Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/January 2023

A proposal is underway to improve almost any stub in namespace edit

Please visit Wikiversity:Rootsub Essay and let me know what you think. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essays on personal religious and philosophical beliefs edit

There are a nontrivial number of pages on this wiki which describe personal, and often rather idiosyncratic, viewpoints about religious and philosophical topics. Some examples of pages of this sort are:

I am concerned that these pages generally have very little educational value, as they tend to describe the author's personal beliefs rather than a larger body of shared religious belief. This also makes them essentially impossible for other users to verify, edit, or improve, as other editors may not share the author's beliefs.

(I'm not concerned about resources which cover religious topics as an academic field, like Biblical Studies (NT) or Portal:Islamic Studies. Those are fine.)

Does the project have any established policy or past discussions on this matter? Do we need to? Or should these sorts of pages be handled on an ad-hoc basis?

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since original research is allowed here but there are no standards imposed on that research outside of WikiJournal, it is almost inevitable that very niche and unsubstantiated personal essays like these will be published. As you can see there, there are some basic requirements and this is not a free hosting site for just anything. Looking at resources such as Buddha oracle, this at least has a pretense of being an educational resource and The Near Death Experience as Possible Evidence for an Afterlife does address an issue that has been discussed in serious literature and starts out with some reasonable citations, but it also seems to poison the well a little bit by having an explicit perspective and a single assumed author. Did you have one in particular that you think is egregious and a clear candidate for deletion? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point to Category:The Dynamic Book (an original religious text) as the most egregious case, with Psychiatric Liberation/Shamanism and Psychosis (which claims to teach the reader how to "shapeshift") as a close runner-up. I agree that some of the other pages are more borderline; I'm presenting them here as examples for consideration, not necessarily because I believe they should be deleted.

(I'll add that Buddha oracle is an unusual situation. Close reading reveals that it is not an accurate description of Buddhism - it's actually describing the author's personal syncretic religion which combines elements from multiple schools of Buddhism, as well as some elements of Hinduism and Christianity.)

As far as original research goes, Wikiversity:Research process defines "research" and "research ethics" in ways which make it fairly clear that research is expected to be generally scientific in nature. In particular, it sets the expectations that research be "verifiable" and "objective", and make use of "sources" - all qualities which are difficult to apply to religious topics, particularly when it comes to personal beliefs.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 09:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree that the Sanctuary of Humanity content, such as The Dynamic Book has no place here and is basically just wild theorizing and proselytizing. I would support deletion of all of that material as just personal hosting. (As another aside, I agree that the Buddha oracle is some fanciful syncretism, but at least has a pretense for being educational.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to see Sanctuary of Humanity deleted, moved into subspace or into draftspace. At the very least it needs to be "no-indexed" by making it a subpage. There is a problem with deleting all such projects. The problem is not whether we should delete, but whether we can, in a reasonable amount of time.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are indexed. User space is not. Personal essays not part of a larger learning project can be moved to user space. Controvertial (pseudoscience or other fringe content) may/should be deleted. Content which is not controverial but has no educational value can be deleted or moved to user space if it is no longer under development. We have long agreed that the development of content provides a learning experience for the writer, even when it appears to serve no educational purpose for others. — Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Sanctuary of Humanity (and subpages) to the most recent active editor's userspace (with no redirect.) I think we can all agree that it has no educational value. My position is the document does no harm, its writing might have been an educational experience for the authors. I entered the top page into Category:Pages moved from mainspace so it could be located at any future date: You can learn something about your own writing skills by re-reading something you wrote a long time ago.

Is this OK with everybody? If this or something like this is acceptable to all, we should find a place to formalize a policy. One place to discuss this is at the talkpage to Wikiversity:Deletions
We should discuss Buddha oracle at Talk:Buddha oracle--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Divine healing to Christianity/Divine healing for reasons discussed at Talk:Christianity/Divine healing.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, these could fall under ethnographic research, or at least data for ethnographic research. imo. limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image cleanup edit

Because I am obviously some kind of sucker for punishment, I've started looking through Category:Fair use files with an eye to cleaning it up. What I am seeing so far is not good.

As a refresher, per Wikiversity's EDP, fair-use content must have no free equivalent, must contribute directly and irreplaceably to the educational goal of the resource it's embedded in, must be attributed to its source, and must have a fair use rationale provided in the file description. (Wikiversity's EDP is broadly similar to Wikipedia's, and the examples and explanations given at w:Wikipedia:Non-free content usually apply here as well.) Some important consequences of these conditions are that:

Artwork is almost never valid justifiable as fair use unless the learning resource is on the topic of artwork. Using artwork which simply has a similar theme to the topic of the learning resource is not sufficient; using copyrighted material in that context is effectively decorative.
Figures and diagrams are almost never justifiable as fair use, as they can usually be replaced by recreating them. The fact that no one has created a freely licensed replacement yet is not a valid justification.
Photographs of people should only be used where the specific photograph is the subject of commentary, or where the subject of the photograph is deceased and no freely licensed photographs are available. Photographs of "living notable individuals" are specifically called out in the WMF licensing policy resolution as an example of unacceptable fair use.
Images sourced directly or indirectly from photo agencies or stock photo providers (like Reuters or Getty Images) are never justifiable as fair use, as reproducing them directly impacts the market value of those works.

I've also noticed that a substantial number of files with fair use license tags have a source of "own work" or something substantially similar. This doesn't make sense. If the uploader actually created the image themselves, they must have intended to provide permission for Wikiversity to use it. I'm very hesitant to retag these under GFDL/CC licenses, but leaving them tagged as fair use doesn't seem right either.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly checked three of the images you tagged, and two fell under a perpetually unresolved RFD called Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Pervasive copyright violations by User:Marshallsumter. The only issue I see is whether they are components of an essential Wikiversity resource (such as an ongoing college or high school course.) Essential resources are rare on WV. What do you think of using either a {{prod}} (with subst:) or {{tl:delete}} on each image? In most cases I will look at the history, delete the image, and either delete the hosting resource page, or move it into user space. If I have any doubts, I will "prod" both resource and image and let other administrators deal with it. @Dave Braunschweig: please advise.--

Took no action on speedy delete for File:ActivitySeriesOfMetals2006NCDPI.jpeg and added "prod" to host article. Author is an active contributor on WV, but host page gets only 9 views per month.
Added prod on Scale dimension, which at best should be under Physics/Essays
Deleted Creation of an Empire I: Revision history. No significant page views, edit for past 15 years. Author dormant for 15 years.

I state this log to give y'all an idea of the policy I am using. I am somewhat flexible on that policy. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting deletion for these images over copyright issues affecting the images themselves, not because there's necessarily any issue with the resources they're being used in. Copyright issues are grounds for speedy deletion; converting these to proposed deletion isn't appropriate here. If you think I'm mistaken about images lacking an appropriate fair use rationale and source, or if you can correct the copyright tags, feel free to remove the deletion tag and/or correct the tags. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images tagged as Fair Use and own work are from a cleanup effort several years ago. The content had no licensing at all but was for homework assignments, usually in one of the engineering classes using Wikiversity at the time. The creators were long gone. Tagging the images as Fair Use allowed the effort to remain while preventing others from reusing the content without a license that wasn't granted.

I don't know that there is still value in retaining these contributions. None of the schools are using Wikiversity for engineering assignments anymore. The biggest efforts with students are Motivation and Emotion and the Federal Writer's Project and related learning projects.

If the community wants them removed, we could make it happen. I just need very clear parameters on what to remove so it can be automated.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct edit

Hello all,

The voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now open! Voting will be open for two weeks and will close at 23:59 UTC on January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote.

For more details on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process, see our previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

JPBeland-WMF (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Universal Bibliography into draftspace? edit

Universal Bibliography looks interesting but I believe it belongs in draftspace. Please share your thoughts. It has over 30 subpages: See special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Universal Bibliography/. When this project is completed it will be larger than today's Wikipedia. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this is already moved. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I decided to move it after posting my request for "permission" Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I must oppose this move.

The bibliography is the only genuinely useful content on Wikiversity (apart from a few Wikipedia articles that were moved to Wikiversity (and which ought to be moved back) and some pages that look like encyclopedia articles, and things like that) that I am aware of.

The bibliography is absolutely necessary to support Wikipedia, which has a massive problem with editors being unable to find sources. (Wikipedia also has a smaller problem with editors being unable to identify notable books that should have articles). If the bibliography is removed, Wikipedia is finished. That would be the end. That would be the final blow. I personally would find it virtually impossible to create, improve or maintain Wikipedia articles without being able to refer to the bibliography, which I read constantly, and which is absolutely necessary for that purpose.

The page move is disruptive. The page move is out of process. There is no policy or guideline authorising such a move. (A proposal is neither a policy nor a guideline). The page move appears to be against consensus. Over the last ten years, there has been only support for, and no opposition to, the bibliography. The page move causes me to feel harassed.

There is no chance of this bibliography becoming larger than Wikipedia. Even if you listed every book ever published, which is not likely to happen and which will not be done by me, you would get a number of pages that is no more than about 2% of the number of articles on the English Wikipedia, by my reckoning. (The total number of Wikipedia pages, in all languages, is more than 249 million, which is much larger than the total number of books in the World). In its present form, however, the bibliography is actually very small.

In any event, size is irrelevant. See, for an explanation of why size is irrelevant to wikimedia projects, meta:Wikipedia is not paper. (This page presently refers to Wikipedia, but the argument it makes is true of all wikimedia projects).

The draftspace is a toxic editing environment, is a massive unwarranted content fork, and is impossible to navigate. It also breaks links. There is no satisfactory procedure for moving pages out of draftspace. Forced draftification alienates, insults, annoys and harasses contributors. It would be better to delete pages altogether than to draftify them. It should certainly not be possible for anyone to forcibly draftify anything without consensus formed during a deletion discussion equivalent to an AfD. Such behaviour is not permitted on the English Wikipedia, and it should not be allowed here or anywhere else.

Nor should editors engage in w:WP:DRIVEBY draftification of pages they do not intend to immediately and continuously improve and then move back to the mainspace ASAP. Right now, the draftifcation makes it impossible for me, or anyone other than Guy Vandegrift, to do anything to improve the draftified pages. And I see no evidence that Guy has any intention of improving those pages himself. James500 (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People can either discuss it here, or comment/vote at at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Undeletion requests. @James500: I entered your vote by proxy and placed a link to this page. I will move it back to mainspace unless there is a clear consensus to keep it in draft or userspace.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can chatgpt generate content be released under creative commons? edit

can ChatGPT generated content be released under creative commons on this wiki? https://beta.openai.com/docs/usage-policies

Does anyone know? is there any guidance about this on wikipedia? thanks and inner and outer peace to you. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean using ChatGPT to generate resources for Wikiversity, strongest possible oppose. Text produced by language models like ChatGPT is frequently inaccurate, often in extremely sneaky ways (like making up historical events or even fabricating references). I can't think of any way this could be used to produce useful, accurate learning resources.

There's an active discussion about unauthorized use of ChatGPT on Wikipedia at w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Artificial-Info22 using AI to produce articles. (Update: there's some more in-depth analysis at w:Wikipedia:Large language models.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 07:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, ChatGPT content may not be released under a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license on this wiki. The generated content isn't open, isn't referenced, and wasn't written by the user. You can't release under a CC license something you didn't create and don't own the rights to. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to code an open source version of ChatGPT ... I'm too busy.

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I hear ya all. Here is a suggested ChatGPT prompt: "What are some open source ChatGPT alternatives?" (withquotes). ChatGPT just listed 6 of such open source alternatives. I wrote that prompt myself! Limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you appreciate the underlying issue. It's not a question of whether the tool is open source. It's a question of whether the generated content is open source and whether all sources used to generate that content are properly referenced.

It's certainly possible to do, and perhaps WMF should invest resources in creating such a tool. But unless there is an explicit limit of open source content with references, it can't be posted here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that's true. The analysis at w:WP:LLM suggests that the output of language models like ChatGPT is usually not subject to copyright, as it lacks a human author (outside of situations where it's parroting material from its input). However, it also raises a number of other issues with using that content which make it generally unsuitable for Wikipedia, and those reasons probably apply here as well. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 03:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]