Wikiversity:Colloquium

Start your discussion here Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles. Sign your posts with   ~~~~ Welcome Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking, check the general information at: What is Wikiversity? Who are Wikiversity participants? Wikiversity Introduction MediaWiki software questions Wikiversity: Chat | Mailing list | X

Purge Cache - Colloquium Archives - RSS version

var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = "http://en.wikiversity.org"; var wgPageName = "Wikiversity:Colloquium"; var wgTitle = "Wikiversity Colloquium"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var x-feed-reverse = "true"; var x-blog-description = "You have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for!";

RSS

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." — Albert Einstein (discuss)

VisualEditor default for new users?

What are out current settings on whether VisualEditor is the default? I've had a few new users tell me that they've often had source editor seem to come up as their default editor unless they specifically change it. Therefore:

1. Is it possible to make VisualEditor the default interface for new users?
2. Would people like to activate this?
3. Are there other useful VE settings options to consider?

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the users. People that edit/author learning resources with much workload to create mathematical formulas in LaTeX might prefer source editor in comparison to visual editor. I would recommend, that user answer a checkbox in the registration/login process if they prefer visual or source editor. The link includes a wikiversity link to help page, that shows/explains PROs and CONs of visual and source editor, so that new users can make sound decision about editor default settings.

But my opinion is not representative in the community --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Visual editing is still a beta feature (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures). It is not on by default (mw:VisualEditor/Rollouts), and not widely adopted (1,500+ users at present). We have to request that it be enabled. The last time I tried, it only got one vote. People need to engage if we're going to improve the Wikiversity experience. And, if there's any support for this, I also recommend that we enable the mw: UploadWizard. Most file uploads to Wikiversity are deleted due to incomplete or improper licensing. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely also agree with activating mw: UploadWizard. Uploading files to wikiversity is still pretty clunky, and I've found often trips up users that are used to commons or wikipedia. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've had a couple of additional new editors struggle with source editing (especially tables, example). Several have expressed frustration at the multiple steps required to find out that visualeditor exists and how to activate it. Is the request process particularly long? Does it need to be done here or over at MW? All wikijournal contributors who weren't already experienced wikipedians that I've spoken to have expressed a preference for visualeditor (especially for pages with tables and references). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 02:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: See the item below on the Discussion Reply Tool. We have to have a discussion and vote. Once there is consensus, we submit a Phabricator ticket. How long it takes for that to be processed depends on who accepts the task and what's involved. Some things can take a week or two. Others have stalled out after months of waiting. Sometimes, we can ping someone and get it picked up again. But for now, we need a discussion and vote before we can initiate the ticket. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig and Bert Niehaus:: What would be the next steps to implement this? I think it's reasonable to say the consensus is to activate VE as the default, with the option for experienced editors to switch to editing source code if they prefer. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Create a Phabricator request and include a link to this discussion. Then wait. If it takes more than a month, ask them what additional information they need or how we can help the request move forward. Then wait some more. Sometimes it goes very quickly, sometimes not. They're all volunteers, too. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: Done (link). All welcome to review and edit the request. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

phabricator request marked as implemented and ticket closed as resolved. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

We have a proposal to make the VisualEditor the default editor. We need to determine whether this is for all users or only for all logged-in users. Please discuss and vote. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(From VE and Source Code Editing) The VE will be good for newbies. The source code editor will be necessary to move on to more specific modification of learning resources e.g. editing of quizzes, mathematical syntax and or specific interactive elements of learning resource in the future. If people are taught to use VE only, they might have difficulties to change to source code editing later, e.g. for mathematical expressions the authors might not be able to edit the syntax because they were never exposed mathematical expression or mathematical syntax in general, that is needed in computer science, chemistry, physics, ... . The VE will reduced possible obstacles for beginners and shift those obstacles to a later phase of advanced authoring, in which the source code editing might be without alternative. It would be of advantage to guide authors from the VE to source code editing or visualize changes within the VE simultaneously in a source code editing window or visualizes source code for cross-checking before saving, ....? --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bert Niehaus: Regarding training, My understanding is that we've minimal training material currently. One possibility is specific training material on wikiversity on what can't be done in VE but can be done in source editor. Alternatively, is this information already already on another wiki's help pages that we can simply point to? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just an additional button/checkbox "Show Wiki Source before publishing" next to "Publish Change" could be one option to increase visibility of source syntax, so that switching to source code editing runs smoothers. May also advanced users may change their workflow, e.g. writing the text and sections with VE and then finally before publishing the authors add the mathematical expressions source code for the learning resource.--Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Voting

• Support making VisualEditor the default editor for all users. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - experienced editors are experienced enough to switch to source code, but new editors find it challenging to work out how to switch to VE. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I know people struggle with the html so anything to make things easier Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - What year are we in? Of course a visual editor should be the first thing anybody sees . . . we already have enough problems with attracting new editors, and having a clunky code editor as the first thing people see is not exactly welcoming. --- FULBERT (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons as Shafee - significantly more welcoming to new folks and not a problem for experienced editors Zeromonk (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support As a trainer (working mainly in Wikipedia) I've seen that VE can be really helpful in getting new editors on board, so supporting here for the same reason. Lirazelf (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The VE is much less intimidating and may encourage more participation. Smvital (discuss • Smvital) 16:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support VE easier for newbies --Alaa :)..! 10:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support mainly because selecting the right tools is hard at first. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Attracting new users would be a good result of switching to the visual editor --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per others. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Just applying common sense, and I'm personally in high praise of VisualEditor despite some irritating aspects of it. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion Reply Tool

There is a new discussion reply tool. It automatically indents and signs replies. See Wikiversity:Newsletters/VisualEditor#Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools for more information. If we want it enabled on Wikiversity, we need to request it. Please discuss and vote.

Discussion

• CC User:Whatamidoing (WMF) --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• I filed phab:T249785 to enable it here; I've stalled that task until this discussion is officially closed --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• How would the average contributor revert vandalism or an admin do revision delete on these talk pages? --mikeu ^talk 18:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You can test the user interface at [1]. The reply tool only engages when you click on Reply. Everything else appears to be standard (Edit, etc.). -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Given that there hasn't been any input in a while, and no opposition, unstalling and moving to deploy the change (i.e. active the tool) --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  Update: it is not being deployed to new wikis for now --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 06:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I've got the English Wikiversity on my "short list". I still don't know when the next group will be officially chosen, but I will recommend you for the next group. Whatamidoing (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• This feature can be enabled by adding if ( $( '#ca-addsection' ).length ) mw.loader.using( 'ext.discussionTools.init' ); to the common.js file (on all wikis: global.js). —Hasley talk 20:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Voting

• Support enabling as a beta feature. I've tried it out a bit, and it would be helpful to have, even while its still being developed --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, easy and user-friendly. Looks better than Structured Discussions extension. See mw:Talk pages project/replying#What did we find?. —Hasley talk 21:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support I've never had a problem with talk pages (at least since the introduction of {{ping}}) but it seems like others want it so if nothing else, I'm willing to support the fact that others want to opt-in. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support For sure! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support The reported tests seem promising. I'd be keen to see it implemented here, even if we reassess in 12 months based on how it affects new users. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 09:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support --Alaa :)..! 10:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support wpuld be useful on any wiki. Serial Number 54129 (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support enabling as beta feature and it is good to have source editing still available on discussion pages. --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the conversation

We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct, which the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year, for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6, 2020.

The UCoC Drafting Committee wants to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be improved?

Please join the conversation and share this invitation with others who may be interested to join, too.

To reduce language barriers during the process, you are welcomed to translate this message and the Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review. You and your community may choose to provide your opinions/feedback using your local languages.

To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct page, and the FAQ, on Meta.

Thanks in advance for your attention and contributions, The Trust and Safety team at Wikimedia Foundation, 17:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC) 

Neurocryptoeconomics

Hello I am new to wikiversity, I am just trying to define a new field (Neurocryptoeconomics), and someone deleted the page. Also reposting results in error as the page is harmful (while it is not). This is a new field, and I sincerely believe to allow may definition and as the field grows, other can come in and edit the definition and add to the page accordingly( ref of def: @NeuroCryptoEcon). Kindly please help,

This definition is only a plus and can be edited later by anyone and describes a nascent field.

Thank you for your consideration, (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neurocryptoeconomics (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

@Neurocryptoeconomics: Did you talk with the person who deleted it directly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Justin

Yes I emailed him twice but he did not reply. I just would like to post the definition to introduce a new field that is growing, and can the post can be edited later anytime by anyone as the field grows. I hope Wikiversity reconsiders its decision. Thank you very much (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neurocryptoeconomics (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

@Neurocryptoeconomics: I have temporarily restored this page, but with a notice that the content provided belongs at Wikipedia, not Wikiversity. If you want to add definitions, that's an encyclopedia article and belongs there. There are four other important points that will prevent further development on this effort at the moment.

1. The topic is so new that there is apparently only one author in the world who has any information on this subject, according to Google search.
2. Your choice of user name and self reference for the definition suggests that yours is a single-purpose account focused on self-promotion.
3. When people bring new ideas to Wikiversity first that no one else has ever heard of, it is almost always fringe science resulting in net-negative effects on Wikiversity and the user ends up being blocked.
4. Your approach thus far has ignored a variety of standard Wikiversity cultural norms, indicating you have much more interest in your topic than you do in our community. Refer to the item above for how this typically turns out.

If you are truly interested in providing learning resources (not encyclopedia content) regarding Neurocryptoeconomics, I recommend that you create a Draft:Neurocryptoeconomics page and provide sufficient content that a respected Wikiversity editor supports your efforts to move that content to become a main space resource. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dave for the details

Yes, at this point I just want to provide the definition.

Thanks a lot for all the explanation (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neurocryptoeconomics (talk • contribs) 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

Do I have the right to ask for funding of my research project?

Do I have the right to ask for funding of my research project at its Wikiversity pages? --VictorPorton (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You may not use Wikiversity to personally profit from your contributions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@VictorPorton: If you have work that will be published here or if you are doing research that could improve Wikiversity as a resource, you may consider applying for a grant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This project was seeking to generate direct financial benefit to the contributor in violation of Wikiversity:Deletions. It has been deleted. This is the second or third attempt by this user to use Wikiversity to generate direct financial benefit to the contributor. The user's account has been blocked. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a very weird, very desperate position to see someone using this site to try to get money. To anyone else reading this, you have a 0% chance of that: please get a real job instead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

New feature: Watchlist Expiry

Hello, everyone! The Community Tech team will be releasing a new feature, which is called Watchlist Expiry. With this feature, you can optionally select to watch a page for a temporary period of time. This feature was developed in response to the #7 request from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey. To find out when the feature will be enabled on your wiki, you can check out the release schedule on Meta-wiki. To test out the feature before deployment, you can visit Mediawiki.org or testwiki. Once the feature is enabled on your wiki, we invite you to share your feedback on the project talk page. For more information, you can refer to the documentation page. Thank you in advance, and we look forward to reading your feedback! --IFried (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Global ban RFC for Nrcprm2026/James Salsman

Nrcprm2026, better known as James Salsman, has an active discussion regarding a possible global ban.--GZWDer (discuss • contribs) 07:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Related user accounts are:

• Nrcprm2026 (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)
• James Salsman (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)
• Jsalsman (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)