User talk:Imageofreality

 Hello Imageofreality, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I saw your question on the Colloquium talk page. First point: it is quite helpful if you can finish a posting with four tildes ( ~ ) as this automatically generates a signature and date stamp. Second as regards your question, at the top of the page you will find a series of tabs: It is here that the talk pages are linked to the resource pages. Click the tab and you're there. One of the interesting features of wikiversity is that it does not use a hierachical filing system. users link pages together in a variety of ways. If there is a category page at the bottom of the article you can click on this to see other items so categorised. I agree, I think it would be useful to have more facilities for those just starting out using a wiki like wikiversity.Leutha 12:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your reply. I forgot the tildes. I get the bit about if you are on a talk page you can find the article or resource from there..that was what I was trying to say in the colloquium. The difficulty I had was with finding the resource in the first place ( I came across it by chance )- the point I was trying to make was that I could only find the resource again by finding my own contribution to its talk page. If I had not made a contribution I would not have been able to find it again. If the position of the resource was shown in the context of the site using the "folder a/folder b/ etc/ what you are looking at is here" method which websites usually use, then one would at least have a visual cue as to find the resource again. This method is universally used within computers, the internet, and dusty old filing cabinets in things called libraries because it works. If it exists at wikiversity, it is not clear from the menu on the left. As for users linking pages together in a variety of ways...that sounds a bit random. If information is to be communicated then any potential barriers should be removed whether its exclusive jargon or arcane modes of site navigation. My first impression as a visitor here was that navigation is non-intuitive..starting with the menu on the left. I am concerned that many websites become ghettoised, populated by citizens who devise their own language and modes of operation that act as a barrier to those unfamiliar with the site. Wikipedia and maybe wikiversity have a bizarre amount of techno babble and jargon foisted on anyone using them..which is great for the experts but a clear path for the novice should remain.Imageofreality 15:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, navigation and finding things are non-intuitive. I agree that linking pages together in a variety of ways sounds random. I too am concerned by the barrier to entry for people unfamiliar with the site. Do you have any suggestions how we might address these problems? -- dark lama  15:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head...what about a library model? A list of subjects sub-divided as necessary. In UK libraries (probably world wide also) each subject has a number. A menu could be presented that lists all the subjects on the left, each subject could be expanded to show its sub-divisions. The current menu giving options such as "Main Page, Browse, Recent Changes" etc is not much help...if I were to walk into a university to immediately acquire specific information in its library I would not want to have to go through a guided tour or read brochures first. When a resource is submitted to wikiversity the author or editors could classify it. It could be tagged with relevant data such as its educational level also ( I presume articles already are ) so any subject could be broken down further to a particular level or grade.


 * Wikipedia and its offspring (?) Wikiversity seem to have acquired some etymological tics as a result of being based in the world of IT. On first glance it is not even clear what a talk page is about...sure it soon becomes apparent that it is a parallel wiki-verse to discuss the article it is attached to...but why not give things a descriptive name that make it clear what they are? "Talk" is an abrupt-non-sequiteur given that talk pages are not supposed to be any old chit chat. Are there any more overheads in calling talk pages "comment on this article" for instance..or an even more relevant title.


 * Back to the menu..things like "Community, Portal" etc etc again feel like heading into the long grass when it comes to finding an article. A "you are here" link at the top of each page showing the position of the page within the site would also help.


 * The current system obviously could still be used, but a simple direct and efficient index a described could be superimposed on top.


 * Any kind of index needs to work without any instruction on its functioning, otherwise it is likely the instructions will need their own menu and so on.


 * Perhaps a system of bookmarks within Wikiversity would be helpful? I don't know how hard that would be to do in practice..it may already exist. I would always suggest to website designers that they get someone who is not that acquainted with computers to use their site, and take notes while the user stumbles and falls at every hurdle...rather than follow exsting modes of design rooted in specialist interest.Imageofreality 16:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You can find resources listed by subject and subdivided at Browse, if you didn't already know. I agree that whatever index is used should ideally work efficiently without any need for instructions on its functioning. I recognize the importance of getting feedback from users. I was actually hoping you were maybe one of those users that had stumbled and fell at every hurdle that could provide Wikiversity with notes on their experiences. I would also love to hear what experiences website designers and developers have gained from building websites aimed at a global audience, and what they have learned does and does not work when it comes to indexing works for a global audience to find. -- dark lama  19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm new to Wikiversity and did indeed stumble at the first hurdle. I since managed to find the page I was looking for using the search box..which hadn't worked for me before..so it's probably fair to say that the error is mine and I wasn't trying hard enough.. I guess the modern indexing method is the search engine....for a technical site like Wikiversity it may be even more useful that the search engine can suggest searches if the user either miss-spells or has a near miss by using a word or phrase related to the one in the searched for document..like Google does. Imageofreality 01:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I must admit I have always found hierarchical categorisation problematic. I try and use navigation bars, such as here and here. These take a bit of time to get the hang of, but I learnt through cutting and pasting from pages I thought were groovy. Portals can be effective if people spend the time on them. What topics are you looking for?Leutha 22:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I consider indexing, classifying, categorizing, and organizing works when the audience is global to be an interesting problem. I have been tempted to gather various essays I have found on the Internet together for analysis at Wikiversity. -- dark lama  15:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Leutha's comment-I take your point about taking time to use a portal. I was not sure what subject heading the page I had been looking under fell under and had hit a couple of blind alleys, and the search box hadn't worked for me. As I mentioned in reply to Darklama above, the mistake was probably mine...though a better search engine might help compensate for similar user error. I had been looking for a page about the relationship between chemistry and consciousness. Thanks for your replies.Imageofreality 01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The realness of information
The writing on your user page is interesting to me in that I have been hung up on an idea that information is reality since I read some odd language from a cosmologist in an old Scientific American. He said that "information is lost at the edges of black holes." I cannot possibly imagine what that means; I would think that matter becomes unrecognizable as it becomes altered by super-real gravity. But it has stuck with me as a relationship between matter and understanding.

The truth is that information is particles and that knowledge constructed from these particles is very close to reality. Further, particles are actually points of energy that live by laws that scale upward to define life, which, for us humans is creation's greatest achievement, with our humanness as life's greatest achievement.

The information the determines what holds together particulate structure is the composition, and hence definition, of the particles themselves (which is energy) just as the information that determines how life is structured--DNA--is a representation of life, and just as with particulate structure, the loss of this information is the dissolution of life's function (which is also energy).

As a consistent result of evolution (humanity is also found in animals along different evolutionary branches) our thoughts are functionally points of energy interacting intelligently in fields using emotional waves that are ultimately governed by the same laws that determine particle interaction (Lewin).--JohnBessatalk 04:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)