Wikiversity:Unencyclopedic

This was moved from the Template talk namespace, it is saved for an archive. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

idea of this template ?

First, I object to the idea that Wikiversity needs such templates to put at the top of learning resources. If you want to discuss an idea for how to improve a learning resource then do so on the talk page. If you think you have an idea for for a better learning resource, why not just create your improved resource? Second, what is the value of a template that says a Wikiversity learning resource is unencyclopedic? Someone thinks that Wikiversity strives to be encyclopedic? I do not understand that kind of thinking. --JWSchmidt 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• The template was created because a user wished to have it. I did not know the user beforehand. My creation of the template was an act of selflessness and submission to the needs of a user. Please do not try to apply pressure to prevent custodians creating templates that users want - you are not entitled to do this. This template has every right to exist, and it it would be even better if the quality of WV was so high that nobody ever felt they had to use it. Please also do not use WV's permission of productive forking as a backdoor for protecting subquality articles. If an editor feels that a resource is of such low quality that it must be improved, then they may express that opinion and look for consensus on that. If you wish to dispute the tagging of pages like this, then please engage with the editors in question, remembering that you are just one humble voice. --McCormack 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, how about creating also another template or changing the name here ? For me as non-native-English-speaking Wikimedian the name "Unencyclopedic" brings an association with Wikipedia (yeah, I am stamped :-) ). The first thought in my head was: "Wikiversity is not Wikipedia, so what does this exactly mean ?" A translation service shows me that encyclopedic could also mean: comprehensive. Of course I also read the template info. But I think the template name should reflect the idea of the template easily - and for me as non-English-native - the association was not what was intended with the template info.

I think it was this user User talk:Ghartland ? Perhaps we can bring the user also again here - since the user is not active since 22 March 2008 and did not reply on my msg. Will try to contact the user again to see if we can get going a discussion on the page where this template was put: Darwinism as religion. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I see the user created a second account here: User talk:Graham Hartland and also has contributed on the talk page: Talk:Darwinism_as_religion#overhaul, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this template needs to be changed - Wikiversity content does not need to be encyclopedic, and indeed, I think that encyclopedic content should be on Wikipedia, not Wikiversity. :-) I would say this template should be deleted, but I would agree with it being changed in order to tag content which is possibly outside the scope of Wikiversity (just as "unencyclopedic" would indicate at Wikipedia). McCormack, I appreciate that this template was set up as a request, but I think JWSchmidt is perfectly within his rights to make the points he made - I don't think there is any suggestion of many of the things you've read into his criticism. Cormaggio ^talk 13:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Cormaggio. User:Graham Hartland is probably someone used to Wikipedia, and he put a couple of tags on the article which he probably assumed were available here, but which weren't. I simply copied over the templates from WP for him, and then adjusted the wording and links to make them somewhat more suitable. It turned out to be more work than I had thought, as it was one of these templates that depends on a whole bunch of others. I agree that "unencyclopedic" isn't a good title - even for the original template on Wikipedia. Some of the content on Unencyclopedia is hilarious and really rather good - it's perhaps not fair to denigrate Unencyclopedia. The intent of the original template is as a "clean-up" flag. I could have changed Graham's flag to a different one, but then it would have looked as if I had flagged the article, which I didn't. So I had to stick with Graham's template name. I don't think JWSchmidt should have gone up against the procedure here - he should have addressed the issue of the quality of the resource instead. It would be excellent if clean-up tags never had to be used. --McCormack 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think there is any suggestion of many of the things you've read into his criticism" - well, I'll try to be fair. The 3rd sentence of JWSchmidt's criticism suggests rather strongly that Graham should create his own article on the subject - i.e. he is invoking the "productive forking" idea. I feel this suggestion is a minefield of dubiousness. This is a wiki, and Graham is entitled to criticise, flag or alter an existing resource - he should not be pushed away. In fact, for a very established user to push away a bona fide user from an article borders on an abuse of one's position. Productive forking is optional, not compulsory, and even if Graham did productively fork, he's still entitled to flag the original if he considers it to be of especially low quality. Wikis live through rewriting of resources in a never-ending upwards spiral of improvements, and clean-up flagging is a tool we use to this end. We should be grateful to new visitors who make us pull our socks up on quality and do the odd maintenance task for us. --McCormack 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Being an encyclopedia: I don't think anyone's suggesting that WV should be an encyclopedia, and as I had changed the template content to point to material about educational resources, JWSchmidt wasn't really on the right track with his "encyclopedic" objection (he used a "straw man argument"). He then went off to my Wikiversity: learning resources page and had a go at that one as well. Given the time and effort that went into the Wikiversity: learning resources page, his criticisms were insensitive. One of the things we really need at Wikiversity is a better focus on what it is we are trying to create, not least so that we can weed out rubbish and/or help inexperienced users know what directions they can move in to improve resources. The Wikiversity: learning resources page hardly completes the task, but I think it was a good step, and I hope others will attempt to build on this rather than knock it down. --McCormack 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, McCormack. I'll make my comments on the template below, in the section you've started. But I still think JWSchmidt has a point in asking why such a template should have been created in the first place. I think it would have been ok to raise a discussion on the talk page about Graham's concerns and what to do about them - instead of creating a tag that works in another context but not necessarily here. I think tagging is often a problematic process - from personal experience, it's shocking to find something you've invested time into to see it labelled as "unfit", or "not good enough" (or variations thereon). I also disagree with labelling JWSchmidt's argument as a "straw man" - this template says "unencyclopedic", which is clearly an encyclopedic declaration. :-)

Back to the "shocking"-ness of finding a template on a page you've created; as well as this being a rational argument from JWSchmidt, I think this is also partly an emotional and slightly, dare I say, defensive one. But I would also say the same about your (McCormack's) reply: "He then went off to my Wikiversity: learning resources page and had a go at that one as well" (emphasis added). There clearly is something about a page you've put time into (obviously), so I think we should equally be sensitive to that (while, of course, maintaining a critical perspective). I think we should reflect here on how tagging can help, how it might not help, and how it can be used more effectively (ie in order both to improve Wikiversity, and to educate its participants - old and new). For example, I think our "welcome and.." templates are softer and possibly less demotivational to the person/people involved in creating a page, and could give some idea of how other templates such as this one could work. Cormaggio ^talk 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Modifications to template

To meet some of the criticisms above, I have removed the word "unencyclopedic" from the template. This extends my original edits which "educationalised" the template. --McCormack 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

I had a think about the title and was about to move it to a different name when I realised that this wouldn't solve the problem I originally tried to address. Namely, that Wikipedians who have a bunch of clean-up template names in their heads will continue to try to use {{unencyclopedic}} to tag things when they just want to suggest a clean-up. So I think the name needs to continue to exist, albeit not with content which resembles the original WP template - just content which helps with understanding what an educational resource is, and which categorises the resource for clean-up. --McCormack 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)