Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/April 2017

Discussion about Wikiversity at Wikimania 2017 Montreal

Good morning, I'm a Wikiversity contributor, mostly in Portuguese and English languages. i've proposed a discussion about Wikiversity for Wikimania 2017 in Montreal. At the bottom of the page there is a space to signal your interest. I notice this is the only proposal related to Wikiversity. Therefore, if approved, hopefully we'll be able to discuss what I propose, but it will also be an open space for other discussions related to the project. (= Commentaries are also welcome in the discussion page. Thanks and - who knows - see you in Montreal, Solstag (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As background information, see WMFLabs:Statistics. While most of the content at en.wikiversity might be viewed as personal research or assignment work, most of the shared activity and interest is centered around courses and/or lessons. From my perspective, it is important for Wikiversity to continue to serve both shared and individual work. What we do need is a more engaging way to create mashups from a variety of content sources. Mediawiki is inherently text-based content in what has become an overwhelmingly visual/graphic Internet learning environment. We need better tools for easy integration of this type of learning content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dave. I am generally aware of these facts. The main point now is that it will be good to have an opportunity to discuss them at Wikimania, and have a vision of what is being effective, what is realistic in development terms, and given that, what is and what is not in danger of becoming simply misled effort within Wikimedia. Personally, I don't think Wikiversity as it stands has any chance of scaling, and we should be pushing use cases more fit to its current affordabilities. But that's part of the discussion! Cheers, Solstag (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
May 15–19 – Board vote checking
May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
- There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
- One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your language • Get help

The last week of the 1st cycle of Wikimedia strategy conversation

Hi, I'm Szymon, a MetaWiki Strategy Coordinator. 3 weeks ago, we invited you to join a broad discussion about Wikimedia's future role in the world. The discussion is divided into 3 cycles, and the first one ends on April, 15. So far, Wikimedians have been discussing mainly about technological improvements, multilingual support, friendly environment, cooperation with other organizations and networks.

If you'd like to get detailed information about the discussed topics, have a look at → that page.
If you'd like to join the discussions, please comment → on the talk page of that page or on Meta-Wiki.
If you have any questions that weren't answered there, feel free to ask me.

I'm pinging a few recently active admins. I hope you'll help me with passing along the news, maybe even join the discussion. @Marshallsumter, Dave Braunschweig, Jtneill, Guy vandegrift, and Leighblackall:.

Looking forward to your input. Thank you in advance! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unconventional or unorthodox content to Wikiversity

The Hilbert Book Model

Most science subjects that are lectured at universities are correct and show mutual consistency. However, already during my studies in the sixties and later during my career in high-tech industry, I discovered several subjects that are at least questionable and often provable wrong. During my career, insufficient time and possibilities were available to react in this situation. However, after my retirement not only the time became available but also the inhibitions faded away. So, I joined discussion groups that treated the exact sciences as their subject. In particular, ResearchGate and some LinkedIn groups are active in this area and allow to refer to private papers. In 2011, when I was 70, I started a personal research project that investigates the foundation and the lower levels of the structure of physical reality because this was the region in which I discovered the most severe shortcomings of physics and mathematics. The name of the project is the "Hilbert Book Model". Especially the role of the so-called scientific method occurred as odd to me. During my work, I quickly came to the conclusion that even with the most sophisticated equipment, many subjects cannot be observed or experimentally verified. The question raises then what must be done to investigate those regions where nothing can be verified experimentally? I decided that it must be possible to generate mathematical models that explain these regions and that couple these regions to areas that can be investigated experimentally. When I tried to promote this vision, I encountered many discussion partners that refused to believe that physical reality applies mathematical structures and methods. This fact did not withhold me from generating the Hilbert Book Model, which is a purely mathematical model of the lowest levels of the structure and the behavior of physical reality. This model reveals and explains many subjects that are still obscure in modern physics. It introduces new mathematics and it corrects the view that physical theories have on these lower levels of reality. This difference with well-accepted physical theory makes the Hilbert Book Model unorthodox and controversial. The full report of the Hilbert Book Model project is a large and complicated document. That is why I decided to publish several parts of the project in a better accessible fashion. The full report is available at [1]. The separate subjects are accessible at https://www.docs.com/hans-van-leunen. Several of these subjects may be relevant for Wikiversity. The Hilbert Book Model is openly accessible. Everybody is free to pick from it. Everybody is free to criticize its content.

The Hilbert Book Model reintroduces a category of super-tiny objects that exist already for two centuries and that figure as building blocks of objects that are considered elementary by modern physical theories. The HBM gives these shock fronts names. Further, the HBM uses quaternionic differential calculus where conventional physics tends to apply Maxwell equations. The HBM explores the fact that number systems exist in several versions that differ in their ordering. The HBM merges different mathematical technologies, such as quaternionic function calculus and quaternionic differential and integral calculus with Hilbert space operator technology. The HBM introduces stochastic mechanisms that supply elementary particle with their dynamic geometric properties and that ensure coherence of the dynamics in the model. In this way, the HBM provides the explanation of the origin of many phenomena that are still obscure in modern physics. --HansVanLeunen (discuss • contribs) 10:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to write or develop a resource at Wikiversity about the Hilbert Book Model, you are free to do so! If you are not yet familiar with how to do this, I suggest starting on a user subpage such as User:HansVanLeunen/Hilbert Book Model. If you are only interested in drawing Wikiversity users to your .com website, this is likely considered solicitation. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HansVanLeunen: I hope you post your ideas on this site here! Cheers! Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marshallsumter: I started the Hilbert Book Model project because I was curious about the foundation of physical reality. That curiosity was raised during my studies in the sixties when I was for the first time confronted with quantum physics. I was astonished that quantum physics used a methodology that deviated considerably from the method with which classical physics was handled. My lecturer was a wise man, but he could not give a good reason for this difference. The university lectured in applied physics and there was little time for a deep dive into the dark crypts of the foundation of physics. This had to wait until after my retirement I find sufficient time and resources to take that dive. The project led to a series of interesting discoveries that covered mathematics as well as theoretical physics. In my opinion, it has sense to tell students and adventurous young scientists about these discoveries because they throw new light on origins of structures and phenomena in the lower levels of physics that are now obscure. The Hilbert Book Model represents a purely mathematical model of the foundation and the lower levels of the structure of physical reality. The model impersonates a creator that at the instant of the creation stored all properties of his creatures in a read-only repository. The model applies the fact that all observable discrete objects in the universe are modules or modular systems. A set of elementary modules exists that contains pointlike objects and that configure all other modules. These are revolutionary ideas, but they fit in a self-consistent mathematical model that applies trustworthy mathematical methods and structures.

I use my papers about this model to apply them as reference material in discussions on ResearchGate and science oriented LinkedIn groups. I also publish to offer students and scientists the opportunity to use the results of the Hilbert Book Model project for their own purposes. That is why I offer docx versions of my papers on my website, such that everybody can copy the formulas and the ideas that the project applies. I publish on vixra because it is open to both authors and readers and because it offers a very efficient revision service, such that everybody can see how my ideas evolved. I intend to publish on Wikiversity because many subjects of the Hilbert Book Model project can be of value for study and for other projects. I do this research for the fun of it and not to promote myself. My age is 75. My career finished long ago. I hope to draw some criticism, such that I can improve my project. My favorite living lecturer is Leonard Susskind. I learned a lot from his YouTube presentations. That does not say that I agree with all the stuff that he teaches. I hope that my readers treat my contributions in a similar way. I use Grammarly to improve my texts. I am not so happy with the edit services of Wikiversity. Currently, I prepare equations with the help of the MS Word equation editor or I use special fonts such as Cambria Math. I apply the resulting equations in comments in ResearchGate and LinkedIn and in journals in docs.com. I am new in Wikimedia editing. Up to now, my experience is cumbersome. Greathings, Hans--HansVanLeunen (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)--86.86.128.232 (discuss) 08:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On our Main Page is "To learn more about Wikiversity, try a guided tour, learn about adding content, or start editing now." We don't conduct tutorials! But, we can answer a few questions. You can also edit your user page! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional or unorthodox content is fine, but this Hilbert Book Model material does not seem like a great fit. Of course anyone is welcome to start courses here. But it would be a shame if WV became used primarily for nonstandard theories and crank theories that can never be explained clearly – because they are not logically sound, or because they are mostly redefining known concepts with new terms. It is hard to find others to collaborate on a project with you when you insist on making up new terms for everything. Regards, –SJ + 07:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the "Hilbert Book Model Project" as an original research project. I will extend the project regularly and add subjects that are taken from the paper that targets the same model. If I do things wrong and someone hints me about that, then I will correct it. Greathings, Hans --HansVanLeunen (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April and 3 May

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its secondary data center in Dallas. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the secondary data center on Wednesday, 19 April 2017. On Wednesday, 3 May 2017, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

You will not be able to edit for approximately 20 to 30 minutes on Wednesday, 19 April and Wednesday, 3 May. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Thursday 20 April and Thursday 4 May).
If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
There will be code freezes for the weeks of 17 April 2017 and 1 May 2017. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fyi – world building project – Problem sketch and talk on meta

Hi, for those of you who don't remember, concerning Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/January_2017#A_possible_project_on_world-building I was kindly directed to meta, which I studied. The result is not clear, so I started a talk there. See m:Wikimedia_Forum#Opinion needed concerning licencing in Wikiversity for my question and m:User:HirnSpuk for the outline of basic information about the topic. I kindly like to invite you to the talk, if you like. Regards --HirnSpuk (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5

The first cycle of the Wikimedia movement strategy process recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than 1500 summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, none from your local discussion (the only comment was previously published on Meta). The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have summarized the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the report from the Berlin conference.

The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.

We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could

tell us where to announce the start of the Cycle 2, and how to do that, so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikiversity.

We are looking forward to your feedback!

Base (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]