Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/December 2013

Supporting OCLC on references

Having an OCLC field in a reference is really neat because it enables the reader to link to World Cat and find the nearest library with a copy. However it doesn't appear to work on WV. I sthis because I am doing someting wrong, or is it not supported? Leutha (discuss • contribs) 09:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example of where it works (Wikipedia preferred) and an example of where it doesn't (here)? My guess is that they have a more recent template that supports it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is what I have been thinking. See W:en:Kavbiuro and scroll down to the Audrey L. Altstadt reference. Click on OCLC and you getvthe Wikipedia page about OCLC, but click on the number afterwards, and you get the World cat entry for the book. Put in your location and you can find the nearest participating library which has a copy! (which I think is really neat). I want to do the same on WV. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the templates and underlying Lua modules on Wikipedia and I'm not seeing OCLC processing anywhere. It may be in the underlying wiki instead. Does anyone know who to contact or where to ask about this? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found this: Template:OCLC and three other associated templates. I shall a go at transcluding them. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Well they have already been transcluded. I wandered around WP a bit more and found this: W:en:Module:Citation and W:en:Module:Citation/CS1 which is part of Lua and includes OCLC stuff. Does Lua work on WV? Would transcluding this material work, or is other work required? Leutha (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lua works on Wikiversity. I've experimented a bit with it. Probably just enough to be dangerous. The main thing to know for those who don't yet is that Lua templates are two parts. There's a standard template file that invokes the Lua code, and the Lua code is stored in a separate module. However, it's rarely a single (or pair) import. Almost all of the Lua code I've seen from Wikipedia calls other Lua code, so you have multiple modules to identify and import. Troubleshooting requires requesting a page that calls the code and then looking at the resulting page source code for error messages in the HTML comments. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I checked Introduction to Lua, and a learnt a little bit but would be interested if we could get a study group to upskill on this, developing resources as we went. Anyone else interested? Leutha (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in. User:Renepick may also be interested. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in. I am currently planning to redo this template using lua and be able to create better lesson overviews. The goal would be to create lesson overviews like this one and be able to parse the content inside the lesson template using lua so that one does not have to do all the cross linking and entering of subpages twice.--Renepick (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! I am impressed by the Web Science course. I found Topic:Lua. Do we want to start a discussion on the talk page there? (P.S. I have somewhat clumisily wandered into Mediawiki Mark up language, primarily tweaking a cut and paste job with uneven success, so I am approaching the topic from a position of comparative ignorance!)Leutha (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, further discussion of Lua study will proceed at Topic:Lua. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Import text in CC-BY-SA and IYCr2014

I found on the Web lessons about crystallography (https://sites.google.com/site/cristallografia/appunti) released with CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Is possible to import them in Wikiversity? How is better to report credits? I would also like to report that UNESCO proclaimed the "International Year of Crystallography 2014" (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/science-technology/basic-sciences/infocus-bes/international-year-of-crystallography-2014/). It can be an important opportunity for Wikiversity to contribute in an international initiative, spreading the scientific knowledge, in particular about crystallography. (Please excuse my English; English isn't my first language)--Sbisolo (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an attorney, but as far as I know it is legal to take CC-BY-SA content and post it on another CC-BY-SA site. It isn't possible to 'import' this content through an automated process, but someone could translate and post it, preferably under Crystallography. It should be attributed to whomever it is currently attributed to in order to preserve the -BY- licensing, probably with <ref> tags and one of the cite templates. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute the year, the license, and that it was taken from the website on the talk-page for material allowed by compatible licenses. The work should be translated into English, or you can use the proper language wiki. (one way is to have a subpage with the translation only, then have a link from the mainpage) I will try to find a useful template. Is IYCr2014 the name of the website? If not can you please clarify. unesco's information is also a good resource to use here, it just can't be copied or paraphrased. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe attribution would be necessary on the content page in addition to or in place of the talk page. When articles are collected and printed as books, the talk page is not included. Without attribution on the content page, copies of the material could be further disseminated with no attribution to the original author(s). This would violate the -BY- clause. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. template:taken from for main-page needs work. template:copied is a talkpage template that was imported (can be used for wiki-projects and external websites). - Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thansk for your suggestions. IYCr2014 stands for "International Year of Crystallography 2014". http://iycr2014.org/ is a website dedicated to this event. I'll manage for bring contents of https://sites.google.com/site/cristallografia/appunti in italian wikiversity with correct attributions in mainpage. --Sbisolo (discuss • contribs) 09:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts for inter-Wiki links and transcluding from Wikipedia?

I want a quick way to set default links for pages within my course. I am putting all resources in my course in the format Classical Mythology/Resource and in addition I cite a lot of Wikipedia resources and templates, so my links all look like this:

[[Classical Mythology/Euhemerism|Euhemerism]]
[[w:Zeus|Zeus]]

Typing in all the extras is really slowing me down.

Is there a way to make links such as [[LinkTitle]] automatically check for resources in this order?

[[Classical Mythology/LinkTitle]]
[[LinkTitle]]
[[w:LinkTitle]]

If there was a template that I could add on a page or resource to make it look for links using those rules, it would make course creation so much easier! Apologies if this is already easy to do--I can't figure out how!

Also, is there a way to transclude or use pages or templates in Wikipedia? I really want to use the Wikipedia Infobox:Deity template, but I can't figure out how to do it. If I copy it using brute force, I'd really like all the links in it to go to Wikipedia automatically.

Thanks for your help! --Kenmayer (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be done automatically, but it can be done with a template. There is one that checks Wikiversity first and then goes to Wikipedia. See {{Lw}}. To make a template that checks both Wikiversity locations before going to Wikipedia would take a bit more work. I'd recommend rewriting it in Lua code rather than traditional template code. I could try to help with this if others would also find it useful. Keep in mind that you can reference subpages with just a /subpage. It isn't necessary to include the page name first.

I'm not aware of any way to use Wikipedia templates without importing them. I tried importing the Template:Infobox deity, but it's showing a script error. Apparently there's a good bit more that needs to be imported. After that, it will need to be edited to redirect the links. This is looking like a lot of work.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created Template:Lsw and a supporting Module:Link. Lsw should do what you want in terms of linking to subpages, other Wikiversity articles, or Wikipedia as a last resort. Test it thoroughly. It should work, but it is all new code. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JFTR, the following shortcuts are available:

[[/subpage/]]: for [[page/subpage|subpage]];
[[w:page|]]: for [[w:page|page]]; (which is also the same as [[w:Page|page]], BTW.)

— Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 21:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very helpful!--Kenmayer (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location Map

Hi, Why does this:

{{Location map | Belgium
| width   = 200
| lat_deg = 50.85
| lon_deg = 4.35
| label   = Brussels
}}

gives an error in the wikiversity sandbox, but not when you edit a wikipedia page? --78.21.252.160 (discuss) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It utilises a template W:en:Template:Location map which exists on Wikipedia, but not Wikiversity. The situation is more complicated than simply moving one template over, as it is linked to a whole series of others - e.g. W:en:Template:Location map Belgium. No doubt someone with the right skills could devise a bot to transfer all the maps over, but I do not know who that person might be? Leutha (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to import depended on templates for it to work. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 23:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imported many supporting templates. If the templates break again, this is the message for debuging, "Import failed: Can't save non-default content model with $wgContentHandlerUseDB disabled: model is wikitext , default for Module:Collapsible_list is Scribunto" - Sidelight12 ^Talk 23:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come interaction has been so slow with such a great idea?

Wikyversity has been used since 2007 and I haven't found content, please explain. --GLORIA (discuss • contribs) 04:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you try the Wikiversity:Main Page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps this may help explain a bit of it: Talk:Rebooting_Wikiversity#reasons, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat + Identi.ca 11:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked myself the same question. I my field, Wikipedia has taken a while to come up to speed, which in the past had forced Wikiversarans to write from scratch. As Wikipedia grows in both quantity and quality of information, it not only becomes easier to rely on Wikipedia for information, but the need to view topics from different perspectives will grow. Of course, I might be wrong and Wikiversity might never grow. Twenty years ago I thought wireless was a gimmick designed to sell computers during Christmas season. Who cares that the computer on my desk is connected to the wall? I thought. Nevertheless, I think Wikiversity is worth a try. Students spend ridiculous money on those textbooks. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May i have permission to upload video in my article armis that video is came from youtube. thanks in advance

here is my article with video To watch the video of some very interesting officially named set-ups:

click here

--BTV3 (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check on the copyright situation before uploading material.Leutha (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can. It depends if the work is to have a Creative Common's license. Youtube's policy has this page, [1], and other pages navigable from it, that suggest that the author is entitled to the copyright of the work. The video has to be converted into an open-source format first, like ogv or ogg, for the format to also be compatible with the license here. Please read about the Creative Common's license, so that you can understand that your contributions become public. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 12:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm kindly asking how procurement process of permission i need in my article "Armis"? Kindly reply thanks. --BTV3 (discuss • contribs) 07:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We tried to answer your question, above. If the video was made by you, and you convert it to .ogv instead of .wmv or .mp4 format, and you agree to release your terms to opensource, you may use it here. From what I read, Youtube said that the copyright belonged to you, so I don't think they restrict you from using your own work for other sites such as this.

Simply put, convert the video that is your property to .ogv format and you may use it, without further permission. The video becomes public property once you post it here, but you still can make use of it. Read the links from the responses above for more detail. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikiversity?

Recent posts to the Colloquium regarding What is Wikiversity? appear to be a class project on editing a wiki. Please let us know what class or what project is working on this. We'd be happy to set up a page for your project. You can also test posts in the Wikiversity:Sandbox. The Colloquium should not be used for these test posts. The previous posts have been removed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should notify them, or just create a project for them using the information they have been inserting here. --goldenburg111 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those who used a logged-in account were notified at the same time as the original posts were removed. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there suppose to get the message, right? Okay, so that pretty much explains why don"t have random info about What is Wikiversity :-) --goldenburg111 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child Vandals

Abd stated I sometimes wonder if we might reduce general vandalism on Wikipedia by inviting possible child-vandals -- basically scribblers -- to come and register here and create fun essays in their user space. Why don't we do that? It's a very brilliant idea! --goldenburg111 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously can't do this myself on Wikipedia, but others could. Watch for vandals and drop a note on their talk page. First, create a resource here that makes the invitation. It should give specific instructions. Then link to that resource on Wikipedia, where a child might see it. Remember, many vandals may not be interested, and they may never see the invitation, but it costs little to invite. The main thing we need is a welcoming environment here. Basically, if they do come here. we need to know how to handle the problems that can arise.

It won't always work, but we have one great example of where it did!

There was a discussion of this on Simple English Wikipedia: Very young users. In that discussion we can see how one or two "regular editors" really didn't get it -- including a steward. All they could see from the specific young user was a "puppet master" and a problem, i.e., I should contact the school and get them to make him stop.

(The steward was seeing multiple accounts from the same IP, and quite possibly the same computer. Some of these were alternate accounts for the same user, some may have been different users of the same classroom computer. The steward/checkuser is totally accustomed to a very different situation. If you hammer nails all day, everything starts to look like a nail.) In general, Wikipedians are not skilled at developing voluntary cooperation, it's a major problem with the project. Thus w:WP:RBI, designed to deal with much older users. However, applying this to young users, the stick without the carrot, will just train them to play the "cops and robbers" game that Wikipedians imagine is behind all vandalism. It's totally naive, and it obviously doesn't work. How much vandalism could be avoided by a different approach, I don't know. Some, I'm sure.

We didn't need to make this user stop, by trying to get him in trouble with his school. We simply needed to educate him, and that's our mission: education. Wikipedians are focused on product, not the process. Someone who isn't ready to create product is useless to them, a nuisance. Lock the doors. Keep them out.

While he's still very young and still has a lot to learn, I'm roughly six or seven times his age, and I still have a lot to learn. I'm proud of him. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.... --goldenburg111 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Equations in Wikis: style proposal

In traditional textbooks, equations are introduced with a sentence before, such as saying that the equation for the magnetic field is,

${\vec {B}}={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}\int _{C}{\frac {I\left(\mathrm {d} {\vec {\ell }}\times {\hat {r}}\right)}{\left|{\vec {r}}\,\right|^{2}}}$ (3)

where , B is the magnetic field and I is the current. Note the practice of following the equation with words to define the symbols. On a wiki, I think we should instead precede each equation with one sentence that describes the variables BEFORE the equation is presented. Moreover, I suggest that the equation should follow on the same line. So instead, we write like this:

The magnetic field due to a current is: ${\vec {B}}={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}\int _{C}{\frac {I\left(\mathrm {d} {\vec {\ell }}\times {\hat {r}}\right)}{\left|{\vec {r}}\,\right|^{2}}}$

Books need equation numbers in order to reference them in the future. With a wiki, we can attempt to write the page in sections and make a new section section heading if it is likely that the equation needs to be referenced in the future. This will permit anchors [[/filename#anchorname]] to be used. Another advantage of the ''Sentance: <math>...</math>'' format is that it makes equations easy to copy. We can recruit more experts to contribute to Wikiversity if we write in a style that makes it easy to copy and paste equations. Also, since equation numbers are not very wiki-friendly, authors will often choose to just copy and paste the equation instead of referencing it or attempting to write Latex markup. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a preference for defining the symbols before or after. It seems to me that either approach could work, depending on both the subject matter, and also the level of experience with similar content. But just the way my brain works, based on many decades of seeing formulas and equations, I would much prefer the formulas starting on the left by themselves. By putting them on the same line preceded by words, the location of the formulas will float. That float would make it harder for me to memorize and use the formulas. But I also don't normally create LaTeX content, so I would be willing to support whatever is agreeable to those who do. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the quick-n-dirty reverse notation looks amateurish and a bit hard to read. But is it hard to read because we are not accustomed to it? ...or because the brain needs to see formulas lined up? I personally would go nuts if I could not use it, so either people will get used to it, or somebody needs to convert them all. (Even Latex proper is a pain when it comes to formula numbers.) You and I seem to agree that this does not need to be resolved in the near future. And I remain convinced the reverse notation is the only way to go, unless either (1) wikitext markup changes, or (2) an 'army' of editors joins Wikiversity. IMHO, the way to attract this 'army' is to permit reverse notation in order to recruit more experts to help out. Thanks for giving this your thought. I cannot overstate my gratitude to you and everybody else who is keeping Wikiversity alive. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having the content is better than not having the content. Do whatever works for you. Then see how your students do with what you've prepared. Late in the semester, ask them if they have any recommendations for improving the content for future students. That's how you know if it works or not, and if you need to make any changes. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The magnetic field due to a current is:

{\vec {B}}={\frac {\mu _{0}}{4\pi }}\int _{C}{\frac {I\left(\mathrm {d} {\vec {\ell }}\times {\hat {r}}\right)}{\left|{\vec {r}}\,\right|^{2}}}

- Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at this, I think there's one more reason to left-align the formula. You don't know and have no control over the screen size of the display used to view this content. It could even be a cell phone. Left-aligning the formula gives the most consistent presentation across display platforms. So I would recommend displaying as Sidelight12 has, with explanations before or after, as determined by the author and subject matter. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments. First, I have a bad habit of getting carried away with ideas and overstating my case. After posting the suggestion favoring 'right-alignment', I went back to an effort at Statistical_thermodynamics and immediately realized that the conventional (left-alignment) style is correct for that page. However, I still claim that right-alignment can play an important role:

On a test, instructors like to give students certain information and expect students to derive other formulas using methods introduced in the class. This information can be printed as a pdf file, and the formulas should be presented as precisely as possible. If you open <nowiki>[[Physics_equations/Equations]]</nowiki>, you will see that the raw wikitext is easy to read and edit. Instructors will invaribly want to edit these formula sheets. In fact, I got involved with Physics Equations because I wanted a good formula sheet for my exams. There are plenty of good ones posted on the internet, but none are easily editable.
People with cell phones can see the equation on the next line, as you can verify by reducing the page size of <nowiki>[[Physics_equations/Equations]]</nowiki> on your computer. The equations just roll over to the next line.
I still think a concerted effort needs to be made to make equation-filled wikis easy to write. There are a number of excellent non-wiki resources on the web for instructors who wish to save students a lot of money by using a free resource. Unfortunately, none of quality on-line resources are wikis. I get the impression from reading the introductions to some of these non-wiki resources that the authors would have been happy to write wikis -- they have that 'wikiworld spirit' that we all share. My goal is to get a physics wiki that others will want to improve. The discussion we are having is essential, and must continue. The suggestion that I solicit feedback from students is correct. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing of an individual's contributions

I believe that it is a good idea to open up a Wikiversity:Requests for Review so that a contributor here at Wikiversity can ask the public "Are my contributions appropriate for Wikiversity" instead of asking a custodian. --goldenburg111 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would this proposal be similar to Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Editor review, or do you have something else in mind? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisly, the user can first Request by adding == Example and request by typing their message, such as Hi guys, I want to know if my edits are good. I usually edit pages related to Astronomy., after about a few hours. People can ask the requester questions about his editing, then, after the requester answers the questions. People can start commenting about his/her edits. --goldenburg111 (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is something that interests you, you should create the page and write up the proposal. Be sure to also see Wikiversity:Peer review and Wikiversity:Requests for proofreading. It seems to me that your proposal may be quite similar in concept to requests for proofreading, perhaps with different types of feedback desired. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wikiversity:Editor review. I would like the community to accept this process, is this process acceptable to the Wikiversity community? --Goldenburg111 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: November 2013

This Month in GLAM – Volume III, Issue XI, November 2013
Headlines>
Australia and New Zealand report: From East to West Belgium report: Wiki Loves Monuments in Belgium and Luxembourg France report: Mass uploads; Wiki Loves Monuments; Edit-a-thon; GLAM conference Germany report: MS Wissenschaft; Science Gallery; Zugang gestalten; Science 2.0; OKFest 2014 Italy report: Libraries and librarians (but there are still shoes) Mexico report: Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 award ceremony; Day of the Dead photo contest winners Netherlands report: Edit-a-thon Amersfoort; Wikipedia seminar Oslo; Wikimedia Nederland Conference; Europeana Fashion Spain report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Fundación Joaquín Díaz González; Wiki Party in Salamanca Sweden report: Motorcycles, Norway and shoes Switzerland report: Wiki Loves Monuments Awards Ceremony; Wikipedians in Residence; Image Donations UK report: Open content at the BBC; edit-a-thons; photography USA report: GLAM-Wiki Activities in Philadelphia and Vancouver, Washington Open Access report: Open Access Button and Berlin 11 conference Calendar: December's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Equations not working

I am getting errors when I try to write equations. For example, this is copied out of code that I wrote in the past and it works:

$C_{\odot }=\,2\pi r$

Now I change the 2 to a 4 and it fails:

$C_{\odot }=\,4\pi r$

I assume there is a bug in your Tex software. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other issues going on as well. See Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Navigation_and_Archive_box_Templates_Broken. Not sure if they are related. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the post and noticed the second entry now displays correctly. Does anyone know what changed today to resolve this problem? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Usually when a module is imported along with templates it causes some fundamental difference. I haven't imported any template in the last few days. Also, Czech appears normally when not logged in, but it shows up as "undefined" when logged in. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I've written equations using math, sometimes they are saved on the first attempt, for others I get an error message that the equation won't work (I don't remember the phrase), but I resubmit with no changes and the equation usually comes out fine. I believe it has to do with the https system software or a timing problem while establishing or maintaining a secure connection. It's just a guess. Prior to https, the error message only showed up when I had made an error in writing the equation. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is failed to parse (lexing error). Lately this phrase has only shown up when I've made a mistake so perhaps the problem has been fixed. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 09:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem got resolved approximately when yours did (approx 13 December). The "failed to parse" messages appeared when I was still routinely making mistakes in my equations, so I naturally assumed it was my fault. I spent at least an hour copying and pasting equations that I thought I knew how to write. What really baffled me (and still does) is that equations that were written in the past could be copied and pasted without incident-and those were the equations I trusted, which left me staring at equations just written looking for a mistake. The good news is that the difference between / and \ is now automatic for me. I also, in the interim, edited a few Wikipedia articles, and all edits have survived to this day--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Vandalism Phanerozoic/Pennsylvanian Period

I suggest Semi-Protecting Phanerozoic/Pennsylvanian Period, this page has been getting excessive vandalism by IP addresses. What do you guys think? --goldenburg111 (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably post requests like this at Wikiversity: Request custodian action. I took a look at the page and history, cleaned up the page content, and blocked a repeat offender IP address. There's nothing about the page itself that suggests it's a target for vandals to me, but it's now on my watch list. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are conflicts resolved?

First and foremost: I am not asking any of my Wikiversity colleagues to take part in this conflict, and prefer that you stay out of it unless you wish to argue AGAINST my position (in which case I welcome your participation). I am not even sure that a conflict exists yet, but now is a good time to ask this question. During that recent spell when Wikiversity was not processing equations, I went over to Wikipedia and continued with the same project, using my Wikipedia sandbox. To make a long story short, I completely changed this proof of Carnot's theorem. on Wikipedia. In doing so I revised the original author's figure, and submitted it to Wikimeda Commons. I submitted the revised figure with an entirely different figure-name (instead of replacing the figure). And I credited the original author in my submission of the new figure. Since the original author's name was redlinked on Wikimedia Commons, I saw no reason to contact the person. After submitting my revised proof to Wikipedia, I looked back at the history of the article and realized that the figure's author is an active participant on the Wikipedia article and is largely responsible for taking a poorly written stub and making it into a first rate article (over the course of about three years). Knowing human nature, I suspect this person will not take kindly to my revision. Fortunately, he or she can just undo what I did. And this brings me to my question:

How do content disputes get resolved?

If Wikipedia is like academia, the answer is 'nastily'. For that reason, I am inclined to immediately back down and post my proof somewhere on Wikiversity (which I would have done if the equations on Wikiversity had not crashed). Wikiversity is a wonderful place where everybody can do things their own way. I would fight to keep my proof on Wikipedia if there was anything wrong with the original. But the truth is that nothing is wrong with it. I just think mine is a tiny bit more clear and dramatic.

Of course, all this might be moot. Perhaps this person will look at my revision and love it. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, conflicts are resolved using the Talk page and a consensus is reached. The challenge on Wikipedia is that there is generally only one best answer, and I'm not familiar with how they resolve those differences. On Wikiversity, if there is an agreement to disagree, we would fork the project, hopefully under a single parent page and multiple subpages offering different perspectives of the subject. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree forking projects is appropriate on Wikiversity, as we are attempting to design lesson plans that maximize the teachers flexibility, or even just generate ideas for teachers to use. I have no idea how such issues are resolved on Wikipedia, and I may never know. The author of that website did a good job, and they spend a lot of time dealing with strange contributions. (The article's talk page goes on and on, and Thermodynamics brings out the crazy in everybody.) I will give 'em a break if they don't like my ideas. I always have Wikiversity.---guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 02:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to read their guideline pages, and interact making edits in order to better understand it. Information must be from a good source, and the Wikipedian isn't allowed to make conclusions/interpretations from it. Editors are supposed to write in neutral point of view, but many try to avoid that by whatever excuse. Secondary sources are valued over primary sources there, but medical articles are more strict as they try to exclude primary sources. (medical articles there are a headache, people try to dictate it, or try to force behind paywall sources to push their non-neutral pov so its harder to check for neutrality) Also, to start an article there, a topic must have many third party sources. Alternatively, including information in an existing article requires at least one good or accepted source. There's more details but you'd have to read their guidelines.

If you get in a dispute there, try to be accommodating to all points of view. Just if you lose your case, don't revert too many times or do something else that would get you blocked there. You just have to accept the bs sometimes, and eventually find an acceptable source to back you up.

It looks like they abandoned the project, and wouldn't mind you fixing it up. The only problem might arise if original research was done, or no sources were used. If this is the case, a hawk over the page would change it soon, or it'd be months before someone starts tagging or removing parts. It doesn't look like anyone would be changing it soon, since it is helpful to understanding. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could also leave a note on the editor's talkpage, provided you think they won't be angered by the edits. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive admins

What are we going to do about the inactive admins here on Wikiversity? --Goldenburg111 (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could start by calling them custodians. Whether that would encourage them to be more active or not time can only tell. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, tried that, and got desysopped and the community went under. Go figure. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leutha, +1 and had to smile... ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat + Identi.ca 01:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: December 2013

This Month in Education – Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2013
Headlines>
International Seminar Wikipedia and University: Research and Teaching Experiences Final report on "Silberwissen" available in English Planning the future of course pages Day of the Dead photo contest winners Articles of Interest in other publications
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

Eduwiki Conference Belgrade

Wikimedia Serbia Eduwiki conference will be taking place in March 2014.Leutha (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have a mentor (before damaging something) ?

Hello all.

I just get registered on the English Wikiversity as I will have to pass the ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) foundation certification next year.

To do this, I will receive soon (beginning of 2014) several resources (books, PPT files, video ...) from my colleagues who are already certified. I will anyway have to synthetize all of them in a single frame and I feel I could do it here in order to let some other people using it in the future if needed.

By the way, as English is not my mother tongue (I am French – hope this is not a roadblock) before starting, I would like to know if I could have like a mentor who may be able to help me by rereading what I will produce and also I could ask for advices (I already have a small experience on French Wikiversity …)

I did not dare to ask on the Information Technology portal discussion as I see the last message was from 2009.

Anyway, I do not expect to start before 2014, but if someone is ready to help me, I would be grateful to him/her.--Sundgauvien38 (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and don't worry. This is a wiki. It's next to impossible to do damage that cannot easily be undone. You already have some sophistication with wikicode. If you think you have broken something, just undo your edit! There are many here who will help you on request. I'm one. –Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Sundgauvien38! I'd be happy to work with you on ITIL. There are two relevant learning projects started. See ITIL and IT Service Management. ITSM is the one I'm working on for a course I'm teaching in the spring. If my format works for you, I'd be glad to have the assistance. If you'd prefer your own format, just adopt the ITIL page and start making it whatever you want it to be. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you continue good faith and behavior, we will be helpful to you here. You're unlikely to break anything that can't be undone. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artifacts

Can all my sockpuppets (User:Mabuabsdd, User:Aaqiby1, User:Ritnor, etc.) [I bet Abd knows this] become artifacts? It can show future Wikiversitians that Wikiversity is a little learning Wikimedia Projects and it's okay to make mistakes as long as you repent them. --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 17:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of education that can be derived from that history. I effectively derived policy from it, at least my personal policies, and some of these have been taken up by others. What do you mean by "artifacts," Goldenberg? I may have an idea, but I'd rather let you explain what you have in mind.

Yes, compared to the other projects, and when there are active users who understand the possibility, Wikversity can be highly tolerant of mistakes as being part of a learning process. Thus it can be a relatively safe place to learn. As you know, Goldenberg, not everyone looks at it this way. They think that "vandals" should be blocked, and the writings of someone who is immature (young or developmentally disabled) may look like vandalism to them, and the believe the writings should simply be erased, or, if they are pages, deleted.

We can develop policy to handle vandalism in a way that opens a door to cooperation for those who are not true vandals, intending harm. I have occasionally dealt with "spammers" in this way. Usually, it doesn't work, but ... it's easy to do and practically nothing is lost. And then, if the offer was ignored, I could sleep easily at night, having blocked and deleted.

So, Goldenberg, what I hope is that you will help us develop the policies, allowing us to educate the "immature" in writing, wikitext, cooperation, and self expression, and help us reach out to these users.

You were great, though it took you a little while to trust me. You understood quickly that informal pages, your own beginning writing, should be created in your user space, and not in mainspace. You made mistakes, yes, but that is normal for someone beginning. Believe me, you were much easier to deal with than certain much older users, though almost everyone does respond to positive help. Some of our users may be seriously handicapped, and I do keep that in mind and don't demand they they behave as expected, but I guide them toward what will do no harm. It usually works. ––Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be willing to help Wikiversity with their policies, and I am willing to do so. Wikiversity:Children? --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learning opportunities aren't unique to children. Adults unfamiliar with wikis or online communities may make similar mistakes. The part of your background that is unique here is that you are likely to have experienced fewer discussions of policy and procedure, how things should be vs. how they are, how to work with people you disagree with, how to compromise for the common good, etc. That makes your perspective invaluable, because you can help us develop better explanations and views that are understood by a wider audience.

Something I like to keep in mind is that the best policies are developed by those who don't know which side they're going to be on once the policy is applied. In other words, as we approach these discussions, we should try to consider both what it will be like trying to implement the policy, and what it will be like having the policy applied to us. In a perfect world, we would be satisfied with and accepting of the results from either side. When/if that is achieved, a good policy has been developed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of COPPA, and practical limitations, we cannot have a special policy for children. I've seen no guidance from the WMF, so far, on this. However, Dave has pointed out that similar conditions can exist for "adults." Indeed, we all may experience "developmental delays," and simple unfamiliarity with wiki traditions and local guidelines and policies may produce apparent antisocial behavior. The other wikis, with a goal limited to content, naturally focus on the production of content that meets community standards. We do have a goal of content, but our goal of learning by doing is also ever–present.

longer consideration of related issues

I do suggest a formalization of some of the guidelines that might be derived from handling the special needs of "immature users." Indeed, in some ways and at some times, we may all be "immature." I expect to be learning and growing the day I die.

So let's develop Wikiversity:Children as a guideline or policy that covers all users. We cannot specifically single out children for special treatment, we cannot tag and identify users as children. Indeed, age information could be considered protected personal information. So too would be email addresses. None of our processes should require a user to provide an email address, other than as part of the software, which does protect it; it's claimed that nobody can read that information, but a Developer could, which is why Developer represents the highest level of trust here.

Any sort of process that requires alleged children or even acknowledged children to send an email or provide names and addresses of parents, to give permission, could, then, violate COPPA unless the full range of protections are in place, which they are not. We are all volunteers, here, without authorization to act on behalf of the Foundation, and it would be extraordinarily foolish for the Foundation to authorize us without specific safeguards in place.

Instagram, where users often upload photos of themselves, appears to avoid COPPA problems by *not* requesting age information. The TOS requires users to be 13 or older. However, there is no procedure to verify this, unless someone complains. A complainant who is not a parent is probably going to be brushed off with a form letter, because they require, to take down an account, proof of age from the complainant, i.e, birth certificate or similar. My guess is that Instagram absolutely avoids trying to analyze user contributions for age. It would be a nightmare for them.

(And watch the fireworks at home when a parent shuts down their child's Instagram account. I don't recommend it unless there is a real hazard in the specific circumstances. Rather, parents may insist that they be able to view the account, shutting it down only if the child refuses.)

So we will create guidelines that will have the effect of protecting children, but they will also protect adults with similar behavior.

In a recent case, in a galaxy quite close to us, a user acknowledged lying on another WMF wiki. He was alleged to have made a misleading statement here, in regard to his age. Suppose he had. Children routinely lie under certain circumstances. Did the lie or statement worded misleadingly cause damage to this wiki? Do we need to know the age of the user? If so, we need to attend to it. Otherwise, it is none of our business.

This is a wiki. Damage can be repaired. If a user appears to be causing massive damage, such that repair becomes an onerous burden, it's quite legitimate to block the user, to stop immediate harm. However, that should not be the end of the matter. Such a block should either be short, or readily lifted, upon assurances from the user that they will not continue the behavior without community support. While this was an element in the early wikis (three warnings for blatant vandalism!), increasingly, as communities developed with administrators who effectively "own" the projects, and who take "disruption" very personally, we moved away from this concept, toward punitive models with low tolerance. I've watched as long term users, going back to the early days of Wikipedia, have been shouted down by relative newcomers as they attempted to stand for what would have been routine, early on.

On Wikipedia, the concept of mentorship for problem users was increasingly deprecated as, it was claimed, it did not work. Basically, where it did not work, the mentor was not really available, and there were no procedural safeguards. Attempting to avoid "instruction creep" and "bureaucracy," Wikipedia locked itself up in dysfunctional systems that work, all right, but with high inefficiency and direct and collateral damage.

I was a probationary custodian here, with an agreement to stop any behavior on request from any other sysop. That was not used, and for "offenses" that were considered serious, I was desysopped, twice, both as if there were an emergency. All it would have taken would have been a note on my Talk page, and a short block at most, if there was concern that harm would continue. I explicitly consented to such a block. In fact, there was, the last time, only a *single action* of the kind that is practically routine on Wikipedia. I unblocked a user absent consensus to block, after discussion showing lack of consensus, following a concept that had been explicitly affirmed by the blocking sysop, in a prior case. ("Block should require consensus, not Unblock.") The sysop who had blocked then requested emergency desysop on meta, even though no harm had been done. (This user was very much not disruptive here, but was considered a hazard globally, and had been globally banned, an issue which was also involved in the earlier case. Once upon a time, the local wikis were independent, and meta was a coordinating site, not a controlling site. Gradually, if there is no defense of liberty, it is chipped away.) Some day we might want to look at that, or not. It may be moot at the moment.

My point is that we often bypass long standing wiki traditions, and act out of personal opinion and even animosity. And communities allow this to happen. My view of Wikiversity is that we can explore alternatives to the ad hoc mob psychology that is all too common on the other wikis, because of the nature of our project. What this will take is a set of users dedicated to the progressive educational vision of Wikiversity, and willing to stand for it. That is easier said than done, but it can be done. Let's work on Wikiversity:Children with a goal of making this site safe for children, which requires that users not be punished for acting like children. It requires that they be supported, protected, and guided. —Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:Goldenburg111/Custodianship Folder/Growth? It is part of Category:Wikiversity! --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 21:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, thanks, Goldenburg. I removed the category, that's not appropriate for that user page, it is a category for the development of Wikiversity, not of an individual user. At some point, and for some purpose, we might point to that page.

I was interested to see how many of the accounts I'd blocked. I was always careful, at least as soon as I recognized what was going on, to leave you with a main account you could use. I'm not sure if I remember correctly, and I'm not checking now, but there may have been an attempt to globally lock Draubb, which I was able to prevent. I'll make some comments on the attached Talk page. —Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purge Gadget

Just a notice to the community. For those using the purge gadget (Preferences / Gadgets / Add purge tab), I changed the text on the tab from p to Purge for consistency with other items on the menu. I don't think the change will impact anything else, but if you notice something or wish to have it reverted, let me know. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

Please be mindful of Wikiversity:Naming conventions. Creating pages named "101" at the end doesn't help with organization of content. There won't be a rush to change such names, but using concise titles will make this wiki better. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Hi! Wikiversity:Editor Review is now open for the public! Can we have a bot to post a message on the Colloquium saying "[Username] has requested a look on his contributions, please see [[Wikiversity:Editor Review/[Username]]? Or should we do something else? Thanks! --~~Golden_burg111 20:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that users who want to participate watch the Wikiversity:Editor Review page for review requests. This is similar to how other requests are handled. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider a category that can be added to pages requesting review so that reviewers can just monitor the category page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Requests for Editor Review --~~Golden_burg111 14:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random vs. Randomrootpage - A Proposal

I would like to propose changing the Random link in the left navigation menu from Special:Random to Special:Randomrootpage. The effect would be to bring users to random learning projects rather than random pages. Random subpages by themselves are not as meaningful as seeing project root pages, and having more activity on the root pages may lead to better engagement, and hopefully more cleanup and contributions. Is there any support for this proposal? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better changed, but it needs spacing in the name. What do you think of having both Special:Random and 'Special:Random_root_page'? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The finds are better with the proposal. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rootpage" won't mean anything to most users. "Learning project," maybe, "Root resource" might work. I agree with Sidelight that having both would be best. —Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording wouldn't necessarily change. If it's a single link, it could still be Random, as in [[Special:Randomrootpage|Random]].

If we have two links, we would need to agree on wording. I noticed most of the sister projects include the resource type (article, entry, page, book, file, etc.). Random learning project is too long for the available space. The options I can think of include Random article, Random page, Random project, Random resource, or just the current Random (single link).

So, the question is one link or two, and if two, what wording? Any other suggestions? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have projects scattered all through the namespaces, with little consistency. So we could have Random Topic, Random School, and Random Resource, as well as Random Page. They could all be useful, and I see no reason not to have them. I agree that this could lead to more cleanup, especially if there is a cleanup project that develops some coherent standards and decision making process. —Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this is a valid option. Namespaces can be added according to mw:Help:Random page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible to use the mw:Extension:Random In Category option to select random category pages, such as Random course ([[Special:RandomInCategory/Courses|Random course]]). -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if we add Random as a collapsible section of the sidebar, similar to Community, Tools, Languages, and Projects, and then add the various random links under this collapsible section? This reduces clutter for those who wish to avoid it, and provides more options for those who are interested. Then Course, Page, Resource, School, Topic, perhaps even Portal could be listed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general it seems Special:Randomrootpage is slightly better than Special:Random. I ran 10 of each. The first yielded an average update year of 2011.2, the latter 2009.4. The first had 3 resources with no categories, the latter had 4. More options where possible I believe would be better. The first appears to be systematically better than the second in how Wikiversity presents itself. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]