Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/August 2009

Image without license

Normally, all images which indicate the license source or authors are not complete, have received the appropriate template (just more than 1200 files).Crochet.david 12:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Signature bot

Do we have a signature bot available? If not, we should try to get one going for Talk:Great Repeal Bill. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How to enroll in the actual courses?

Ive gone thru the tutorials but don't understand how to go about actually starting with learning a course? How do i enroll in a course as a student and start learning? --Cyma 07:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This will vary according to the learning resource - much of the content is "what you make of it", but some is more formally organized and may have specific "sign-up" instructions. It's usually more about "learning by doing" and by improving the resource and discussing it etc. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Newbie Question Concerning Projects

I am rather new to Wikiversity but am interested in using it for a graduate course I am teaching this fall. I would like to set up an extended annotated bibliography collecting secondary sources on the history of classical rhetoric. Would the community support this kind of project (since page entries would be focused on reviewing specific articles)? Would the project I am discussing work better as a Wikibook than as a part of the Wikiversity? Insignificantwrangler 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this project is perfectly fine for Wikiversity. Reviews on Wikibooks would be limited to previously published reviews, while on Wikiversity your students are free to include their own reviews of articles. If that distinction isn't important for what you wish to do, answering for yourself what you intend your students to do a) work together to write a book or b) write a paper, article or something else much simpler or smaller, is a good way to help you decide which project to use. Writing a book can be a great undertaking that requires a lot of work, perhaps more work then students can be expected to accomplish in a single semester. What are your needs? Is it something that students could build on from what students did the previous semesters, or something students would need to start over from scratch each time? Is it a one time deal or something you hope to repeat? Some more things to consider when deciding which project to use. -- darklama  00:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Emmbedding video stored at internet archives

Is it possible to embed video files stored at Internet Archives in a "wikiversity project? thanks for the advice. --Altera vista 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In short, no. You can link to them, but we can't embed video from any other website but Commons. --SB_Johnny ^talk 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Community Review in progress

A Community Review is in progress related to JWSchmidt's recent contributions to discussions involving custodians, deletion, and policy. Please share your thoughts at Wikiversity:Community Review/Topic bans for User:JWSchmidt‎. --SB_Johnny ^talk 08:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of unused images lacking licence information

I would like to propose the deletion of all completely unused images lacking licence information. We have a large number of images without adequate information about what licence they are available under and I think deleting those that aren't used will help to reduce the burden of trying to resolve these problems. Considering these images are unused, there is only a small risk of their deletion being harmful and it would be very easy to restore any as necessary.

In accordance with the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, all content on Wikimedia projects must either be available under an accepted free licence or accepted under an EDP (aka a fair use policy). As these images are unused, they cannot be justified under a fair use policy and nor would it be immediately beneficial for us to try to establish their availability under a free licence.

Since our Wikiversity:Deletion policy is only currently a proposal, I think this is the most appropriate venue to try to establish consensus for this. Please indicate below whether you {{support}} or {{oppose}} this proposal. If you oppose then please provide an explanation so that your concerns can help to develop the proposal into something you can accept. Adambro 17:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is really policy that images without licensing information are not welcome, then we first have to make it impossible for people to upload files without licensing information. I believe that many file uploaders have in the past assumed that their contributions were under the GFDL. Why not use something like Template:GFDL-presumed as the default treatment for files without licensing information? Before deleting files an attempt should be made to contact the uploader. If a file is doing no harm then there is no reason to delete it. --JWSchmidt 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As discussed before, it really is policy. See meta:Resolution:Licensing_policy for details. There's a related discussion somewhere or another about machine readability (templates) being required as well. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is most definitely a requirement that images have licensing information. I think the issue of making it impossible to upload without is probably for a separate discussion. It would be easier for us to concentrate here on reducing the backlog of problematic images, rather than try to come up with solutions to stop the number of such images growing. As SB_Johnny notes below, if we can reduce the number then it will be much easier to keep an eye on the situation and try to resolve the issues sooner, whilst the user is still active here, rather than years later when they may well not be.

I don't really think {{GFDL-presumed}} is an option. It has long since been phased out on the English Wikipedia where I assume the practice started. It doesn't provide enough confidence as to the validity of the licence.

Regarding contacting uploaders, I suspect in many cases attempts will have already been made. Adambro 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To respond to JWSchmidt's final point that "If a file is doing no harm then there is no reason to delete it", all of the files I am referring to are harmful, for a number of reasons. They are harmful to Wikiversity because hosting them is potentially violating copyright law. They are harmful because their lack of information means they violate the Foundation's resolution which we have no choice but to comply with. They are harmful because, whilst they are unused, we still have to concern ourselves with categorising them if we are to ensure that tools like Special:UncategorizedFiles are of any value. To look at it from the other angle, does their existence benefit Wikiversity? Considering we can't, or at least shouldn't, use these images whilst they lack licensing information then it doesn't seem realistic that their existence can be beneficial. Adambro 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The {{GFDL-presumed}} also engage the responsibility of the editor (the one that add the template and click on Save page button) if this file is not actually eligible for the GFDL (or other similar licence) and that the copyright owner seeks compensation for the injury suffered. Crochet.david 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For more about the background of GFDL-presumed, see meta:Template:GFDL_presumed_warning and meta:Template:GFDL-presumed. It seems that these templates were only created to tag images uploaded before a certain date, the date on which the upload form page was modified to state that images without license info would be deleted. Our MediaWiki:Uploadtext has stated "Images without proper information about their source and their license will be deleted." (emphasis in the original) since November 2006. --mikeu ^talk 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Asuming that the uploaders have been warned and given an appropriate grace period, deletion is probably the best solution. Attempts have been made to get this done in the past (I tried to get it going when we had a whopping 60 or so unlicensed files, but it was resisted), but debate was endless, so now the problem is much bigger. Keeping the number as close to zero as possible will allow us to give more prompt attention to uploaders in the ruture who might not understand the need. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Like most things at Wikiversity that should be subject to discussion, how to deal with licensing of uploaded files has never really been the subject of a coherent community discussion. There has been a series of attempts to impose on the Wikiversity community the destructive approach that was developed at Wikipedia. The Wikipedia method is to have a website that is saturated with statements saying "all your contributions are under a copyleft license". However, wiki participants are allowed to upload files without specifying the license. Later, uploaded files are deleted because they do not specify a license. That approach is fine for a wiki run by deletionists, but there are alternatives. If it is true that all uploaded files must be under a copyleft license or be provided with a fairuse rationale then the first thing to do is to make it impossible to upload files unless the uploader specifies the license. The deletionists have repeatedly refused to do this and so they have created the "problem". They continue to cause the problem by refusing to change the file upload system so as to require that a license be specified. The deletionists further cloud the issue by making false claims such as saying that Wikiversity cannot host content that is potentially a copyright violation. Fanning the flames of copyright paranoia has long been a popular sport for deletionists and people who would like to shut down free culture websites. Wikiversity is a learning community. We should have a way of educating participants about copyleft licenses and fairuse and then allow participants to specify the license for their uploaded files. Uploading without a license having been specified should be impossible. "I don't really think GFDL-presumed is an option. It has long since been phased out on the English Wikipedia" <-- The silly methods of Wikipedia caused the "problem", there is no point in looking to Wikipedia for a solution to the problem. "They are harmful because their lack of information means they violate the Foundation's resolution which we have no choice but to comply with." <-- Please quote from the resolution to support this claim. Rather than deletion, a better approach to uploaded files without license information is to assume GFDL for those already uploaded and prevent new uploads that lack license information. --JWSchmidt 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to say a lot but don't really properly explain why you seem to oppose deleting these files. As has been explained, assuming GFDL is a dangerous system. How do we know that the reason the uploader didn't tag the file with an appropriate template was because it is copyrighted? Is it really worth the risks involved to save images which aren't being used? You don't seem to have explained how such images benefit the project. As I've said, it would be easier if we focus on dealing with these unused images with no licensing information rather than trying to solve the wider issues. We already seem to have what should really be a straightforward discussion turning into something much more onerous. There certainly are related issues that need to be discussed but I think we can deal with these images without having to discuss the whole system of image uploads. You ask me to quote from the Resolution to support my suggestion that "their lack of information means they violate the Foundation's resolution". It would probably be easier if you simply read the Resolution in full and you should be able to come to the same conclusion. Adambro 14:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the "GFDL-presumed" stuff that was a silly wikipedianism, not the sticking to the license policy. The "house rules" are that everything needs to be free-licensed, and explicitly so in the case of uploaded files. I wouldn't object if we just changed it to "all uploads must be either PD or released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.3"... it would limit us to a certain extent, but would certainly be simpler. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking towards the more medium term, it would be simpler I feel if we removed all the free licences from MediaWiki:Licenses and encourage all freely licensed content to be uploaded to Commons which would have a number of advantages. Commons, being a project dedicated to hosting such content, has a much better "infrastructure" for managing freely licensed content, and of course anything uploaded there is instantly available for the benefit of other projects. Sure, we'd have to be prepared to accept some stuff getting deleted due to a likely more stringent analysis of the licensing status of an image, but being able to be confident that content is actually freely licensed is in the interests of our users. However, we are drifting away from the original point I was looking for consensus about so I don't really want to encourage discussion on the broader issues at this point. Adambro 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as deleting the unused ones goes, there's really not much to talk about. For used ones, deleting after the 7 day period is the best way to go IMO. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I sent an email to all the contributors who submitted a file and had received a rebate in order for copyright (In this category) and which have enabled the sending of mail through the site. But then I reached the limit of transmission through the software. I've done all the images from 0 to 9 and A to K.Crochet.david 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"You seem to say a lot but don't really properly explain why you seem to oppose deleting these files." <-- At Wikiversity the burden is on deletionists to provide a valid reason for deletion. If you have a Wikiversity page that you want to delete, then take it to Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion and state how the page does harm to Wikiversity. "How do we know that the reason the uploader didn't tag the file with an appropriate template was because it is copyrighted?" <-- I agree that this kind of question arises when people are allowed to upload files without specifying a license. Let's fix the problem by making it so that Wikiversity does not allow people to upload files unless they specify a license. "You don't seem to have explained how such images benefit the project." <-- I have no obligation to do so. I do not not even know which files you want to delete. If there are files that harm Wikiversity then list them at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. "simply read the Resolution in full and you should be able to come to the same conclusion" <-- I've read the resolution and my conclusion is that you have falsely represented what the resolution says. The fact that you have not provided quotes from the resolution to support your claim is very good evidence that you have falsely represented what the resolution says. "The 'house rules' are that everything needs to be free-licensed" <-- What are 'house rules'? "all uploads must be either PD or released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.3" <-- There are many other licensing options that satisfy the Wikimedia requirements. I object to any proposal that would limit file uploading options for Wikiversity participants. "removed all the free licences from MediaWiki:Licenses and encourage all freely licensed content to be uploaded to Commons" <-- In my experience Commons is not a welcoming environment. Participants at Commons cannot be trusted to make decisions such as deletion decisions that are sensitive to the needs of Wikiversity. We already give people the option to upload to Commons, that is enough. "Well, as far as deleting the unused ones goes, there's really not much to talk about." <-- I agree; Wikiversity pages that are causing no harm should never be targeted for deletion. "deleting after the 7 day period is the best way to go" <-- No page should be deleted from Wikiversity unless it is causing a problem for Wikiversity. The correct solution here is to prevent file uploads unless a license is specified by the uploader. For old files, just add a template such as "GFDL-presumed". --JWSchmidt 14:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I find your comments, particularly your edit summary where you said " if there are pages that need to be deleted, take them to Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion", quite bizarre. You seem to fail to acknowledge that Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion is only an accepted process for deleting files because community consensus has determined it to be. You must surely understand therefore community consensus is just as valid wherever it emerges.

I would note that I have already explained how unused files without licensing information are harmful to the project and asked you to explain how they might benefit the project and so address my concerns. You have again refused to do so. Your other comments don't explain why we shouldn't delete these files. If you are trying to convince me that these files shouldn't be deleted then you are not doing a very good job. Adambro 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere (at least not in the linear sense), it's probably best to close it before the ad hominem attacks get any worse (e.g., "I've read the resolution and my conclusion is that you have falsely represented what the resolution says", above). I think it's safe to assume a course has been decided. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone would like to continue discussing objections to wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy, then the proper venue can be found at "I don't agree..." --mikeu ^talk 15:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"quite bizarre" <-- I know that deletionists can be made uncomfortable by having to provide a reason for deleting the contributions of wiki editors, however, I think it is best for Wikiversity if only damaging files are deleted. "I have already explained how unused files without licensing information are harmful" <-- you claimed: "They are harmful to Wikiversity because hosting them is potentially violating copyright law. They are harmful because their lack of information means they violate the Foundation's resolution which we have no choice but to comply with. They are harmful because, whilst they are unused, we still have to concern ourselves with categorising them". Are you claiming the right to delete anything that is potentially violating copyright law? If so, you might as well close down all of Wikimedia. We are not guided by copyright paranoia. "they violate the Foundation's resolution" <-- I asked you to quote from the resolution to show that you are correct about this. You have failed to support this claim by quoting from the resolution. My reading of the resolution suggests to me that your claim is false. I also suggested a better option than deletion, which you seem to reject. If you are overwhelmed by the task of categorizing image files, then I suggest that you find some other way to spend your time. If you want to propose files for deletion, go to the correct forum for community discussion of deletion proposals and explain how the files that you want to delete are doing harm. "If you are trying to convince me that these files shouldn't be deleted..." <-- I still do not know what you want to delete. List the files and let the community discuss them. --JWSchmidt 22:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The link to the policy has been repeatedly posted. But, here is the bottom line: "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License" and "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." (note: EDP is the Exemption Doctrine Policy for Fair Use) Foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy --mikeu ^talk 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Intercept_theorem_proof.jpg is taken from wikipedia, a file of same name there...hope this satisfies the doubts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altera vista (talk • contribs)

Moved to commons and deleted locally... we should probably have a link to commonshelper on our upload form for WP images. --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible small-scale funding

Hi all - this was posted to the mailing list, but posting it here too. It's a scheme to give grants to Open Education projects/initiatives of up to £15,000 (UK). I'd be willing to write something up in collaboration with others, if anyone's interested - though I'll probably still be fairly busy until November. (Deadline for first round is 31 December.) See blog post and the Talis 'incubator' for details. Cormaggio ^talk 08:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems interesting Cormac. I like to help you out, but i don't know if i got enough time. Will know more about it in a few months.

It is a commercial business, so i presume that the invested money needs to be returned with a profit, or not? (must say that i didn't read everything before this edit, sorry about that)--Daanschr 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

They make it clear that they want open source material (they don't want the money back). I think it would be a great idea to start a project on writing grants in general to help people take advantage of grants when they come up... maybe along those lines, Cormac? --SB_Johnny ^talk 09:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea Johnny. I think WMF and Wikieducator have made available some grant proposals that were successful - they could be useful resources. And of course, actually getting involved in writing a grant would be a good way to learn about what is needed, what is extraneous etc - learning by doing. :-) Cormaggio ^talk 10:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

License upload form

Do we want to consider changing our Special:Upload form, so that it forces people to consider license issues? For example, compare our form to commons:Commons:Upload or w:Wikipedia:Upload. In order to do this we would need to modify MediaWiki on Wikiversity. So, first we would need to decide what we want to implement, reach consensus, and if it is desirable to implement something like the upload form on the other projects we would then post a request to Bugzilla with a link to the consensus discussion here. Let's start by discussing the merits of such a change. --mikeu ^talk 12:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the technical details of how the upload form works, but it seems like it should be possible to modify the form so that the uploader has to select a valid licensing option before a file will upload. I do not understand why the form allows people to use options such as "non-commercial use only". I think many people see the current upload form and rightly decide it is a bad joke that is best ignored. --JWSchmidt 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The technical details are that in order to implement any major change (like switching to a multichoice upload form similar to those at Commons and Wikipedia, but with our own customized text and choices) we would need to request a change to the MediaWiki installation at Wikiversity. From what I understand, it is not physically possible for us to customize the upload forms as the other projects have done without this change. We can draft and discuss the text that we would like to see in those uploads forms, but nothing can get implemented until we post a Bugzilla request to add the software change to enable the use of these multichoice forms. I could be wrong about this last bit, but I don't think it is technically possible to completely prevent an upload without a license. For example, on Commons I skip the forms and go straight to the upload page, because it is easier for me to cut and paste the license and summary info all at once. But, anyone could just as easily skip the license info if they know how to bypass the form. Also, note that the Commons form has a choice labeled "It is a non-free fair use image" even though commons does not accept such files. If someone clicks on that option they get an explanation of the policy and the page does not allow uploading. These options are present to educate new users about the acceptable license policy for images. --mikeu ^talk 12:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, the WP version is probably better for us, since commons doesn't allow for fair use (assuming the consensus remains that fair use should be permitted). However, I don't think there's any way (software wise) to prevent uploads without a license. There's really no way to insist beforehand aside from creating a usergroup for uploading and disabling it for autoconfirmed, and I'd far prefer having to delete than requiring people to get prior permission. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia upload form also includes a set of crazy "licensing options" which are the source of the problem of files not having the needed licensing information. I've done a small amount of php programming and that experience suggests to me that it is possible to force uploaders to select a license before a file can be uploaded. --JWSchmidt 22:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't offer much on the technicalities, but want to support what JWSchmidt has pointed out, the need for a dramatic simplification of the form to be filled out. As much as possible it should be check boxes and drop downs (instead of templates needing memorisation and help boxes), and if we can get it down to an easy 3, like:

1. Copyright - with a range of check boxes
2. Attribution - input box to put in a name or URL
3. Source - URL

Maybe there are a better 3, my main point is, make it fast and easy. --Leighblackall 03:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

transclusion

I like to create a navigation Form? Module? page? ( obviously I do not know the proper term) to include in every page . The existing

{{{title}}}

templates don't seem to do the trick, since it requires changes of the content on each page the navigation template is placed. It would be nice if one could create a "module page" for navigation that could be placed on each page and changes made in the " module page" would automatically show up on all pages the module is included in.

Is this called "Transclusion"? How would i go about it to design such a thing/ use such a thing Thanks for any suggestions/ advice Altera vista 17:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion is where content appears to be on one page but actually is on another page. For an example, over at Wikipedia, the Reference Desk pages include some transcluded content for the oldest days. At the Science Ref Desk (w:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science), say, the following line is added near the top:

{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2009 August 18}}

This shows the content for August 18th even though it's actually in the archives. If you try to edit the transcluded sections it takes you right to the archive page and you edit there: ([1]). StuRat 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

AP course

Hey guys! I'm kinda new here... Is it against policy to create resources for program-specific classes such as the AP program? I want to do start an AP Statistics resource, but I'm not sure where to start. Are there any AP related examples that I can take a look at? Any help would be greatly appreciated, since I have no idea what I'm doing! (My mind keeps thinking about Wikipedia standards)--Edge3 03:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edge3, forgive my ignorance, but what is AP? But, the answer is that yes you are free to create resources on Wikiversity for specific classes/courses - that's absolutely fine and is to be encouraged. You can just make a red link to a page name, e.g., AP statistics course, click on it, and away you go! There are others around who can help out as you find your feet. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well my friend, let me direct you to w:Advanced Placement and w:AP Statistics. Looks like I can get started!--Edge3 14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edge3. You might also want to have a look at b:Category:Advanced Placement, which contains a number of textbooks created for AP classes. I suspect they all need work, but worth a look. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Which now brings me to my next question: what's the difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks?--Edge3 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, WB is for textbooks, WV is not :-). Seriously though, a good example for statistics is that you could create models on a WV project, from data collection to analysis and synthesis of the data. You can't do that on WB, since the textbooks can't be "Original Research". For other materials, both projects can import and export materials to each other, so it doesn't really matter which one you create the materials on. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[concurrent reply] In a nutshell, they work hand in hand. Wikiversity is structured to accommodate the learning community (people) where Wikibooks is for textbook formed materials (books). CQ 16:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks is for collaborative writing of textbooks. Wikiversity is for collaborative writing of learning resources and for collaborative research. In the context of a school, Wikibooks provides the books you'd need for a class and would be expected to read, and Wikiversity provides the worksheets, lesson plans and other resources that are used in class. Wikibooks is for the type of learning that can be done by reading a book. Wikiversity is more for hands on learning like learning done by doing exercises, doing experiments, and other things that can be done by participating in a class and applying what you learn as you learn it. -- darklama  16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The short answer of your question is: No, no problems with creating such resources. In fact, the current incarnation of the Introduction to US History course was intended as such. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 23:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to ask if you are a high school student, because I am, and I am willing to take a calculus related AP test during the next year. So I will be really grateful if any of the wikis will be helping. Thanks!--;Hiba;1 12:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dropdown boxes

--Altera vista 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I like to incorporate in a project page a "dropdown box filled with text. I used the following which works ok except ....

How to Participate!

Everybody is welcome to participate
If you are unfamiliar with the Sytax of the site go to ....
If you are familiar you will ignore this message anyway
Thank you for your contributions
As you see the text is centered and it would be good to have it left justified I could not find the place to correct that. it is probably buried in some sort of template. Since i do not know much about these things ( I use this stuff more like a cook book) i might be wrong If you can help, your advice will be greatly appreciated as always thank you in advanceAltera vista 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As you see the text is centered and it would be good to have it left justified I could not find the place to correct that. it is probably buried in some sort of template. Since i do not know much about these things ( I use this stuff more like a cook book) i might be wrong If you can help, your advice will be greatly appreciated as always thank you in advanceAltera vista 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to work:

How to Participate!

Everybody is welcome to participate

If you are unfamiliar with the Sytax of the site go to ....

If you are familiar you will ignore this message anyway

Thank you for your contributions

Alandmanson (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

add a template to another read-only template and make template redirection

Can somebody add {{Move to Wikimedia Commons}} to make easier the transfert to Wikimedia Commons in these template wich are accepted in Wikimedia Commons:

• Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0
• Template:cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0
• Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0
• Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5
• Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0
• Template:Cc-by-3.0
• Template:Cc-by-2.5
• Template:Cc-by-2.0
• Template:GFDL
• Template:GFDL-self
• Template:GPL
• Template:PD-old
• Template:PD-US
• Template:PD-USGov

Crochet.david 21:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

HTML tag

--Altera vista 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Is it possible to include html on a page, that would be translated automatically by the system (server? or whatever) into wiki mark up or executable code In tiddlywiki, obviously an off-shut of wiki, this is accomplished by adding <html>..text..</html> the ..text.. is interpreted as html code. Anything like this available by any chance? Thank you.Altera vista 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Try ? Crochet.david 14:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The MediaWiki Project has some links about becoming a "power user" of the MediaWiki technology. Check it out and meet us there! --CQ 18:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you , i followed your advice But I am a bit overwhelmed by it all. the crux there seems to be able to manipulate java applets, which have to be , to my very very limited knowledge and experience stored on the server/ some server. Although there are comments regarding " loading of code etc on the suggested sites ( mediawiki) I am not versed enough to follow their instructions, i guess i am just not quite there. If there would be a step by step procedure how to do this I could and would do this. but then again then you people might not want people like me mess around with it. Would appreciate your response. thanks

Lost Pages

There are a collection of pages here which have no categories and no home. This appears to be part of some sort of religious coursework. I'm really not sure what to do with them. Any suggestions? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 05:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing Ottava Rima (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs would be the best person to ping, as he has some background in religious studies. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

multipage upload form proposal

The discussion below has been copied to Wikiversity:Community Review/Multipage image upload form. Please continue the discussion there.

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Policy Violations

Here's a question for community discussion: What should we do when Wikiversity participants violate Wikiversity policy? Obviously, they should be informed that they're violating policy, but what if they persist and continue to regularly violate Wikiversity's policies, despite repeated requests that they comply? What sort of actions can and should the community take? How should we enforce our policies? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough question. In my opinion, Wikiversity:Policies are not fully-represented and the process for proposing, discussing and setting them could be improved. We've had a lot of "Community Review" taking place resulting in hurt feelings, accusations, and ill will. I would like to get a better sense of what the current user base thinks, since so much of the previous user base is gone or in an embattled state. Thanks for posting this here Jade Knight. CQ (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs 19:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think CR was originally intended to deal with pressing issues that couldn't be resolved due to the lack of a policy structure. The problem is that while there was some effort to follow up and get the structure in place, the damage was done to a great degree... most of the contributors at that time were just tired of thinking about that sort of thing. Maybe the real question in that regard is how can we get people interested in policy, and even make it an enjoyable discussion to be a part of? Wikipedia has thousands of participants, with a certain percentage that seem to relish the policy-making process: it ends up working out over time because within that percentage there is a wide diversity of views, and the "middle ground" they find tends to trend towards constant improvement. I don't get the impression that we have a critical mass of people with that kind of passion for endless debate to do things the way they do. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"What should we do when Wikiversity participants violate Wikiversity policy?" <-- I thought that was settled: nominate the policy violator for custodianship. --JWSchmidt 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a helpful comment, JWSchmidt. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, the community has disagreed with your assertions that candidates for custodianship have violated policy. How do you reconcile your insistence that your accusations are true with the prevailing concensus of the community? --mikeu ^talk 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that other people who might object to the policy violations have been blocked from participating or otherwise driven away from the project or intimidated into silence. I've been told to fuck off and leave the project, subjected to two bad blocks, a bad ban in #wikiversity, had my questions censored, and had a heap of false charges against me published by the "leaders" of Wikiversity, but I did not leave nor am I intimidated into silence. Another problem is that community discussions are censored or disrupted by you and SBJ telling custodians that they do not have to respond to questions. A third problem is when admins look the other way when their friends violate policy. --JWSchmidt 03:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone's violating policy, we should try to talk to them and let them know that it's a violation, as well as explain why the policy is a good idea. It's important to remember that pretty much anyone who bothers to contribute here will be a creative mind in search of the opportunity to learn, teach, or research. Try, try, try again, using every tactic you can come up with to get through to the person. If your every effort fails, ask others to help. If their efforts fail as well, then there's little choice but to turn to the more draconian methods of the block and the ban.

But even if all communication fails and the block and ban must be used, we should remain open to the person, in the hopes that we can someday get through to them. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this! I have this far one observation: What are wikiversiti's guiding principles if any? i am sure you must have them even if I cannot - at least easily find them. Newcomers in my mind at least cannot really participate in anything except start their own subject ( class, research, etc) or become a student. it would be presumptuous for me to make comments on policy without a clear understanding of principles. A suggestion: I would be helpful to provide a simple page (standard wikipedia style looks good to me) of step by step introduction topics ( example: guiding principles: 1, 2, 3,....: How to participate !, 2, 3,... ) (But this leads away from the topic !)Altera vista 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, the newcomer's perspective is at least as important as that of the "veterans"! Coming up with a better "introduction" would be a good start, for sure. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You can see the current state of policies here, Altera vista. Additionally, I'd like to second what SB_Johnny said, and say that new views are great! The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 17:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Classes on wv

I've been noticing a lot of material lately being added that's going strictly into the userspace, which I guess in some ways sprouts out of earlier discussions about how to "protect" pages being used as part of coursework offered at brick-and-mortar institutions. While I can certainly understand the motivation, I wonder a bit whether this should be discouraged.

From my understanding of the mission, we are here to provide "open" resources, so I'm not sure how appropriate it is to hold "closed" classes using wikiversity resources.

A bit of mindspill:

• While it's great to hold classes here to experiment with the potential of the wiki software for a session or two, it's probably better to hold closed classes on closed wikis. Even a paid webhost for a year costs less than most college textbooks!
• I wonder if something similar to the "montessouri" (sp?) approach could be employed... if people not enrolled officially want to contribute, perhaps part of the assignment for the students could be to teach the "open participants".
• Would it be possible to run some sort of script with the sandbox server to convert audio from lectures into .ogg format for uploading to wv or commons? The "open participants" (and even the enrolled students) could then listen on their computers or mp3 players.
• I realize textbooks will be a problem, since there are precious few "open source" textbooks that are well developed enough to use in a class. However, the open participants could try to find such sources and the instructors and students could see if they are up to snuff as an alternative to the text used in the class.

I think the nice thing about this would be that future instructors will be able to look at how another instructor ran a class on any particular subject. Lecture transcriptions could in some cases become seed material for wikibooks, which will help with the textbook problem. And it would expose both instructors and students to a more "natural" experience of how open wikis work, since they're in some ways isolated from the community when things aren't quite "open".

Thoughts? --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? The best I can think to do is simply to collect and categorize such pages in such a way as to make them readily found, while perhaps keeping "closed" courses out of the main School/Topic run. But I don't really know. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My inclination is to approach the contributors creating userspace content and engage them in a dialogue about collaborative editing and explain the wikiversity goals of free content and open participation. Perhaps we should draft some ideas for guidelines on userspace. I see no problem with some homework or a learning blog, but creating entire projects in userspace is counterproductive. --mikeu ^talk 16:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

suggestion for policy development

I received the suggestion below via irc and was asked to post it here for discussion by the community. --mikeu ^talk 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

make a committe, pick 3 or 4 other people to be on the "final edit" committee, then the community can reverse any of the committee's decisions if they need to

we could propose the "final edit committee" on the Colloquium as a way of ending the policy log-jam

legislatures do this all the time

a small committee drafts laws

then everyone accepts or rejects

the committee would look at the proposed policies, decide which ones should be official, clean them up, make them official, then if the community objects the policies can be further edited...or even put back to proposed or rejected

people should nominate and self-nominate for the committee

The community should discuss and fine-tune this proposal

An intersting thought, and perhaps a good idea for us. I would personally recommend that the committee be a little bigger, and instead of going straight to official, to run a vote of community support to gauge consensus. If there appears to be consensus on the policy in the community (after a finished draft has been presented), then it becomes official. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 06:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the idea that a small group will be somehow elected, and only they will be permitted to edit the policies? It might be better to just try to do the "policy of the week" approach and focus energies on one policy at a time... in practice it would probably be a small group doing the work anyway.

One thought I had a while ago was to try to just pass very minimalist policies (rather than sweeping ones), which can be amended or merged as time goes on. The advantage there is that we could get at least something together that reflects what we all agree on, since there's probably vast agreement on the vast majority of topics. More controversial issues could be kept out of the policies while debate continues. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Is the idea..." <- I simply did a cut and paste of the suggestion; I am not entirely clear on how it was intended to be implemented. I will ask for clarification. --mikeu ^talk 14:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think minimalist policies is a great idea, SB_Johnny. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding your own files/images

Your caption

I'm very new to all of wiki. I use wikipedia from time to time but I've never contributed anything. So I thought it would be a fun experience to try this out. I've browsed through the intro and tutorial documents and have not found the answer to my question which is: Can you add your own files and images to a wiki page? If so, How?

Thanks for the help --Jeff.Smith 22:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, the same syntax that applies to Wikipedia applies here so you might take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Images_and_media Countrymike 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike, Thank you for the help finding that literature. Now that I can upload files how do I embed them in a wiki page?

--Jeff.Smith 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Use [[Image:example.svg|thumb|Your caption]] to get this example. --CQ 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It there a way to upload PDFs directly to wiki or do I have to just link them and upload them elsewhere?--Jeff.Smith 03:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To upload an image : Go to Wikimedia Commons. After upload, you can use file in all wiki that use Wikimedia Commons as shared repositiony, so all wiki of the wikimedia Foundation and lot of another. Crochet.david 06:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

2 Observations from an Newcomer/Outsider

Being very interested in and impressed by the concept of Wikiversity and after initial attempts to get started to contribute ( learning language, templates etc etc) I began to monitor the " Colloquium". Here are 2 observations, for what they might be worth,( if anything)

• Reading the entry On "Apology" I felt as if i would try to join a country club with its own language, only initiated would be able to follow. The specific reason was the expression " sockpuppeteer" . The reader can probably deduct from my comment that i grew up prior to the " internet revolution", but it seems to me in a project such as wikiversity ( again this is said with the proviso that i interpret the mission of wikipedia correctly) participation should have as few hurdles as possible, and every attempt should be made to make the mechanics of participation as easy as possible. I think commonly ( i hope that includes still my generation) understood language where ever possible might be used. Altera vista 12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, a "sockpuppeteer" -- the word is used on the WP signpost article (the "signpost" is something akin to a newspaper) -- is someone who has a number of accounts under different names, and uses the accounts to make it appear that they are different people. I don't know the history of Poetlister in particluar, but I'm under the impression he may have been using these to rig votes. Part of the reason there was concern is that he was a "checkuser" on one of the wikis, and one of the chief duties of a checkuser is to identify sockpuppeteers. Weird stuff happens on wikis sometimes... hope that helps explain a bit of the jargon. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion for policy development

Again as a newcomer I lack insight to comment directly on policies. So i tried to inform myself regarding the underlying principles of wikiversity ( not policies , code of conduct, etc but the underlying philosophical context) may be the discussion should / could begin with the translation of Universitas as in universitas magistrorum et scholarium - a community of teaching and learning . According to http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/ the translation of universitas is:the whole, total, universe, world community of teaching and learning might be translated more correctly into: Communitas magistrorum et scholarium If that is the case then my comments under 1 are misplaced. if it is correct however may be attempts and/or suggestions could be made how to move from a Communitas to an Universitas based organization. It seems to me that the former is definitely a subset of /included in the more universal latter ( and I hope that still would include my generation) If I am too far off base please just ignore this. Altera vista 12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We always appreciate the ideas and insights of newcomers! Do you have any particular ideas for how to develop more of a Universitas? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Altera Vista, I am not sure what you mean with a universitas rather than a communitas? I could explain how i like Wikiversity to develop. At the moment the focus seems to be mainly on facilitating learning or learning about learning. I prefer to learn about something, and that something is all knowledge and details of that knowledge, as universal as possible and for all people to participate in.--Daanschr 14:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A community can easily become a club. In most cases it does. This inevitably results consciously or unconsciously in an attitude us against them, the club members against the rest. Academia is no exception, may be even a leader in this pattern. The definition of Universitas as given above is: whole, total, universe, world , (German word would be All) To me the difference between a Community of learners denotes ultimately no responsibility or belonging. Universitas magistrorum on the other hand in its original meaning seems to indicate, to me at least, a vital roll of the non human component of the "All" as legitimate may be even The Teacher and not subject (the viewpoint of universe/nature as mere subject was mainly adapted since Descartes). As a matter of fact the metaphor of the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" seems to be fitting in this connection. Humanity , the perpetual apprentice is charged with an obligation - to look after the house while the master is gone as part of his/her apprentic-ship. Too often in the past we mistook our task to look after the masters house to try out, without understanding what we are doing, the little bit we learned, often with catastrophic consequences. We thought we know a lot , and probably we do. We understand however very little not to say nothing that really matters. Wikiversity I think is an opportunity to go back philosophically to our roots, at least in the western cultural setting. To me that would mean to rethink and may be even incorporate Socratic principles in the mission of Wikiversity. Such an effort would surely deserve the title Universitas in its original meaning. Sorry for the rant, but to me this is the crux of the problem and i hope it will be discussed furtherAltera vista 22:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But do you have any particular suggestions as to how we might be able to better accomplish this? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 05:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In the western monastic tradition, the focus on universalism is combined with a focus on scheduling time and concentrated labour. I agree with you that it is important to be part of the universe and not to be part of a small ignorant community. On the other hand, there need to be tasks, activity, devotion for details. This in order to ensure that we are not merely talking but also working, maintaining. (I find it hard to put it in words)--Daanschr 08:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that the Western monastic movement is based on the Benedict of Nursia (Benedictine Order) (see Mumford) His innovation was Ora ETLabora . Translated more to our tast it would be Contemplate AND Work. Contemplation should lead to Understanding, and understanding is the beginning of wisdom (Noesis the Greek used to call it) Work on the other hand leads to Knowledge.( Related to Dianoia) Knowledge is the beginning of habit. We have undoubtedly much and often sophisticated knowledge , but sad to say we have little understanding. Knowledge builds on reason, understanding requires all of our human capabilities. (J.R Saul puts it at 6 in his book " On Equilibrium") All of them have to be brought together in order to obtain understanding and this I think was the insight of Benedict, which became the foundation of Western Culture. ( Don't blame him for our " Back sliding"). You ask what can we do in practical terms?! I think there are no answers in the sense we like to have absolute answers we can take home and follow confidently like a recipe in a cook book. All we can do analyze the situation and respond prudently, realizing that this response has to be revisited and adjusted constantly. In the first case ( answers) we are isolated we don't need anybody else we have it we can cook in our own little kitchen . in the second case we have to be by necessity connected - consciously connected to what ever came before us. This , by necessity, will - not give us - but bring us in touch with what Socrates referred to as the 'Greater Good'. In practical terms Wikiversity could try and encourage in each project its connections / how it relates to the Universal / the Greater Good as Socrates might have suggested. This would also attract folks that have no particular insight in the specifics of the project butcould probe its wider ramifications. By making or encouraging this possibility it would become natural to pose questions that would/ could lead beyond the confines of the particular subject. I would feel disruptive if i , for example would raise such questions on a project that deals with " how to make better videos" ( just an arbitrary example that came to mind) On the other hand such an expansion of a project might lead to as yet unexplored possibilities. I believe it is the opportunity and task of all of us to set that stage ( And here stops the rant sorry it got so long , I can wax real passionate about this) Altera vista 13:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. Most contemporary universities follow the dictum of bacon: "..knowledge is power" Wikiversity's motto could be Knowledge is the handmaiden of understanding The first leads to fragmentation and compartmentalization the second one would lead to inclusion, and interconnectedness . (On and on he goes!) Altera vista 13:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I graduated at Leiden university. Leiden university has the motto Praesidium Libertatis, or bulwark of freedom/liberty. I have never heard anything about Bacon's "..knowledge is power", while i was there. I don't believe such a strong distinction can be made between on the one hand fragmentation and compartmentalization and on the other hand inclusion and interconnectedness. What i like about contemporary universities is the wide range of topics and methods of investigation. A problem of focusing on inclusion and interconnectedness is (paradoxically) that knowledge gets separated from the real world, which can be seen in fundamentalist christianity, islam and communism. I like the tradition of Voltaire, where the acceptability of being different can add to a greater whole, because a whole always consists out of several parts. Relativism can be a way of embracing the whole world, as can be seen in science, taoism, romanticism, liberalism.--Daanschr 14:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge is power Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est taken from: Meditationes Sacrae. De Haeresibus. by: Sir Francis Bacon,1597 I agree with you to a point. Everything is a balance. You mentioned fundamentalism (christianity etc) is intuition gone wild, devoid of common sense, --( sensus communis -- I am using Latin phrases not to show that I know them but because our terms have been often so compromised that they become almost useless in communicating), -- and reason. Voltaire and his compatriots on the other hand were mostly concerned with the problems of his time. They were first and foremost interested in combating the utterly corrupted political spiritual and also intellectual conditions they lived in. As weapon of choice they reached back to the Tradition of Anaximander and Socrates. Both ( Anaximander introduced and Socrates expanded the concept of Reason as guiding principle. That concept of reason as the Greek understood it however combined both Knowledge and Wisdom/ Understanding. With this they could postulate that Reason in itself was connected to moral value. as Max Horkheimer in one of his lectures ( I do not recall the specifics at the moment, Alzheimer's disease is setting in!!) pointed out is both a tool and a principle. One cannot blame the folks of the 18th century to be " blown away" by the spectacular success the application of reason as tool created that the bigger concept of Reason was forgotten. This oversight precisely led and had to lead to romanticism which ultimately embraces utopianism. Utopianism however is pure absolutism a fundamentalism of some sorts. I think tolerance might be a better description then Relativism ( one could make a coherent argument that relativism ultimately can lead or justify Auschwitz) what Taoism is based on. science on the other hand to day is not what Bacon, Voltaire or the rest of that crowd had in mind. If for no other reason the drive to privatize intellectual property is the antithesis of science as they envisioned it. And patent protection seems to have become the hallmark of academia today. With the conception : Knowledge is power however that became inevitable. Altera vista 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you a Classicist? Anyway, this is all nice and philosophical, but how would you like to see Wikiversity change as a result of these philosophical insights? What suggestions do you have to bring to the table on how to improve things? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 05:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What i like about Wikiversity and Wikipedia is the voluntarism. But, i see a side-effect. It is very hard to organize volunteers. There are millions of people playing World of Warcraft, but only a few hundred seem to be interested in knowledge, online. In the meanwhile, the elite of libertarians are changing the world in such a way that everything is more and more about money. Something that i was mostly busy with in the last years on Wikiversity and Wikipedia is how we can get more people interested in joining this initiative. At the moment we are with a small insignificant group. That doesn't have to be bad. Socialism has been very small for decades, but eventually conquered half the world. But, i don't think the advocates of the Enlightenment will win. Given the rise of religion, i think that religious ignorance will probably conquer the world.--Daanschr 06:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be building up a false dichotomy there. But that's a discussion for another place. Right now we're talking about Wikiversity. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 06:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my text was too radical. I mainly reacted to Altera vistas science on the other hand to day is not what Bacon, Voltaire or the rest of that crowd had in mind. If for no other reason the drive to privatize intellectual property is the antithesis of science as they envisioned it. And patent protection seems to have become the hallmark of academia today. My reaction was too negative. Wikiversity should be optimistic and positive.--Daanschr 08:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No I am not a Classicist, my background was Physics. However if you start digging deep enough you always will invariably end up at the same place. I quite agree with you, everything today is about money, even science, even the search for truth that inspired those who came before us. But there are some signs that are promising. I for one am quite impressed by the "Free Software Movement" (Eben Moglen for example) As Eben Moglen points out this is not free like in free beer but free as it belongs to the Common ( with capital letter) and from there , it seems to me is but a very small step to the Common Good the principle Socrates for example was searching for. I think this concept Should be expanded into other/ all areas of human activities. Periodically attempts in this direction are made, but they seem to drown and are not heard of again. This however seems to me no excuse not to try. Wikiversity attracted me as a possible platform to start again such a thing -- make knowledge, experiences, and insights etc practical in the spirit of " Search for the Greater Good " otherwise it is just more free beer. For this reason I am in the process of starting the project: " Designing for the Commons" here on wikiversity I am inexperienced in Computer "Things" thats one reason why it might be slow in getting going but again that is no excuse. In order to attract folks the quality has to be high, in other words it has to be valuable, it cannot be " Underwater Basket weaving" -- nobody gives a dam about..-- I worked in fluid dynamics and came up with the process of Dynamic Containment which I plan to use as a start. ( The picture / movie strips are just a start, no explanations yet , but it is coming be patient) The idea is to use technologies like this to develop actual useful applications collaboratively and free, that can stand up in the market place. I am convinced it can be done. I am also convinced if such practical attempts are anchored in what one might refer to as our Common humanistic inheritance it might influence enough folks so this thing we try to do will develop momentum on its own. I have no illusions that this will be easy or might even be successful, but that should not matter. Lewis Mumford expressed this more eloquently than I can Its taken from his book " The Condition of Man": ( These words accompany by a picture " Dawn at Lake George" by Alfred Stieglitz) "......the foreground is dark, and it will become darker before the day breaks. The purging of long accumulated poisons, the healing of ugly wounds, will not be done in a day: all this needs time,patience, resolute effort, and a willingness to forgo selfish local gains for the sake of a larger common good -- the unification of mankind and the replenishment of life. Nothing that is worth doing in our time will be done easily; that is , without a spiritual rebirth. Unless the blind recover their sight and the crippled learn to walk our very knowledge will slay us. No peace without struggle; no security without risk; no wholeness without simplification; no goods without measure; no love without sacrifice; no full life without the willingness to accept and transcend death in the very process of living. Those who have learned this lesson may build the City of Man." Altera vista 09:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We could continue this conversation on special pages on Wikiversity outside the Colloquium.

The idea is to use technologies like this to develop actual useful applications collaboratively and free, that can stand up in the market place. YouTube can be used for stimulating participation. I like the Transition Towns initiative, but perhaps these people are too radical.--Daanschr 11:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Praise and Punishment at Wikiversity

I have started a learning project on Praise and Punishment at Wikiversity to explore the various ways we can engage in promoting good behavior and discouraging bad behavior here. I would appreciate as much community involvement as I can get. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 20:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm somewhat apprehensive of what is yet another learning project relating to this project or one of our sister projects. Wikiversity shouldn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy, with more and more work simply investigating the problems that occur here or on the other projects. The problems that resulted from previous similar attempts can, in part, be attributed to the lack of enough established policies. I am not saying that what goes on here or on another WMF project should never be the subject of work here, rather that it is probably too early in the development of this project to do so. We need to focus on developing an appropriate set of policies to address some of the issues that have and will continue to arise. Any discussion about dealing with behaviour issues on Wikiversity should be conducted with the focus of developing our policies at a venue like this, not in a learning project setting. Adambro 20:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate goal is an eye towards policy development. But we need to ask a few questions and learn a few things to get there. Really, this learning project would have been most appropriate a year ago, when I first came up with the idea. But, alack, life gets in the way. I still think it's relevant, however, and having community involvement in it now could help prevent tension in the future. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 05:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adambro that we should develop our policies here on the Colloquium and elsewhere in the project namespace. To expedite the process and make it more "fine-grained", I separated the three concepts on the {{proposal}} template: Policies, Guidelines and Process (singular process). I've set Wikiversity:Consensus as a {{guideline}} and removed the {{merge}} tag that proposed merging it with Consensus in the main namespace, per Wikiversity talk:Consensus. I have also applied Wikiversity:Community Review as an initial context for developing the Wikiversity:Process, temporarily setting it as a "guideline" until a {{process}} template is built. Processes (plural) and Guidelines need to take precedence over Policies, in my opinion. These all must be based in consensus-driven process. I also feel that participation at Wikiversity:Strategy and Strategy:Wikiversity is crucial at this time and would be a better "learning environment" for learning about WMF policies, guideline and processes than the main namespace here. Wikiversity is part of something much bigger. --CQ 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

{{GFDL-presumed}}

As I mentioned above: "For more about the background of GFDL-presumed, see meta:Template:GFDL_presumed_warning and meta:Template:GFDL-presumed. It seems that these templates were only created to tag images uploaded before a certain date, the date on which the upload form page was modified to state that images without license info would be deleted. Our MediaWiki:Uploadtext has stated "Images without proper information about their source and their license will be deleted." (emphasis in the original) since November 2006"

I therefore propose that {{GFDL-presumed}} be modified to include the phrase "This template is for legacy images and should not be added to images uploaded after November 2006" (insert exact date on which the upload form was modified, Nov. 15?) I believe that this is needed to prevent confusion about the legitimate usage of this license template. Please discuss below. --mikeu ^talk 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the documentation for {{GFDL-presumed}} and removed the template from some post- Nov. 2006 uploads. --mikeu ^talk 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Make template redirection

Can somebody make :

• Template:CC-BY-2.5 redirect to Template:Cc-by-2.5

Crochet.david 21:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

which one should be the redirect? Is it the other way around? --mikeu ^talk 14:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy roundtable discussion

There has been the suggestion that we should pick a policy topic to work on for a couple of weeks, and then pick another topic after that... I'd like to take a poll on which topics the community would like to work on first, second, etc. Please indicate below, in order of importance, what you would like to see us focus our effort on. For example: * --~~~~ 1) Topic A, 2) Topic B

--mikeu ^talk 16:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, these get very confusing if people are doing a/b/c preference voting (as happened on commons recently). Can we just list them and each person signs the highest priority? They can then move their sig to another choice if their first priority doesn't attract as much attention as other options. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That is fine by me. --mikeu ^talk 17:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. --CQ 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as the list: I look at the Wikiversity:Process and Wikiversity:Custodianship as a place to develop new Wikiversity:Guidelines for advancing w:roles that increase wikt:participation and improve Wikiversity:Usability. Example the Wikiversity:Catalyst role. --CQ 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Policies, guidelines, processes, etc. should be created when there is a need. I think a good way to think about this is "What does Wikiversity need the most right now?". I think what Wikiversity probably needs to the most right now is some guidelines to deal with conflict. Not so long ago the introduction for Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion was changed that put forward the idea that creative ideas should be used to find uses for works and deletion should be a last resort. Maybe something similar might be useful to deal with conflict? Maybe a conflict resolution or guidelines for conflict transformation would help? -- darklama  18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw that there was a page on Wikiversity:Community Review/Proposed policy‎, but it hadn't been templated or widely advertised. Considering how much we've been relying on that for the past year or so, we should probably start there. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the conflict guidelines statement. I think Wikiversity needs that desperately! Also, this isn't strictly a policy, but I think towards the top of the priority list might be creating a few new up-to-date Wikiversity editing tutorials, and place them in a more accessible place on the main page. Just a thought, anyone else have an opinion on this? I just know that when I was a *newbie* I was very confused by the tutorials and had a lot of trouble finding my way around. A key example of this is project boxes: if they're going to be effective, more people have to know about them or how to use them. I certainly didn't find out about them for awhile. Ditto for categories. Or perhaps if nobody wants to use them (project boxes, not categories, as categories are an obvious necessity), they should be phased out entirely. Anyway, lots of stuff to discuss there. Trinity507 00:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I recently created a Guide to categorizing things in History, and have tried to make the importance of categories generally known there to help with that aspect of things. I've also recently written a beginning form of a page on how to start a new History project. This latter still needs some work, I'm sure, but at least provides a start. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 02:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The history categorization guide looks great to me, maybe every school should consider doing something like that and posting it in a prominent place on their main page. I certainly plan to do the same for Ethnology. Trinity507 21:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of maintaining momentum and from IRC discussions over the past few days, I'll be bold and switch the sitenotice to Wikiversity:Community Review/Proposed policy‎, since there seems to be broad agreement on it so far. --SB_Johnny ^talk 08:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My idea was to create a queue of three discussions, or policy proposals, and not add one until one has been voted upon, or tabled if consensus cannot be reached. I think that if a policy proposal has been hanging around too long then it falls into a limbo where the information within it may decay into forms of misinformation, which this wikihood is definitely not about. This is why I am suggesting an express-lane for resolving issues in "limbo," and a commitment to timely resolution for future discussions. Admittedly I have not read, or even skimmed, most of the writing here, but I will. For now I just want to get this idea out hoping that it can help gel the meanings of the wv and its culture.--JohnBessa^talk 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Roundtable 2

At the risk of confusing things further....

Please indicate below which one topic you would like to see the community focus our attention on next, and feel free to add a topic if you don't see it listed.

If you'd like to dive in and start commenting on any or all of the ones below, that is great! We are merely trying to get a little organized and draw attention to one at a time.

The general idea is that we might spend anywhere from a few days to perhaps a week or two with the currently selected focus and then move on to choose another topic.

The current focus of discussion is at Wikiversity:Community Review/Proposal.

--mikeu ^talk 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions:

• Y Wikiversity:Community Review/Multipage image upload form - discussion from above is continued at WV:CR

This one started above a while ago and I'd like to get some more input. --mikeu ^talk 00:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that, if only to keep things moving. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• #suggestion for policy development
• Y Usurpation - another active discussion that had already started
• Bot editing rate - change made, but please review or comment
• Wikiversity:Community Review/Proposal‎'' - focus of prior round of discussion
• Username guideline
• Wikiversity:Disclosures as {{Guideline}}
• What Wikiversity is not
• Wikiversity:Fair use
• add a suggestion...

Comments on roundtable:

How about we say that this will run for one week? You can show support now, change your mind and move it to another item before the week is up. --mikeu ^talk 00:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets Start from the beginning - Ideas from a Wikipedia refugee:

Wikimedia projects in general are becoming more aware of the problems inherent in creating insular communities when the supposed purpose of the community is to gather more knowledge and make it more accessible. I feel strongly that if Wikiversity doesn't start at the beginning by deciding exactly how exclusive it is going to be, it will end up a portal to a very limited and biased knowledge base. With out examining this first and making intentional and brave community decisions about it, every policy that is debated will default into the exclusive narrow perspective of those already involved in the project (no where near all the perspectives needed to truly provide a global resource of collaborative knowledge educational materials) Jriggsy 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like Wikiversity:Archive/No early policies from 2006. Despite the lack of concensus on that proposal that is pretty much a good description of how things have been for the past few years. This lack of policy has caused a number of problems and disagreements. It is about time we start to clarify these issues, hence the strong community support for the policy roundtable above. --mikeu ^talk 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How to start a project at Wikiversity!

I recently received a message from a new Wikiversity user stating "I have looked at several of the tutorials at Wikiversity and I'm just not getting an understanding on how to start posting info as a teacher." This suggests to me that our tutorials are missing something; indeed, I'm not sure if it's clear to someone who's completely unfamiliar with Wikimedia projects how to start a new project at all; when you type in something and click "Go", if it doesn't exist, you'll get a "Did you mean to create X?" notice, but it doesn't actually mention you have to click on the redlinked word to create the project. Perhaps we could work on these resources? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A good place to start is Wikiversity:School and university projects though I admit it could use some work. I think in a case like this some form of peer mentorship might be the best way to go, as we work on tutorials or other materials that can help people get started. What topic/subject is the teacher interested in? --mikeu ^talk 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the biggest issue I'm trying to bring to light is that how to contribute isn't obvious enough. How can we make it more obvious? The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 04:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think there are two or three levels of contributing to Wikiversity. The first one is just edit a page and it seems to me that this guy, missed the way, how to do so. I would recomend some mwmessages around the foundation of a new page and also set one-two phrases about "the start" to the important help pages. The other problem might be "how to accomodate my pedagogical needs" in that case some study is needed. When we start to work with MS Word/OO Writer it is very simple to start edit, but then we have to study a little bit the software, the same with MediaWiki. In that case, there should be a compendium of knoweledge:

• basic of editing
• intermediate editing skills
• (X)HTML
• CSS
• using a dynamic content and so on...

Maybe the video tutorial may help also.--Juan de Vojníkov 07:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

navcontent

--Altera vista 13:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I went to mediawiki and found the code that would achieve what i like to do as I tried to use their example at wikiversity it did not work. any suggestions? Thanks

Errr can you link a code and example?--Juan de Vojníkov 08:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)