Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/September 2023

Compiling Incomplete Resources

It would be nice to have a compilation of obviously incomplete resources. If there is one, tell me about it. If there isn't, would it be a good idea to make one? Username142857 (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This one is kind of tricky to answer, as one person's "unfinished" is another person's "it's a wiki, so it's okay to not have everything all at once". If you find pages that are abandoned experiments or that have so little content that it cannot realistically be a learning resource, then you should probably propose it for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't really get what is meant by '...one person's "unfinished" is another person's "it's a wiki, so it's okay to not have everything all at once".' Also, for the second part, "If you find pages that are abandoned experiments or that have so little content that it cannot realistically be a learning resource, then you should probably propose it for deletion.", wouldn't that imply the following: "If you find pages that have so little content that it cannot realistically be a learning resource, then you should probably propose it for deletion." which would be the case for any recently created resources? And why wouldn't it be a good idea to revive 'abandoned experiments'? Username142857 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is: Person A will say, "This is abandoned junk and it's just sitting here taking up virtual space" and Person B will say, "It may be incomplete, but someone can come along and make it better, since this is a wiki". These are both common and valid approaches to unfinished content. A recently-created page would not be an abandoned experiment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

There are categories like Category:Freshly started resources and Category:Partly developed resources, but they aren't used consistently across the project. If you're interested in organizing abandoned resources, adding those templates where appropriate would be a good starting point.

With regard to proposed deletion, there's a 90-day delay between when the {{prod}} template is added and when the resource may be deleted, and the creator or any other editor can remove the template during that time if they're still working on the resource, or if they think it has potential. It has been our experience that 1) editors will frequently create pages with grand plans for a learning resource, but never return to write the content those pages were meant to house; and that 2) it is difficult for other editors to complete those resources after the original editors have departed. It's often easier to build a new resource from scratch than to build upon a shaky foundation. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Graph template

I wonder if there is a working template which allows to describe graph in text and it will be shown in graphic way? Most popular graph-describing langs are Graphviz and Mermaid. Specifically I need to draw some nodes and edges. Right now I found this one: Template:Tree_chart. Are there any other available templates/extensions enabled in wikiversity? Is there a place where I should've looked for this? I think I've found a bunch of pages for disabled extensions, this is a mess. Podbrushkin (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

What kind of graph or chart? Bar, line, pie? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I need a graph with vertices and edges. Like a family tree, smth like that: A -> {B,C}; B -> C. Actually I am surprised there is no graph library widely used in Wikiversity, because they offer very simple way for creating and editing educational illustrations on any topic. Podbrushkin (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikiversity is a very small project, so it doesn't have all of the bells and whistles of (e.g.) our older sister Wikipedia. Does this template do what you need? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's syntax is so awful, that it defeats whole purpose of this template. MS Paint will be easier for editing and creating graphs than this. Also, do you mean Wikipedia has a nice template/extension for this? I haven't found it. And tell me please your personal opinion, check out these example pages of most popular graph visualizing libraries: graphviz, mermaid. Does it seem like they can be heavily used in creating learning materials? Podbrushkin (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an identical template: w:en:Template:Tree chart and also has (e.g.) w:en:Template:Lineage. Does this meet your needs? And yes, for sure, they could. No doubt. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Syntax is bad and unreadable, it doesn't make it easier to create or edit graphs, so there are no reasons to learn this syntax (which I will never encounter anywhere else). Even more, maybe these templates should actually be removed/disabled from wikimedia, so no one would invest his time in learning them. I hope one day wikiversity will get support of some adequate chart drawing library, it would be awesome. Podbrushkin (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think that MediaWiki needs to incorporate an entirely different library, that may be something outside of the scope of the existing templates to even address and you may want to publish a ticket at phab:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

All traffic will switch on 20 September. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 20 September 2023.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Bowling page?

Could I add a bowling page to Wikiversity? Contributor 118,784 (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What do have in mind specifically when you say "a bowling page"? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

More phys ed would be great to have around here. You can talk about form, strategy, how to make a league, how to choose a ball, grip, all kinds of useful instructional material. You may also consider if what you want to make is a guidebook, in which case it belongs at b: or instructional materials and interactive modules, which belong here. Or both! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the kinds of issues that have gotten you blocked elsewhere would be issues here as well. Exercise some caution about your edits and make sure that they are in line with the scope of this project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Though surely they could have applied a bit more patience before summarily ejecting an actual boyscout from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with an indefinite block on grounds of WP:NOTHERE. You do have to respect copyright and proper attribution, however. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Reconsidering the structured debate format.

I believe that Wikiversity can and should be a venue for debate and discourse. That said, I propose that the structured format of Wikidebates be dispensed with in favor of a format in which people can discuss the given topic back-and-forth in a manner similar to an ordinary talk page. For one, I will reference my own comments at the end of the section https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#I_think_we_need_some_parameters_for_Wikidebates, which I believe support this idea. Additionally, a debate in the style of an ordinary talk is more natural and conversational, and perhaps more genuine in the sense that participants can just state their case and go from there rather than being obliged to construct a full debate simply for the sake of doing so. Personally I also feel slightly proprietary of the arguments I make and suspect that participants will tend to construct arguments that are more honest and of a higher quality if their username is attached to their argument and they bear some small degree of responsibility for it. I rather dislike the idea that one should make an argument without genuinely believing in it, first for the reasons I've already mentioned but also because such arguments are essentially made on behalf some group, individual or faction, and may or may not be a fair representation. AP295 (discuss • contribs) AP295 (discuss • contribs) 00:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I second this. Contributor 118,784 (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I third this, and have created a space for continuing this discussion at the following link: Wikiversity:Wikidebate

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The stated educational purpose of the Wikidebate project is to provide "organized compilations of arguments surrounding an issue". While I have some reservations about the current format, replacing it with an unorganized discussion, indistinguishable from the "debate threads" on any number of internet forums, seems like it would be a step in the wrong direction. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose replacing or drastically changing the current Wikidebate structure. Instead, we enhance the Wikidebate by allowing a variety of other vehicles designed to explore the controversy. The only question in my mind is where to put these "other" contributions. At first glance, subpages seem like ideal locations. My only concern is that a Wikidebate page will be cluttered with links to low-quality polemics written by students at all levels of development. Having said that, the highly structured nature of a Wikidebate (in its current form) makes it an ideal top page for any given controversy. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs)

Frankly I'd prefer to read and discuss a student's polemic over most of the authorless humbug in the present Wikidebates any day of the week. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

Part of my concern with the current format and in general is that debate is somewhat ritualized. I'm not at all suggesting that we throw out the present wikidebates, but that I find the format constraining. It also seems to encourage the idea that arguments and debates exist independently of the people making them, giving a false impression of objectivity. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

The best place to pursue this line of thought is at Wikiversity:Wikidebate.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to discuss it here? I've already started us off and the colloquium page probably gets more traffic. I wouldn't expect to hear from very many more people than the three or four "regulars" involved with Wikidebates just on the talk page, and I'd like to solicit comments from all interested Wikiversity users. AP295 (discuss • contribs)

I've written an essay on the subject. Of the recommendations I make, I think the two most important are 1) that users should be encouraged to develop and sign their own arguments, and 2) that users must not be required to add arguments "on both sides". It's a fundamental property of formal logic (or at least any reasonable formulation thereof) that between any two arguments with conflicting or opposite conclusions at least one of those arguments must be unsound. In other words, two sound arguments cannot reach opposite conclusions. It's fine to develop two such arguments if one is not confident either way, but one should not be required to do so. Anyway, the essay contains a full list of my recommendations. Please consider them. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I find the current debate format excellent. I do not oppose using multiple formats, but I do oppose making the current format impossible. The idea that one who argues for a motion should take a serious note of opposing arguments even if they find them unconvincing is a very good one. I also like the lack of signature on arguments; they should stand on their own rather than being interpreted as coming from a particular speaker. More of my ideas on debates are at One man's look at the debate format in Wikiversity. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I like the Wikidebate in its current form. And, I think Wikidebates should be highlighted with dialogues and essays. I also like subpages, and for that reason propose that such items be placed in the Wikidebates's subspace. Doing so will bring even more readers to the (structured) Wikidebate's top page, especially if we can induce instructors to assign such activities to students. Feel free to contribute your thoughts at Wikiversity:Wikidebate.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You say that "The idea that one who argues for a motion should take a serious note of opposing arguments even if they find them unconvincing is a very good one" but if you read my essay you'll observe that I'm not claiming otherwise, and in fact I address this exact thing. The problem is that users are required not just to consider opposing arguments, but to make them, which contradicts the more important requirement of soundness. But come on now, I know you understand my point. Sophivorus left a message on my talk page that strongly suggests it's a requirement. I've tried to solicit comments and discussion about this part of the guidelines before and he never got involved even though it appears that he wrote those guidelines. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 05:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

As for your edits to Should civilians be prohibited from owning firearms? (mentioned on your talk page), I am not sure I see a problem with them: the debate already covers both sides, and I am not sure I see a problem in making edits that strengthen only one side of the debate. It would be a different story if you created Should civilians be prohibited from owning firearms? and there would be only arguments for one side but no arguments for the other side. On the other hand, perhaps Sophivorus sees something I do not see. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The point of a debate is that you aren't talking with just yourself. Even if I had created it and added only my own arguments, anyone else would be free to contest them. I see nothing wrong with that at all. At present it seems like they're just window dressing rather than actual debate. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Right: one can even argue that creating a debate where one omits arguments for one side can be okay since someone else can fill in the missing side. Such a debate could be marked as a stub. But I don't think it's an ideal or commendable start; one should usually be able to present arguments from both sides of the debate. It may well be a tolerable start. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If I were conflicted about an issue I might do so. One should not be required to do so, for the reasons I've already stated. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of a debate, in this context, is to present an overview of opposing views, arguments, and counterarguments on a topic. If you're insufficiently "conflicted" about a topic that you can't even enumerate positions or arguments about it that you don't personally agree with, you probably need to do some additional research before you create a learning resource for the debate. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Whose arguments? Why should I present a dishonest argument that isn't even my own, for instance? If you can argue against my points then go for it. I've implicitly invited you to do so by posting them in a debate. If that's not acceptable then they shouldn't be called debates. I get the sense wikidebates are trying to present the appearance of an even dichotomy, which is something I have a few thoughts about too. The essay isn't really finished, but you'll get the gist of it. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Navigation menu casing

Looks like the casing was changed in the left-hand navigation menu e.g., Community -> community etc. Why? How to fix? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring to. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 13:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is why: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASidebar&diff=2485900&oldid=2475485 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)