Wikiversity:Colloquium

Start your discussion here Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles. Sign your posts with   ~~~~ Welcome Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking, check the general information at: What is Wikiversity? Who are Wikiversity participants? Wikiversity Introduction MediaWiki software questions Wikiversity: Chat | Mailing list | X

Purge Cache - Colloquium Archives - RSS version

var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = "http://en.wikiversity.org"; var wgPageName = "Wikiversity:Colloquium"; var wgTitle = "Wikiversity Colloquium"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var x-feed-reverse = "true"; var x-blog-description = "You have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for!";

RSS

"Knowledge grows when shared." — Bhartrihari (discuss)

On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 18 days old.

Opt-in to global sysops

Hello! I would like to propose making this a m:Global sysop wiki, meaning that global sysops can make non-controversial admin actions such as fighting spam and vandalism. From my experiences patrolling on this wiki, an admin only comes online every few days, and there are currently 287 requests for speedy deletion, with some of them being weeks old. (For the record, I am not a global sysop). While there are 29 admins and 5 bureaucrats, half of them have not edited at all in 2013, and some have not edited since as early as 2007. Are there any objections to this? --Rschen7754 21:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - to me this sounds better than letting the site go unmaintained, but I'm still fairly new to this so others may see problems that I'm not aware of. Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754. The backlog is actually caused by a mass nomination (see here for more information), and it's unclear whether there's a consensus to delete those pages, at least from my point of view. Regardless, I think this is a good proposal, because it obviously helps Wikiversity and its custodians. Ruy Pugliesi and I don't create or edit the content of this wiki, so you might see us as two global sysops working here as local sysops. We might as well get some help from the other stewards and global sysops. The English Wikibooks has a similar system in place, where stewards and global sysops are able to delete spam and obvious vandalism. Mathonius (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment While I am no expert on the contributions of Fasten, specifically the author's Assistant teacher course and Assistant teacher program, these resources before blanked by their creator appear to be excellent and should remain available on Wikiversity. I would ask that each be reverted to their last form before Fasten blanked them.

On the global sysop question, I'm relatively recent to Wikiversity, but there seems to be a tradition here to keep decisions local. Reverting the deletion nominations by Fasten would greatly reduce the apparent burden on local bureaucrats and custodians. I will refrain from voting on this until I see how these valuable and much appreciated local sysops feel about this. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Let's give it a try! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an active contributor on this project, but as a steward who helps here now and then: yes, please! Trijnstel (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment I, too, would like to see the Fasten speedy deletion requests rolled back. There was valuable material there, and no justification has been provided for the removal. But in general I would Support more sysops here. We currently only have seven active custodians / bureaucrats, and most of their time is justifiably spent on content rather than support. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support This wiki is rather spam-prone for a non-GS wiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I agree that this wiki should be included in the list of GS wikis. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Jasper Deng. LlamaAl (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - action on things that need obvious attention is slow. Action on the main page was needed recently. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I struggle to keep up with bureaucrat/custodian tasks, so any assistance is welcome from my POV. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a supporter of the global sysop idea, though only a sporadic user of this wiki. –SJ+ 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Closing

The discussion indicates clear agreement from Wikiversity users and experienced others that the proposal for English Wikiversity to opt-in for global sysop assistance would is supported. The wiki can opt-out at some point later if we change our minds. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Y Done[1] -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

hit tracking

Is there a way to view the hits of a given page? if not I think one should be implemented (preferably with goggle analytics which has really nice maps and such :D)

Yes, you can see the count of page views for a resource under View history, Readers. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the 'Statistics' link, a message comes up when you click it saying the tool no longer exists.

No, I mean View history, Readers (the Readers link). It shows hit counts for 30, 60, or 90 days. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I invented a hit counter template which uses an external application that someone pointed out to me. It is {{Hitcounter}} and I put it on the Talk page of any page. It counts the hits on the resource page itself because of the MAGIC WORD SUBJECTPAGENAMEE used in the template. -- Droflet (discuss • contribs) 08:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The hitcounter template was created, but soon after its heavy use it became implemented automatically from the history page, under "Readers" - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried the hit-counter under View history, Readers, and received the following message: Safari can’t open the page “http://stats.grok.se/en.v/latest/Wikiversity:Colloquium” because Safari can’t find the server “stats.grok.se”. Perhaps my browser is too old. I contacted wikipedia user:emw who maintains the toolserver.org program that accesses stats.grok.se and wiki.toolserver to see if they can give me a copy of the program that accesses stats.grok.se to modify it to yield Wikiversity resource stats, but from above it appears others can see such stats. Is this still the case? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am able to access Readers counts on Chrome, Firefox, and Safari on a Mac (OS X 10.9), and Chrome, Firefox and IE on a PC (Windows 7). All are current versions. The can't find server message usually indicates a DNS error rather than a browser error. You can test DNS settings with nslookup. Try nslookup stats.grok.se . You should get 46.253.202.68. On a Mac, either a Terminal window with nslookup or the Network Utility Lookup tab will do the same thing. Note from a security perspective, I recommend running the latest browser version available, whichever browser you use. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Ottava Rima

Per the m:Global bans global policy, you are informed of the discussion above. Please comment there and feel free to appropriately distribute more widely in prominent community venues in order to «Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited». Nemo 10:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The close was

The following request for comments is closed. Consensus is that Ottava Rima's behavior should be handled individually by each project on a case by case basis and that currently, only being blocked on two projects does not rise to the level to justify a global ban. Tiptoety talk 08:01, 28 August 2013 (UT)

--Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

NEH Proposal

Hi!

I am preparing a proposal to be submitted on or before September 12, 2013, to the United States National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The proposal is to the Enduring Questions Course program for the question: "What is a dominant group and what are the forces behind it?" Should the proposal be funded I will construct a course here at Wikiversity focused on that question.

The proposal is to consist of six parts which can be found as indicated: the project narrative, a core reading list, the letter of institutional commitment, a selected bibliography, a budget, and being prepared off-line, a Résumé to be hopefully put into pdf format. The reading list and bibliography may be changed as the course is developed.

Participation, comments, criticism, questions, etc. are welcome, especially on each of the Discussion pages and here as well. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

about projects

hi am engineering student .thinking to do the project in mechanical based so please give me any ideas

--PRAKI (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! Take a look at School:Engineering in general, and Topic:Mechanical engineering specifically, for projects and ideas already suggested. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Additions to guidelines

I made some additions to the guidelines. They are not changing anything, only emphasizing ethics, research and the use of templates to mark such projects. I wanted to mention this here for transparency. wikiversity:research, wikiversity:research ethics, wikiversity:what is Wikiversity? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Additions made to Wikiversity:Research ethics. Purposes, to address: animal cruelty, genetically modified, and potential weapons. Anyone care to give input on that talk page? Thanks. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added some comments and questions on the talk page regarding nuclear energy research and genetically modified. I hope these help. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Glitches with https

Hi!

I have had to re-create editing text because of two types of recent events since https began at or near the beginning of September.

1. my browser occasionally fails to established a secure link while I am attempting to "Show preview" or "Save page". Sometimes once the connection is made I can go back on my browser and my recent editing is still there, sometimes not. And,
2. there's a long delay and the server times out so I have to re-submit also requiring going back and hoping the editing is still there, often lately it's not.
3. not noticing or forgetting that I'm not connected to the internet while editing an https resource may cause the information or editing to be lost.

My suggested solution: copy to my browser Clipboard before submitting. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

the server does seem to time out, at least just now. Maybe this problem will go away in a few days. I didn't notice before that https started being used. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 20:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There were some bumpy servers recently. If this is still a problem, please drop me a message. --AKlapper (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: September 2013

This Month in Education – Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 Headlines Wikimania pre-conference draws crowd Student leader achieves Featured Article Spanish-as-a-foreign-language students at ITESM-Mexico City Campus upload photographs on Mexico to Commons 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 · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Research ethics

Hi!

Upon careful review and based on discussions contained on the Wikiversity:Research ethics discussion page, I must Oppose all changes made to the Wikiversity:Research ethics guidelines by Sidelight12 as efforts to dictate guideline content away from Wikiversity freedoms to conduct original research. I ask that all such changes be reverted back to the last one made by Jtneill on 12 September 2013. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Object. It should stay. And if anyone thinks it should be deleted, then the whole page may as well be deleted. Only one subject was added to the page. It completely allows original research, and it is very permissive. It even allows cadaver research if accepted by on a institutional review board, which all Wikiversity editors can collaborate. Anyone who thinks suffering or indignity should be allowed in order to conduct original research, I have no words. The freedom argument is a fallacy, similar to how it isn't a freedom for one person to take away other's freedoms. Not having a guideline like this will hurt Wikiversity. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to move the new content to the Discuss page until consensus is reached. Something like this shouldn't be added by a single opinion without review, nor should it be deleted by a single opinion without review. Regarding the new content itself, it seems somewhat out of place in comparison to the rest of the page. It also appears to unnecessarily single out one specific type of research when the page now states that Unethical research is not allowed on Wikiversity., and this statement appears to not be contended. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think these are all healthy arguments and fair points to consider and I guess this is the nature of ethics that such conversations are far from easy to get consensus around but that they are important to have. As the page is 'only' a 'guideline', my suggestion for moving forward is to treat the page (and Sidelight12's contributions) as part of an early draft and that we should get in there and edit, change etc. to help to bring it closer to something that may gain consensus. Moving Sidelight12's contributions to the talk page for further discussion is another option. I've edited the notice box at the top of the page to emphasise that the page is "under development". Most other discussion probably should happen on the talk page although I do think it is important too to communicate here on the Colloquium. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As with Sidelight12's other contributions, I have included on the Discussion page examples of invasive animal surgery, often followed by dissection, that could not have been performed here because Sidelight12 is incorrect about what is ethically allowed and the requirements that results already published must be used. Inclusion of each of Sidelight12's restrictions would be unethical and obstructionist to original research! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest either improving what was contributed; or removing contributions you disagree with, making corresponding comments on talk page. In general, I think we should err on the side of being permissive initially as what type of research is permitted at least until we run into problems. IMHO, the issue currently is more about a lack of original research than having problems with ethically contentious research. IMHO, the page also needs to be de-Americanised (e.g., IRB terminology is somewhat culture-specific) etc. Alternatively we could fork to allow development of different versions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with each of your points and have removed the Animal studies subparagraph from the developing ethics page. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is about ethically contentious research. Marshallsumter's concern is about original research. My proposed guideline was extremely permissive. The examples given as to what would be prevented on here, weren't restricted by the proposed guideline. They were cataloged on pubmed, which is the largest database on medical information, anything serious goes there. For anything not on pubmed, there are many alternatives, which collectively almost all human knowledge is documented. Marshallsumter has no clue what ethics is; thinks ethics only applies to researchers, not beings who can suffer. Also has been rude in this dealing, and I do not apologize for saying this.

The previous subject is important. The other two subjects are not important enough for me to conflict over. My proposed guideline about nuclear issues, was only things that would get the DoD's attention. Fine, Wikiversity doesn't have to be responsible for this, until it gets attention by the DoD, which is very irresponsible. If that's the attitude, I am for not having the nuclear guideline and letting that happen. IRB wasn't my idea, I thought it was so Wikiversitians could all have consensus on cadaver research. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It's time to reclaim the community logo

Hello community,
this is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you might be interested. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on this page; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments the talk page. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! odder (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC) P.s.: You can check whether the WMF protects the logo of your project by seeing if it's listed as "registered trademark" on wmf:Wikimedia trademarks.

Request for consultation on community logo

Request for consultation on this community logo

First, I’d like to apologize for the English. If you can, please help to translate this for other members of your community.

The legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation would greatly appreciate your input on the best way to manage the "community logo" (pictured here) to best balance protection of the projects with community support. Accordingly, they have created a “request for consultation” on Meta where they set out briefly some of the issues to be considered and the options that they perceive. Your input would be invaluable in helping guide them in how best to serve our mission.

Thank you! --Mdennis (talk) (via the Global message delivery system). 02:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)

The problem with Wikipedia

Reputable published primary studies on Medical content constantly gets removed from Wikipedia. Their guideline w:wp:medrs, is misinterpreted for this. That stupid guideline changes depending on how you read or interpret it. If someone defends the content well enough constantly it could stay, but only to get challenged again if one is not looking. Information in other subjects like math, archeology, science do not get this scrutiny there. I would rather this information stay on Wikipedia, but if it doesn't, at least Wikiversity allows this data. Comments, opinions please. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinions about what? Wikipedia policy? The policy generally requires not using primary sourced data for medical articles (and that's generally true about primary sources for Wikipedia, even though it's violated frequently. It is not a stupid guideline for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's a general truth, you can do well to assume it, Wikipedia content guidelines are not stupid. They reflect many years of experience.

About our policy? Wikiversity is far more tolerant, but we are covered by the WMF neutrality policy, and there is a danger in presenting primary source material without context. Original research is allowed here (not there), but we must be careful to avoid misrepresenting scientific consensus. What is only found in primary sources does not yet represent a consensus, normally. Sometimes a primary source is partially secondary, i.e., it reviews prior work, and if this is done under peer review, it *might* represent reliable source. Even then it might need to be attributed, not stated as fact.

It is possible to link Wikiversity resources from Wikipedia, but if that's done, the top-level page linked, at least, should be neutral per Wikipedia policy, or at least reasonably close. You can then create a seminar under the top-level resource that explores original research, opinion, etc, just as in a university seminar we might write research papers giving fact and opinion. Through measures like this, we avoid creating the kinds of conflicts here that plague Wikipedia. Usually!

Here, at any level, we may generally assert a fact we consider notable, but for primary sources, the *fact* is that someone *claimed* something. We are not short of space on Wikiversity, we can create subpages and thus can do many things not possible on Wikipedia, such as presenting a multiplicity of points of view, including such that are only the opinion of a participant here. How we do that can be important. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, related opinions or comments on whatever comes to mind. I agree with or can accept most guidelines on Wikipedia actually. Original research/synthesis by the editor is not allowed there, which is very reasonable. Like I said, archeology, science not related to medicine, math, sports, culture and so forth have pretty acceptable guidelines about them in my opinion. If the primary source is from a sports venue, a archeological journal specifying that an extinct species belongs to a different group, botany not related to medical, or a news source about an incident, social event or natural disaster, its allowed there. Articles that make the science news-feeds, hospitals, or pubmed are now being deleted there by reference to medrs, when it is actually ambiguous to interpretation. I like collecting knowledge that is new or not widely known, and being able to post it, otherwise the information is always outdated or missing something. There is a lot of medical information that isn't in secondary sources. And a page will say, there is no evidence, when there in fact is, (disclosing everything and doing so without original research) but it gets challenged there. These are primary sources that anyone interested in whatever subject would like to know about.

Wikiversity is good for original thought. Everything could be considered pov, but as you mentioned, it can be presented neutrally or varying povs can be presented. Yes, Wikiversity has great things about it, and allows for opportunities in sharing knowledge. Thanks for responding. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Resize image as percent %

Does anyone know a way to set an image's size as a percent of page width or parent div width, equivalent to img {width:50%} in regular css? I would like to make my top image resize itself to fit on any sized screen/device. This would be simple on a regular website with css, but not here (or am I missing something?)! Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and mw:Help:Images give some pointers. There seems to be nothing there about % of page width, except mw:Help:Images has "perrow={integer}: sets the number of images per row. 0 means automatically adjust based on width of screen." which doesn't seem to be what you're looking for. Xhtml can be written into template coding, I don't know if css can too. MediaWiki may have to tools to do this. Dave Braunschweig may be able to give advice on this. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 12:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried playing with this, but couldn't find a workaround. The issue appears to be based on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Images#Syntax. Width is only recognized with px. Adding the percentage moves the specified width to the alt tag, so this is intensional code on the back end as [[File:]] and [[Image:]] are processed. The only way to do this would be to somehow retrieve the image without using those standard methods. If someone can find that, I'm willing to work on a template that would use the alternate approach. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a request made about this 2 years ago mw:Extension_requests#Images_or_frames:_percentage_of_browser.2Fscreen_width. This page is about column width code as % of screen size mw:Help:Tables#Column_width. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Doesn't look like it's possible just yet. For now I've switched to putting larger images in a div with overflow:auto, which is a bit more clunky than an image width as percent, but at least all the content is still viewable on different sized screens by scrolling instead of the overflow being hidden. Bron766 (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

What if the code from the column width or div related markup could be inserted into a template for images? But there's the possibility that it could cut the image instead of auto-scaling it. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We need an alternative for the image retrieval itself that either modifies or replaces [[File:]] or [[Image:]]. If we have a different way to retrieve images, sizing them won't be a problem. The current retrieval methods override the size inside the object tag itself. Nothing can we do from a template alone would change the the current rendering. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Vote to save Wikiversity at Wikimedia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Move_betawikiversity_and_oldwikisource_to_Incubator

- Sidelight12 ^Talk 14:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This suggestion here is biased canvassing. Wikiversity is not in danger. The proposal is about *betawikiversity* and *oldwikisource,* not "Wikiversity." I have no opinion on that proposal at this point. Yes, calling attention to the discussion is proper, but must be done in a neutral way, not soliciting a vote.

Some commentators don't seem to understand the difference between Wikiversity and betawikiversity. Here is Recent Changes for 30 days on Beta: [2]. That does not show deleted pages. There were many more edits where apparent spam pages were deleted. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Notifications

Notifications inform you of new activity that affects you -- and let you take quick action.

(This message is in English, please translate as needed)

Greetings!

Notifications will inform users about new activity that affects them on this wiki in a unified way: for example, this new tool will let you know when you have new talk page messages, edit reverts, mentions or links -- and is designed to augment (rather than replace) the watchlist. The Wikimedia Foundation's editor engagement team developed this tool (code-named 'Echo') earlier this year, to help users contribute more productively to MediaWiki projects.

We're now getting ready to bring Notifications to almost all other Wikimedia sites, and are aiming for a 22 October deployment, as outlined in this release plan. It is important that notifications is translated for all of the languages we serve.

There are three major points of translation needed to be either done or checked:

• Echo on translatewiki for user interface - you must have an account on translatewiki to translate
• Thanks on translatewiki for user interface - you must have an account on translatewiki to translate
• Notifications help on mediawiki.org. This page can be hosted after translation on mediawiki.org or we can localize it to this Wikipedia. You do not have to have an account to translate on mediawiki, but single-user login will create it for you there if you follow the link.

• Checklist

Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or comments about this new tool. For more information, visit this project hub and this help page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(via the Global message delivery system) (wrong page? You can fix it.)

EduWiki Conference 2013 - invitation to attend

Hi All,

Wikimedia UK's second annual EduWiki conference will take place in Cardiff, UK on 1 and 2 November 2013. The registration is open (link on the event page), so anyone interested to attend is welcome to book in October.

Queries about the conference or any other aspect of Wikimedia UK's Education activities can be sent directly to WMUK's Education Organiser toni.sant@wikimedia.org.uk

Many thanks, Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Speak up about the trademark registration of the Community logo.

Hi all,

Please join the consultation about the Community logo that represents Meta-Wiki: m:Community Logo/Request for consultation.

This community consultation was commenced on September 24. The following day, two individuals filed a legal opposition against the registration of the Community logo.

The question is whether the Wikimedia Foundation should seek a collective membership mark with respect to this logo or abandon its registration and protection of the trademark.

We want to make sure that everyone get a chance to speak up so that we can get clear direction from the community. We would therefore really appreciate the community's help in translating this announcement from English so that everyone is able to understand it.

Thanks, Geoff & Yana 20:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

absence of educational patterns in the course list

A good univeristy catalogue has the virtue of showing the shape of one or more patterns of education. The alphabetical course list does not do this. And so for people seeking an education gives them no idea of the pattern or patterns of education they might usefully follow. using the courses listed. --76.109.164.42 (discuss) 04:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably more useful to refer to the different Schools for patterns of education to follow rather than the overall course listing. This would be similar to referring to program listings in a college catalog as opposed to the alphabetical course listing in the back. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• So something is missing from Wikiversity. So new? We don't have a shortage of ideas about what is wrong or what is missing, but a shortage of people with the skills and intention to supply what is missing. Wikiversity is a farrago of different approaches. Different courses offer different approaches. The people who were most interested in creating a university-like stucture are mostly gone. At least one is indefinitely blocked, because he was so disgusted at outside interference here, and local support for that, as he saw it, that he couldn't -- or wouldn't -- get over it. Others simply gave up, faced with the community reality, which is that mostly there isn't community. There are, with a few exceptions, many individuals pursuing independent work.
• Some courses here are actually courses at brick-and-mortar institutions. Others only exist here. Many resources have been abandoned in mid-stream. Mostly, Wikiversity is not for people looking for education who are passive about it, i.e., who expect to be spoon-fed. But sometimes it is! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2013

This Month in GLAM – Volume III, Issue IX, September 2013 Headlines Belgium report: Europeana Fashion Fashion edit-a-thon; Wiki Loves Monuments France report: Aerial pictures of Versailles; In Brief Germany report: Reaching out for new partners India report: Wiki Loves Monuments in India Italy report: Italian Wikipedia takes libraries Mexico report: Wiki Loves Monuments 2013; edit-a-thon in La Merced historical neighborhood Netherlands report: Wiki Loves Monuments; ECNC photo competition; Europeana Fashion Edit-a-thon Antwerp; Fourth Dutch Wikipedian in Residence; Wiki loves libraries workshop; 10 years of CC licenses Spain report: Amical projects: Catalan Culture; Wiki Loves Monuments Sweden report: Sign language and case studies Switzerland report: New cooperation with Botanical Garden; History of Alps update; OpenGLAM workshop at OKCon UK report: The Morning After the Month Before USA report: Wikipedia at the Metropolitan New York Library Council in New York Wiki Loves Monuments report: The world's largest photography contest has struck again, but missed many countries Open Access report: Thanks, OKCon, featured content, stats and a final Calendar: October'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 07:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014

Wikimania in 2014 will be held in London, UK, one of the program strands will be the impact that web based participants, material and organisations have and will have on educational practise and experience in future. As the wikimedia foundation's open learning project those here at wikiversity are most versed of our community in this area and can I ask those interested to provide insights and suggestions for this strand at Talk:Outreach/Education_Reformers.--KTo288 (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fasten deletion request

See prior Colloquium discussion here and on User talk:Fasten. Fasten began creating the resources in question in 2007. In April, 2012, he put up an "absent" template on his user page. However, as his contributions show, he continued to edit extensively. He added a new link to his user page on July 28, 2013.

Then, two days later, with no apparent immediate cause or explanation, he began to massively tag pages he had created, with speedy deletion templates, "deletion requested by author." These are normally respected. There are exceptions. However, Fasten may have believed that the request would be enough, and it appears that his desire is to not participate here any more. That was visible back in April, 2012, actually.

The tagging was noticed, see the prior Colloquium discussion. A user, from that brief discussion, concluded that consensus was to keep the resources, and so this user removed all the speedy deletion tags -- a big job!. When I saw this, I concluded that it was also important to respect the user's request, which requires a consideration of deletion. It's not enough that one or two people think the resources are "good."

Please see Category:Fasten deletion request and the discussion on the attached Talk page. My current intention is to, after a decent pause for study, file a deletion request on Fasten's behalf, which is the place for an actual deletion consideration to take place, by our policy.

I have not concluded that deletion is appropriate, nor, of course, the reverse.

Some of the pages are only stubs or poorly developed, some are possibly good or excellent, and one resource is in Category:Featured resources, but without someone involved with the education of teachers to assess them, quality may be in appearance only, and without a participant taking active responsibility for the pages, maintaining quality may be an issue.

If we have some preliminary sense of the considerations, the RFD itself will be less knee-jerk and more based on fact. There is no rush. As can be seen on the Fasten talk page, linked above, I emailed Fasten. He still wishes the pages deleted.

All the discussions on this topic will be referenced in the RFD, and those who have commented will be notified if the RFD is filed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If the contributor has strong desire to delete it for whatever reason, or if it causes harm, then it should be deleted. I don't suspect either is the case. Whether some material is useful can be discussed. The featured content shouldn't be deleted, because it doesn't match the reason given, that no interest was taken in it. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no claim of harm. However, it can occur that an open claim of harm can cause harm by calling attention to a situation.

"Strong desire" is not an element in our policy. However, the user spent about three hours tagging all the pages with a speedy deletion template, which does indicate a level of motivation. I emailed the user, see Fasten emailed for my report. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep it, unless Fasten comes here himself and posts that this (un-featured content) must absolutely be deleted. If this happens, I will support his wishes, with the exception of featured content. For featured content to be deleted, a good reason must be made by Fasten for me to support that. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is not the page on which to make a delete/keep decision. Rather, here, I'm soliciting broader attention to the resource. On the on hand, one of the pages proposed for deletion by the author is a featured resource: Assistant teacher course. However, the author considered the resource less than half complete, and actually and explicitly abandoned it, for the most part, in 2008. See some of the history on Category talk:Fasten deletion request. The resource looks very good from the top level; the author, however, was clearly disappointed that nobody assisted him. Nobody else was willing to take responsibility for this course. Do we have a pile of frosting with no cake? I'm soliciting educator input, in particular.
• "Featured resource" may mean less than some might think. I"ve looked. There was no featured resource process to speak of, and I saw no discussion. The last time Template:Featured Content/Nav, which controls the display of Featured content on the main page, was updated, was in August, 2008.
• 17 July 2008. Course added to Nav so that it appears on main page in the rotated featured content display.
• 5 Aug 2008, Fasten adds umaintained tag to Assistant teacher course.
• 10 Sept 2008 Fasten removes unmaintained tag
• 29 September 2008‎ Featured template added to course
• 5 October 2008 Fasten returnes unmaintaiined tag to course.
• So for six years we have had a featured resource that was never considered more than half complete by the author, that had been explicitly abandoned by the author, who was persuaded to withdraw a 2008 deletion request, which was snowing keep anyway, by an apparent hope that others would help work on it, which never materialized.

And that's just what's so. It looks good. It should. Fasten worked long and hard, but never completed it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: October 2013

This Month in Education – Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2013 Headlines Students to Uganda, Swedish for Immigrants, university staff and researchers and a group of principals Connect with others using Wikipedia in education – invitation to EduWiki Conference 2013 Two project starts in October for Tec de Monterrey, Mexico City campus WikiProject Open launches on English Wikipedia Demystifying Wikipedia at Singapore Management University Provide feedback on Welcome to Wikipedia brochure 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 · Distributed via Global message delivery, 19:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

--Sumanbm ibm (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC) What is meanbyColloquium

Is this a NPOV free zone?

I am totally new to wikiversity despite have been an editor on Wikipedia for many years. Hence it is not surprising that I don't quite get Wikiversity. My first edit on What is God deleted a bit that was to me clearly POV. Okay, I now appreciate that Wikiversity does not strictly keep to NPOV principles. However, that article has a very narrow view of God is written as if this was the only possible truth. It makes claims that are impossible to verify such as 'Many if not all of the world's great religions have arisen around the teachings of mystics (including Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tze, and Krishna)'. None of these have accounts of there lives that are independent and claim that Jesus was a mystic would be controversial among Christians. It is a statement based simply on faith. If that article fits within wikiversity principles then it seems to be very much anything goes. How can disagreements be resolved. Is it intended that there will eventually be as many 'What is God' pages as points of view? This is not just a matter of Christian and Buddhist etc. There are multiple Christian and Buddhist answers to that question. There is just a atheist answer to that question there are are multiple atheist answers to that question. If everyone is free to answer the question in their own way then I wonder if that freedom is workable only to the extent that few have taken up that freedom.Dejvid (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Great question, Dejvid. Strictly speaking, we don't have "articles" here, we have "learning resources." Learning resources can express a point of view. However, we do have, like all WMF wikis, an overall neutrality policy. So the real issue here, with What is God is how what is obviously a personal essay is being presented. As a quick fix, when I saw your edit, I tagged the page as an essay. However, we can do better than that. The problem exists at God, which then links to this page as if it were a subpage. The entire God resource has been organized by the same user, building on what was only a stub, and giving his rather personal point of view. He may think of that point of view as "universal," but it isn't.
• There are many ways to handle the issue, but I just did the quick fix to address that one point. This page does not belong in mainspace at the top level. The solution is not to edit the essay, per se, but to frame it and place it appropriately. If it is purely personal, it would go into the user's space. However, the user is attempting something more general than that, and the essay can be used to stimulate thought on the issue. The God resource has been organized by this same user, all the substantive content there is from him. Hence I will consider this as part of a "seminar on God," and will organize it accordingly in the next few minutes. This will require a lot of page moves.... Basically, we may have ideas about how Wikiversity could or should be organized, but few participants who will actually do the work. Nobody was watching when the user took over that page and created a pile of linked pages. Once upon a time, I'd have been on this immediately, because when I was a sysop here, I watched all Recent Changes, and acted to organize. Not to exclude or delete, just to organize. Usually, the users welcomed this, because it made their content safe from deletion or revert warring. I'll come back, reporting on what I did, for review. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Done -- at least as a first pass. See God, which I reverted to the old state, before Nils edited it, and I added an Essay section, and linked Nils' essay from it, and moved all the other essays, to subpages. I make mistakes, so if anyone checks my work, it will be appreciated. Dejvid, what do you think? See, if we tried to enforce an NPOV policy here, and within the Wikipedia concepts of avoiding forks and not allowing subpages in mainspace, we'd have endless administrative hassles. Any user here can organize resources, and if it is done with respect, i.e., if the organization is neutral, it usually does not create conflict. The existence of his essay on God may stimulate others to write. Ultimately someone may develop the top-level resource, and I would insist that it remain rigorously neutral and, yes, expressed with NPOV, but it may still contain attributed opinion. We do not have a notability policy, per se, but we also do not want to allow misrepresentation. A page full of one person's opinion or the opinions of some faction could be out of balance and could misrepresent the overall state of knowledge on a subject. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the other important differences between Wikipedia and Wikiversity is that Wikipedia's purpose is the content. Wikiversity's mission is the creation and use of both learning materials and activities for all age groups and learning levels. In that regard, it may not be the content itself that is particularly educational, but the activities necessary to create and manage that content. A primary school student may not produce a stellar learning resource, but the effort necessary to write, publish, and perhaps defend that work would be a tremendous learning experience.

I agree with Abd's approach that it is more important for us to focus on organizing and classifying content than it is to be in a hurry to prune or delete it. A truly educational environment fares better from multiple points of view rather than a single neutral perspective. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. Thanks, Dave. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Glimmerguard, User:Shadowjack

• For substantial periods of time, nobody has paid attention to the creation of what are really user essays in mainspace. Shadowjack/Glimmerguard has created many of these. Today I began moving them into user space. Some of these might be usable in some resource or other, but they would need to be placed in context of a learning resource. While they might have some value for someone, somewhere, they are highly idiosyncratic and would ordinarily have been deleted at various times in our history. It's simpler and less disruptive to move them into user space and to encourage the user to develop his or her writing there, and to cooperate with other users if it is is wished to establish them as educational resources. I did attempt to communicate with this user, who also has used his or her talk page to draft articles: [3] and [4].
• I'm noting this here because it is related to the question asked today, and because I'm doing something unilaterally to avoid conflict. Were these pages in mainspace, I and others might want to delete them, and if that is opposed, then WV:RFD would be necessary, which wastes time and creates work for custodians. These essays could possibly be, in some cases, subpages of a useful educational resource, but it's not at all obvious what that would be. So in user space, the user can develop them and, in time, some use might appear. Meanwhile, they do no harm in user space. I have often suggested to, instead of going to RFD for inappropriate content, just move it to user space, where that is appropriate. If the user or someone else moves it back, or if there is some actual harm, then maybe RFD might be needed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Workflow for Students Bringing Materials

Hello,
I'm a university student. Over 10000 students in my university produce a huge amount of material: Lecture notes, assignments, homework, presentations, slides, articles, etc. Some material gets uploaded to a central website, but most of it never reaches public usage. I had an idea: Create a platform where people can upload content, even scanned papers containing lecture notes. Then people can edit the content, translate it, digitize scanned text, etc. and produce high quality material suitable for publishing as free knowledge, allowing one to educated herself without paying way-too-much money to a university.
Then I found Wikiversity. It seems to be a great place to upload the content. But is it suitable for the whole workflow I described? I need a place to hold raw material, work-in-progress files and ready organized material. Can such a workflow work with Wikiversity? If not, which tools can I use? I don't have time or money currently to develop my own web app for that, maintain my own server, etc. so I'm looking for a solution which reuses existing tools and platforms. Then I was try to get students to upload their content, and the creative process will begin :-)
(Preferably, but still extra, there should be a way to upload content privately. Then someone can upload assignments/exams which aren't necessarily supposed to be shared freely, and not be worried about the university expelling them. This way the work of translating and editing these materials can be shared too.)

--Fr33domlover fw (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues and opportunities with your proposal. Most important is content ownership. See Wikimedia Terms of Use. The assignments, slides, and articles are very likely to be copyright-protected. Your instructors could post the content they developed and own, but students could not directly post content received from their instructors without permission. The second issue is content format. Wikiversity works well for text-based content. It is less convenient for images and scanned content. It still works, but it requires much more effort to publish, and much more detailed explanations of content ownership and release.

The opportunities are here for you and your classmates to use Wikiversity as a lecture notes repository and shared study area. Depending on the subjects involved, there may be others here who are willing to assist in developing and organizing this content. In some cases, it may even be possible to convince your professors to join in the effort. The advantages of shared educational resources aren't limited to the student perspective.

Privacy isn't an option here. If someone is worried about the university expelling them for sharing content, that's a clear indication that the content is neither free nor open, and shouldn't be shared regardless of the technology options available.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Investigación Universitaria en Panamá

Las universidades públicas y privadas después del proceso de acreditación tienen un compromiso, fortalecer la investigación universitaria y que los resultados de las mismas sean parte de la solución de múltiples problemas sociales que tenemos actualmente en nuestro país. Sin embargo, la realidad es otra, las universidades que son las generadoras de conocimiento, por cantidad de docentes altamente calificados, tienen una deuda con el país y esta es la transferencia de conocimiento, a través de los resultados de investigación de impacto. Las universidades públicas en nuestro país producen algo de investigación, sin embargo no se perciben los resultados, que muchas de la investigaciones son parte de un compromiso con la institución como docente, no como una vocación. - posted by AidaLuz30 (discuss • contribs)

Google Translate translation: University Research in Panama - The public and private universities after the accreditation process are committed to strengthen university research and the results thereof are part of the solution of many social problems we have today in our country. However, the reality is different, universities that are the generators of knowledge, many highly qualified teachers, owe a debt to the country and this is the transfer of knowledge through research results impact. Public universities in our country produced some research, however the results are not seen that many of the investigations are part of a commitment to the institution as a teacher, not a vocation.

The Wikiversity Colloquium is for questions, comments and suggestions about Wikiversity. You are welcome to create a learning project for University Research in Panama, or consider posting at Wikiversidad en Español if that is your preferred language. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary character changes

Hi!

While recently editing some resources, the monitoring computer has been displaying various keyboard options at the lower right of the editing window. In and of itself this has not been a problem, but in the last few days the appearance and disappearance of various choices results in the computer monitoring my edits to change some of my entries on its own. Sometimes "=" is changed to a small integral sign, as have s's been changed to this and other characters.

My browser is older so perhaps an update has occurred that now let's the local computer monitor here change these characters as it chooses, without any input from me. Am I supposed to make a choice in some way at the beginning of each edit or for the session in general each day?

Another question: at the top of each page we have a Notification option which let's us know of one, but how do I send one if I wish to thank an editor of an edit? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the keyboard issue, but on my screen there is an option at the bottom of the keyboard list to Disable input tools. You might try that if it's giving you problems. See Echo (Notifications) for more information on the notifications tool. Thank now appears as a link in the page history. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Disabling works! Thanks! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Using Wikiversity to advertise payment-required education?

Today I noticed a signup for United States History, and became curious how User:MrABlair23 was handling this, because I noticed that the course page was just an outline without links to course material. What I found was that when users signed up for the course, they eventually got a notice from the teacher, this was one of them.

...each lesson is $5 and you have the option of paying daily, weekly, or the whole course up front. In order to come to these classes, you must be a member of WiZiQ. If you are interested in any other courses, please take a look at my website: http://www.mrblair.co.cc/ ....

WiZiQ is a training site that may require a registration fee.[5]. The website linked is blank. MrABlair has not been active since June, 2012. I remember his creating the courses in 2011, but the for-pay aspect did not appear until after people signed up and he told them on their talk pages. This was the his last set of edits here: July 2012.

So we have a number of courses with practically no content, that were put up as advertisement for a course elsewhere.

• United States History
• Speak Math Now!
• Human Legacy Course
• The Language of Algebra

Remarkably, MrABlair had created, for the Human Legacy Course, a series of subpages with course content. He had blanked these and removed links to them from the course. Sidelight12 caught this and added the links. These could be better integrated with the course page, but at least they are there! It looks like MrABlair started out with a course here, then decided to shift it all elsewhere, perhaps where he could be paid.

People are still signing up for these courses, but MrABlair is no longer responding. I'll fix this, it's a piece of work, but I first wanted to get some community comment on the practice of using Wikiversity to advertise an off-wiki course that is for payment. There is at least one situation where something that could have been like this seemed to me to be more-or-less okay, but the way in which the course is set up, with solicitation of sign-up in mainspace, where students expect a free course, seems deceptive. I'll add that nobody told MrABlair not to do this, and nobody stopped or warned him when he was informing students of the fees and off-wiki site

• Had MrABlair announced the course procedure on the course pages, there would have been no deception, but, then again, it would quickly have been noticed and probably stopped. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems contrary to the Wikiversity mission of creating and hosting free content. It also violates the spirit and language of the proposed external links policy. I personally would recommend an indefinite block on MrABlair and edits to the associated courses to remove the solicitations. We should probably also search for similar language in other courses and see if similar tactics are in use. Perhaps we need to develop a Wikiversity:Solicitation or more properly Wikiversity:No Solicitation policy. Let us know what you want help with. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There are similar courses using a signup process and Engrade:

• United States Government
• World History

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I do not recommend a block, it would be punitive, not preventative. However, MrABlair should be warned on his user page, and email should be sent. There is some cleanup to do, and he should be at least invited to do some of it. I won't get to it myself until this weekend. There is valuable course material there, that MrABlair contributed. United States History is, if nothing else, a list of topics in U.S. History that could be used to develop a course. At this point I urge some thought about how to handle this. There is no emergency, the situation has been sitting for more than a year. The external links are on user talk pages, the ones I've seen so far. Removing those would be dicey. Yes, we should develop a workable policy. The basic problem here, though, is that nobody was watching. There were some warning signs, but ... we were all too busy with something else, and we don't have assigned responsibilities. It's a wiki problem.
• I don't see any signup on World History. But it's also an abandoned course, with people still signing up.
• United States Government is another MrABlair course, I'd meant to include it but somehow skipped it. It also involves, from the Talk page messages, WiZiQ signup.
• Basically, we have situations -- I don't think these are the only ones -- where there is an initially committed instructor, a signup process, the instructor is gone, and nobody is paying attention. Some of these situations have been visible and nobody did anything. Not good. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Pending Deletions

I just came across the category Pending deletions and noticed that we have 961 files with incomplete copyright or license information that are pending deletion. The backlog on processing these files appears to go back two years or more. In most cases, it appears that the user who uploaded the file has already been notified that copyright information is needed or the file may be deleted seven days after notification. There's a lot of content here, but I can't think of any legitimate way to salvage it without more information from the user who uploaded the file. Does anyone have any suggestions for addressing this content? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! There's a lot of them. I looked at File:1.PNG, the first one. It contains several derivative calculus formulas that are at least a century old and not copyrightable. It looks like a problem set from a calculus course. The most likely problem would be if it is a screenshot from a textbook which I doubt. No course is linked to the file. User:Egm.4313.s12.team2.bblackwell also created File:2.PNG, File:3.PNG, File:2.7 Wiki2.pdf, and File:R3blackwell.pdf. The last appears to be handwritten notes (almost illegible) regarding linear differential equations. This file has been placed into the PUBLIC DOMAIN by this user and been nominated to be copied to commons. File:2.7 Wiki2.pdf is an answer set for File:1.PNG and is linked to the user page. None of the information contained on these pages is copyrightable. At the bottom of the user page is "This page was last modified on 7 February 2012, at 23:08." The same or similar information is in the Wikipedia entry on Taylor series of which Maclaurin series are a special case. The ones without copyright information could be attached to an already existing course or deleted as what they may be: homework assignments. The course is "EGM 4313 Intermediate Engineering Analysis, Spring 2012" under User:Egm4313.s12, hosted at https://sites.google.com/site/egm4313s12/home. The course is offered by Prof. Loc Vu-Quoc, University of Florida. He's using Wikiversity (User space) as a whiteboard and homework tool. Using "File:4313" as a search brings up 37 files. I believe the only files here that are copyrightable or that have a copyright are those with mistakes. The rest are public domain whether the creator likes it or not. My suggestion is to put them all in PD and link them to Ordinary differential equations which is a course. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:10.jpg is a self cartoon of Vivivan92 and File:Vi22.jpg is her picture. Delete them. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:11.jpeg is a figure for the course Psycholinguistics and probably not copyrightable as translations, but the figure presentation may be. This user Minsun created nine files: File:China123.jpg, File:Tuxiongbixian.jpg, File:Brain1.jpg, File:English.jpeg, File:Chinese.jpeg, File:Four.jpeg, File:Three.jpeg, File:Two.jpeg, and File:11.jpeg. The last four are translations. These may be abandoned contributions according to the user page. The others are artwork for which the user probably owns the copyright. If we keep them we run the risk the user returns and demands payment or a takedown. In international waters, salvage rights apply where all of these become the property of the salvager. As all are voluntarily left here my suggestion is to put them under Fair Use and link them to the course. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

All nine of the files contributed by user Seand23 appear to be copyrighted but may be kept by Fair use in my opinion, if anyone wants to keep them here. Otherwise delete all nine. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeking Endorsements for Patterns of Peeragogy

Hello Wikiversitians!

I am working with other Wikimediaians on a Individual Engagement Grant about our directly using our Peer Learning handbook (read online at peeragogy.org or download the PDF latest version) to improve Wikimedia projects by better understanding how peers work together to produce knowledge! See our description below:

"Peeragogy is a framework of techniques for peer learning and peer production. As pedagogy theoretically articulates the transmission of knowledge from teachers to students, peeragogy describes the way peers produce and utilize knowledge together. We have been working together as a volunteer team since January, 2012 to build a public domain Peeragogy Handbook that communicates practical strategies for successful collaboration, learning, and adaptation. We see Wikimedia as a living case study in peeragogy. In the six-month project we propose, we would use peeragogical methods to enhance Wikimedia as a peer-learning platform."

If you believe this will improve Wikiversity and all Wikimedia projects as places for peers to come together and learn and improve the world's knowledge base, please endorse our project!

--Charles Jeffrey Danoff (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)