Wikiversity:Community Review/Volleyball

I'm going to make an overdue close of this as "moot point" given that most of the pages related to volleyball were long ago moved to draft or deleted. I just removed the remaining mainspace resources that have no educational value. --mikeu talk 15:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this community review is to determine community consensus regarding issues related to the Sport/Volleyball learning project, and the actions of User:Dave Braunschweig and User:Marshallsumter in regard to this project and these users.

Per Community Review Policy, the review is in the form of yes/no questions to be answered by the review.
 * 1) Should collaborative efforts by multiple users to develop an encyclopedia article or book chapter be hosted at Wikiversity?
 * 2) Should solo efforts by an individual user to develop an encyclopedia article or book chapter be redirected to Wikipedia or Wikibooks?
 * 3) Should Wikiversity support global locks / blocks of user accounts?
 * 4) Should Wikiversity custodians and bureaucrats be able to research and publish information regarding deleted Wikiversity pages without first obtaining community support for this research?
 * 5) Should Wikiversity pages be organized by learning project, resembling Wikibooks structure, rather than by individual pages, resembling Wikipedia structure?
 * 6) Should the Template: namespace be reserved for templates that support multiple learning projects?
 * 7) Should involved custodians be restricted from acting unilaterally when there is clear opposition by other involved users and no consensus or support by the community at large?

What is Wikiversity?
Should collaborative efforts by multiple users to develop an encyclopedia article or book chapter be hosted at Wikiversity?

Dave Braunschweig
Wikiversity's mission is to create and host free learning resources and projects. Wikiversity is a community for learning, teaching, researching, and sharing. Collaborative efforts by multiple users to develop learning resources, including encyclopedia articles and books, appear to be within the Wikiversity mission.

Juandev
No, it could be only in the case these efforts are to learn something. In Wikiversity it depends on purpose, not how the project looks like.--Juandev (discuss • andev|contribs) 07:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Atcovi
Of course, I assume what these users were aiming for was to create an extensive book on Volleyball. I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed on WV. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift
I strongly support anything that is not harmful being on Wikiversity. Wikiversity should be able to include books and encyclopedia articles, even on non-academic subjects, since the act of writing is an academic effort. We need to find a way to permit this activity without cluttering up Wikiversity so that visitors are able to find the materials they most likely need. Ways to accomplish this include facilitating transfer to private and public Miraheze wikis, as well as a properly constructed draft space on Wikiversity. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)--revised position --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Justin (koavf)
I don't think this should be hosted here if it could be hosted at or. Some things may not pass muster at and could be hosted here but generally, there is no point in duplicating efforts. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree to Justin's amendment to my answer. No duplicates--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

mikeu
It depends on the specifics, but in general I would say no in most cases. The issues crossover into what I wrote below. If the sole purpose is simply to generate encyclopedia articles than it is duplicating Wikipedia. They have more experience, resources, and a working system for facilitating classroom development of articles. Creating content like Encyclopedia/Astronomy and Encyclopedia/Biology articles is not within our scope. We don't have the freedom to define our mission as "anything that is not harmful." Our mission was already defined for us by the WMF when Wikiversity launched. The phrase "collaborative efforts by multiple users to develop an encyclopedia article" is literally the definition of Wikipedia and therefore a duplication of effort that the foundation sought to avoid. --mikeu talk 01:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd
The form of a question can determine the answer. First of all, "encyclopedia articles." Drafting an article can be a learning process. There was a class which developed a series of "articles" on the topic of 17th century secret or scientific societies, as I recall. These were then transwikied to Wikipedia, and many survived, last I looked.

Wikiversity is, among other things, for "learning by doing," and we don't actually have "articles," though some resources look like articles. (And in that class, the goal was to place them on Wikipedia, so they were written as "articles." But as part of an educational project.

Someone may, in general, create a resource here on any topic where they wish to learn (or educate). That resource does not become like a Wikipedia article, a single "article" with no possible competition. We allow original research (in the Wikipedia meaning), which is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. We may state opinions.

Where there is a topic, and competing ideas of how to express it and study it, we can create attributed subpages, and this avoids conflict, or at least it has in the past. (On Wikipedia, on that same topic, there would have been revert warring and extensive disruption.) A particular resource or set of resources may be a work in progress, and it may include essays which could be like articles. We don't have notability requirements, and arguments over notability and reliable sources and all that are how Wikipedia, rightly or wrongly, became, in places, highly contentious. Until very recently, respect for diversity here resulted in a very quiet project.

Bottom line, a resource should not be deleted merely because it resembles a Wikipedia article. Rather, it should be placed in a context that makes it the work or opinion of a stated user or set of users, that prevents confusion. The authors of resources here on a topic that might be controversial in some way should be shown, as their contribution to a seminar would have their name on it, which is never done with a Wikipedia article. (That is, the person who wrote a section of a Wikipedia article is not mentioned in the article, ever.) Information in Wikipedia articles is presented as if factual, though sometimes it is attributed to a source, often it is merely sourced with a reference note, or sometimes not at all. (And then those who insist that some claim is "verifiable" even if it's cherry-picked revert war with those of different opinions or who merely recognize that while the claim is found in reliable source, it is also controversial and therefore to be verifiable it should be attributed to source, "According to...."

"Collaboration" is a red herring. Whether a resource is allowed here does not depend on the number of scholars involved, and the description of the question and some of the answers could make it appear that if more than one participates, it's an "encyclopedia article" and therefore should be deleted. Really? A narrow coverage of some topic might indeed be part of a book on wikibooks and there has always been overlap, but on Wikibooks, the information is not attributed, a Wikibook speaks in a neutral voice, supposedly. (But Atcovi might correct me.)

All Wikiversity projects -- with a few exceptions -- are open to collaboration. If someone writes an essay, and they are stated as the author, tradition has been that their right to restrict changes be supported. Such an essay would never be in mainspace at the top level, because the project, overall, must be neutral.

Asking this question without examples is asking for decisions to be made abstracted from reality, which then invites poor decisions. The question I would ask -- and I thought we already had an answer, from long-standing resources -- was "can a draft article be created here, attributed to an author or authors, which might later be proposed as a substitute for a Wikipedia article, or allowed as showing merely a different point of view." What is clear is that such resources should not be presented as authoritative, but as the research or study of the authors. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Marshallsumter
In general I agree that hosting a developing encyclopedia article or book chapter, such as might be then exported to Wikipedia or Wikibooks is good! As I recall one of the WMF board of directors even asked if we would develop learning resources or courses to help other project participants produce more suitable entries. But, there are possible problems. Wikipedia, e.g., has asked for an article on the core promoters. One exists here but needs to be groomed for likely acceptance before export. It wasn't a 'collaborative effort by multiple users'. This should not prevent it from being hosted here. It was developed enough that a Wikipedia editor thought it was fine but was advised it had copyright violations: quoted phrases cited by fair use to primary sources. Nothing more has been done since. The Wikipedia editor was a published expert on the matter. If it had been groomed, exported and accepted by Wikipedia, then the resource here might be perceived as out of scope because it covered much the same information or had a similar title. It would still be a learning resource here.

Reverse to this are Wikipedia copies. Brought over here, then abandoned. One user here was running a course on how to wikify the copy to Wikiversity. Both Wikipedia and Wikiversity are learning projects. But, Wikipedia must restrict the learning to the acceptable production of encyclopedia entries, often called articles. It's like a job versus college. Putting the abandon copies up for soft redirect has become acceptable practice here. But once differences begin to appear it should be hosted here. Titles here can be plurals rather than singular as there. But, a title like History is a bit off as Histories. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

2. What Wikiversity is not
Should solo efforts by an individual user to develop an encyclopedia article or book chapter be redirected to Wikipedia or Wikibooks?

Dave Braunschweig
Wikiversity's mission is to create and host free learning resources and projects. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia or Wikibooks. Often, individual users visit Wikiversity and create pages that appear to be more appropriate for Wikipedia and occasionally Wikibooks. See the many content pages under Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Softredirect for examples. Individual efforts to create encyclopedia articles or book chapters that do not support active learning (learn by doing) should be redirected to the appropriate Wikimedia project.

Juandev
It should be redirected to Wikipedia, unless it is learning.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 07:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Atcovi
Plain articles should be redirected to Wikipedia. There are some questionable thoughts on WV vs. WB. I'll get back on my opinion on WV vs. WB soon. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift
Any book or article that cannot be placed on Wikipedia or Wikibooks should be welcome on Wikiversity, unless it does harm. We cannot exclude low quality material because any effort by an inexperienced student is likely to be of low quality. Instead we bury such efforts inside teaching resources. If there is a problem with Google directing readers to them, we need to either wait for Google to figure it out or create a suspace for student "research". As an example of student writing that is buried in an obscure subpage, see Special:PrefixIndex/Wright_State_University_Lake_Campus/2016-9/Phy1050/log

Material that is harmful should be banned, but material whose only sin is to advocate falsehoods could perhaps be LOUDLY labeled (with something more conspicuous than Template:Fringe). Or, perhaps we could delete such nonsense - I would never defend "harmless garbage" unless it is part of an educational effort.

Another option, would be to allow Miraheze to be the host for such materials (see this Colloquium proposal .) See my Wikiversityprivate page for a prototype collaboration. In the long run, we could perhaps redirect "unsuitable" material over to Miraheze. Miraheze hosts interwiki links into Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, etc. But one cannot link out of a Wikimedia page into Miraheze. The Miraheze system is like one-half of the Wikimedia sister-link system. If those who monitor Wikiversity for useless pages are burdoned by an excess of low quality pages, then perhaps we could use the Miraheze wikifarm for this purpose. Among the existing wikifarms, Miraheze seems to be uniquely suitable for such a collaboration. Perhaps someday we could even create sister-links out of Wikiversity into Miraheze.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Justin (koavf)
As above. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

mikeu
In general: yes. Wikipedia has a namespace specifically for creating and improving low quality encyclopedia articles. I recently helped improve w:Draft:Ann_Hardy which has since been moved to mainspace and is now a decent start class page. (The page was created in mainspace by a student enrolled in a history of technology class at a college and then moved by an admin to draftspace.) Wikipedia also has an active outreach effort to work with bricks & mortar instructors to help students generate articles that conform to wp policy. Competing with a sister project's scope is explicitly prohibited by our mission statement. What Wikiversity is not: A duplication of other Wikimedia projects is in bold typeface in the WMF Approved Wikiversity project proposal.

Having said that we do make exceptions for learning projects that produce work like Jim Parker which is essentially a biography about a non-notable person based on primary sources with a critique of the oral history project that originally recorded his life story. This was produced as classwork, but I would also find this acceptable if done by an individual editor. The work does not duplicate the efforts at wp and it includes educational aspects that go beyond merely drafting an encyclopedia article at wv. The main page for the project clearly defines the learning objectives. --mikeu talk 00:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd
Only if the work is more appropriate there. Wikibooks is for books, often organized very differently from a resource. A resource may contain subpages with many different kinds of projects and discussions, not merely "chapters." Historically, Wikiversity was a protected space, like academia. With care for overall neutrality (and with custodians and users who know how to facilitate neutrality), conflict can be avoided. "Go somewhere else" is not particularly welcoming! Certain kinds of articles have problems here; mostly these arise when what is like an encyclopedia article is created in mainspace. It is a common practice to move such a page to a subpage of a resource on the general topic, and attribute it as an essay. The person learns by writing it. If it is simply a copy of a Wikipedia article, that is out of scope here; but suppose the person wants to study the Wikipedia article, quoting sources in detail and looking at various implications. This would only be appropriate at Wikiversity. The original version of that resource could be a copy of the Wikipedia article (appropriately attributed for license purposes, and a custodian or other user would help with that -- but to avoid confusion a user should be advised to declare it as a study) If I saw something like that, I might prod it, giving the person time to develop it and maybe even contributing some commentary to show the way. As such a study, it would not be at the top level in mainspace. It would be underneath the overall topic, probably with the same name as the Wikipedia article. I did this many times, for others, it was always accepted. It is rude to delete a student's work! Deletions has advice on alternatives to deletion. The guideline should be followed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Marshallsumter
See my comments above for number 2. This question seems far removed from about 14 high school students performing research and creating resources generally unique to Wikiversity because the students knew where to find the data. Research and original research is unique to Wikiversity and usually requires learning. Sometimes inquiry is performed alone, journalists come to mind. If they're lucky they have a camera operator. Collaboration is easy with safe topics, not so easy with controversial ones, or where specialized knowledge or expertise may be needed. The matter should be open, civil and voluntary. Peer review per author(s) or resource creator(s) request only, ditto for namespacing. Resources may contain intellectual property from an author or creator.

3. Wikiversity:Blocking policy
Should Wikiversity support global locks / blocks of user accounts?

Dave Braunschweig
Users who demonstrate 'Behaviors that have a net negative effect', per Blocking policy, often demonstrate similar behaviors on other Wikimedia projects. Typically, the users have already been checked, reviewed, and blocked on other projects, and sometimes globally locked across all projects. Examples include Special:CentralAuth/Augusto_De_Luca, Special:CentralAuth/Hasfie, and Special:CentralAuth/NicoleSharpRFS. Wikiversity should support our sister projects by blocking these users unless and until they agree to cease disruptive behaviors across Wikimedia projects.

Guy vandegrift
My inclination is to block such users. Editors with quirky personalities not suitable for Wikipedia should be welcome, but only if they agree to obey certain rules. I have nothing against "reform schools", but simply don't think Wikiversity is structured to be one.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

mikeu
I agree with Dave. As part of a multiple project effort we should respect global locks and support the efforts of our colleagues to prevent activity that interferes with their, and our, mission. I'm also concerned that allowing users who have demonstrated disruptive behavior to work on our site gives tacit approval for them to continue the same unproductive behavior here. Guy makes a good point that we're not setup to be a reform school. Doing so distracts us from our mission and causes our staff to attend to issues that have little to do with improving our resources. I also have some concern that we might not have complete enough information (ie. details of checkuser results or a block summary that is incomplete in describing the reasons) to make an informed judgment. I've often summarized my reason for a block or only given the primary reason, even though the situation was more complicated. As a courtesy we should trust our peers on other projects and assume that they had a good reason, unless there is good evidence to doubt the action. --mikeu talk 23:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd
This question led to massive disruption in the past, and almost destroyed Wikiversity at one point. The way the question is stated is strange. If an account is globally locked, the user cannot log in, and blocks of it have no effect (and the user's email is shut down and they cannot participate. It is well-known that the global lock tool was a hack, causing more damage than necessary). What is the practical issue here? The general rule, which was rough consensus, was that Wikiversity would support the activity of users here who were not disruptive here, that user behavior elsewhere was irrelevant. Human behavior varies with context. treat people with respect, they tend to return it. Treat them as pariahs, they tend to become disruptive, and then you have enforcement problems.

With no example, there is little more that can be said unless I examine the many examples I know of. I have just seen, here, a globally locked user (as many accounts, mostly blocked on Wikipedia with the recent ones globally locked), and globally blocked as IP, continue and disrupt Wikiversity with no action by custodians; rather there was AGF, even though socking was blatant. Yet the idea here, how would this affect that? In practice, disruptive accounts should be warned and blocked as appropriate, regardless of global status. If they are not disruptive, is Wikiversity to become the judge? We don't have checkuser, but anyone may go to meta and request it. If an account is blocked on two or more wikis, it becomes eligible for a global ban (though that is a minimum, not actually a norm). A global ban becomes a global lock, and if a user is globally banned and locked, socks, if discovered, will normally be locked as well. In the past, at least one Wikiversity 'crat defeated a global lock by renaming the account, but the SUL changes made that impossible, thus not allowing Wikiversity to make independent decisions. That was a loss, in my opinion. The global WMF is dominated by encyclopedic thinking, for obvious reasons.

Whether or not to ask stewards to lock a non-disruptive account for a user who is globally blocked is another issue. Any individual can do that. If Wikiversity develops a consensus, it could ask stewards to make an exception for a Wikiversity account, on the condition that the account would not be used elsewhere, but I have never seen an example. (In the past, Wikiversity, as I mentioned, decided to allow local participation, but the change made that impossible -- without it ever being discussed. A more sophisticated lock tool would allow project opt-out. And, hah! Uh, Russavia! (But the ban of Russavia was a WMF action, not a community action.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Marshallsumter
What happened here is a good example with which to answer this question. The students mentioned in my answer to number 3 above proposed a high school project for their Philippines National High School Rose Mapeh program for which each would receive a grade and credits toward receiving their high school diplomas. After apparently checking internet websites, they chose Wikiversity because we allow research. Nothing in our introductory information states that they should check-in with anyone. Their advisor okayed their project and they started it. These were tables of international women's volleyball scores and results from the international or national organizations. Efforts to communicate began regarding mainspace posting, deletions began, students went to other WMF projects, blocking began, followed by global blocks or locks. Some support by both users and custodians here also occurred. Investigations here and other WMF projects showed no illegal sock puppetry, and less than 2 % vandalism. During the 1.5 years of further investigation the Steward who created the global locks or blocks resigned as a steward, probably for unrelated, personal reasons. Here, from an AGF POV, those students who were blocked for no illegal acts and no vandalism were unblocked per review and colloquium consent. One student who did commit vandalism was blocked here for the first time and was never blocked or locked globally during the students' efforts. So, Wikiversity lost some 12 to 14 student contributors most of whom were women and one was user:Hasfie. And, she was not the one committing vandalism. Regarding "Should Wikiversity support global locks / blocks of user accounts?": On an individual basis and only after careful scrutiny and inquiry, please! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

4. Wikiversity:Custodianship and Deletion Review
Should Wikiversity custodians and bureaucrats be able to research and publish information regarding deleted Wikiversity pages without first obtaining community support for this research?

Dave Braunschweig
Deleted pages aren't actually deleted by Mediawiki software. They continue to be visible to custodians and bureaucrats by clicking on additional links that aren't available to non-administrative users. There is an assumption that this ability to review is sometimes necessary in order to determine an appropriate response to a community request before (and instead of) undeleting the pages for all to see. However, undertaking a research project on deleted pages and documenting that research goes beyond the custodian role and must require explicit community support, and ideally be generated in response to a community request rather than appeasing custodian curiosity.

Juandev
I cant imagine, what kind of research could be done, but basically yes. Because also from deleted pages, we can study something, more over research is welcome on wv. On the other hand it should not break some of the basic Wikimedia rules.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift
Yes, let's let the community have oversite over custodial research involving deleted pages. I'm sure the community would approve any reasonable research proposal. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

mikeu
No. I agree with Dave on this. FYI, I jumped into this discussion late and haven't looked into the contention regarding Volleyball. Most of my answers so far are based solely on founding principles, our policies, and my interpretation of community norms. So, I'm unsure as to why this question is being asked. But, I can't even think of a legitimate case where this might be an appropriate "research" topic. --mikeu talk 01:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd
That someone cannot think of a legitimate use does not show that there is no legitimate use. Such a study can obviously be done by any custodian -- or anyone with access to archive copies. Again, without specifics, the question is far too general. An issue would be the deletion reason. On Wikipedia, long ago, it was proposed to have a junkyard space, where articles deleted for lack of notability, for example, would be moved. Anyone could read them and do whatever research they wanted. There was also "PWD, pure wiki deletion," which was essentially blanking, which, again, would allow anyone to read the "deleted" content. That would not be used for illegal content.

Another issue would be publication. Publish where? I think the question is about publication on Wikiversity. If so, where on Wikiversity? Is such a study allowed in user space? What if it is revision-deleted so it cannot be read except by custodians, and is only to be undeleted if there is consensus?

The nature of the material published would matter!

I can think of a legitimate use. Are custodian actions subject to community review? How would the community know if there is a pattern of abusive deletions (i.e., unnecessary)? Well, perhaps someone could study them. Scope has:

'':There are currently two major distinctions made in the research area with respect to wikis. There is research concerned with wikis as the objects of investigation, that is, research about wikis as it already exists at the Wikimedia Metawiki. Wikiversity will definitely be open to efforts that support this kind of research about wikis. Wikiversity participants will routinely engage in all types of "secondary research" that is aimed at critical evaluation of published sources of information. The other kind of research is wiki-based original research. It is not yet clear that this will be part of the Wikiversity. If the Wikiversity community decides to support original research, it will have to develop a specific set of policies to support such research activities.''

Notice how "secondary research" on "published sources" could properly cover Wikipedia articles. What was meant here by "original research" is not clear, because the meaning used on Wikipedia (w:WP:OR is clearly allowed on Wikiversity, always has been -- the Wikipedia meaning is about articles which must be verifiable. This document was written over ten years ago, when Wikiversity had little experience. Original research is talking about formal research, as if it is to be published in a journal, about peer-review and validation. That would be an onerous burden for ordinary learning-by-doing resources.

I would assume that a custodian documenting what is in deleted material wants to learn what is there, to study it. Another purpose would be to prepare for a Community Review, so that it is evidence-based rather than like this one, floating in the air with no substance. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Marshallsumter
Should Wikiversity custodians and bureaucrats be able to research and publish information regarding deleted Wikiversity pages without first obtaining community support for this research?

Yes! They have received community consensus to act for the better good of the community. Also, if a registered user here wishes to view deleted content per research interest, yes, but not revision deleted material. The resource can be undeleted and moved to user space, then redeleted. Undeletion to allow community review is a yes! Regarding "first obtaining community support for this research?". Harvard Law Review does not require "first obtaining community support for this research", neither should we. Custodians and bureaucrats can undelete because they already have community consent. Should we require "litmus tests" of candidates? No!

5. Wikiversity Structure
Should Wikiversity pages be organized by learning project, resembling Wikibooks structure, rather than by individual pages, resembling Wikipedia structure?

Dave Braunschweig
Wikiversity content is more effective when organized by learning project, similar to Wikibooks. This allows content authors a more controlled approach to content within a learning project, and eliminates issues with naming conflicts and most multiple use / disambiguation pages. When there are conflicting or overlapping projects, a neutral main page should be created that links to the related subpages and other related learning projects. Individual pages (Wikipedia structure) pollute the main namespace and discourage new users from adding an alternate perspective or approach.

Juandev
This is for the deeper discussion and broader consensus. On Czech Wikiversity we have performed several studies in to the basics of Wikiversity. In a study of page relations, determined two types of relationship - strong and weak. Weak relationship is that, which does not make much harm if you delete one page of a pair. Strong relationship is that, when you can harm other page purpose by deleting one of the pages in such relationship. So weak relations were found on both Czech Wikiversity and Wikipedia, while there are almost zero strong relations in Wikipedia and 90 % of wv pages are also in a strong relationship.

The problem was, that both pages looking from outside or being a person, who havent participated or havent seen its development, they look the same. There are existing pages, which may have links and which might be in some categories.

Czech Wikiversity had about 7 years to develope naturaly. People were realising open education differently within such environment. We found, that relations, between pages in a group are expressed a lot of different ways. Here are some examples:



Finding were there were multiple ways, how contributors where expressing strong relations including: blue links, categories, subpages, translussion, red links, backlinks, templates, etc. So we discussed a lot, find out that links of categories have a different purpose and decided to use subpage structor to sort sort cs.wv. It havent been applied on all pages yet, so the future will show, but the idea was to tidy or better to say display page relationship to broader spectrum of users.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift
The dissertation by User:Juandev has me convinced that this question needs to be considered separately.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

mikeu
That's a fascinating way to think about structure, Juandev. Thanks for sharing. My answer is by learning project. I would expand "When there are conflicting or overlapping projects, a neutral main page should be created that links to the related subpages..." and clarify that these pages should be written from both a neutral and a mainstream point of view. If 99% of the world population believes that our planet is round we should not have a v:Earth page that pushes a fringe belief that the Earth is flat. I would extend this to any "primary" article title. By primary I mean a page title that would be found in a library's subject classification system. This includes pages with titles like Earth or Climate change. It is unfair to the majority of visitors (who by definition have mainstream beliefs) to find an idiosyncratic interpretation of the topic at these pages. If there is a topic where there is no consensus view, like Dark Matter, the NPOV is to state "we don't know" rather than detail a POV pet theory that someone has. --mikeu talk 02:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd
I agree with Mike about what to do when there are "conflicting or overlapping projects." I worked for a long time to support a structure where top-level resources were rigorously neutral. Ideally, they should enjoy complete consensus. That is actually attainable (excepting rare users who will not agree no matter what). However, the "mainstream point of view" is not always well-defined. I know of a several examples where the "view of the majority of scientists," for example, is quite different from what is "the position supported by mainstream journals." It is not difficult to create top-level pages that cover controversies. No page should misrepresent the "mainstream," but ... who knows what is mainstream and what is not?

What I would often do is to present, on the top-level page, a link to a Wikipedia article on the topic, and a brief summary not in conflict with that article. We may tentatively assume that a Wikipedia lede is neutral (sometimes it isn't!). Then the rest of the page is a set of links to subpages on topics. In some cases, the subpages may be essays or individual studies, with a named author. In one case a resource on a controversial organization was forked, with a user who had come in, adding material actually not relevant to the original purpose of the resource. He was given his "section," which he could manage however he wanted, and I created my own, which included the original project, a glossary of the specialized language used, and which eventually included essays and other studies. There was another section where anyone could put neutral material if they wanted -- but I don't think it saw much use. The top level page is neutral, again, with a link to the Wikipedia article at the top.

Should all pages be organized in that kind of hierarchy? It's a practical question. It has been strongly opposed by some. Classification can be controversial! The goal of Wikiversity administration should be to facilitate the educational function of Wikiversity, and Wikiversity became a colossal mess because basic issues were not carefully considered and reviewed as the project grew. "Wiki" means "quick" which often means "impatient."

Learning thrives in freedom, so whatever structure is created should not be coercive and should allow diversity. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Marshallsumter
Should Wikiversity pages be organized by learning project, resembling Wikibooks structure, rather than by individual pages, resembling Wikipedia structure?

I believe the more open a system is, the better and for the better good, it is. Putting a page under a learning project can reduce its coverage by Google for example by a factor of ten. Having 100 subpages under one learning can pump up the hit totals for that project to a point that summarizing by project may greatly change perceived popularity to the point project summaries become too competitive to list. Putting a page in categories probably helps readers find it faster than using subpages. A title beginning with words like Introduction, Beginning, General may help students find what they need but may make indexing difficult. The shorter and more specific the title the better. Introduction to Biology is better as Biology/Introduction. But, resources with active contributors should be left as is.

6. Template: Namespace
Should the Template: namespace be reserved for templates that support multiple learning projects?

Dave Braunschweig
Similar to individual pages polluting the main namespace, templates that only support one learning project pollute the Template: namespace unnecessarily and without adding value. Any Wikiversity page can be included as a template through. Including single-project templates as subpages of the project is a more effective approach for all projects. See IT Fundamentals/Sidebar for an example. Pages in the Templates: namespace should be designed to support multiple learning projects, and ideally would be usable by all learning projects.

Guy vandegrift
I agree. It is extremely easy to place a template outside of template space. The tricky part is enforcing this rule. But we should certainly discourage single-resource templates in our policy statements--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Postscript: Those wanting to play with template creation can form a public wiki in Miraheze (as discussed here.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

mikeu
Yes, I agree with Dave's reasoning on this. --mikeu talk 01:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd
Again, the real issue is?

Yes, it is easy for an sophisticated user to create templates for single-project use. However, real users may not be sophisticated and they are accustomed to templates being in template space. This I see as what may be the real question: some unsophisticated users who had drafted inappropriate pages for Wikipedia created the pages here (where they were arguably allowed as projects). They did here what was done on Wikipedia, where all templates are in template space, the option to create templates as subpages of a resource don't work on encyclopedia wikis with no subpages in mainspace.

So which is more practical: to allow templates for single project usage or disallow them? Which takes more custodian labor and creates more possible disruption and wasted effort. Guy says it: "the tricky part is enforcing this rule." Why create the rule if it creates no benefit? Why complicate policies for little benefit? What exactly is the benefit of the proposed "rule"? In the case in question, the users were creating templates with two-letter names based on country codes, as I recall, convenient for them, but then possibly conflicting. They needed support, but they were met with demands. Complicating this was that their native language was not English, and there were cultural issues as well. And who reads policies before creating templates?

(When a project is exported, the tool allows the inclusion of templates, wherever they are placed. The practical difference has not been stated here. In some cases, insisting on the template being in the project subspace could create complications for the re-use of the template in subpages, it all becomes more complicated, the template name must be the full pathname and will not track moves, unless more complex subpage or suprapage links are used, as with ordinary subpage links and ordinary template space usage. So the problem with those users could have been readily fixed by changing the template names and encouraging them to create better names, maybe with a project prefix. "VB-" would probably have been fine.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Marshallsumter
Should the Template: namespace be reserved for templates that support multiple learning projects?

No! There are more generally usable templates like, some that are much more specific, many we need and don't have because they are not WMF universally available through Commons, and those we may try to build.

7. Wikiversity:Consensus
Should involved custodians be restricted from acting unilaterally when there is clear opposition by other involved users and no consensus or support by the community at large?

Dave Braunschweig
Recently, an approach has been taken whereby a custodian declares that, absent overwhelming opposition by a stated number of users and percentage of opinions, a given action will be performed. This approach appears to violate Consensus and the Wikipedia concept of involved administrators. By definition, custodians act on behalf of the community. Custodians must be restricted from acting unilaterally when there is demonstrated opposition and a lack of consensus and support from the community at large.

Atcovi
A custodian MUST act on what the community prefers, and not based on his/her own position of the issue. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy vandegrift
Adding to the above, custodians should not dictate the rules by which a consensus is defined. To do so creates a false impression of impartiality on the part of the custodian. By not allowing the custodian to "define" how a consensus is achieved, we make it clear that all decisions are subject to oversight by the community, honestly conceding that there is no way to unambigously define "consensus".--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Abd
What is the real question? Without an example, there is long-standing WMF tradition that an administrator does not use tools when involved, without consensus, and in the absence of an emergency, in which case -- I proposed here, and it was opposed -- the action is allowed if the custodian immediately consults the community. By using "acting" instead of "using privileged tools," the question become ridiculous.

Any user may act in spite of opposition and an a priori consensus is not required, and then big question is who decides what is consensus? One custodian in conflict with another? Then there are traditions -- or policies on some wikis -- against revert warring or wheel warring. Is there a seeking of consensus, or is one person or group attempting to impose their view on another?

I attempted to draft recusal policy that would far more clearly specify what was allowed and what was not. Opposed -- by users who are no longer active. And that is why these questions come up, year after year. An example is mentioned, allegedly being something to consider, but there is no way to verify this claim. It's the opinion of a custodian about, apparently, another custodian.

What I have seen, too often, is that custodians who commonly act unilaterally (or with the agreement of a friend) then complain about others acting unilaterally. There are community processes for resolving disputes, and they should be used, which, of course, takes skill in dispute resolution. Does this community have the skill? Has it set up structures to facilitate this? Does the community pay attention to dispute resolution process? Usually, not. Structures to handle this have, again, been proposed but have been ignored. I've given up. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Marshallsumter
Should involved custodians be restricted from acting unilaterally when there is clear opposition by other involved users and no consensus or support by the community at large?

The issues here are two-fold: (1) require a student advisor, teacher, or class professor or graduate assistant to contact Wikiversity before students commence their project or class participation and (2) acting to unblock students who began their participation without (1) and began to get blocked while also receiving help.

We have no policy for (1) and it's not on our Main Page. Results for (2): the students who were blocked and were behaving were unblocked but way too late to foster their continued activity here. The one student committing personal attacks, vandalism, and making potentially libelous comments wasn't even stopped until the investigation discovered it. Then with community approval that block was upheld and the others were unblocked. Some students weren't blocked at all but chose not to continue here.

Here's the rigorous approach to consensus. Three to five opinions/votes is the statistical beginning of consensus. Three is too few even if all agree. Four is a good number to start with. Consensus that is beyond reasonable doubt is > 98 %. That's all four in agreement. Three out of four is 75 %, which is percentage-wise often considered a clear consensus. But, if three is too few then more than four is needed unless all four agree. So the minimum number with disagreement is five. If four agree it's a clear consensus. If three agree, it's not. For six voters/opinioners, five must agree, because four is less than 75 %. For higher numbers, ≥ 75 % works, no rounding up. What about groups of voters over identical issues at different times? Everyone only votes once, a later vote/opinion counts per voter over an earlier one. Disregarding earlier votes/opinions when issues are clear isn't working for consensus, it's something else. That's a rigorous definition of consensus.

So the general answer to the initial question is No! The reward for doing what's for the better good often requires proof. Proof beyond reasonable doubt was made readily available. Case closed!