Jump to content

Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/November 2023

Add links
From Wikiversity
Filing cabinet icon You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.

Proposal: Close the Wikiversity:Help desk and other reference desks

TL;DR: I am proposing that Wikiversity close its help and reference desks, as they are not being actively used or maintained. This affects the following pages:

as well as the following others which aren't linked from the main help desk:

The help desk was created with the intent of being a general-purpose question and answer service. This is not a service which Wikiversity currently has a sufficiently active user base to provide, nor is it one that visitors have historically made much use of. (Many of the subject reference desks haven't seen any activity in the last 10 years.)

Questions about using Wikiversity should be directed to the Colloquium; there's little enough activity here that a few extra questions won't hurt. Questions about other topics should be directed to the English Wikipedia reference desk or other online Q&A resources like Stack Exchange, where they are more likely to receive timely answers.

Fully closing the help desk will require the assistance of an interface administrator, as there's currently a link to it in MediaWiki:Sidebar.

Are there any objections to these closures?

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mark them historical, direct users here for specifically en.wv topics or to appropriate third parties as necessary (no prejudice about which ones, etc.), and re-open in the off chance that this project gets busy enough to justify them in the future. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to closing these pages. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there doesn't seem to be objection, this is now checkY Done - I have placed a message on the main help desk indicating that it is closed, and redirected all of the other help desk pages to that one. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coord does not work

The {{Coord}} dtemplate oes not work, see WikiJournal of Science/Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990#Encounter data. Could somebody fix it, please? -- Jan Kameníček (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the Lua module was broken? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proclaiming Armistice of WWI Remembrance and Veterans Day for 11th Nov

Sign

Propose that we announce on main page that 11th November is: Jaredscribe/Armistice of WWI Remembrance and Veterans Day (this proposal was tailor made for Portland public schools, but could be generalized to apply to any school, in any country, or to any wikiproject)

I'm not necessarily proposing that we link to my proclamation, or move it to mainspace, (although if the colloquium supports that, I will consent and give up editorial control), I only ask that you read it, and that we make "Armistice Remembrance" primary (that is how the Europeans still call it, rather the American Veterans Day, which appellation neglects the historical and educational value of the holiday.

Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 05:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good time to promote and contribute to courses that teach about global war and peace, and the aftermath of this particular peace: the post-colonial national movements of the former Ottoman possessions, about the rise of fascism and communism in Europe, about multilateral international institutions, etc.
Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 05:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting sentiment, but I think that the proposal is too late and we don't have appropriate featured content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean to say is, I think, "we don't have appropriate content to feature". If we did have appropriate content, we could feature it, and that fact that it isn't currently featured is irrelevant. Is that what you meant? Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean that, yes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our course on WWI is woefully inadequate. But this is a good time for educators to start improving the course! Koavf
Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
searching "armistice" on wikiveristy yields dozens of results: many other courses on mention the topic.
Invitation to all my colleagues here, on other wikiprojects, at schools and libraries and civic gatherings IRL to spend this American federal holiday (because 11th is a Saturday, we have Friday off) and lets spend the coming days doing learn-ins, study-ins, and teach-ins.
Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the template pages:
I imagine that other languages are similarly lacking.
Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 02:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
French wikiversity has a thorough and excellently presented resource: fr:États-Unis et le monde depuis les « 14 points » de Wilson that someone could translate and further reference and annotate: "United States and the world since the "14 Points" of Wilson.
It has lots of pictures, 4 lessons, five appendices, oral questions, and a summary outline and arguments. Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing a Students Union of Substitute Teachers and Adjunct Faculty

Sign

User:Jaredscribe/Students Union of Substitute Teachers and Adjunct Faculty This is in response to several high profile teachers union strikes this year.

A discussion is already underway on the talk page: User_talk:Jaredscribe/Students_Union_of_Substitute_Teachers_and_Adjunct_Faculty#Challenging_assumptions_and_warning_against_disservice_to_students

Soliciting proofreading and further analysis or commentary from the Colloquium, before I move this to mainspace. If you wish to join our union, link to your User page so we know what you're available to teach. Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our first collective action was:
Wikiversity:Colloquium#Proclaiming Armistice of WWI Remembrance and Veterans Day for 11th Nov
Next year we will refuse to disperse from schools on "Veterans day", and instead consolidate and organize on "WWI Armistice day" (for short).
Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the strongest possible terms. Wikiversity is not a platform for advocacy or calls to action. If you want to try to organize a union or a demonstration, that organization should take place elsewhere. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that wikiversity is not a platform for advocating political candidates or causes, but Wikiversity is a learning community, for learning, teaching, and serving. Therefore to advocate for that mission is and should be permitted advocacy, IMHO. The proposal was neutral between the district and the teachers' union, and was not advocating for either side's demands, only listing them. The only advocacy was for the learning mission of historical literacy, and for students' whose teachers are on strike to have access to the school library for education. Since we need access to libraries to make w:WP:verifiable claims with citations to w:WP:reliable sources, and since this is essential to an encyclopedia or a learning community, and since we here are an learning community attached to an encyclopedia, it is both permissible and necessary to advocate that mission. That does not suddenly green-light other advocacy for other political or social causes. Thoughts?
As for union organizing, again its probably not a place for coal miners and auto workers to organize, but I think it should be acceptable to organize students unions, teachers unions, librarians unions, school psychologists unions, school administrator cabals, etc., since these are directly related to supporting the mission of Wikiversity. Thoughts?
My call to action is to improve our content on Armistices and Aftermath of WWI, here and on other wikiprojects - and this is unobjectionable: again part of our mission, and I've been doing it myself - both as a proof of concept and to improve my own understanding of these events. However, in order to pursue that mission, I've announced a Nationwide General Student's Strike called for 13th_November, for study-ins, teach-ins, learn-ins, and edit-o-thon, so that we could get to work on improving these courses and articles.
Although WikiMedia does host conferences and editothons, and pages listing local meetups, and although this could potentially be one of them in future years, it might have been going a little too far to call for a strike on public education as a means of compelling the history and social studies teachers to comply this demand. Therefore I will delete that section, or else abstain from moving this proposal into mainspace.
Regards, Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely clear to me what all this is about. Armistice day? Establishing a union that permits crossing another union's picket line? I don't especially like the sound of that, though I wouldn't necessarily object to organizing or a call to action per se. It hardly seems the least appropriate thing on wikiversity, considering there's a 'learning resource' on how to make a bong out of toilet paper, which survived an RfD no less (the 'random' button took me there). It's just rather vague. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 04:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for Calendar and holiday reform generally. Thanks for the feedbac: I've made the demands a little more clear and distinct.
Also clarified that we're not crossing another union's picket line:
Demand: Open the Libraries for Independent Study Groups:
"School librarians are represented by the PAT and are on strike along with teachers. They have the right to collectively bargain, and we support the valuable work they do and their right to use strikes as negotiating tactic, but we do not acknowledge any right to keep libraries locked or to supress available knowledge. There should be no monopoly on access to knowledge. We ask PPS principals themselves should facilitate the opening of libraries on a browsing-only and non-lending basis, in the schools they oversee. They should do this with or without the help of parent-volunteers or student-workers, and with or without the consent of the teachers' union, although we expect the PAT to concede to this demand. All acquisitions and improvement of the collection should be left on hold until the librarians return from strike, but the custodianship of the room and application of any discipline that may be required, is unskilled labor that can be done by the principals with help from students and parents." Jaredscribe (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of having holidays on the solstices is interesting, or better at least than deifying specific people with their own federal holidays. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 06:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debates as a place to defend one's favior point of view

The header Template:Wikidebate says:

  • "[...] This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome [...]"

I would like to drop the following:

  • "This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view"

Since, the debate is also a place to defend one's preferred point of view, even if it is also a place to defend other points of view. Pinging: User:Sophivorus, User:AP295. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about amending "This is not a place to defend..." to "This is not a battleground to fight for..."? I think the purpose of that bit is sound; it just needs to be clarified. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am happy with "This is not a battleground to fight for...", if that is preferred; this would be a clear improvement. I think deletion as I proposed works as well. Anyone else has other ideas? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs)
Hi, I agree! Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "battleground" metaphor is worse, frankly. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of dropping all such statements. What I dislike about them is the tacit implication that users who contribute only to "one side" of an argument have an ulterior motive. Such statements do not admit the possibility such a user could simply be arguing what they believe is true. Any given user may very well have an ulterior motive, but since it's a debate anyone's free to dispute a given argument. Debates ought to be actual discourse, not an exposition. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That statement was meant for you, and you need to take what it's trying to say to heart. You are treating Wikidebates as that "battleground" I described. This is not the educational purpose which they were created for, and I don't see any real possibility of that changing. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a bit melodramatic to use a "battleground" metaphor just because someone civilly contributes in the form of discourse rather than contrived exposition? Am I to understand that if I contribute an opposing argument (regardless of whether I think such an argument is actually true), it would then not be a "battleground"? A discussion is just that, and should not be rhetorically likened to an act or instance of violence. And likewise, one is not a "peacemaker" for putting a stop to discourse. People should talk to avoid fighting, no? Undo my wikidebate edits if you don't think they're valuable or appropriate, and I will either leave it alone or do my best to correct whatever you feel is wrong. However I believe they are both valuable and appropriate. So, apparently, does Sophivorus. That a user's wikidebate contributions are somehow invalid or less valid unless they're matched by equal opposing arguments from the same user is an untenable position. It doesn't make much sense when you get right down to it. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidebates - encouraging people to debate the subject on the talk page

It was proposed that subpages for debates are created where people can write their essays or debate in free format. I am not opposed but I would think it less innovative/disruptive to encourage people to discuss on debate talk page, where the encouragement would be via additional text to the debate header. Normally, Wikipedia discourages debates on subject matter on the talk pages, but here, we could encourage such debates. Thus, instead of having "Are debates good?/Joe Hoe", there would be "Talk:Are debates good?#Joe Hoe", a section for the user. What do you think? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose discussing the topic on the wikidebate's talk page. That page should only be devoted to whether edits follow established policy. Discussion of that policy or the merits of various ideas in the wikidebate belong somewhere else, probably in subspace. Subspace is where students typically write write essays. The question in my mind is whether these ancillary elaborations belong in the subspace of the Wikidebate, or as subpages of a different page (in namespace or "mainspace".) If these discussions go into the subspace of the actual wikidebate, a single line at the bottom of the wikidebate is all we need to direct readers into a directory of all subspace discussions. That's how I see it. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain these "debates" are within the educational scope of Wikiversity? Wikidebates, as they currently exist, are arguably in scope as educational resources about controversial topics; however, I don't immediately see how this would extend to personal essays about these (or other) topics. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity is not free hosting for whatever jeremiads someone has. We have some user essays in main and userspaces, but even those are pretty shaky about having "educational" content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The act of writing an essay on a given topic with the possibility of addressing issues/defects raised by other editors is educational, and the wiki technique with its revision histories beautifully supports the cognitive process of doing so. The act of reading such an essay is perhaps not so educational, but if one is asked to read it critically and write a list of issues/defects as if one were a reviewer, that seems educational enough. But the idea that people would write essays on the subjects given by the debate titles was not mine; I just picked it up and thought about using the talk page for the purpose. If people prefer to use subpages for the purpose, fine. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Czech Wikiversity, there is a teacher who instructs his students to use Wikiversity to take lecture notes. After the semester is finished, most of these notes get deleted. In the meantime, the students get acquainted with using the wiki technique, and feel the responsibility of placing something online. Others can have a look at what the students create, and get an idea of the skill level that students can acquire. This is an educational idea rather different from producing material for others to read; the educational aspect lies mainly in encouragement of creation in the wiki environment. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting low quality essays is a good idea. It can be done with the prod template (proposed deletion.) People who are active on Wikiversity can "rescue" the essay and perhaps learn from their mistakes in the future. Authors who don't object to the deletion are unlikely to ever benefit from re-reading their own essays (because they are likely now inactive.) The question I pose to the WV community is this: Should Wikiversity host only high quality learning resources? Or should it also be a place where underdeveloped minds can 'learn by doing'?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy vandegrift: If that's to be the case, it would be good to have more specific criteria or a general review process such that a user can have some assurance their material won't be "thrown out with the trash" if they only sporadically contribute. For example, Wikipedia has wikipedia:WP:CLASSES. It does not have to be an extensive line-for-line review, but a basic assessment that might bear out something along the lines of "this resource is reasonably substantial/complete and/or has educational or scholarly value". I see no reason essays in particular should be singled out as less educational than any other format for a resource. I don't oppose removing incomplete material or low-quality material if it's improbable that anyone will put it into shape. Yet Wikiversity should have some objective process and criteria for quality assessment. We should also bear in mind there's a difference between "inappropriate" and "unfinished". One can just imagine opportunistic RfD with codicils like "... and also it doesn't seem appropriate for Wikiversity" tacked onto the end, just for good measure. I realize it's not always possible, but if someone feels a resource is not appropriate for Wikiversity, they should take it up with the author rather than wait for the author's absence. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We make broad exceptions for resources created as an element of an organized educational activity, like the Digital Media Concepts course. But the pages created under that course would not be in scope if they had been created individually, regardless of whether the experience of writing them was educational for the authors. I see no compelling reason to treat essays any differently. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should it not be a matter of quality, rather than quantity? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Omphalographer's comment brings us to the crucial question in this discussion: Student contributions are always welcome within the content of a structured course led by a competent instructor. The question is whether the community would welcome contributions by non-experts when no instructor is at hand to keep the chaos under control? ... One way to alleviate damage done by low-quality essays would be to place a disclaimer-template on some or all essays situated in a wikidebate's subspace.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little bit of a wiki old-head (not all the way back to 1996 or anything, but pre-2004). My understanding of the WikiWay is that resources are around to be improved upon by others. So there's a tension between "this is just garbage that is unusable, but someone could improve it" and "we need a minimum viable product, but it doesn't have to be perfect". The fact is, Wikiversity does not have much content, but among the content we have, too much of it is lo-quality personal screeds and rambling. We don't provide free hosting for whatever anyone wants to write. It's a judgement call and ultimately, the community at large and curators/custodians here need to have the larger interests of the project in mind, which is not a clear-cut and objective standard, so reasonable persons can disagree. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've touched upon something important here. The essential nature of a wiki, above all else, is that anyone can edit it. Content that's so personal that no one else can contribute to it - because it's an essay about someone's personal political or religious views, for example - is poorly suited for a wiki. Some consideration may suggest a couple of other categories of content on Wikiversity that have historically been unwelcoming to collaboration. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: this is not a vanity press. In practice, both Wikibooks and Wikiversity tend to be made up of a bunch of mini-passion projects, but in principle, there is no reason why anyone should have ownership over anything posted here. The only time that makes any sense is in Wikisource, where our pages should have fidelity to the original source. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus seems to be emerging that any effort to solicit a collection of essays must include an active referee/moderator. For example, the Wikiversity Journals have author ownership, with light editing permitted by users. But these journals have a rigorous refereeing process. Instructors who solicit student efforts act as a journal editorial board. I have a few experimental "calls for submission" on a stubs I found in mainspace, the most successful one being the page Socialism, and I monitor contributions to a number of pages here. I now support a consensus made a while back that low-quality Wikiversity resources need to be removed. I still maintain that "personal" material should be allowed, provided (1) it serves an educational value, and (2) still subject to editing by either the original author or by others. If a useful essay is so complete that no further edits are likely, it should be converted and saved as a Wikiversity pdf file. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But then, it seems that people do oppose essays associated with debates (in subpages) in practice: I cannot imagine a debate author volunteering to audit these subpage essays over an extended period of time. (I for one do not volunteer.)
I don't think it is a necessary part of a wiki that everyone can edit any article/page as they see fit, based on their whim. If Wikiversity's view is that, like on Wikipedia, all pages can be mercilessly edited, it should perhaps codify it as a policy so that contributors know they have to reckon with it. My understanding was that since Wikiversity allows orginal research, editors can claim ownership of original articles they create. And that is to some extent true in the activity in the Czech Wikiversity that I mentioned, where each student naturally owns the page into which they are taking lecture notes. (But the lecture notes are kind of boring and will not cause offense. By contrast, original philosophical research has it easy to cause offense; one only has to think of Peter Singer and the response his philosophy generated.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding uninvited edits on a person's pet project, I am not aware of that issue ever causing a problem. I think it is due to variation of Wikipedia is not a democracy. For example, I wouldn't think of placing an invitation to write essays on a wikidebate without permission from the active editors (all my invitations to write subpages were made on dormant stubs.) If someone tried to hone in on efforts by an active editor, the community would insist that the newcomer start a parallel effort on the same topic. Unlike Wikipedia, parallel efforts on the same subject are encouraged.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If the value of these essays is in the writing rather than the reading, then I think that the talk namespace may be more appropriate. We could easily make a template to add a button to wikidebates like so:

Write an essay

and the UX would be a nice empty form where they can write anything they want and have it published in the talk page. Having it there may even be useful to improve the wikidebate, as the essay may contain one or more arguments not found in the debate. What would be the advantage of having the essays in their own subpage? Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are huge differences between using the talk page and a subpage, and each has advantages. The advantage of the talk page is that if there are many low-quality essays, they will eventually archived and forgotten. I still favor the subpage, because as my college English prof told us, essays are not written ... they are rewritten. The fact that social media already gives folks plenty of opportunity to throw a few snarky words on a mere whim is why I want to see a platform where people express ideas more deliberately. Of course, we are certain to create collections of bad essays. For that reason we limit each contributor one essay per wikidebate. People who like to write endless pages of prose on a subject are likely to have their essays briefly skimmed and then completely ignored as TL;DR. By attaching the essay to the author's username, readers will know which authors to avoid on other wikidebate essay collections. This still leaves us with a lot of bad essays. I remember writing detailed drafts of article submissions that I thought were brilliant, only to look back on them at a later date, with horror! On Wikiversity we "learn by doing", and for some we learn by doing bad essays. Three more points:
  • A fundamental question to ask is: Do we want to fill Wikiversity with quality resources, or should we settle for a large collection of student efforts? There is no right or wrong answer to that question. But quality resources require experts willing to write on Wikiversity. That's a promotional campaign I don't know how to begin. But we might be able to find more students willing to write (or perhaps a few teachers willing to assign students to write.) Fortunately, I think we have ways of dealing with large collections of bad essays. For example, we might allow essays only if a quality editor is willing to monitor essays for any given wikidebate. The editor might choose to create a subpage called "Quality essays", and invite a few students to submit abstracts. Or the editor might move bad essays into userspace or draft space (or even delete them outright.)
  • Finding a quality editor to monitor the essays is a big problem, but I see two acceptable solutions:
  1. Make the invitation to submit essays not part of the wikidebate template software, but an add-on that an editor can insert into the wikidebate. Do this with the understanding that the editor volunteers to breifly look at the essays. The down side is that not all wikidebates will offer the option of writing an essay. I also see no reason to inhibit essays on subpages to any WV resource because my understanding is that subpages are not easily reached by most search engines.
  2. More or less ignore the problem (since essays are in a subspace.) Perhaps essays could be placed in draftspace before being reviewed. Perhaps we could create a bot that tags old essays nobody reads for deletion. I don't know if those who fund Wikiversity are concerned about wasted memory, but the routine placement of "old" essays in userspace seems reasonable to me.
  • Finally: Why I am so enthusiastic about essay writing on Wikiversity: As a society we not only need to write coherent prose, we need to learn to think. Just as the Wikidebate helps the thinker look at a topic from all viewpoints, learning to differentiate between a thoughtful essay and a disorganized prose also helps us understand a topic.
Yours truly, Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just discovered that the talk page is a terrible place to write an essay (for one thing, it adds a signature at each edit.) So I "got bold" and created an experimental call for essays at Are wikidebates a good thing?/Essays, since three essays on the question already exist. @Dan Polansky and AP295:: I redirected your essays to the subpage, using your names as the title. I can change the redirect to another name if you wish, or I can delete the entire redirect if you want me to.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Are wikidebates a good thing?/Essays/Dan Polansky to One man's look at the debate format in Wikiversity seems slightly misleading, but not terribly so, so it seems okay. It is slightly misleading since my writeup is not only about whether the debates are good but also contains design considerations.
I for one would probably choose a different approach: use the "See also" section of Are wikidebates a good thing? to link to whatever other pages are related, including essays. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w/ Dan Polansky on the link to the debates page. In the future the link to the "Essays" subpage should go after the debate with all other links. Regarding your other comment, I plan to put text on the "Essays" subpage that encourages author flexibility on the topic. In real life, sometimes the "correct" position on a controversy is to point out that we are not debating the question that needs to be answered. For example, one person might argue that "are wikidebates a good thing" should instead be "are debates a good thing?" Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having a page for essay contributions to each wikidebate seems an improvement. My essay in particular is more a critique of policy, not an argument against hosting "wikidebates" per se, but I can add a statement to that effect. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit your essay as you wish. I just finished instructions saying that the essay needs not be directly related to the wikidebate. I see this as a recruiting effort to get readers of Wikiversity more active in the writing process. And thanks for the essay! Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. While essays and polemic are not my raison d'être, sometimes I feel it necessary to write. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What types of essays are appropriate for Wikiversity?

My effort to encourage Wikiversity readers to be writers got me thinking about the scope of Wikiversity as I tried to write guidlines for submitted essays. Wikisource does not host what it calls self-published works. What about Wikiversity? The Massachusetts Institute of Technology offers a course called Writing and Reading Poems: Nature Poetry (21W.756). They also offer a course on Children's Literature Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of subject matter? In a broad sense, I should hope that any topic you might conceivably hear someone address at a brick-and-mortar university would be appropriate. For example, nobody's going to give a lecture just about what they had for breakfast, their travel plans, or other frivolities. On the other hand, matters of literature, art, science or public concern should be fine. I have caution about setting policy that limits discourse to any greater extent than current wikiversity and wikimedia policy already does. Remember that the object of censorship is to prevent discourse, communication, and social transmission rather than addressing the contents of a given work or judging it by its merit. Policies of censorship may be narrow, broad, vague or specific, but ultimately they're prohibitive and preemptive. If I see something I disagree with I offer critique, but I do not encourage or conspire toward its removal by any means (aside perhaps from restrictive policy itself). If you think there's a problem, then can you give a few examples? I doubt any such example wouldn't already violate some policy we already have, or plain common sense. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published written works, outside the scope of an educational course, are not within the scope of Wikiversity. There are many other, better web sites for that.
Courses on writing, especially creative writing, typically require an engaged audience and active supervision to be effective, e.g. by having students workshop stories with each other, or having an instructor provide constructive criticism. We have a number of fragmentary courses like Fiction writing, but they're rather bare of instructional content, and none of them seem to have ever attracted any students. Condensing those resources into a more coherent whole may be a better starting point than simply calling for submissions.
Another complication is licensing. All content submitted by users to Wikiversity (as with all Wikimedia sites) must be CC BY-SA licensed. This means that any creative works submitted by students on the wiki would be published under that license as well, which could lead to some rights issues if those students plan to publish those stories further down the road.
Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is every resource on wikiversity not a "self-published written work"? You'll have to be a bit more specific than that. You'll have to define what you mean by "outside the scope of an educational course". What about research papers, editorials, one-off lectures and presentations? All brick-and-mortar universities host such things. To say that one must contribute an entire course on a subject or not contribute at all is a rather high barrier to entry. Nearly every wikimedia project emphasizes openness to participation ad nauseam. No, "joes travel blog" is not appropriate content, but everyone already knows this and such resources are removed ordinarily anyway, and hardly a common occurrence in the first place. The licensing requirements are likewise presently in-place and enforced. Completion status is a separate issue, and perhaps a list of courses "up for adoption" would help active contributors pick up where others may have left off, perhaps with adopted resources/courses bearing a note that "this resource/course was derived from so-and-so's resource/course [permalink-to-last-contribution-by-so-and-so]. If the old user shows up wanting to continue where they left off, they can do so in a separate resource. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that I don't disagree with having a standard of quality per se. However, being organized into an "educational course" does not imply quality, nor must content be organized into a full "educational course" to be worthwhile or of quality. I do think Wikiversity needs better documentation on how one should organize content. For instance the page on namespaces is long and full of jargon. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Self-published written works, outside the scope of an educational course, are not within the scope of Wikiversity": how is this sentence sourced? Is it somewhere in a policy or guideline? Since, it is not known to me that Wikiversity materials are constrained to "educational courses".
Some quasi-policies with unclear formal status: Wikiversity:Original research, Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity?#Wikiversity for researching, Wikiversity:Scope.
If the sentence is true, my Technology as a threat or promise for life and its forms needs to be deleted, together with my other writeups. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews: Tell us about your experiences using Wikidata in the Wikimedia sister projects

Hello, the Wikidata for Wikimedia Projects team at Wikimedia Deutschland is investigating the different ways Wikidata is being used in the Wikimedia projects. If you would like to speak with us about your experiences with integrating Wikidata in Wikimedia wikis, please sign up for an interview in this registration form. Please note that currently, we are only able to conduct interviews in English.

The front page of the form has more details about what the conversation will be like, including how we would compensate you for your time.

For more information about our team, visit our project page. If you would still like to share about your experiences but don't have time for an interview we welcome your feedback in written form on this wiki page. Thank you.--Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/November_2023&oldid=2595691"