Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2015

Are you concerned about Colloquium discussions getting so long they are hard to follow? edit

~~If so, visit [[user:Guy vandegrift/B]] and put in your two-cents.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

This discussion has been tentatively moved to: Wikiversity:Discussions/151001 Users write essays under their headers --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a Formatted Discussion here: Wikiversity talk:User access levels

For me the discussions are hard to follow, because I don't understand the context of the discussion. Is it about how we should structure a discussion? Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Go to Wikiversity talk:User access levels and remove the "nowiki" around the ~~~. Write anything you want in that space (but don't write too much please).--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part-up edit

I found a very nice platform that can help you find people for a learning project. The platform is called part-up (http://www.part-up.com). A part-up is like a project. The tool supports online collaboration. You can join an existing part-up or you can start one yourself. Hope you like it. Cheers, Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More information about Part-up can be found on the following page: Part-up. Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about communism edit

--Jinbalemon (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikiversity! See Basic Government Systems/Communism. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsDelinker edit

In the most recent actions by CommonsDelinker it has replaced 8 images by newer or renamed images and removed 42, two of which were from lectures or quizzes in the course principles of radiation astronomy. These two amounted to 11 of the 42 actions, 3 more were to subpages of motivation and emotion, 3 more from two other resources. Many were for images on user pages that were either uploaded to Commons or in use from Commons.

Should we Block CommonsDelinker until or unless we get some kind of notice before deletion occurs so that we can where possible upload the image from Commons as fair use. I have about 25% of my images from Commons that are probably not on my Commons Watchlist. While I check it there almost daily, I was blindsided by their deletion of File:NGC 7048.jpg. I had to go to the web to find a copy, then upload it here with the same file name and finally rollback all eleven actions.

The eight replacements CommonDelinker imported are okay but usually are of no difference here. Many times the file is renamed or re-uploaded for larger size or better resolution. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what CommonsDelinker does. My understanding is that it removes or corrects links for files that have been changed at Commons. Blocking it would only prevent Wikiversity articles from reflecting reality. It wouldn't stop any Commons content from being deleted, as we don't control Commons content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it removes links to files that are deleted at Commons. Blocking it here prevents it from removing the link. We get a red link rather than a link that disappears from our resource. I have to go to a previous history to find the original usage and where it was.

Having it replace an image here with another image does no harm usually but may also make no obvious improvement. Many of their changes are a renaming that is of no benefit here.

They've never corrected any of my images.

The only way to prevent a deleted image here is to never use a Commons image, upload here all that are still at Commons and used here before they are deleted there, and send a message to let us know first.

Here's some interesting stats: Wikinews blocked CommonsDelinker at 16:48, 23 September 2013. For the most recent 50 actions of CommonsDelinker on Wikipedia: 1 replacement and 49 removals. That's 49 articles now missing an image. It's the worst case. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would really help the most is to be able to import files that may become deleted directly here from Commons or if they are still on Wikipedia waiting for export to Commons, import them directly here. The next one I come across on Wikipedia that is a candidate to be uploaded to Commons, I'll try importing it here. What do you think? Can we get a consensus to import files here from Commons? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can import content that users are building learning resources around. We shouldn't import content just to prevent it from being deleted elsewhere unless there is a legitimate learning project the content supports. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For perspective, Wikinews has a somewhat unique problem wrt CommonsDelinker in that our archive policy prohibits us from changing the choice of image on an article more than 24 hours after the article is published. That means most of the edits that would be made by CommonsDelinker are, in fact, egregious policy violations.

More broadly, Wikinews has hundreds of articles in our archives that have broken links (we've created a special template for the purpose, n:Template:Missing image, to make the holes less ugly) because those images have been deleted by Commons. We have a fair use policy that would have allowed us to locally upload most (though not all) of those images if we'd (a) known about the deletion in advance and (b) had available, sufficiently technically skilled, labor to do so promptly. It's easy to perceive this sort of thing as evidence that Commons doesn't care about local projects, but I suspect more to the point is that they've got a staggeringly huge collection of images and it's all (or more than) they can do just to find the images that blatantly shouldn't be there and delete them, and they can't afford the luxury of anything that increases their work load, such as liasing with client sister projects about possible local upload before deletions.

There was a proposal floating around on Meta earlier this year, I think, to give admins on any sister the ability to access deleted images on Commons; if that were so, then admins on a sister project could make a decision about local upload after a Commons image is deleted. But afaik it fizzled, probably from some mixture of lack of interest (which figures since this isn't much of a problem for Wikipedia, which can afford to be very flexible about images) and confusion over whether the proposal ought to be on Meta or on Commons. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website Hosting edit

Is website hosting for organizations such as Free education/SOAS Occupation within the Wikiversity mission? I wouldn't have any problem with a learning project about free education and occupational movements, but I am concerned that hosting and linking to resources for an event in process is beyond Wikiversity's scope. Is this really educational content? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess that I don't know what the Wikiversity mission is. This what I found as I browsed from the main page as if for the first time:

Can anybody add to this list? The only thought I have is that anybody who posts questionable content should be asked to explain how it is educational. A case-by-case approach seems more workable because attempting to post extensive guidelines is time-consuming for us, and will be an invitation for wiki-lawyering.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikiversity:Mission. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a quick look at several of the Wikiversity resources listed on Free education/SOAS Occupation. There seem to be at least three separate issues:

management of brick-and-mortar universities being insensitive to unions, students and education in general,
union or union-like demands,
Muslim students in Israel.

The free university occupied is in London as I understand this. Issue number one is standard for brick-and-mortar universities. Most have to charge even if state supported to even contemplate meeting costs and budgets. The others say more about the occupiers than the issues. These can be educational if properly framed. They are all created by user Dx. They are learning by doing for sure so asking user Dx to frame them educationally as the user did with the art course seems fair that way others who read can learn and be educated. Universities throughout time have served as centers for social and cultural change. So that fits. I agree with Guy that a "case-by-case approach seems more workable".

We already are Free education so starting a war with brick-and-mortars is not about free education, it's about something else. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, the correct pronoun for User:Dx is "they". See Art practices/Multiple-use name/Tae Ateh. My question on content hosting was specific to SOAS Occupation, not the larger project. Is this learning by doing, or is it using Wikiversity as a host for other purposes? For example, it might be interpreted as solicitation or promotion of an external organization, particularly with the external links. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to Dave's question is painfully obvious. "Is this learning by doing, or ...using Wikiversity as a host..?". Yes!. Would it make sense to remove the external links? Such a policy could have the effect of imposing a double standard on external links: Resources with marginable suitability for Wikiversity would have stricter standards for external links. I see nothing wrong with such a double standard.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request: I just realized that I know them from a previous encounter with Art movements/Neoism. To make a long story short, we had a misunderstanding for which I was partly to blame, and for that reason I want to take extra steps to show that Wikiversity is trying to be reasonable. Regarding the occupation of a building, I'm from U.C. Berkeley circa 1970 and know all about occupying buildings. Been there, done that, stupid idea. (For the record, it was not I, but my roommate and closest friend who actually "did that"). But Wikis have a neutral POV policy. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just use prod on Free education/SOAS Occupation? Looking over this discussion, I think we just reinvented the idea of taking these things on a case-by-case basis. That is what prod is designed to do.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prod is always an option. My initial question was intended to be a quick check on whether the community supported using Wikiversity to host content for an external organization where the content has "marginable suitability for Wikiversity" or whether this qualified as a speedy deletion for solicitation. Apparently, the preference is to look at each of these on a case-by-case basis, which moves it to a Request for Deletion discussion rather than a Colloquium discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you intent was a check on policy regarding marginably suitable pages, you should know that in the long run, it might be less work to allow all pages that are not harmful (copyvio, external links, etc.). It is essential that all such violations be easily found and corrected by bots, not by humans. As an experiment, I moved a sample of such a page into A/index space that bothered me because it might have scared an expert on the subject out of Wikiversity. Instead of different directories, it might be better to add digits to resource titles, e.g. Quantum mechanics 137. Memory has gotten so cheap the clouds give it away. If anybody is interested, place a comment at User:Guy_vandegrift/A and we will move the discussion to mainspace (not here on the colloquium).

I might add that if we don't fix these things with bots, then marginably suitable pages create more work for us because they needed to monitored for copyio and commercial links. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This space will be a pedagogical space where we all learn together outside the confines of corporatism. Through this action of creating our own free university, the occupation will show that students and staff are capable of driving our own education and that there is no need for senior management to design our curriculum for us. Anyone who would like to hold an event at the SOAS Student Occupation can email us at soasoccupation@riseup.net or find us on Facebook. This university belongs to those who work here and study here." That makes it pedagogical, and so within scope. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leutha: If I am not mistaken, copyright law allows me to place your words in the talk page to this resource ~~and remove the speedy delete template (if you have not already done so).~~--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I replaced the A: prefix to A/index for the index and A/name for articles. I haven't moved anything there because nobody has complained about an article. The replacement was done to remove colons from names. Colons should never appear in namespace. I recently discovered a new wiki-sister prefix at outreach:Main Page. You never know when wikimedia will define a new sister with A: as its prefix.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my name edit

i am catherine rose from india kerala kannur --117.203.70.24 (discuss) 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikiversity! I am Guy Vandegrift, and my user name is user:Guy vandegrift. I'm glad you found this colloquium. Feel free to respond here or on my private talk page at User talk:Guy vandegrift.

Welcome to Wikiversity! Hope you have a good time here, and if you need any help, just say so. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a category on this template (when a template is added to a page, the page is added to a category) edit

Template:File copyright, tons of pages are currently linked to this template, that are in need of deletion. Should we add a category (so when a template is added to a page, the page that the template is being added on is added to a category) to the template so that it'll be easier to contain all the images needing deletion/copyright or should we not? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these files that are up for deletion because licensing has not been supplied within 7 days are supposed to be showing up in Category:Pending deletions but are not there! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done They are showing up now! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh didn't notice that category, thanks! --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research on Wikiversity - Sharing Education edit

I am currently conducting research at the University of St.Gallen, Switzerland, on sharing education around the globe and specifically with the developing world. With this regard I am also looking to include Wikiversity in my research. Other cases include Coursera and TED Ed. Would someone here from Wikiversity be willing to speak to me for a short interview on the things you are trying to achieve with Wikiversity? I would be really excited to be able to include Wikiversity in my research! The Wikimedia team sent me here to find someone that would be willing to do a short interview with me. Thank you very much in advance, Marie. --123.194.192.146 (discuss) 14:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing. Use Special:EmailUser/Dave Braunschweig to send me contact information so we can work out the details. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest, Marie. I'm sure Dave and I are not the only one's delighted that you are interested.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to email me, I'm interested. (FYI you need to create an account to email users) --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robelbox edit

A user has pointed out a problem with Template:Robelbox. The request was specific, but I believe the problem to be universal. I've modified Template:Robelbox to have a default height of auto rather than 100%. This will either work correctly, or instantly mess up thousands of pages of content. If you notice any issues with how boxes are displayed, let me know ASAP or post on WV:RCA and ask a custodian to roll back the change. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for importing an article from en wikipedia edit

Hi,

Season's Greetings, I am new to Wikiversity I do not know if this one is the right forum for the request. I would like to find out if I can import an article presently named on en wikipedia as w:en:Ceremonial pole. It was supposed to be an umbrella article intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations and dances around w:en:Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

Ceremonial &/ ritual &/ festival pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

If you refer to This discussion on en wikipedia, it is either I failed to convince few of en wikipedians or they are unable to comprehend idea behind the article and feel that the article is likely to tilt towards original research. As of now I seem to be alone there, Its true that my initial interest was encyclopedic only but if at all others are feeling article is likely to tilt towards original research then if en wikiversity community allows me I will prefer to import the article for research purpose though most of my writing is likely to remain with reference and of closely encyclopedic.

Please let me know wikiversity openion if it is ok atleast I can build a bettter research article for wikiversity and spend my energy constructively and productively.

If this fourm is not best place for discussion then please help me shift the discussion to appropriate page.

Thanks and Warm regards to all wikiversity users

Mahitgar (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done I Imported it as Ceremonial pole so you can work on it. It might be more appropriate as a subpage on another resource, but we can move it. I believe there is strong consensus on Wikipedia that imported articles should NOT consist of minor variation of the original. I didn't read the imported article, but my experience is that Wikipedia articles could benefit from a great deal of cutting. Good luck. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]