/Copyright.

Oppose Based on section 107 of the US copyright law the efforts by TurnItIn and Wikipedia border on usurpation of US constitutionally approved copyright law. The examples cited from Minerals/Carbonides are fully and properly cited quotes from the article. Way less than 100 % or even 5 % of the article. In all of the resources I've viewed here only one or two have been complete copies of copyrighted works which when discovered were put up for speedy deletion and deleted. There are no court cases (case law) supporting specific percentages of published works as copyright violations. This effort is counter productive.

As Wikipedia uses its own ideas on what's a copyright violation, I advocate strongly against any effort to bring those repressive notions here. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about our rights, have a read of attribution and copyright. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall anyone mentioning using percentages as a guideline. There's no repression involved. The bot only helps identify whether content has been copied from other sources. In both of the examples the bot identified in recent edits, the copied content was quoted, referenced, and used appropriately. But that is not always the case. I suspect that the reason you've only seen a few articles that have been complete copies is because I quickly remove copyright violations when they are added. This bot could make that identification easier. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the one or two I ran across was while perusing resources during clean up. I marked them for speedy deletion and you deleted them. Both were older uploads by students. While I agree with efforts to find real violations such as have occurred the problem here is that the bot doesn't know the difference between copyright violations and anything else. Someone has to peruse the results and make a decision. All the bot has to do fundamentally is look for a citation. No citation, flag. The quantity of perusals anyone would have to perform could be large. The resources I have contributed to may constitute up to 15 % of our current 22,979 resources. This bot as currently configured is going to list nearly all of these because they contain properly cited quotations. Whoever chooses to peruse these is going to be very busy! Any mislabeling means disruption because I'll be required to defend my work unnecessarily. The possible benefits are severely outweighed by the disruption to resource development. The test run only produced two results. Both of which are okay. If the bot cannot find a significant number of real problems, it's not worth our time. A significant number is at least 51 %. Try a few more runs. Let's see what it finds. Right now it's found 0 %. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bot only looks at recent changes. It does not go back in time. We would have to write our own bot in order to do that. I'm not opposed to doing that at some point, but it's not high on my list of priorities. The tool the bot uses (TurnItIn) also does not seem to consider citations one way or the other. It just looks at the content. This is typical of the market space TurnItIn is in. It's primarily an education tool rather than a business / publishing tool. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI here is what the bot wrote "C 92% 110 words at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2006.12.033". 110 words isn't even close to 92 % of the article. It doesn't even mention or know that these are in quotes. The bot is only looking at the published abstract, not the whole article. The fact that the bot is stating a large percentage of something suggests that a copyright violation has occurred. That's part of its problems. Only 100 % of the whole work is currently agreed upon. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the percentage example you're referring to is 92% of the section or content added rather than 92% of the total Wikiversity article. See the Reports links inside User:EranBot/Copyright for the comparison made. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract of the cited article is probably ~200 words. I read the 92 % as indicating that of the content added to the Wikiversity resource from the cited article (in quotes), 92 % of this came from the article's abstract as this is all the bot would have access to. But, this does bring up a strange concern. Does the bot identify quoted content or did it search the internet using a portion of the content independent of quotes and find a match of 110 words with 110 words from the abstract? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The report that is linked from the report page shows that TurnItIn ignores quotes, and searches for phrases across a variety of content sources. The 92% of 110 words was found in a combination of locations.
Something else to consider in this discussion isn't simply copyright violation, but Fair Use. We can and do assume that work on Wikiversity is for non-profit educational use and is covered by Fair Use. But to be fair, Fair Use also considers the amount of the work used in relation to the original work as a whole, and any impact that usage has on the value of the original work. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong in tagging pages for copyvio that are actually fair use because those close to the page can come to its defense.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong about tagging something that's not a copyvio as a copyvio and is Fair Use is that whoever so tags it is actually breaking the US copyright law. If you take a read of attribution and copyright you'll notice a number of authors have made recommendations to be well within the intended letter and spirit of the law especially section 107. But so far the only examples actually found to be a violation have been 100 % copies. One of those I found here was a complete copy of a textbook. I don't recall it even having one of our local site licenses.
Your example is the very act we want to avoid. Firstly, many of those may be mine. It is a disruption of content building to label something a copyvio when it is not. Secondly, making me defend what I shouldn't have to is also a disruption. Thirdly, and this is really important, Section 107 cannot be overruled by consensus. Wikipedia gets away with it because nobody's suffered fiscal harm from their copyright policy which includes me. But, that's not true here. I'm not alone in conducting original research that may be funded. Potentially libelous statements made here, let's say sanctioned by consensus, may likely cause fiscal harm. For this the individual found libelously labeling something a copyvio that's legally not can be successfully sued independent of WMF for fiscal damages caused by their careless labeling. I've covered this in attribution and copyright. Please do not underestimate the significance of this. These same conditions apply to everyone, especially those designing courses. This is the original source for the law, especially Section 107. It helps protect educators who need to use certain materials (as Fair Use) to convey information to their students. I hope this helps.
With regard to any effect on value of the original work, except for 100 % copies without permission, and this is also in attribution and copyright, it is far more likely that partial copies increase the value of the original work rather than decrease it. Why? Because readers are far more likely to consult the original source for the rest of the story. This increases the value of the original. Articles and images in the refereed scientific literature are especially benefiting from such Fair Use. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI but for partials or images licensed as Fair Use, the burden of proof of copyvio is on the labeler of copyvio not on the individual or educator posting the image or partial under Fair Use. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey

[edit source]

Hi everyone!

The Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is focused on building improved curation and moderation tools for experienced Wikimedia contributors. We're now starting a Community Wishlist Survey to find the most useful projects that we can work on.

For phase 1 of the survey, we're inviting all active contributors to submit brief proposals, explaining the project that you'd like us to work on, and why it's important. Phase 1 will last for 2 weeks. In phase 2, we'll ask you to vote on the proposals. Afterwards, we'll analyze the top 10 proposals and create a prioritized wishlist.

While most of this process will be conducted in English, we're inviting people from any Wikimedia wiki to submit proposals. We'll also invite volunteer translators to help translate proposals into English.

Your proposal should include: the problem that you want to solve, who would benefit, and a proposed solution, if you have one. You can submit your proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey page, using the entry field and the big blue button. We will be accepting proposals for 2 weeks, ending on November 23.

We're looking forward to hearing your ideas!

MediaWiki message delivery (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2016 scholarships ambassadors needed

[edit source]

Hello! Wikimania 2016 scholarships will soon be open; by the end of the week we'll form the committee and we need your help, see Scholarship committee for details.

If you want to carefully review nearly a thousand applications in January, you might be a perfect committee member. Otherwise, you can volunteer as "ambassador": you will observe all the committee activities, ensure that people from your language or project manage to apply for a scholarship, translate scholarship applications written in your language to English and so on. Ambassadors are allowed to ask for a scholarship, unlike committee members.

Wikimania 2016 scholarships subteam 10:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So this is no longer active?

[edit source]

Wikiversity:Participants ----Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atcovi: Evidently not, but it would be easy to start up again by checking Special:ActiveUsers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Action plan for using Wikiversity as a writing platform for student contributions

[edit source]

One goal of the recent effort to define a new Curators group was to encourage more participation by colleges and university groups. As I followed that discussion I began to think seriously about how to enhance this participation by using Wikiversity as a student writing platform. Since Portal:Tertiary Education had not been edited for 5 years I decided to start the discussion there.

if you know of a place or person who routinely enrolls large groups of students for the purposes of writing assignments please visit,

Portal:Tertiary Education/We need an action plan

and contribute the name of that institution. Also visit the page if you are interested in creating guidlines for those who wish to enroll groups of students (at any level) for writing activities. I think Wikiversity is an underutilized resource for getting students to write, and that it is time to actively recruit institutions to use Wikiversity in this way.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This effort is now focused on getting the educational extension. See Wikiversity:Education extension for details.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs)

I have a goal, and I need help.

[edit source]

I'll get right to it. I want to see a web entity that has a lot of Wikiversity's qualities if not just applying those to Wikiversity. I think everyone would like to see this implemented and would appreciate any and all assistance received.

One difference is, I envision a place where the material is constructed to transition into itself effectively forming a curriculum. I believe that leaving the user to pluck out assignments they consider to apply will undoubtedly leave gaps in the knowledge base of what they seek to comprehend. If we can achieve this "built in" student advisor, I feel it would not only appeal to more potential users but would increase the quality of the digestion of information as it would have extensive context. This would likely not be a linier progression but have thoughtful forks in the content paths.

Secondly, verifying the submitter of curriculum to be a subject matter expert in some fashion. This is probably counter intuitive to what you want to provide the public. I understand if you do not agree but if this could be accomplished it might help solve the issue with the transitions mentioned in the first paragraph. If the information were able to be traced back to a source for verification and discussion by other coequals it would lend to credibility. I do not have a verification method in mind and am reaching out to Wikiversity and other communities for solutions to this issue, something simple enough to not deter people from collaborating.

I am looking for ideas, suggestions, criticism, anything in the way of assistance you have for me. There are other things I have thoughts on but this should be enough for now.

Thank you to everyone that has taken the time to read this,

--EricNeel (discuss • contribs) 04:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in Wikiversity. I left a note on your talk page right here. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign

[edit source]

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/November_2015&oldid=2191278"