User talk:Open Research

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hello Open Research! Welcome to Wikiversity! If you decide that you need help, check out Wikiversity:Help desk, ask the support staff, or ask me on my talk page. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- JWSchmidt 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikiversity rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Getting social

research project - new school[edit source]

The person at the Wikimedia Foundation who was in charge of grants resigned not too long ago. Let me check to see who you should contact.

The grants coordinator position is still vacant. I suggest contacting Cary Bass. --JWSchmidt 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Is it okay to add a new cross-cutting school if the multi-disciplinary subject I want to add does not exist yet, and does not fit into existing schools?" <-- Feel free to create a new school. I have been playing with School:Free Learning. --JWSchmidt 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your area sounds fascinating - I'll try to keep up with it. :-) Cormaggio talk 10:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The power of the wiki format is quite something" <-- It is not hard to make MediaWiki a software platform that can theoretically do everything. It then becomes an interesting exercise to ask which tasks can fruitfully be done with wiki technology rather than some other tool. Even if you can do something with a wiki, it is useful to ask: are there other tools that can do the job more efficiently? Sometimes wiki has baggage that just gets in the way. If wiki technology is a viable solution to a problem, you then get into optimizing a wiki community just for that special task. That is good exercise for the imagination, but what captivates me is the idea that wiki technology can allow us to do new things that have never been done before. For some tasks, wiki technology has the power to amplify the power of collaboration in a way that produces emergent phenomena and requires us to change the way we think about our limitations and what is possible. That is a very exciting process and I'm glad to be along for the ride as we explore wiki phenomena. --JWSchmidt 13:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If you can point to references which highlight the strengths and weaknesses of different platforms/media for different uses, I'd be interested to read." <-- Sorry, I'm a bad boy....I've only read bits and pieces of the relevant literature. User:Cormaggio is in the midst of academia's struggle with learning technologies....maybe he can point towards some good reading. Possible entry points for useful information: m:Research, w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination, b:Change Issues in Curriculum and Instruction/Wikis in the Classroom.
"have you decided not to list the A. S. Neill School of Free Learning on the main list of schools" <-- No, School:Free Learning is under development. Category:Schools could use some organization...maybe we need a portal page that allows browsers to explore the diversity of Schools at Wikiversity. "I wonder if others use multi-stage strategies" <-- sorry, although I have taught biology for many years, I'm not "up on" education jargon. What are "multi-stage strategies"? I know that sometimes the existing structure of a wiki can be daunting, but feel free to make bold moves. Most things around here are the may they are not because someone thinks it should be this way but rather, because it was a simple way to get started. Be bold! --JWSchmidt 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement - it is a new way of working to get used to. It is also useful to find out that you are progressing in a number of stages -i.e. that listing will come later because it is under development.Open Research 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It then becomes an interesting exercise to ask which tasks can fruitfully be done with wiki technology" - yes, this is exactly what I am wrestling with at the moment. If a project requires collaborative content production, course learning material, but also evaluation of an activity's effectiveness, what implications does this have..? how does the real mix with the virtual? I am also interested about doing things that havent been done before, and I am interested in using media in combination, and the possibilities that this opens up... If you can point to references which highlight the strengths and weaknesses of different platforms/media for different uses, I'd be interested to read.Open Research 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar research[edit source]

I'm very much looking forward to keeping in touch. John's questions above are very compelling - and they are embedded in what I am myself trying to address for my PhD. If you haven't already, you could take a look at Developing Wikiversity through action research to get a flavour of what I (and others) am doing, however there is much we've still to explore... :-) Cormaggio talk 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. In my PhD, I studied the use of meetings, media and technologies by people who were collaborating to create internet products, but this was just before Wiki, I believe (although I am not to clear on the history of wiki yet) the Developing Wikiversity through action research page is great.. both of my projects have implications for 'increasing participation'. Do other people find it difficult to shake off the 'permission' mindset? As someone who is html fluent, but new to the wiki format, I'm becoming aware of just how much my own perceptions of what is possible and appropriate have been shaped by the technical structure of the medium. Its weird, because my PhD theoretical framework can happily explain this, and yet it still feels quite shocking.Open Research 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. Related to your own PhD, I'm also working as a research assistant (with my supervisor) on a similar project - about the decisions to use particular VLEs/CMSs (Virtual learning environments, Course management systems, etc) within eight individual academic departments (sometimes within the same university) in the US and UK, and the ways in which the VLE is acted upon by its users. I've found this useful in helping me deal with issues in developing, planning, and making decisions about Wikiversity (have you read March & Olsen?) - as well as being a fascinating insight into the practice of individual people and universities (the dataset is qualitative, huge, and very rich). I think "wiki" is new in some ways but it also builds on what people previously know and expect - particularly when it comes to technology. Technology can be a huge barrier - we know this - and while wiki is designed to invite participation, it can also turn people away. Perhaps, on this point, my paper for the upcoming Wikimania conference might interest you. Participation is a central interest of mine - I'm especially motivated by Wenger's theory of Communities of Practice, as well as Activity Theory - they work well in combination and contrast to each other. What is your (PhD) theoretical framework? (Oh, and PS: if you prefer, you can reply here - I will see it through my watchlist.) Cormaggio talk 08:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just before a deadline at the moment, but I had to write a quick note to say that I am trying to set something up very like the multi-institutional network project! My PhD framework ended up being something slightly different to the communities of practice idea, because Wenger is a little confused - he thinks there is a universally agreed 'core' and a 'periphery' of a practice, whereas for the activity I studied, this was not the case at all. what was core, and what was peripheral was very much related to who was involved and how they interacted. I explain this by saying that systems of innovation are socio-technically mediated, and that what an innovation is, the community it serves (and the community it excludes or punishes) is very much influenced by the nature of the media/systems used by those who are producing it. Its kind of like SCOT, but Bijker overlooks something critical... Open Research 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just checked out activity theory. I confess I had not found that in my PhD! Does activity theory acknowledge that the socio-technical nature of the tool both include and exclude its use, for particular purposes, by certain communities? Or does it (mistakenly) suppose that everyone has their interactions with the world 'shaped' by the tool in the same way?Open Research 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also just before a deadline, but I'm afraid I can't reply as substantively as you. Briefly, on activity theory, it is an inherently dynamic (ie two-or-rather-multiple-way) system, so I would say it could be used to examine different ways a 'tool' is used and defined - and how it enables and/or constrains. I left a brief note of curiosity on School talk:Public Engagement and Civic Innovation however... Cormaggio talk 22:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Journalism[edit source]

In most cases you can find all the author information in the page history. Sorry about the mess at Topic:Science journalism, it is basically one of the many pages where I dump ideas. --JWSchmidt 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start to me. In fact, I would not have thought of the possibilities of Wikinews... Orwell's six rules are at the heart of my course at City University. Have linked to the Centre from the School I have created. Open Research 19:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and portals[edit source]

I'm wondering about categories for pages such as School:Public Engagement and Civic Innovation and Topic:Parabiology. Every wiki page should be in at least one category. Should there just be a Category:Public Engagement and Civic Innovation or should there be Category:Public Engagement and Category:Civic Innovation? Also, I wonder if you would like me to format Portal:Public Engagement using the format that is used at many of the other Wikiversity portal pages such as Portal:Science. --JWSchmidt 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there and thanks for your help, I am learning about the structure. Can we hold off the categorising decision for three weeks? Just looked at Portal:Science. Ah, now i geddit, thank you. Yes, please could you help by formatting Portal:Public Engagement and Civic Innovation. Thanks for giving me a push up the learning curve... :-) Open Research 05:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Open Research should always keep a record of your edits. There are several tools for counting edits such as: Template:Editcount. Categories: are living/breathing things, so if you ever decide to change which categories a page is in, that is no problem. I'll format that portal page according to the instructions at Template talk:Box portal skeleton.....again, if you decide it is not the format you want, it can always be changed. --JWSchmidt 13:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Public Engagement and Civic Innovation now has a bunch of empty page sections formated as an array of boxes. To start adding content to the existing boxes, click on the red links that is in the box. Later, you can change the content of each box using the "edit button" on the box. Note: you can change the names of each box as needed or even remove, add, or change the order of boxes. If you need help, let me know. If you decide that the boxes are too much to deal with, we can switch to a simpler format. --JWSchmidt 13:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that steep learning curve is making me wobble a bit. Or is it just that I am overworking? Anyway, I'm still really excited about where this is going. So many possibilities! Like the pale blue. I've been contacting various people and they're more than happy to share learning resources. Hurrah! Thank you for help - liked the 30 may 'to be a wiki newbie' blog.... Open Research 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is now like an onion...it has layers. When you start out, it is best to keep things simple....there is no need to play with all the fancy stuff. Burnout is a problem. My approach is to keep "have fun" as the first priority. Sometimes it is useful to just kick back and chat at #wikiversity-en. --JWSchmidt 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

grants[edit source]

I just learned that Vishal Patel has been helping with grants at the Wikimedia Foundation office. Vishal sent me a "plan to reconfigure the UK system of innovation for community engagement through Wikiversity and Wikipedia". --JWSchmidt 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the "plan" from and just got to, "Our plans create a distributed School of Public Engagement and Civic Innovation through Wikiversity," so I guess you already know about this. --JWSchmidt 21:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JWSchmidt, yes, that's me! I'm pulling the proposal together right now. It is about to be submitted to competitive bidding process...Open Research 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in Grants too. Ping me either in IRC or on my talk page. Historybuff 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've got two started, as well as a psuedo-proposal here at WV. I'd be interested in touching base and chatting. I've been soliciting off-wiki endorsements and help, as well as to get our "outreach" program going here at WV -- I've got some good reactions, and I'll be updating the wiki to let people know what is going on. Historybuff 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a starting point for collaborations[edit source]

Vishal Patel sent me a copy of a list of questions called "Wikis and the UK 'Beacons for Public Engagement' initiative".....I hope you do not mind me replying here to some of the questions from that list. I think these are matters that would fruitfully be discussed within Wikiversity.

"tab in Wikipedia, to be used by potential collaborators to find one another" <-- this is "thinking outside the box" for Wikipedia participants, particularly in the context of academics collaborating with non-academics on matters that go beyond the rather limited mission and scope of Wikipedia. If you are trying to use wiki as a tool for anything other than creating encyclopedia articles, you get very little support within Wikipedia.

"a space in the 'discussion' pages {to} be used by potential collaborators to find one another" <-- This currently takes the form of linking the discussion pages of encyclopedia articles to Wikipedia "wikiprojects" (content development projects). Note: Wikipedia wikiprojects help collaborators "find one another" for the purpose of developing Wikipedia articles in a particular subject area of the encyclopedia.

"the use of a space in the main text of a page, using a Wikiversity project logo" <-- The general approach to this is to use w:Template:Wikiversity (and related similar templates) to make links from Wikipedia pages to Wikiversity. This is generally accepted practice for linking the pages of Wikimedia sister projects. Ultimately, you seem to want wiki space for academics collaborating with non-academics on real world problems. I think Wikiversity can be the place to host such collaborations as long as they are formatted as educational "learn by doing" projects.
--JWSchmidt 17:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you ever got any useful feedback from the Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser discussions[edit source]

Hi Open Research. If you can spare the time, your opinion would be greatly appreciated in the discussion currently going on about getting local Checkuser permissions here on Wikiversity. As an active user here, you're probably familiar with the "quiet, behind the scenes" way that we introduce new Custodians, but requesting Checkuser actually requires a "show of support" for the foundation stewards to give us this tool.

If you're not familiar with Checkuser, it's a tool we can use to find the source IP address (and/or alternate accounts) of vandals and others who mean harm to the project. This allows us to both "stop the problem at the source", or in some cases lets us know we can't stop something at the source if an IP is shared by one or more constructive contributors.--SB_Johnny | talk 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kclogo.gif[edit source]

Please provide a license template and source for this image. Thanks. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

test[edit source]

I am not sure what you want to communicate with this edit. For tests there is the Wikiversity:Sandbox. I have just reverted it for now - ok ? Would be nice, if you could share some more info - thx. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) PS: Tag a learning project with completion status !! 15:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wiki link[edit source]

A link to a wikiversity project is wirtting [[link]].
So [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Centre_for_Neuroscience_Media_and_Society/Centres/France France] is writting [[Centre for Neuroscience Media and Society/Centres/France|France]].
Crochet.david 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK v2.0[edit source]

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel 20:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])[reply]

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited![edit source]

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Open_Research&oldid=1885114"