Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/January 2024
Should Erotic mnemonics be a top page in namespace? edit
|
The author says Erotic mnemonics is research, so at best it should be a subpage in namespace. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Minimum useful content edit
I think that in order to be kept, pages should have a minimum useful content. This would be an interpretation of the current deletion guideline, WV:Deletion: "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely."
Some proposed principles:
- A definition and a link to Wikipedia or Wikibooks is not a minimum useful content.
- The above, expanded with random brainstormed questions, is not a minimum useful content.
- A single recipe on what is otherwise a large subject is not a minimum useful content. For example, a page on Java programming pretending to be a course but only containing hello world should be deleted.
- A page may be kept if it does not have a minimum useful content of its own but it exists as a directory to other useful content. Thus, a page on "Volcano" can exist if it links e.g. to more than subminimal "Origin of volcanos", or "Volcano/Joe Hoe essay on volcanos".
- A definition and a collection of good further reading may be considered to be minimum useful content; this is debatable, but seems roughly okay. Since, the reader can then use the further reading list as instruction on what to read to learn.
The above is new policy in so far as it is so specifically formulated, but it is also a particular interpretation of the existing quoted guideline.
Rationale: reduce the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of worthless pages. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Time and age: Freshly created subminimal page can be speedy deleted; the author can be told to work on it in their user space. If one wants to be more kind or lenient, freshly created subminimal page can be tagged for 3-month deferred deletion, during which time the author has a chance to make the page more than subminimal. For pages that existed in a subminimal state for more than a year, speedy is okay, but if one wants to be more kind or lenient, the page can be tagged for 3-month deferred deletion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Example: Response rate should be deleted: it does not even contain a definition and the only link is to Wikipedia. If this page would be kept, we may proceed in volume as follows: pick a domain; collect terms from the domain that have a Wikipedia page; for each term, create a page with literally no content (not even a definition), and link it to Wikipedia. That cannot be part of the purpose of Wikiversity. "Response rate" is labeled as stub, but it is not a stub in Wikipedia terminology since it has no content whatsoever. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that we need to improve the appearance and quality of our stubs. But what is the harm with a couple of thoughtful sentences, a few links to Wikipedia and Wikibooks, and an invitation to create a project under this particular name?Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The harm is that it creates and solidifies the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of useless pseudo-content. Then, when someone sees a link to Wikiversity on Google on, say, "Response rate" mentioned above, they think: no point even clicking there, it is one of those worthless Wikiversity pages. Thus, the association in the minds created is this: Wikiversity --> worthless site, generally not worth visiting. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem removing Response rate, but with only 16 pageviews last year it is neither harmful nor useful. But it is a good example of how we should change the template and format for future stubs. The page was created by User:Jtneill as Special:Permalink/413780. It links to a great deal of valuable Wikiversity material in the form of a category statement. But outsiders likely don't know what a category statement is, so in its original form, the stub was indeed worthless. So I made some edits to encourage people to go to Category:Survey design, where they will see an impressive collection of Wikiversity resources (see for example Survey design.) Jtneill was right to create that stub. The problem was with how the stub was written. Only people familiar with Wikiversity would click the category link. If you see a stub you don't like, don't delete it, fix it! Especially if was written by somebody like Professor Jtneill, who has a long history of making valuable contributions to Wikiversity.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- To determine the harm, one cannot only take "Response rate" in isolation but rather consider all similar pages and their aggregate impact on the minds of those visiting Wikiversity. I am hitting at subpar pages via Random button very easily, which suggests there are many of them. Thus, the question is not so much what is the harm of "Response rate" but rather what is the harm of the class of subpar pages as a whole.
- If one accepts "Response rate" with its freedom from content, one is forced to accept nearly anything.
- Jtneill could have changed mind. I created Lexical unit with a definition and further reading other than Wikipedia, but I now acknowledge the page was subminimal, and I am okay with it being deleted.
- Generally, pages need to be assessed regardless of who made them. Out of courtesy, one may ping a respected creator to explain why they think a page is useful. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think something like Response rate should have its place, as it yields to relevant material. The problem is not its content, but a missing declaration of what it is. It looks a bit to me like a disambiguation page on Wikipedia. I would declare it via a template as something like a 'distribution page' (directory is probably to much, do not know what a good name would be). The stub-sign should be removed. Then the impression of uselessness is avoided. Wikiversity has not only 'learning/teaching resources' in the strict sense, but also supporting pages like templates... I am also a bit alerted that definitions are declared to be 'not a minimum useful content'. The rationale: reduce the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of worthless pages, I support.Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- To give a positive example of what a good declaration is: the wikidebate banner. Then I know what it is (and that I am personally not interested). Essays should be declared as essays, university material as university material, etc. Frustration comes from wrong expectations, something which looks like a course at first sight and then turns out to be nothing (like geometry, where most 'chapters' are just red).Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- As I argued, the above approach gives a guide on how to turn Wikiversity into a collection of useless substubs providing nothing that is not in Wikipedia or Wikibooks already, with no tracing to sources, not even with definitions. I am baffled by this kind of position. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- As for "then the impression of uselessness is avoided": in me, the impression of uselessness-which to me is obvious--is not removed by removing of tagging. I see with my eyes easily and directly that a page that has nothing but a link to Wikipedia is useless, without anyone tagging that for me via a "stub" template. I feel this is just absurd, but then, I am only a single person. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that a page with only a link to Wikipedia should be deleted. But in the example it has the link to the category with useful material. My 'Then' refers to the declaration, not for removing the stub, sorry for this. ( I would remove the stub, as I would consider the page to be nothing more like a link to material, not to be something to be extended).Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- To give a positive example of what a good declaration is: the wikidebate banner. Then I know what it is (and that I am personally not interested). Essays should be declared as essays, university material as university material, etc. Frustration comes from wrong expectations, something which looks like a course at first sight and then turns out to be nothing (like geometry, where most 'chapters' are just red).Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think something like Response rate should have its place, as it yields to relevant material. The problem is not its content, but a missing declaration of what it is. It looks a bit to me like a disambiguation page on Wikipedia. I would declare it via a template as something like a 'distribution page' (directory is probably to much, do not know what a good name would be). The stub-sign should be removed. Then the impression of uselessness is avoided. Wikiversity has not only 'learning/teaching resources' in the strict sense, but also supporting pages like templates... I am also a bit alerted that definitions are declared to be 'not a minimum useful content'. The rationale: reduce the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of worthless pages, I support.Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem removing Response rate, but with only 16 pageviews last year it is neither harmful nor useful. But it is a good example of how we should change the template and format for future stubs. The page was created by User:Jtneill as Special:Permalink/413780. It links to a great deal of valuable Wikiversity material in the form of a category statement. But outsiders likely don't know what a category statement is, so in its original form, the stub was indeed worthless. So I made some edits to encourage people to go to Category:Survey design, where they will see an impressive collection of Wikiversity resources (see for example Survey design.) Jtneill was right to create that stub. The problem was with how the stub was written. Only people familiar with Wikiversity would click the category link. If you see a stub you don't like, don't delete it, fix it! Especially if was written by somebody like Professor Jtneill, who has a long history of making valuable contributions to Wikiversity.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The harm is that it creates and solidifies the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of useless pseudo-content. Then, when someone sees a link to Wikiversity on Google on, say, "Response rate" mentioned above, they think: no point even clicking there, it is one of those worthless Wikiversity pages. Thus, the association in the minds created is this: Wikiversity --> worthless site, generally not worth visiting. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think we're focusing on the wrong problem here. Having stubs as subpages of a course is fine, more or less. Having stubs as top-level resources is more of an issue, since it's often unclear what course they're meant to be associated with or how they're meant to be expanded - particularly if the stub doesn't explain that context itself.
- Top-level pages on Wikiversity should generally represent courses, subjects, or other organized projects. We aren't writing an encyclopedia or a dictionary here; there's no reasonable expectation that a viewer be able to type in any word or phrase and bring up a top-level page specifically dedicated to it. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- A compromise just occurred to me: Both sides have valid points, and the compromise involves two alternatives to the binary choice between deleting or keeping a page like Response rate: Either (1) move the page into subspace, or (2) blank the page into its own history and insert a redirect. Blanking preserves the author's ability to recover the effort in perpetuity. In the case of Response rate, the redirect should be to Survey design. Whoever does the blanking and/or redirecting should consider leaving a message on the user's talk page.
- The script for redirecting is
#REDIRECT[[Pagename]] - The message on the author's talk page should contain a link to the stub's original location (in our example it would be to Response rate.) This will permit the author to click the link and trace back to the redirect page and recover the original effort.
- The script for redirecting is
- This solution puts custodians and curators out of the loop: Long discussions are necessary only if an edit war breaks out between authors and movers.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- A compromise just occurred to me: Both sides have valid points, and the compromise involves two alternatives to the binary choice between deleting or keeping a page like Response rate: Either (1) move the page into subspace, or (2) blank the page into its own history and insert a redirect. Blanking preserves the author's ability to recover the effort in perpetuity. In the case of Response rate, the redirect should be to Survey design. Whoever does the blanking and/or redirecting should consider leaving a message on the user's talk page.
- I think Response rate is vaguely tolerable if one applies the justification that it is part of something worthwhile. What I find vital is that it is not then used as a justification for keeping other worthless pages. Even so, deleting Response rate as a substub would cause no harm: there is no content proper and there are almost no page views (17 in the whole year is a very low number). Thus, it would ease deliberation and administration to delete these kinds of substubs. I do support stubs as pages having minimal useful content; pages with no content is not what Wikipedia calls "stubs". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Does this essay belong in mainspace? edit
See the link at War_Seminar/Winning_the_War_on_Terror. For me it was tldr. Leave you comments on this page or here on the Colloquium:--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why not? Being rather long is not bad per se, is it? It has about 200 KB, which seems okay (not e.g. 2 MB). The feature that distinguishes Wikiversity from Wikipedia is that it allows original research and original essays. Moreover, the page gives a good first impression: the table of contents seems okay at a glance, and when I started to read the page, it seems written by a competent writer. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- On a related note, the page seems fine at Winning_the_War_on_Terror, just like wikidebates are fine without a prefix "Wikidebate/". We have categories to organize pages with a similar subject. The page was not created as part of "War Seminar" project, was it? And if it was not, it does not belong to that project. War_Seminar/Winning_the_War_on_Terror is currently a redirect, created recently. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I took over the page War Seminar because it went dormant over 7 years ago. I didn't have time to read all of Winning_the_War_on_Terror, but it seemed well written. Its author was very active until about one year ago. Your praise of Winning_the_War_on_Terror parallels my first impression, so I suggest we leave it in mainspace for a year or so. See Talk:War_Seminar#Pages_moved_here.
- My motive in taking over War Seminar was to create a subspace for student essays. After a couple of bad experiences with erroneously deleting pages, I decided to almost never delete. Wikiversity has lots of poor quality pages, and we will never accomplish much if we go slowly and carefully. I can go faster if move pages. I simply didn't have time to read Winning_the_War_on_Terror, so you input was greatly appreciated. Thanks.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just for the record, thank you for all the administration work that you are tirelessly doing. I remember one mistake that you made recently, but it was easily corrected and you readily admitted the mistake. Moreover, the page in which you made a mistake had a confusing name and looked confusing, so no surprise it confused someone; it confused me as well.
- As for leaving Winning the War on Terror in the mainspace, I propose to leave it there indefinitely. Pages with original essays of decent basic quality--not perfect but decent--should not be moved out of the mainspace once the author gone, in my view (or is there policy to the contrary?). They are what is unique about Wikiversity, unlike some of the Wikibooks-like courses. There, such pages should perhaps be protected from further editing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- By contrast, the Random page function easily discovers countless very poorly executed pages, and these should be moved to user space out of courtesy, or deleted. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dan Polansky:Thanks for the review of "Winning the War..". I agree with you on all the aforementioned policy statements. In the unlikely event that Wikiversity ever becomes a dominant idea-sharing force in society, some of your policy positins will need to change. But in the future, we will have AI ChatBots to move the furniture around. BTW the odds of Wikiversity becoming that force are small but not zero. Moreover, even a small growth in the importance of Wikiversity might motivate others to create a better wiki along the same lines. A good example is the WikiJournals, which remained very minor players ... but perhaps that's because so many traditional journals went open-source. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Guy vandegrift: Wikiversity has a great potential in principle, given its great and user-friendly Mediawiki technology time-tested in Wikipedia (revision histories of plain text markup rendered as HTML, refs, images, etc.), but for some reason, it did not really catch on much. I am enthusiastic about Wikidebates, but they do not get much traffic, and if they ever do, it may become very challenging to moderate them. Let us see. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dan Polansky:Thanks for the review of "Winning the War..". I agree with you on all the aforementioned policy statements. In the unlikely event that Wikiversity ever becomes a dominant idea-sharing force in society, some of your policy positins will need to change. But in the future, we will have AI ChatBots to move the furniture around. BTW the odds of Wikiversity becoming that force are small but not zero. Moreover, even a small growth in the importance of Wikiversity might motivate others to create a better wiki along the same lines. A good example is the WikiJournals, which remained very minor players ... but perhaps that's because so many traditional journals went open-source. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you use Wikidata in Wikimedia sibling projects? Tell us about your experiences edit
Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English.
Hello, the Wikidata for Wikimedia Projects team at Wikimedia Deutschland would like to hear about your experiences using Wikidata in the sibling projects. If you are interested in sharing your opinion and insights, please consider signing up for an interview with us in this Registration form.
Currently, we are only able to conduct interviews in English.
The front page of the form has more details about what the conversation will be like, including how we would compensate you for your time.
For more information, visit our project issue page where you can also share your experiences in written form, without an interview.
We look forward to speaking with you, Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Are long meaningless pages in mainspace worse than stubs? edit
I just moved nine long and pointless mainspace articles into the subpace of the following mainspace top page:
As far as I am concerned, all the subpages to this page can be deleted. But if we decide to keep the subpages, what do we do with the aforementioned top page that hosts the subpages?
Discussion edit
- In the good old days discussions like this occurred on talk pages. If this effort to get us on a talk page fails, just go back to the Colloquium.
I think long and meaningless pages are Wikiversity's worst enemy because (1) they are more difficult for the cleanup crew to discuss and evaluate, and (2) they waste the reader's time, especially for newbies who try the links when they should just go back to Google. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Going through the subpages in order:
- Grants and fundraising/Construction Engineering Research Grant Group is a half-formed description of a project with no supporting material, untouched since 2007.
Delete. - Grants and fundraising/Funding is a Marshallsumter page, a collage of unrelated quotes about funding, scientific research agencies, and (sigh) dominant groups. Delete.
- Grants and fundraising/Fundraising is kind of a mess. I think the intent was to serve as a top-level page for projects to obtain grants for Wikiversity, but it lacks focus. (I've already removed a bizarre section where one editor wrote about his "research on money creation" where he attempted to defraud a bank.) Some of the links might be useful, but most of them are broken or irrelevant. Delete.
- Grants and fundraising/Fundraising/Video Kiosk was a specific project to create a Wikiversity internet kiosk, which never really went anywhere. Probably safe at this point to say this is never happening. Delete.
- Grants and fundraising/Grant applications is another Marshallsumter page, this one largely about his (failed) attempt to obtain NSF funding to write more pages about dominant groups. Delete.
- Grants and fundraising/Grants is effectively just a link collection, and all of the useful-looking links are broken. Delete.
- Grants and fundraising/Raising funds for the arts is a misformatted mess, but the underlying text looks sound. I'm not sure how useful it is - a lot of it looks like it's just stating the obvious - but
Keep for now, or at least give it a closer look. - Grants and fundraising/Research grant collaboration group looks like an early attempt to create a course about how to write research grants (yay!), but one which never produced any learning materials beyond a course outline and participant list (boo!). Keep
- Grants and fundraising/Wikiversity nonprofit corporation was a brief attempt to establish a Wikiversity non-profit for some poorly defined purpose. This never got off the ground. Delete.
- Grants and fundraising/Construction Engineering Research Grant Group is a half-formed description of a project with no supporting material, untouched since 2007.
- There's also:
- Wikiversity:Grants and fundraising/Wikiversity Grant proposals - which I think you might have meant to move to the main resource namespace? - which is devoid of any content beyond a link to a single mailing list post that's old enough to be going to college next year. Delete.
- Wikiversity:Funding, which is mostly a list of research foundations. The title is misleading, as it isn't actually about funding Wikiversity (which is handled by Wikimedia). I'm not sure what to do with this one; I'm tempted to replace it all with a redirect to WMF fundraising pages on meta.
- Wikiversity:Grants and fundraising/Wikiversity Grant proposals - which I think you might have meant to move to the main resource namespace? - which is devoid of any content beyond a link to a single mailing list post that's old enough to be going to college next year.
- Overall: it would be great if Wikiversity had some content about the research grant process, BUT we would need a subject-matter expert to write it (and that isn't me). This is a sufficiently niche topic that a useful resource on it will probably need to rely on personal experience, not just summaries of online or print resources.
- Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to look at them! I didn't notice any of authors of your proposed deletion lists having made any edits in the past couple of years (and most have been dormant much longer.) That means the articles are no longer a student's learning experience. Erroneous page deletions are a pain to reverse, so I have gotten in the habit of putting stuff in the principal author's userspace. We can't carefully referee everything on Wikiversity, so guessing and moving to userspace is quicker than deliberating and deleting....
- Also in favor of moving, is the fact that precedence is a good thing. One of my mistaken removals of a page from namespace was a mistake that someone else made years ago. Both of us chose to move instead of delete. And both of us moved it back. See the two bizzare transclusion pages somebody decided to put in namespace:
- I added the redirect to userspace and put a warning on it so folks won't move the redirect out of namespace.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Re: "Erroneous page deletions are a pain to reverse, so I have gotten in the habit of putting stuff in the principal author's userspace. We can't carefully referee everything on Wikiversity, so guessing and moving to userspace is quicker than deliberating and deleting....": A decent solution. Sometimes too kind, but decent anyway. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've moved those two pages back under the learning project they were linked from. They were obviously meant to be part of Instructional design/Learning objectives/Examples and Non-Examples of Conditions Phrases (which links to both near the bottom of the page); there's no need to move them to userspace. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Guy vandegrift: I've said it before here, but I think there need to be clearer, jargon-free guidelines on how to organize one's material on Wikiversity. I don't think the article on namespaces is very clear or concise. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'll add that nobody has ever really commented in the past when I've suggested there's a need for better documentation on content organization and namespaces. If anyone cares for my opinion and I'm sure they don't, it would make sense for each person to have their content located in individual "user" directories, just like unix. These need not be our userspaces but I suppose that would make sense. I anticipate that some users might perhaps argue that content should be "collaborative" and therefore not be associated with an individual user. While I understand this idea, in reality many if not most resources are largely the efforts of a single user and there's generally a commensurate and reasonable sense of proprietorship. No regular user would make a large change to another user's material without at least having a conversation and obtaining consent to do so first. Whatever convention Wikiversity uses should reflect this natural tendency, in my opinion. At any rate, there's a need for clearer documentation so that people aren't putting everything in mainspace and have to use silly titles in order to avoid conflicts with other's resources. Unless we're to have only one single course on any given subject, there has to be a sensible and easily-described convention. It should also account for other content e.g. one off articles and essays that are not part of a more complete course. Just my two cents. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Reusing references: Can we look over your shoulder? edit
Apologies for writing in English.
The Technical Wishes team at Wikimedia Deutschland is planning to make reusing references easier. For our research, we are looking for wiki contributors willing to show us how they are interacting with references.
- The format will be a 1-hour video call, where you would share your screen. More information here.
- Interviews can be conducted in English, German or Dutch.
- Compensation is available.
- Sessions will be held in January and February.
- Sign up here if you are interested.
- Please note that we probably won’t be able to have sessions with everyone who is interested. Our UX researcher will try to create a good balance of wiki contributors, e.g. in terms of wiki experience, tech experience, editing preferences, gender, disability and more. If you’re a fit, she will reach out to you to schedule an appointment.
We’re looking forward to seeing you, Thereza Mengs (WMDE)
Proposal to globally ban Guido den Broeder edit
Hi, this is to let you all know that there is a proposal to ban User:Guido den Broeder at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. You are receiving this notification as Guido den Broeder has made at least one edit to this wiki as per the m:Global bans policy. Best, --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 05:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have responded on nl:wikibooks. Please stop spamming pings. Guido den Broeder (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Already
Done, the discussion has ended. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 07:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
