Last modified on 30 October 2014, at 23:56

Wikiversity:Colloquium


Marburger-Religionsgespräch.jpg
Sign your posts with   ~~~~
Welcome

Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking a question, you can find some general information at:

Shortcut:
WV:C

Wikipedia Administrator.svg
Organization of Wikiversity

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!";

Folder-sort.svg
On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 18 days old.

Echo and watchlistEdit

Special:Notifications & Special:Watchlist substantially overlap in functionality, except the former also contains extra (some non-public) events and doesn't provide with passive usage options (means to turn off web-nagging or email-nagging and to just keep visiting the page whenever I'm free), while the latter doesn't provide with options of active web-nagging notifications (but already provides email interface). Partly, in my personal view, the Echo/Notifications project was driven by low usability of watchlist; [1] comes to mind. It's also perhaps worth noting that Echo users aren't exposed to Special:Notifications unless thy have JavaScript disabled — in which case it's their only means of reading the notifications.

I'd like to get this done:

  1. Merge these two pages into one.
  2. To remedy large inflow of information, introduce multiple levels of importance of the web-nagging notifications (red for mentions, orange for thanks, blue for new watchlist items, etc and configurable in your settings).

Thoughts on both, please?

--Gryllida 02:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

By experience I'm sure that even if you post it on MW:Talk:Echo (Notifications) it will be complicated, unless you develop it yourself. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 11:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a "would we like it to be done?" discussion; means to get it done are a different beast. -Gryllida 22:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in renaming processEdit

Part or all of this message may be in English. Please help translate if possible.

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 9 September 2014 16.22 (UTC)

Is this a good naming policy?Edit

I have been adding quizzes to Wikipedia and am wondering how to name them in Wikiversity namespace. One idea I had was to name it as a subpage to the article's name in Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia has the article w:Saros (astronomy), so I put the quiz under [[Saros (astronomy)/Quizzes]], even though Saros does not yet exist on Wikiversity. Is this strategy good/proper/permissible? --guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 16:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not complete. Here are my thoughts. First of all, we probably don't need the disambiguated name, with "(astronomy)," here, but it's fine as a redirect to Saros, which should have a special note below the redirect link that it exists to match the Wikipedia name (otherwise it may be deleted with no local incoming links). On Saros create a stub, if nothing else, it would have a link to the Wikipedia article and then a link to the Quizzes subpage.
I don't think Saros is a big enough topic for a top-level resource here, I'd be happier if this were a subpage under a larger resource. This is an astronomy topic, a detail. I'd place this underneath a more general astronomy topic, if not Astronomy itself. Marshall may have some ideas. Right now, there is Astronomy#Orbit and a link there could go to Astronomy/Saros which completely handles disambiguation.
We also have a stub on Orbital mechanics, which is a large enough topic for a stand-alone course in a university, hence, my thinking, fine for a top-level resource here.
So, based on the above thinking, create Orbital mechanics/Saros and move other similar resources to the same subspace. Then you'll have Orbital mechanics/Saros/Quizzes and the like. A link should then go to Orbital mechanics from the Astronomy resource. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Once there are educational resources here, on a topic covered on Wikipedia, there should be sister wiki links placed there. Place w:Template:Wikiversity on the page, following the instructions in the Template documentation. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad I asked. In a few hours I will build from the stub Orbital mechanics exactly as you suggest. It's always good to turn a stub into something that is not a stub.--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 23:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I moved all [[Saros (astronomy)]] pages into Orbital mechanics and its subpages. It's still chaotic and I will organize it better in a few days. I also need to deal with the antikythera and ecliptic pages. --guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 04:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing the custodianship vote for Dave BraunschweigEdit

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Dave Braunschweig

Wikiversity Custodianship "proposed policy" stood as policy for most of the history of Wikiversity, the status as standing policy was removed in 2011, the argument being that there had never been a vote. Yet as a description of actual practice, the page has been accurate since as far back as I know. The core of it was in the original draft, by Sebmol, in August 2006.[2]. The page was marked policy by JWSchmidt in February 2007 after extensive discussion. It is obvious that this designation was accepted by the community. In any case, it's what we have, and what we have been following since 2007 or before.

The page also provides for a one-month probationary period, which can be extended if necessary.

As there was no mentor recommendation forthcoming, after repeated requests and a year passing, I informed the mentor, Jtneil, that I would go ahead and make a recommendation. He thanked me for that, and the voting was opened 29 August 2014

The "policy" page provides for one week of evaluation of the vote for permanent status. It provides that a bureaucrat make the final decision. (The original draft policy had five days as did the version first marked as policy. I changed it to one week when it was still policy, and that change stuck.)

The vote was site-messaged on 5 September 2014‎.

On 12 September, I messaged all bureaucrats requesting a close, it having been two weeks since the voting began. There has been no response.

Community consensus is clear in the voting. 10/1, stable for 10 days after the last vote, is more than enough on every wiki to gain administrative status. Consensus, in fact, trumps policy, and we don't have policy except as, effectively, a proposal and a tradition, and the absence of bureaucrats was not contemplated. I am, accordingly, closing that discussion, even though I'm involved and am not a bureaucrat. I am claiming no special authority, only acting to implement community consensus. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Dedicated Programming CompilerEdit

This is to inform all those who may be interested in participating at any level that I have created a proposal for the Grants:IEG initiative advertised above. The proposal is entitled: "Dedicated Programming Compiler" and can be found at url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Dedicated_Programming_Compiler#Measures_of_success. Please feel free to include yourself at any participatory level. Also, if you personally know a WMF dedicated mainframer who has sufficient background installing or firewalling computer langauge compilers, please let us know so that we can see if they might be interested. There may by real money in this! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I teach a college physics course called How things work. Most of my students are non-science majors who are required to take a certain number of college courses. "Back in the day", such courses were referred to as Physics for Poets, but students these days are more career oriented. I have a lot of freedom to choose topics, but we are supposed to include at least one topic related to computer technology. Learning a simple program would be perfect. And there are advantages to doing it on an obscure language like Ada because it would be the second (or third) language for some of the more savvy students, but a first language for most. This puts them all on an equal playing field (to a point). Anyway, I am interested. You might have noticed my Wikiversity activities on Python and MATLAB. That was in part due to "How things work".--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 21:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for responding. There are three sections in the proposal where you are welcome to add your user name depending on your personal preferences and likely time constraints: Budget, if you'd like some cash for your hard work, should the proposal be accepted; Participants where your bio here would fit in well, and/or Endorsements, where the points you've made here for having such a dedicated compiler are most welcome. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I can endorse as an educator who believes strongly in open source teaching and uses it almost exclusively in every course I teach. I can participate by writing educational material for students using the on-line compiler. I can also task college engineering students with developing simple and well-documented codes to college engineering students (I like to learn a new language by starting with such codes.) Leave a note on my user talk page if you need me urgently. Otherwise we should perhaps continue the discussion here in order to generate more interest within Wikiversity.--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 11:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Would it be okay with you if I transferred a copy of your entry above [beginning with "I can"] to the proposal's Endorsements section. The only modification I would make is a v: in front of "User" so that meta knows it's from Wikiversity. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, do you know of any good online compilers for Python and/or GNU Octave (the MATLAB clone)? I could sure use one.--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 11:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The web site Download Python lists several. You've hit on an important part of why the above proposal (and program) is needed. There is also Nuitka a Python compiler. It's fully compatible with Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3. And, if you have CPython, Python source code is automatically compiled into Python byte code by the CPython interpreter. Then there's PyCompile, a mini python compiler which allows you to forget the command line. And of course, they have separate forms for Windows PC and Imac. Just the beginning. The age of your operating system is also a factor. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
For anyone interested, I've copied the current discussion at meta regarding this proposal into the discussion page. Comments, criticism, suggestions, welcome. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of Questions on how to startEdit

I've started me a little project, have a basic page ready but with some issues. How and where can I ask in an approved manner some help to solve them? ChrisVanBommel (discusscontribs) 09:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please delete this if I am wrong, but I think a good place to start is to create the page User:ChrisVanBommel/sandbox. Just click that (red)link and start writing! --guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 11:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer placing that context into your userspace. Such as [[User:ChrisVanBommel/[Your Project Name]]]. Myself, I wouldn't do a sandbox, since that is for testing wikitext and some other stuff related to that. But if you don't know the name of the Project yet, go ahead and do it in the sandbox. Have fun! --Goldenburg111 13:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
As others have mentioned, the best way to start is by starting. The best place to ask questions for now is here. Once we know what your questions are, the discussion may continue here, on your talk page, on someone else's talk page, or on the talk page for the project itself, depending on factors more related to whomever helps than any approved manner. What issues do you have? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, I'll start with it in my sandbox https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:ChrisVanBommel/sandbox ChrisVanBommel (discusscontribs) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Learning project 'work smarter'.Edit

I would like to start a new learning project with the name: 'work smarter'.

Tim, Timboliu (discusscontribs) 06:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that 'work smarter' could have many different interpretations, depending on the subject matter. There are some efficiency techniques that would apply to a variety of fields, but others are much more specific. The video referenced on your page is very specific to software development and agile methodology. If that's the 'work smarter' that you have in mind, then it should probably be a subpage of System development. It could also extend Agile software development.
What I personally look for in a top-level project is something that would comprise a course or at least a lecture or activity on a specific subject. Something that helps me define a top level project is to look at Wikipedia titles as a guideline. In this case, there is no 'work smarter' article on Wikipedia, so that topic either isn't specific enough as to what it will address, or it isn't the accepted terminology for that subject. Alternatives in this case might be 'personal effectiveness' or 'business process management', depending on the direction a 'work smarter' project might take.
At the same time, it's important to note that Wikiversity isn't Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of content. Wikiversity is based around either learning projects or research projects. See Wikiversity:Learning projects and Wikiversity:Research for more information.
One other thought. It is preferred to use internal links for Wikiveristy pages, such as User:Timboliu/To-do/work smarter rather than external http or https links. Using internal links helps identify 'What links here'. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave, thanks for your feedback. I agree that when you look at the Spotify video you would say that this learning project could be placed in learning project system development. I added some other subjects to explain that learning project 'work smarter' is broader then just system development. About external linking. You say that it is preferred to use internal links, but this information is not internally available. Timboliu (discusscontribs) 13:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
That's correct, Timboliu. How about making it "internally available"? I.e., it is available here, but not in some guideline. Whose job is it to put it in a guideline? User:Somebody else, too often. Using internal links is an aspect of working smarter here, but where would this information go? While "work smarter" could apply to many fields, the topic is a common one in business. I.e., business system development. In general, I'm looking toward the organization of Wikiversity so that it will be relatively obvious -- compared to now! -- where to place resources and learning circles or projects. While it is possible to connect anything with anything, keep it simple. Techniques for working smarter could be useful in personal development, in daily life, etc., but what will be the bulk of the study? We don't want the same page duplicated everywhere, or do we? I.e., underneath many fields could be a "work smarter" learning circle. Alternatively, there can be cross-links. But start somewhere! What I don't want to see is a hundred learning circles that years later we see went absolutely nowhere. When you start a learning circle, start learning! Share what you find. You have tended, in the past, to share almost nothing. I.e., "contacted so-and-so at such-and-such a company." Fine. What happened? Was the contact a conversation or you just sent an email and called that a contact? Are there facts you can report? Opinions communicated? Just that you lifted a finger doesn't create something to share. Results! Please! If you watch that video, how about summarizing it on a subpage? If you learn, yourself, and document it, you are creating something of value, starting with value for yourself. Documented learning is generally deeper learning. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Abd, thanks for the feedback. Work smarter is now a resource under learning project Business. I also added a to-do to make an abstract of the video. Regards, Timboliu (discusscontribs) 08:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

1900Edit

A number of the resources having a year title have a boilerplate as their only entry. A few have red-linked subpages. These are part of a project by KYPark. The user hasn't edited since October 2013. While I sincerely hope the user continues to contribute, what should we do about the empty or red-linked only boilerplate pages? I put three up for speedy delete or rescue, but there may be a lot of these. Random hit on 1900. Comments, criticism, help requested. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i've reviewed a few of these now. It appears to ultimately be a single learning project on literature (author, year published, sometimes details or comments) with separate pages for each year. I would be inclined to move all of it to subpages of the Literature project and have a subpage for 'Literature/By Year' that uses the existing template to link to the other pages at the same level. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, Marshall. This, of course, never should have been in mainspace this way. It's possible that the study of literature by year could be of value to a student. So I'd propose moving all this project as suggested by Dave. As subpages are involved, this should be done by an admin and we might want cleanup by bot. So it would be, as an example, 1900 would be moved to Literature/By year/1900. There is no problem with redlinks, they indicate that KYPark intended to list those authors there. I have not reviewed the templates. I'm getting a bit cranky about templates that can make maintenance and organization more difficult. I removed the speedy deletion templates from several pages, we should simply organize this material. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:22, 29 September 2014‎
Sounds like a good plan! I checked my contributions and I put a speedy delete on four, just in case you only found three. If I'm counting them correctly there are at least 24 pages plus categories combined. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. There is work represented in collecting and placing the redlinks. They do no harm, so we keep them. I'll check those speedies, yes, I only saw three. Thanks for your work cleaning up Wikiversity. Mostly, we do it by organization, unless something is truly useless or harmful. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You found all four. There were 1900, 1901, and 1902, plus 1900/input.
I put some of the pages Random finds up for speedy delete rather than fixing them myself because I like some one else to look at these. I hope that's still okay. Using random is fun of a sorts. But it also makes more work for others. I can suspend for awhile if you and Dave need a break. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd say to keep using random looking for things to clean up. But try using some of the other templates when appropriate. For example, there's {{Move}}, {{Rename}}, {{Subpage}}, and {{Prod}}. If a page has incoming links, it's often not a speedy delete. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking into this and it's not going to be as simple as moving 24 pages. There are actually more than 400 pages involved, and they are intricately interwoven across themselves and several other learning projects. To get an idea of the scope of this effort, take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Navigate20c and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_plus. It's going to have to be a combination of moves and clean-up on each page. Moves by themselves will break everything. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The categories probably can remain untouched for now. Moving each year to Literature/By year/1900 or Literature/1900, eg, would leave redirects. The tough ones are like 1911/Welby which links to 36 other pages. Ideally, this should become Literature/1911/Welby. If I only move 1911 to Literature/1911, the redirects should work and the matrix should not be broken. Shall I try it? If I encounter any unused boilerplates with no red-linked names, I could put these up for deletion or a move according to this plan. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of redirects unless it's something the average person would search for and find helpful. Having 1911 in the search index and having it bring you to a literature page doesn't seem helpful to me. Having 1911 redirect to the Category:1911 seems much more useful. I think I like Literature/1911 better than Literature/By year/1911. It's probably much easier for me do these moves and updates by bot than it is to do them manually. In theory I can do the whole thing in under an hour once I figure out what code I need. I also realized this morning that it will be far easier to update the template(s) than it is to update the pages individually. I'll see if I can make progress on this later tonight. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Outstanding job on these Dave! It looks like you and your bot handled this matrix with ease. Those put on a subpage for KY Park should facilitate his continued efforts. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 05:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't too bad, although it took 1,100 edits or so. And at 500 edits my IP address was blocked for about 15 minutes. It must come up on some screen a steward has to verify manually. There are two related projects that still need cleanup: Tables, and History of pragmatics. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

mul: interwiki now existsEdit

It quietly happened in the mediawiki release last week (git #f0d86f92 - Add additional interwiki links as requested in various bugs (bug 16962, bug 21915)) that the mul: interwiki has appeared for the wikiversities and wikisources to be able to point to beta.wikiversity and wikisource.org respectively. So we can now do mul:Main page and it appears in interwiki links as "More languages". We will have a number of places, especially in the project namespace where we need to do some additions. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This means, instead of typing [[betawikiversity:Page]] you can type [[:mul:Page]]. When you type [[mul:Page]] without the leading colon, you get a language link in the sidebar, labelled "More languages" and pointing to the relevant page on Beta Wikiversity. The latter feature was mainly designed with Wikisource in mind, so I don't know if you'll be using it here; however, you can look at WV:Community Portal to see a "More languages" link in action. This, that and the other (discusscontribs) 11:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A question about wikimedia imagesEdit

For some time I have had a hypothetical question about changing images that is now very real. When you change an article on Wikipedia or Wikiversity the change appears on people's watchlists, which ensures quality control. But what happens if someone changes an image? I have upgraded one or two images, but always verified that all pages using the image would benefit.

But now it has occurred to me that images could be upgraded by students. The example I am thinking about is this project. It calls on students to make a drawing. Each semester, students could improve the drawing until it eventually becomes worthy for others to use. I have a drawing I could upload to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page right now, but it will need to be replaced. Will multiple upgrades to an image bother these people?--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 16:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just a thought, but you could upload here to Wikiversity, choose non-commercial fair-use, and each figure uploaded remains copyrighted to you or the student. Commons only accepts licenses similar to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL which your students might object to because they are in effect surrendering the image (they always own the copyright) to commercial exploitation. Also, if any complain later that they were forced to put the image on as part of the course/project, since each contribution is copyrighted, they automatically can delete without any hassle. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I will do that, but for an entirely different reason. As a matter of policy one should refrain from downloading images that are likely to change onto a server that large numbers of people will potentially want to use. --guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 01:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Simplify Beginner's Tutorials will multiply Wikiversity active participantsEdit

Hello everyone!
I hope to be correct in posting this suggestion in the beginning of page.
I'm a Junior Wikiversity Writer (that is inexpert). I'm also italian so excuse my possible grammatical errors.
I've thinked this: "If there is a great place where many people want to get there, but entries are too difficult, long, etc, happens that the majority of them retire".
Now, Wikiversity is a very great place! More people come to participate, more this place became fantastic! Beautiful! Dreamful! Useful!
Thence, entries are helping pages!
I propose to create one page, short and summarized, in which a new user can learn quickly basic formatting language and page sections (Edit, Read, Discuss, History), then a briefly introduction on what Wikiversity is, etc
All of this page, of course, must contain wikilinks to go in depth pages.
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 22:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What did you think of our Guided tours? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It give an overview of what Wikiversity is, what everyone can do, but is a bit dispersive! There is too text only for introducing! And finally, there isn't a link to a complete page in which anyone can get basic skills on editing pages!
I propose these tasks:
1) Optimize Introduction Tour you linked me above
2) It must be highlighted, easily reachable, because in the help page newcomers get lost!
3) It need containing links to study in deep anything (Code of conduct, Copyright, Participate to community, etc)
4) Finally, there must be a link to a page which contains basic skills on editing, and this one need to be complete!
5) The editing page has to have links to study in deep anyother editing skills (templates, commons, etc)
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 16:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This is why I wrote this tutorial: Help:Writing a technical_article RandyRostie (discusscontribs) 23:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
But it is incomplete! A newcomer, after having read all of this is however unskilled to editing, almost basically, any resource!
I've thinked this:
1) Complete this article above on editing, at least with basic skills
2) Insert it into the introducing tour above linked me
3) Optimize that tour (less text, more content)
What do you think?
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 18:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I may seem boring, or inexpert for suggest this. But is just a inexpert that know what are the problems of newcomers, an example: what can know of mediawiki software, bugzilla, ecc who doesn't work in IT sector? Such as scientists, lawyers, biologists, doctors, economists? They probably will get lost! In front of what you aren't able to understand, you don't know if jump it is possible or not! So indecision cause waste of time, and for many people (just who might put too much good content) time is costly! If be successful to contribute at wikiversity take a lot of time, just these important people can't do it!
However, my question may be a bit senseless, if yes someone is free to persuade me.
Moreover, I may be wrong!
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 21:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Be bold! If you can make Wikiversity better, go for it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll do my best! -- Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've created this page: Quick start, and I've put it in the Main Help page, at the beginning of Wikiversity Help Contents paragraph.
With this page, I'm sure that everyone come the first time to Wikiversity will be able to edit pages in few minutes just reading this one!
Everyone should start from here.
In this page, I (or anyone) will put links to other tours of Wikiversity.
So, this page, also will provide an Overview of Wikiversity with links for every further information, tours, articles.
I hope all of you appreciate my idea and collaborate.
Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I concurEdit

I just joined up to Wikiversity as I want to start contributing to the Accounting/Finance field and I have found that the information to do so is very disorganized. There are a ton of posts that I have read but that are spewed all over the site. I feel like people keep coming with an idea like a "Quick Guide" and then just draft one up without thinking about the current sitemap. So there are like 10 different "Quick Guides" that all have different information in them and all link to different places. The guides to getting started need to be consolidated into fewer wikis that are broken down into the type of users in a more intuitively flowing manner. A sitemap would be very helpful organizing this I think. I would love to help out in this regard if others agree.

--ttam (discusscontribs) 00:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What needs to be organized for newcomers is going to be much more obvious to you than it is to those of us who have been around awhile (and navigated our way through those 10 different quick guides). Pick something and make it better. Pages can be consolidated, but it's important that it be done the right way so that those who made the original contributions are credited for their work. If you want to combine some pages, let us know which ones so we can advise you on the best way to go about it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. But maybe I haven't understood well how your idea of a sitemap. I think that Quick Start is the best Quick Guide, but a little uncomplete, especially about links! So this structure of links that breaks down should be put there.
I've inserted this page in the Help:Contents page, as you can see, but it should be put in the Welcome Paragraph of the Wikiversity Main Page together with the other two. I leave you this job, that require more skills on Wiki. Dave Braunschweig certainly know what is the right thing to do. --Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 20:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The WMF's "Wikipedia editing basics" playlist on youtube may be of interest - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVx9pX-VnGVjAVQo8Qv_ohNP5r7JuzhRo -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:30, 20 October 20 --Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 18:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
If you think this of it, just put a link in Wikiversity:Quick start.
But I think Wikipedia Formatting Basics is already in Wikipedia Helping Pages themselves, so the necessity is just a few links in the Quick start page.
Now the question is clarify and simplify Wikiversity philosophy, communities, structure, patterns of create learning materials, etc and give everyone a simplified overview in the Quick start page, through links well organized, such as in the manner proposed by ttam above. --Nenomaz (discusscontribs) 18:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Red-linked categoriesEdit

When I uploaded and supplied licensing information for File:Stauning's Alps E Greenland.jpg, the following appeared in the categories list at the bottom:

Category:Files with no machine-readable license, Category:Files with no machine-readable description Category:Files with no machine-readable author, and Category:Files with no machine-readable source.
Anyone know what's going on? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It came with the update to MediaWiki 1.23.5. See mw:MediaWiki 1.23 for release notes, and specifically mw:Tracking categories for the explanation of these categories. That then leads to Commons:Commons:Machine-readable_data for the details. It's going to take more reading from there to see what changes we need to make in what templates to make the tracking categories happy. What I would recommend is to see what new files we have that don't have those categories and see what's different. Otherwise, do the same thing on either Wikipedia or on Commons. With enough comparisons it should become clear what makes the categories appear and what we do to correct the problem. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
So far on commons these four categories are not displayed at the bottom of the file page, nor are they hidden categories. But, when entered into "search", they exist with anywhere from 1,000 files on up. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 16:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like Commons has those added as hidden categories. You might consider creating those four categories here and defining them as hidden. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. I entered Category:Files with no machine-readable license into "search" on Wikipedia and they claim "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact name." But, the category has 16 files which do have it as a red-link at the page bottom. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I tried the first one Category:Files with no machine-readable license but it still shows up at the page bottom even though it is now listed in Category:Hidden categories. I'll do some more poking around. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
See mw:Help:Categories#Hidden_categories. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Good idea! Their magic command worked. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

MOOC Module and course interface for wikiversity and common.jsEdit

hey everyone I would like to get some feedback from the community on this very topic started by User:Sebschlicht We invested quite some developement time (about 4 month) which by itself is not a justification for making the stuff public. But getting no feedback at all is a little frustrating. especially because our lecture will start soon and the students need our javascripts deployed.

What is possible with the new javascripts and lua-scripts is to make courses on topics with a click and point experience and also have a easy user interface for learners. you can check then out as descriped by User:sebschlicht on the talk page Wikiversity_talk:Colloquium#MOOC_module:_migrate_resource_loader_into_common.js

Thanks for reading through this stuff (: --Renepick (discusscontribs) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Renepick: Is it possible for us to see a simple demonstration of your efforts without us having to install anything ourselves? Could you do a quick screen-cast capture we could view, or some other type of demonstration that would allow us to more easily evaluate the request? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: The problem is I was sick in hospital over the last 5 weeks and lectures start on Tuesday oct 28th. I probably cannot do a nice screencast with high audio quality till then since I am lacking equipment. I did a small screencast with low quality right now. The first 3 minutes demonstrate functionality and the last 6 minutes give a short explaination of how we did this. For our students it would be a much nicer learning experience if they did not have to register an account and create common.js in their user space. So for your reference what you could do is to copy User:Renepick/common.js to your common.js and then visit a page like Web_Science/Part1:_Foundations_of_the_web/Ethernet/Collision_detection. You can also visit the pages with and without the common.js as you can see the content will also work without javascript but it is being displayed in a much more boring way and it is much harder to interact / edit the content when you are an unexperienced mediawiki user.
I know it is a different community and process but It might help you to make a decision to know that 3 days before my accident I was in the officies of Wikimedia Germany and they have been very impressed by our frontend and said that they would like us to develop it as a mediawikiextension so that it can be easier deployed via mediawiki installations in various language versions. Our current plan is to do this but for the current course it would be really great if we at least had the scripts installed on the english wikiversity so that users can access them without barrier.
For security: As I have stated in the video in common.js we create a resource loader so any page that contains a hidden div with a certain id can contain information on which javascripts should be loaded. this is necessary so that our code is not invoked on every page load but just on MOOC pages. To make the system secure we currently only allow javascript from User:sebschlicht namespace but after complete deployment we would of course change this to Mediawiki:common.js/... namespace. So this means that theoretically user:sebschlicht could secretly deploy malicious javascript code into the english wikiversity. I think this should not be a problem since we can see from his developer history that he did not do anything bad here and he can be monitored as all admins that could deploy javascript code should also be monitored. --Renepick (discusscontribs) 09:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Renepick: I am also very impressed by your efforts and would like to see it developed as a MediaWiki extension. But that's a completely different discussion than adding the current content to MediaWiki:Common.js. To support the current request, I have created a page at Wikiversity:MOOC Interface and will post an announcement to encourage community involvement. Please review Wikiversity:MOOC Interface and correct anything I might have misunderstood, and add any supporting comments you wish there. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: thanks for starting this process. I am aware of the fact that my request and the roadmap with the mediawikiextension are two different things. Since the extension would first have to be developed and second have to be deployed I was making the current request. Anyway I am curious to see what will happen. Thanks again for your support. --Renepick (discusscontribs) 14:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia copiesEdit

So far using Random I've come across 32 Wikipedia copies where for the time stamp some significant per cent of a Wikipedia entry has been copied over to Wikiversity. In the case of ice cores and glaciers I am happy to convert them to Wikiversity resources. But, that leaves 30 (so far) that have been sitting over here sometimes for as long as seven years. What would the community like to do with these if anything? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a {{Welcome and advise}} template that can be applied to these. That could be combined with a {{Prod}} if there's no clear value beyond what is already available at Wikipedia. You could even tag them for speedy deletion as no educational objectives or discussion in history, but that may be a bit hasty for an article that's been here for seven years. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
See comment at Talk:Torque_and_angular_acceleration--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 13:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Good idea and great presentation! I don't believe there would be a reason to delete this one. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Suicide Learning ProjectEdit

A discussion regarding the scope of the Suicide learning project has been started at Talk:Suicide. There seem to be strong opinions on both sides as to what level of detail should be included in the project. That talk page is an effort to gain consensus on the level of detail the community is comfortable with before additional content is added to the project. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groupsEdit

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would not contain any additional user rights. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have responded to the first proposal at meta as follows:

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most of the arguments above for having this are good ones. But there is one likely major problem. "In addition to general question/answer-type correspondence, a portion of OTRS is dedicated to handling copyright and licensing permissions." With respect to commercial-free licenses, I believe the OTRS volunteers do an outstanding job. But, having a global group that is "dedicated to handling copyright and licensing permissions" may mean they decide "Fair Use" images. Whether a project opts in or opts out requires that a local consensus be sought where none right now is necessary. I do not believe any group of volunteers no matter how well meaning should be deciding anything about "Fair Use" images. While such images are not allowed on commons they occur with great frequency on Wikipedia and Wikiversity.
On a secondary note, images already designated as Public Domain on commons are often deleted for any reason, often inappropriately. OTRS volunteers do not review or act to preserve these images. I would not want any such group of volunteers going through "Fair Use" NASA images to declare them PD, sent up to commons, only to have them deleted, and the uploader then has to re-upload them. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Admin activity reviewEdit

Hello. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc) was recently adopted by global community consensus (your community received a notice about the discussion). According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on smaller wikis. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the new admin activity review here.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

  1. Cormaggio (admin, bureaucrat)
  2. Digitalme (admin)
  3. Draicone (admin)
  4. J.Steinbock (admin)
  5. La comadreja (admin)
  6. McCormack (admin)
  7. MichaelBillington (admin)
  8. Rayc last log (admin)
  9. Robert Horning (admin)
  10. Sebmol (admin, bureaucrat)
  11. Trinity507 (admin)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, --MF-Warburg (discusscontribs) 23:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)