Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/September 2013

Opt-in to global sysops

Hello! I would like to propose making this a m:Global sysop wiki, meaning that global sysops can make non-controversial admin actions such as fighting spam and vandalism. From my experiences patrolling on this wiki, an admin only comes online every few days, and there are currently 287 requests for speedy deletion, with some of them being weeks old. (For the record, I am not a global sysop). While there are 29 admins and 5 bureaucrats, half of them have not edited at all in 2013, and some have not edited since as early as 2007. Are there any objections to this? --Rschen7754 21:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - to me this sounds better than letting the site go unmaintained, but I'm still fairly new to this so others may see problems that I'm not aware of. Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754. The backlog is actually caused by a mass nomination (see here for more information), and it's unclear whether there's a consensus to delete those pages, at least from my point of view. Regardless, I think this is a good proposal, because it obviously helps Wikiversity and its custodians. Ruy Pugliesi and I don't create or edit the content of this wiki, so you might see us as two global sysops working here as local sysops. We might as well get some help from the other stewards and global sysops. The English Wikibooks has a similar system in place, where stewards and global sysops are able to delete spam and obvious vandalism. Mathonius (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment While I am no expert on the contributions of Fasten, specifically the author's Assistant teacher course and Assistant teacher program, these resources before blanked by their creator appear to be excellent and should remain available on Wikiversity. I would ask that each be reverted to their last form before Fasten blanked them.

On the global sysop question, I'm relatively recent to Wikiversity, but there seems to be a tradition here to keep decisions local. Reverting the deletion nominations by Fasten would greatly reduce the apparent burden on local bureaucrats and custodians. I will refrain from voting on this until I see how these valuable and much appreciated local sysops feel about this. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Let's give it a try! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an active contributor on this project, but as a steward who helps here now and then: yes, please! Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment I, too, would like to see the Fasten speedy deletion requests rolled back. There was valuable material there, and no justification has been provided for the removal. But in general I would Support more sysops here. We currently only have seven active custodians / bureaucrats, and most of their time is justifiably spent on content rather than support. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support This wiki is rather spam-prone for a non-GS wiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I agree that this wiki should be included in the list of GS wikis. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Jasper Deng. LlamaAl (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - action on things that need obvious attention is slow. Action on the main page was needed recently. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I struggle to keep up with bureaucrat/custodian tasks, so any assistance is welcome from my POV. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a supporter of the global sysop idea, though only a sporadic user of this wiki. –SJ+> 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Closing

The discussion indicates clear agreement from Wikiversity users and experienced others that the proposal for English Wikiversity to opt-in for global sysop assistance would is supported. The wiki can opt-out at some point later if we change our minds. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Y Done[1] -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Ottava Rima

Per the m:Global bans global policy, you are informed of the discussion above. Please comment there and feel free to appropriately distribute more widely in prominent community venues in order to «Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited». Nemo 10:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The close was

The following request for comments is closed. Consensus is that Ottava Rima's behavior should be handled individually by each project on a case by case basis and that currently, only being blocked on two projects does not rise to the level to justify a global ban. Tiptoety talk 08:01, 28 August 2013 (UT)

--Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

NEH Proposal

Hi!

I am preparing a proposal to be submitted on or before September 12, 2013, to the United States National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The proposal is to the Enduring Questions Course program for the question: "What is a dominant group and what are the forces behind it?" Should the proposal be funded I will construct a course here at Wikiversity focused on that question.

The proposal is to consist of six parts which can be found as indicated: the project narrative, a core reading list, the letter of institutional commitment, a selected bibliography, a budget, and being prepared off-line, a Résumé to be hopefully put into pdf format. The reading list and bibliography may be changed as the course is developed.

Participation, comments, criticism, questions, etc. are welcome, especially on each of the Discussion pages and here as well. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

about projects

hi am engineering student .thinking to do the project in mechanical based so please give me any ideas

--PRAKI (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! Take a look at School:Engineering in general, and Topic:Mechanical engineering specifically, for projects and ideas already suggested. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Additions to guidelines

I made some additions to the guidelines. They are not changing anything, only emphasizing ethics, research and the use of templates to mark such projects. I wanted to mention this here for transparency. wikiversity:research, wikiversity:research ethics, wikiversity:what is Wikiversity? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Additions made to Wikiversity:Research ethics. Purposes, to address: animal cruelty, genetically modified, and potential weapons. Anyone care to give input on that talk page? Thanks. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added some comments and questions on the talk page regarding nuclear energy research and genetically modified. I hope these help. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Glitches with https

Hi!

I have had to re-create editing text because of two types of recent events since https began at or near the beginning of September.

1. my browser occasionally fails to established a secure link while I am attempting to "Show preview" or "Save page". Sometimes once the connection is made I can go back on my browser and my recent editing is still there, sometimes not. And,
2. there's a long delay and the server times out so I have to re-submit also requiring going back and hoping the editing is still there, often lately it's not.
3. not noticing or forgetting that I'm not connected to the internet while editing an https resource may cause the information or editing to be lost.

My suggested solution: copy to my browser Clipboard before submitting. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

the server does seem to time out, at least just now. Maybe this problem will go away in a few days. I didn't notice before that https started being used. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 20:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There were some bumpy servers recently. If this is still a problem, please drop me a message. --AKlapper (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2013

This Month in Education – Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 Headlines> Wikimania pre-conference draws crowd Student leader achieves Featured Article Spanish-as-a-foreign-language students at ITESM-Mexico City Campus upload photographs on Mexico to Commons Articles of Interest in other publications To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Research ethics

Hi!

Upon careful review and based on discussions contained on the Wikiversity:Research ethics discussion page, I must Oppose all changes made to the Wikiversity:Research ethics guidelines by Sidelight12 as efforts to dictate guideline content away from Wikiversity freedoms to conduct original research. I ask that all such changes be reverted back to the last one made by Jtneill on 12 September 2013. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Object. It should stay. And if anyone thinks it should be deleted, then the whole page may as well be deleted. Only one subject was added to the page. It completely allows original research, and it is very permissive. It even allows cadaver research if accepted by on a institutional review board, which all Wikiversity editors can collaborate. Anyone who thinks suffering or indignity should be allowed in order to conduct original research, I have no words. The freedom argument is a fallacy, similar to how it isn't a freedom for one person to take away other's freedoms. Not having a guideline like this will hurt Wikiversity. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to move the new content to the Discuss page until consensus is reached. Something like this shouldn't be added by a single opinion without review, nor should it be deleted by a single opinion without review. Regarding the new content itself, it seems somewhat out of place in comparison to the rest of the page. It also appears to unnecessarily single out one specific type of research when the page now states that Unethical research is not allowed on Wikiversity., and this statement appears to not be contended. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think these are all healthy arguments and fair points to consider and I guess this is the nature of ethics that such conversations are far from easy to get consensus around but that they are important to have. As the page is 'only' a 'guideline', my suggestion for moving forward is to treat the page (and Sidelight12's contributions) as part of an early draft and that we should get in there and edit, change etc. to help to bring it closer to something that may gain consensus. Moving Sidelight12's contributions to the talk page for further discussion is another option. I've edited the notice box at the top of the page to emphasise that the page is "under development". Most other discussion probably should happen on the talk page although I do think it is important too to communicate here on the Colloquium. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As with Sidelight12's other contributions, I have included on the Discussion page examples of invasive animal surgery, often followed by dissection, that could not have been performed here because Sidelight12 is incorrect about what is ethically allowed and the requirements that results already published must be used. Inclusion of each of Sidelight12's restrictions would be unethical and obstructionist to original research! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest either improving what was contributed; or removing contributions you disagree with, making corresponding comments on talk page. In general, I think we should err on the side of being permissive initially as what type of research is permitted at least until we run into problems. IMHO, the issue currently is more about a lack of original research than having problems with ethically contentious research. IMHO, the page also needs to be de-Americanised (e.g., IRB terminology is somewhat culture-specific) etc. Alternatively we could fork to allow development of different versions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with each of your points and have removed the Animal studies subparagraph from the developing ethics page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is about ethically contentious research. Marshallsumter's concern is about original research. My proposed guideline was extremely permissive. The examples given as to what would be prevented on here, weren't restricted by the proposed guideline. They were cataloged on pubmed, which is the largest database on medical information, anything serious goes there. For anything not on pubmed, there are many alternatives, which collectively almost all human knowledge is documented. Marshallsumter has no clue what ethics is; thinks ethics only applies to researchers, not beings who can suffer. Also has been rude in this dealing, and I do not apologize for saying this.

The previous subject is important. The other two subjects are not important enough for me to conflict over. My proposed guideline about nuclear issues, was only things that would get the DoD's attention. Fine, Wikiversity doesn't have to be responsible for this, until it gets attention by the DoD, which is very irresponsible. If that's the attitude, I am for not having the nuclear guideline and letting that happen. IRB wasn't my idea, I thought it was so Wikiversitians could all have consensus on cadaver research. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It's time to reclaim the community logo

Hello community,
this is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you might be interested. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on this page; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments the talk page. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! odder (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC) P.s.: You can check whether the WMF protects the logo of your project by seeing if it's listed as "registered trademark" on wmf:Wikimedia trademarks.

Request for consultation on community logo

Request for consultation on this community logo

First, I’d like to apologize for the English. If you can, please help to translate this for other members of your community.

The legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation would greatly appreciate your input on the best way to manage the "community logo" (pictured here) to best balance protection of the projects with community support. Accordingly, they have created a “request for consultation” on Meta where they set out briefly some of the issues to be considered and the options that they perceive. Your input would be invaluable in helping guide them in how best to serve our mission.

Thank you! --Mdennis (talk) (via the Global message delivery system). 02:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)

The problem with Wikipedia

Reputable published primary studies on Medical content constantly gets removed from Wikipedia. Their guideline w:wp:medrs, is misinterpreted for this. That stupid guideline changes depending on how you read or interpret it. If someone defends the content well enough constantly it could stay, but only to get challenged again if one is not looking. Information in other subjects like math, archeology, science do not get this scrutiny there. I would rather this information stay on Wikipedia, but if it doesn't, at least Wikiversity allows this data. Comments, opinions please. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinions about what? Wikipedia policy? The policy generally requires not using primary sourced data for medical articles (and that's generally true about primary sources for Wikipedia, even though it's violated frequently. It is not a stupid guideline for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a general truth, you can do well to assume it, Wikipedia content guidelines are not stupid. They reflect many years of experience.

About our policy? Wikiversity is far more tolerant, but we are covered by the WMF neutrality policy, and there is a danger in presenting primary source material without context. Original research is allowed here (not there), but we must be careful to avoid misrepresenting scientific consensus. What is only found in primary sources does not yet represent a consensus, normally. Sometimes a primary source is partially secondary, i.e., it reviews prior work, and if this is done under peer review, it *might* represent reliable source. Even then it might need to be attributed, not stated as fact.

It is possible to link Wikiversity resources from Wikipedia, but if that's done, the top-level page linked, at least, should be neutral per Wikipedia policy, or at least reasonably close. You can then create a seminar under the top-level resource that explores original research, opinion, etc, just as in a university seminar we might write research papers giving fact and opinion. Through measures like this, we avoid creating the kinds of conflicts here that plague Wikipedia. Usually!

Here, at any level, we may generally assert a fact we consider notable, but for primary sources, the *fact* is that someone *claimed* something. We are not short of space on Wikiversity, we can create subpages and thus can do many things not possible on Wikipedia, such as presenting a multiplicity of points of view, including such that are only the opinion of a participant here. How we do that can be important. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, related opinions or comments on whatever comes to mind. I agree with or can accept most guidelines on Wikipedia actually. Original research/synthesis by the editor is not allowed there, which is very reasonable. Like I said, archeology, science not related to medicine, math, sports, culture and so forth have pretty acceptable guidelines about them in my opinion. If the primary source is from a sports venue, a archeological journal specifying that an extinct species belongs to a different group, botany not related to medical, or a news source about an incident, social event or natural disaster, its allowed there. Articles that make the science news-feeds, hospitals, or pubmed are now being deleted there by reference to medrs, when it is actually ambiguous to interpretation. I like collecting knowledge that is new or not widely known, and being able to post it, otherwise the information is always outdated or missing something. There is a lot of medical information that isn't in secondary sources. And a page will say, there is no evidence, when there in fact is, (disclosing everything and doing so without original research) but it gets challenged there. These are primary sources that anyone interested in whatever subject would like to know about.

Wikiversity is good for original thought. Everything could be considered pov, but as you mentioned, it can be presented neutrally or varying povs can be presented. Yes, Wikiversity has great things about it, and allows for opportunities in sharing knowledge. Thanks for responding. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Resize image as percent %

Does anyone know a way to set an image's size as a percent of page width or parent div width, equivalent to img {width:50%} in regular css? I would like to make my top image resize itself to fit on any sized screen/device. This would be simple on a regular website with css, but not here (or am I missing something?)! Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and mw:Help:Images give some pointers. There seems to be nothing there about % of page width, except mw:Help:Images has "perrow={integer}: sets the number of images per row. 0 means automatically adjust based on width of screen." which doesn't seem to be what you're looking for. Xhtml can be written into template coding, I don't know if css can too. MediaWiki may have to tools to do this. Dave Braunschweig may be able to give advice on this. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 12:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried playing with this, but couldn't find a workaround. The issue appears to be based on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Images#Syntax. Width is only recognized with px. Adding the percentage moves the specified width to the alt tag, so this is intensional code on the back end as [[File:]] and [[Image:]] are processed. The only way to do this would be to somehow retrieve the image without using those standard methods. If someone can find that, I'm willing to work on a template that would use the alternate approach. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a request made about this 2 years ago mw:Extension_requests#Images_or_frames:_percentage_of_browser.2Fscreen_width. This page is about column width code as % of screen size mw:Help:Tables#Column_width. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Doesn't look like it's possible just yet. For now I've switched to putting larger images in a div with overflow:auto, which is a bit more clunky than an image width as percent, but at least all the content is still viewable on different sized screens by scrolling instead of the overflow being hidden. Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What if the code from the column width or div related markup could be inserted into a template for images? But there's the possibility that it could cut the image instead of auto-scaling it. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We need an alternative for the image retrieval itself that either modifies or replaces [[File:]] or [[Image:]]. If we have a different way to retrieve images, sizing them won't be a problem. The current retrieval methods override the size inside the object tag itself. Nothing can we do from a template alone would change the the current rendering. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)