Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/October 2023
![]() |
You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants. Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page. |
Provide conscientious Wikiversity editors with a .edu email address
Faculty and students at many brick and mortar educational institutions receive email addresses ending in .edu. These email address often allow the user to access and receive discounts for a variety of education related services. It will be helpful for conscientious Wikiversity editors to obtain an email address such as username@wikiversity.edu so we can also benefit from recognized association with this learning institution. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- We can't. .edu domain names are only available to accredited educational institutions, which Wikiversity is not and cannot become. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- True, but there's no reason why there can't be a supporting institution for Wikiversity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there is. At https://net.educause.edu/eligibility.htm:
- True, but there's no reason why there can't be a supporting institution for Wikiversity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
“ | Intentionally deploying a .edu domain name for an institution or organization other than the registrant entity would constitute a violation of domain policy and may lead to the termination of the domain name registration. | ” |
- Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but [university].edu can make "wiki.[user]@[university].edu". We don't need a domain name, we need email addresses (per this proposal). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support This would be a nice addition to Wikiversity. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 11:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but [university].edu can make "wiki.[user]@[university].edu". We don't need a domain name, we need email addresses (per this proposal). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Who gets to decide which users are sufficiently 'conscientious'? AP295 (discuss • contribs)
- Not you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh come now, don't be so sour. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- More "just asking questions" and then getting triggered. *eye roll emoji —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know what that means. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trigger_warning —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Rationalwiki is full of patronizing, pesudointellectual tripe and only seems to get away with it by frequently insisting that it's not. I refuse to visit it, but feel free to make whatever point you're trying to make using your own words, preferably in the appropriate thread or topic, which is not this one. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- And if you're still concerned about Wikidebates, then requiring people to sign their arguments (and preferably be registered) would cut down on the inappropriate questions. I'm no more happy about questions like "do slaves feel pain when whipped?" than you are, but that doesn't justify general censorship. The truly crude questions are essentially just spam that can be removed normally anyway. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trigger_warning —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know what that means. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- More "just asking questions" and then getting triggered. *eye roll emoji —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oh come now, don't be so sour. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Depression
Is depression actually a mental state 41.113.244.214 (discuss) 09:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- The answer to this question depends on the way you look at it. According to some sources, depression is a disorder called major depressive disorder. [1][2] Contributor118,784 Let's talk 12:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Custodianship
Does anybody here think I should run for probationary custodianship? Contributor118,784 Let's talk 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- You've only been here two weeks. Why don't you work on a few resources first? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wikiversity:Probationary custodians says that the probationary custodianship system is inactive, so there is no need to run for it. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, you might have just saved me from a failed RfC. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 17:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps you'll pay it forward. What is your opinion on the widespread, furtive suppression of discourse by means that exploit the public's sense of civility, trust, benevolence and other such social niceties while debasing its intellectual tradition? Comment below! AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Contributor, I would advise to contribute to Wikiversity without any solid "goal" of becoming a custodian. I am not saying that you are, but asking about custodianship with only 40 edits & 2 weeks of editing Wikiversity to your name isn't very convincing. You are very much welcomed to heed AP295's advice and contribute to a lot of resources that need attention. Since you say that you are an instructor of bowling, maybe contribute to the Bowling Fundamentals page. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)]
- To add to Atcovi's comments, wikiversity is a bit different from wikipedia in that users should generally consult the author(s) of a resource before editing it, if they aren't already involved in its authorship. There's a greater sense of proprietorship and many resources are the work of a single editor. On the other hand, anyone can make a resource. If you think you can do it better, you don't need to contend with a stubborn editor to publish your own work, though I will offer my comments to an author if I feel they're valuable or helpful. I rather like this model, at least in principle, though improvements could be made so that material is easier for a user to find or browse. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your kind advice. I hope my time at Wikiversity is long and prosperous! Contributor118,784 Let's talk 23:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- To add to Atcovi's comments, wikiversity is a bit different from wikipedia in that users should generally consult the author(s) of a resource before editing it, if they aren't already involved in its authorship. There's a greater sense of proprietorship and many resources are the work of a single editor. On the other hand, anyone can make a resource. If you think you can do it better, you don't need to contend with a stubborn editor to publish your own work, though I will offer my comments to an author if I feel they're valuable or helpful. I rather like this model, at least in principle, though improvements could be made so that material is easier for a user to find or browse. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the step should be revised (especially on an official policy page) if the probationary custodian system is historical. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
RfC: More specific guidelines for criticism and critical reviews/discourse
Conversation
|
---|
An academic organization is debased and untrue to its mission if participants must either agree with one another or hold their tongue for fear of reprisal, dismissal, or banishment to some remote island. In my experience Wikiversity is more tolerant than most online communities, yet nonetheless one is on very thin ice indeed if they endeavor, for example, to write a critical review of some resource. It would hardly be a well-adjusted ordering of priorities to put civility (much less egoism, less still feigned egoism) and assent above edification and genuine discourse, yet I sense that this has become the de-facto culture of so many online communities, probably in many instances due to broad, vague site policy and the capricious or selective enforcement thereof. For this reason it is important to have clear guidelines for critical discourse. A user must be allowed to express criticism, write a critical review, or generally express disagreement in direct and straightforward language without needing superhuman levels of patience or having to undermine their own message with word-mincing and cajolery or being obliged to adopt a clinical, deadpan style. Such guidelines must make clear that criticism and critical work in general is both a valid and valuable form of contribution and to receive the same assumption of good intent as any other sort of contribution. The guidelines should not use needless and open-ended qualifications like constructive or sensitive, and perhaps include a statement to the effect that critique of a resource, regardless of how critical or contradictory, does not in itself constitute incivility nor is it to be considered as an aggravating factor or behavioral issue if the user is being sanctioned for some other transgression. By and large, I'm sure most users are well-intended and not inclined to be unduly critical of others. Personally I don't like being a critic, nor do I like being criticized, yet I see critical discourse as no less a valid form contribution than any other sort, and a necessary part of any intellectual process. In spite of this, The UCoC states "Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner." Qualified phrases like constructive criticism effectively grant carte blanche authority for a moderator to issue a summary judgement about the worth of a resource and its author, and I see no reason why criticism in particular should be subject to a double standard, much less one with such high potential for abuse or a chilling effect. Of course we all know what "sensitive" means, but the phrase "sensitive criticism" is only slightly less oxymoronic than a phrase like "jumbo shrimp". Surely a bruised ego is not sufficient reason for a prohibition on critical discourse, least of all in the context of education and research, and it seems individual projects are allowed some flexibility: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ#Conflict_with_local_policies. The word "sensitive" hardly amounts to anything other than a euphemism for ego-sparing, and I doubt that any effective, honest, concise and non-trivial critique spares the ego of the user whose work it's directed at, but I'm certain that any user with good intentions ultimately appreciates a critical review and does not begrudge a bruised ego. Well-intended contributors are necessarily at least as concerned with making an effective article or resource as they are with saving face and the policy of sensitive criticism does them no favors. It is the author who decides whether or not to use the criticism they receive in a constructive manner. It is not the responsibility of the critic to cajole or patronize the author, nor whether or not their comments are used constructively. If a critic is honest and makes an effort to give a concise review and they aren't barbaric about it, then they've done all they can to improve the resource, short of making their own resource on the same topic. The only people who materially benefit from "sensitive criticism" are those who aren't acting in good faith, who in my experiences elsewhere will often feign indignation and make a bid for the observer's empathy at this loss of face, and employ other manipulative melodramatics while doing everything possible not to address such feedback or criticism. The observer who really does assume good faith is likely to empathize because criticism is always a slight blow to one's ego. It's a reproach to common decency when empathy, humanity, civility and trust are exploited in such a way. Yet this is the twilight zone we end up in when saving face and allowing others to do the same is glorified and considered imperative to civility, as opposed to something that encourages complacence, superficiality and other such social and intellectual regressions. Criticism is not equivalent to harassment, nor vandalism, nor spam, nor incivility. They are different in intent and in substance, and so I see no reason why we can't make reasonably clear distinctions in concrete policy that is difficult to abuse. The UCoC has a fairly extensive anti-harassment policy and requires that users behave in a civil manner. All contributions are expected to meet at least some minimum standard of quality and decency and it's rarely a serious problem to determine if an article is spam or at least of some potential, and I see no reason this would not suffice for critical work as it does for everything else. This is a question of values. Should we place ego and saving face above liberty? Perhaps the greatest asset of western culture itself is that liberty and knowledge are valued over saving-face, and that being wrong is not a permanent black mark upon one's reputation and credibility, but something transient and inherent to growth. [Note 1] If I seem to labor the point, it's because I feel a widespread trend in the opposite direction. At the very least, feigned indignation has become a normalized response to criticism, which is regressive in and of itself because people are less accountable to reality or objectivity, but more strongly obliged to hold their tongue anytime someone might take offense, or pretend to take offense. It must be corrected before our culture ends up an inferior, bastardized simulacrum of what it was and by all rights should still be. So borrowing an eloquent concluding remark from Hitchens, "let that be my opening bid, and let me accept counteroffers, enlargements, etc." AP295 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC) Miscellaneous Notes:
And aside from everything else, this is a request for clarification. The word "sensitive" is not an objective criterion, a user does not know if they've satisfied this requirement until after the fact. We can suppose it has been left vague in order not to constrain each project to the same set of rules, but in this case the project is responsible for providing clarification so that users have a clear and stationary set of goalposts, as it were. We are already required to behave decently, so what additional meaning does this qualifier have? Something like "respect gender pronouns" is a concrete, positive obligation. If someone states what they prefer to be called, it is trivial to comply with this policy. It is trivial to avoid using racial slurs. On the other hand, sensitive reads like a positive obligation, but ultimately users have no control over how other users react to feedback. This is bad, or at least very vague policy and I hardly feel I'm being unreasonable when I ask for clarification and suggest one such clarification that might be used. If you disagree with my proposed guidelines, then please furnish a compliant, objective interpretation for I and other users to follow. AP295 (discuss • contribs)
|
Thinking I might not have been concise enough, I wrote this essay as a refinement of my earlier suggestions, though it's still a work in progress. Expand the collapsed box above to see my original request and the responses, which did not seem to bear out any definite conclusion. For some time I've felt that many popular 'user-driven' websites have developed an odd and unhealthy culture of assent. This is essentially my bid for a few policy changes or perhaps clarifications that I think will mitigate this trend. AP295 (discuss • contribs)
Opportunities open for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission, and the Case Review Committee
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your languageHi everyone! The Affiliations Committee (AffCom), Ombuds commission (OC), and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for new members. These volunteer groups provide important structural and oversight support for the community and movement. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to apply. There is more information about the roles of the groups, the skills needed, and the opportunity to apply on the Meta-wiki page.
On behalf of the Committee Support team,
- Thank you, Keegan! Contributor118,784 Let's talk 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package
Dear all,
Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection. Providing your comments now will help them provide a smoother, better Board selection process. More on the Meta-wiki page.
Best,
Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee
01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Enable Extension:Translate
Hi! The Wikidebate project is slowly growing and I think a big next step would be to start translating the debates to new languages. Years ago I tried creating v:es:Wikidebate but it never really caught on. I think it would be much more effective to use the mw:Extension:Translate. However, it'd need to be enabled on Wikiversity first, and thus it would be available for the entire site. Perhaps I should note that no single-language Wikimedia project (that I know of) has this extension enabled. AFAIK, it's only enabled on multi-language projects such as Commons, MediaWiki.org or Meta. However, this may not be a problem if there's consensus to enable it. Thoughts? Objections? Support? Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- First and foremost: The English Wikiversity is an English language project. It is not a multilingual project. If you want to experiment with the Translate extension, it's available on https://beta.wikiversity.org/.
- Second: There's a lot of overhead inherent in maintaining a set of translated texts. It's difficult enough on Commons, where there's a sizable multilingual community present and the texts being translated are fairly stable (like policy documents and message templates). For a smaller project like Wikidebate it's going to be effectively impossible.
- Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do not think we should host non-English material on en.wv. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- The workforce inside English Wikiversity should be used to expand English content rather than something else. The same thing can be said to other type of projects, and I think that is why there is no single-language Wikimedia project having the extension enabled. For non-English creations, you can use other versions of Wikiversity or Beta as advised at above. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 04:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Omphalographer’s comment. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 14:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose this does not seem appropriate for the en.wikiversity. This also seems like it would be unnecessary clutter considering the lack of interest in translating these Wikidebates. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)