User talk:JWSchmidt/September 2006 discussions

Note: this is an archive of old discussions. Please do not edit this page. Continue these discussions at User talk:JWSchmidt. There are other archives at User talk:JWSchmidt/Discussion archive.

Thanks...
...for the welcome! Mr Music play a note

Double redirects
Wow, Wikiversity had a lot of Double redirects! But there all fixed now.--Az1568 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity translations
No, too bad I can't write in anything besides American. Me no evan write good in English. :) (Remember the screensaver project!)--Rayc 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Marine Sciences
" "Perhaps rename 'Life Sciences' 'Life, Environmental and Health Sciences' - that way Marine Sciences could be moved into this portal, and Environmental (& Earth?) Sciences could be under this and the Physical Sciences portal?" <-- in the old system "Oceanography" was within the "Life Sciences". I like the new system with School of Marine Sciences organized under Interdisciplinary Studies. As far as what to call the large Wikiversity divisions such as "Interdisciplinary Studies", it has been suggested that we can call them "Faculties". I prefer to just say, "The School of Marine Sciences is part of Interdisciplinary Studies." I suggest that we leave "Life Sciences" as it is, category containing Wikiversity schools that are concerned with the study of living organisms. --JWSchmidt 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)"

Fair point, I agree. 'Faculty' is a better name than 'Portal' as well. Jimbobalina2005 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming Service(s) pages
Hi JW, FYI: A discussion has started at Wikiversity talk:Service about if and how to more appropriately name the Service, Services, and Service community pages. --Reswik 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandal sock
User:RadioKirk has returned as User:Radio Kirk - Trevor MacInnis 03:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Username
Well, I use exactly the same username in English Wikipedia, English Wikibooks (where I am even one of the sysops), German Wikipedia, and many other Latin Wikipedias, and all the other Wikimedia projects I'm involved with, and I still haven't got any complains. What if Wikiversity was a multilingual project like Commons or Wikispecies? I really don't see what's the problem all about - my signature is quite Anglicized enough. --George D. Bozovic talk 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

main page question
"provides various communication media"What are these "various communication media"? --JWSchmidt 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, it seems quite limiting to state that Wikiversity is a website on the main page and other prominent pages. Wikiversity is a multidimensional social organization dedicated to learning, teaching, and probably research and services. Hence, Wikiversity is part network, part circle of communities (including an editor community and various learning communities), part collection of learning groups using various learning projects and more. To say that Wikiversity is a website is like saying that a university is a collection of buildings. But, even that "technological" description is not accurate as Wikiversity users work through other media and forums and may increasingly do so.
 * Regarding your question - Though Wikiversity is new, there are a variety of communication media and forums:
 * actual media and forums: listserv, irc, wikiversity website, pre-wikimania conferences (programming and a possible social science research pre-meeting conference mentioned at Wikimania 2006)
 * possible media and forums: email circles, class listservs, meetups, seminars, online conferences (perhaps through wikimedia website - perhaps elsewhere - mentioned as possibility at Wikimania 2006), various other online and offline media (newsgroups, blogs/blikis, offline hard/digital copies of learning materials and tools for use in needy communities).
 * Note: The "Ways to Communicate" subsection of the community portal, Community_Portal, lists some ways to communicate and probably will list more over time. It seems to me that media and forums on and offline will only expand as Wikiversity grows.
 * The seeds of these communication and meeting options could be edited and moved to a relevant discussion page that addresses types of communication and community forums. Wherever the statement is made that "Wikiversity is a website," I hope this is edited soon to reflect the idea that Wikiversity uses various communication media and that these and the variety forums for learning may grow over time. -- Reswik 02:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If we need to mention things like chat channels and Wikiversity as a multidimensional social organization we can do so without turning a factually correct sentence into a factually incorrect sentence. Wikiversity participants make use of a mailing list, an IRC chat channel and will no doubt have meetups. It is wrong to say that Wikiversity provides such communication media. In contrast, if you remove the website then all that is left of Wikiversity is an idea. The sentence, "Wikiversity provides various communication media and a wiki website where anyone can edit the pages," is factually wrong and misleading. Saying "Wikiversity is a website" in no way contradicts or deminishes the idea that "Wikiversity is a multidimensional social organization dedicated to learning, teaching, and probably research and services". Many people come to Wikiversity and do not understand that it is a wiki website, what a wiki is, or the fundamental idea that they can edit the pages. The desite to mention other aspects of Wikiversity is not a good reason reason to take the one sentence on the main page that mentions the essential facts about editing the wiki and change it to a sentence that is wrong and distracts readers from the points that the sentence is trying to make. --JWSchmidt 04:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stating that a main medium of collaborative learning and teaching in Wikiversity is by using a wiki is a good point to feature. However, we have a significant difference of opinion. This is an important issue. The statement that Wikiversity is a website was actually factually incorrect. What I edited was more correct. The contention of that "Wikiversity is a website" should not be in what is an edited version of a mission statement at the top of the main page. The Wikimedia foundation and hence the Wikiversity organizational entity does provide a listserv.  Wikimedia does provide Wikimania -- an in-person media/forum.  Irc and listervers are noted as ways to participate on front page and community portal (hence the link there). Other media will be provided. This difference of opinion needs to be discussed further. I see you edited the main page statement. That moves towards describing Wikiversity as using wiki as a major process without using the limiting statement that it is a website. I think we need to further revise how we describe the vision, mission and practices of Wikiversity and part of that effort is underway on the Mission page. -- Reswik 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ps. By the way, I added these sentences to the top of the What is Wikiversity? page weeks ago because I didn't think the use of wiki was well explicated there: "The basic definition of a wiki is software that allows collaborative creation of online documents. Wikiversity combines wiki technology and culture with a variety of learning communities and projects." I think those sentences could be refined. So, I obviously do agree that we need to explain the use and importance wiki. But, it is an error in classification to say that an online "university" (or learning organization) is a website. Wikiversity provides and uses a website and various other online and offline media. This is an important distinction. It is an online community/network/learning organization (or network). More work needs to go into defining collectively that Wikiversity is a social organization for learning & teaching which uses online media, and wiki technology and culture primarily, at this point. Reswik 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with what is said at the Wikipedia page of Wikipedia. We could change the word "Wikipedia" to "Wikiversity" and say, "Wikiversity is a Web-based free-content multilingual project devoted to education. It exists as a wiki, a website that allows any visitor to freely edit its content." The Wikiversity main page should clearly communicate these facts to new visitors. --JWSchmidt 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Idea
Hi,

I wanted to ask your opinion on this idea for School:Medicine. Would it be wise, in your opinion, to start with a section on Clinical Cases? It could be a place for people to test their knowledge and go looking for answers, e.g. on Wikipedia. Of course, it would be nicer to have more interactive features, like the ones you get when taking interactive courses for CME credit, but I'm not a programmer.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
The critical detail would be to get enough people interested in the discussion to be willing to contribute to it. I still think it is a good idea, as philosophical subjects are best taught in a dialogue format, not in textbook learning or lecture. Karimarie 17:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that there is no precedent for anything like this in Wikiversity (or any other Wikimedia wiki, for that matter) to have a discussion about a subject rather than how to represent a subject. Your suggestion of linking from Wikipedia articles is a good one, and would certainly help to build awareness and interest. Karimarie 18:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bureaucrat action required
Sorry for not being to hand in time, John. I'm actually back home now, but still in the midst of a bit of chaos until early next week. I'll be back in action then... Cormaggio 14:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment period
I saw, thanks :). I'm not supposed to comment there, am I? --SB_Johnny | talk 01:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Locked vs. Blocked

 * Before
 * I wish to see the source of http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Introduction. Other pages such as the Main Page for Wikiversity are LOCKED but allow you to look at the source (see bottom of this Edit Page for the Main Page.)  The Wikiveristy Intro page should also be LOCKED and the source visible just like the MAIN page. Please change the Edit of the Intro Page so it is LOCKED but the source is visible.Robert Elliott 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * After
 * Now I can see it. (For some reason, I could not see the template source before.) Thanks!!!! Robert Elliott 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * New Question
 * I see from the source of the Intro page that it was coded using a page layout program. I am currentlly coding everything by hand.  Creating a page like the Intro page would be impossible by hand (at least for me.)  What program was used to layout the Intro Page?  Robert Elliott 18:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)