Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/January 2013

Alt out for article that is no match for wikipedia

Hi folks, I'm a wikipedian, and I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rodger%27s_Method . That article is not a good match for us, and to make it fit our article format, it would need a lot of trimming, and throwing out a lot of valuable material. Is it a match for you guys? If so, where should I start to transfer it here? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the content would be fine on Wikiversity. What I don't know is if there is an internal way that one of the custodians can transfer it over intact, or if it would be easier to just recommend that HamiltonRoberts create the file here at Rodger's Method. Having HamiltonRoberts create it would keep user references accurate for follow-up later. Then perhaps a short summary article could be created on Wikipedia. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Use this page Wikiversity:Import to have someone import it. That looks like Wikiversity material. I see nothing unethical about copying and pasting your own work over that was done under your user name. If you are the sole editor, only an administrator would know, to Wikiversity, whether the ip address and the username in the history makes the page entirely your own effort. You may be able to tag the contributors in the edit summary, and be in the clear. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done; article is now at Rodger's Method.--Collingwood (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Be a Wikimedia fundraising "User Experience" volunteer!

Thank you to everyone who volunteered last year on the Wikimedia fundraising 'User Experience' project. We have talked to many different people in different countries and their feedback has helped us immensely in restructuring our pages. If you haven't heard of it yet, the 'User Experience' project has the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries (outside the USA) and enhancing the localization of our donation pages.

I am (still) searching for volunteers to spend some time on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile.

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. **All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed (and they will be very low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)**

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!!

Thanks!

Pats Pena
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using Global message delivery, 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Read-only mode expected.

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) Next week, the Wikimedia Foundation will transition its main technical operations to a new data center in Ashburn, Virginia, USA. This is intended to improve the technical performance and reliability of all Wikimedia sites, including this wiki. There will be some times when the site will be in read-only mode, and there may be full outages; the current target windows for the migration are January 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 2013, from 17:00 to 01:00 UTC (see other timezones on timeanddate.com). More information is available in the full announcement.

If you would like to stay informed of future technical upgrades, consider becoming a Tech ambassador and joining the ambassadors mailing list. You will be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Thank you for your help and your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons.

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

This message was delivered based on m:Distribution list/Global message delivery. Translation fetched from: commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Village Pump/en -- Rillke (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Changing username

Could someone please confirm the name changes? They are piling up since December. Lipedia (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Help turn ideas into grants in the new IdeaLab

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

• Do you have an idea for a project to improve this community or website?
• Do you think you could complete your idea if only you had some funding?
• Do you want to help other people turn their ideas into project plans or grant proposals?

Please join us in the IdeaLab, an incubator for project ideas and Individual Engagement Grant proposals.

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking new ideas and proposals for Individual Engagement Grants. These grants fund individuals or small groups to complete projects that help improve this community. If interested, please submit a completed proposal by February 15, 2013. Please visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG for more information.

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Correct it here.)

Wikiversity for summaries and data from research articles

It is still a bit unclear what Wikiversity is for. I have contributed a bit with Python quiz. I believe I at one point considered Wikiversity for use to "research summaries", but apparently never came around to seriously consider it. Now two examples or (sort of) research summaries/reading summaries/reading logs has been pointed out on the OKFN mailing list: Reading log McRuer, Tatum, Hjörne & Säljö and McCall, Leslie (2005): The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. Volume 3 (3) s. 1771-1800 and stated "It's definitely within the scope of the project".

I have build the "Brede Wiki" http://neuro.imm.dtu.dk/wiki/ where there are some research summaries along with some extracted research data. See an example here. It also contains pages for meta-analysis with links to on-the-wiki research data [1]. There are also a number of other research summary wikis: AcaWiki, WikiPapers and WikiLit. To cite myself from the OKFN mailing list: "I think it would be a good idea if there was a WMF CC BY-SA site for summaries and research data, especially now since we are getting Wikidata that could store structured research data."

It is unclear for me whether Wikiversity is appropriate for this task. Do anyone have opinion on this? — Fnielsen (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think research summaries and inclusion of research data can be appropriate at Wikiversity when the original research work is free for the general public to access and the research data can be licensed under the CC-BY-SA. Anyone should be able to help improve research summaries by having access to the original research. Anyone should be able to confirm published research data is cited correctly at Wikiversity. -- darklama  00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It can go in wikiversity. The data part can also go on wikidata. I see wikiversity as research, material from primary sources and teaching resources. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

wikidata is interlanguage links between wikipedias. Your contribution is perfect for wikiversity. - 01:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that, yes wikidata is for interlanguage - at the moment, but that will presumably change as next phase of wikidata come into work. Another thing: Why does the original research have to be free for summaries to be included in Wikiversity? — Fnielsen (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean permission to read the original research, and share facts and ideas presented should not be restricted, but permission to copy, modify, or distribute the original research work may be. There may be legal and ethical issues involved in discussing or disclosing research that only some people have access to. For summaries and data to remain at Wikiversity, the quality, accuracy and authenticity of it must be able to withstand questions and challenges by the Wikiversity community, which is more likely to happen when the original research can be read by anyone. -- darklama  15:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

--

I would say that the wikiversity project that I am involved in, ParkinsonsScience, falls into this category and is quite appropriate for Wikiversity. Briefly, there are three aspects to this learning project:

• • A section with short accounts and references to the scientific literature reporting new research results relating to the science behind parkinson's disease. This aspect is for people who are interested in keeping up with research and can add to this knowledge base for the benefit of other readers.
  • A Magazine section which also is intended to bring people's attention to interesting and important items of current research. This section also allows the discussion of issues and the elaboration of progress, issues and new concepts in accessible (lay) terms.
  • A 'primer' section for learning about Parkinson's science for those new to it - which particularly includes those who have been newly diagnosed with this condition and want to know more about it from the medical and scientific point of view.

The goals of this project are definitely educational. It also has a research side in that the contributors will be 'researching the scientific literature' and reporting on what they have found for the edification of others. There is also the aspect of intelligent discussion which is a key university function. An important principle is that of presenting evidence-based material from reliable and peer-reviewed resources. We are looking for more serious-minded people to help out with this project.

This project could be a template for learning projects related to other common medical conditions.

Droflet (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)