Wikiversity:Organization/Examples/Center for Corporate Auditing, Responsibility and Management policy Authoring

Center for Corporate Auditing, Responsibility and Management policy Authoring
This page was created by Fasten, and is currently in Category:Fasten deletion request. There are subpages, not clearly distinguished from this page from pages on Wikipedia. The page is linked from School:Business but in a section that, with my browser, is unintelligible, a display bug, caused by column format being used (without a clear reason). It is linked from Free Software And Open Source Ethics, a page also with a strange name. That is, easily, we can have Ethics or perhaps Business/Ethics, and then Business/Ethics/Software/Free and open source, eventually. There are alternate forms of organization that might work. (Fasten also created this page).

There is a link from Theory Design Lab/Life after death, another Fasten page. The connection is obscure. My point here is the accessibility of the resource in question: how likely is it that someone who wants to learn about the topic (what topic? the page name is not clear) will find the page and be attracted to use it, but, more importantly, as it turns out, participate in developing and expanding it, as I'll come to.

There was a redirect at CARMA, also create by Fasten. This acronym, and the resource name, implies an organization that did not exist. I searched the web for CARMA, and there exist usages of that acronym, the top searches were not related. So someone searching for CARMA may find, down in the search results, our resource, and will probably be misled by this. I'm requesting deletion for the redirect.

Last, there is a sister wiki link on Wikipedia, Arbeit_Plus. A link to a resource like this is appropriate, but why just this one page? We should have a whole family of resources on management policy, and the Wikipedia link should probably be to a category here, if not to a specific page on Arbeit Plus.

Fasten created a lot of good content, mixed in with what may be idiosyncratic ideas. His work is appropriate here, the only problem being an organizational one. The lack of clear organization to Wikiversity has long inhibited growth, my opinion. Yes, users were free to pretty much do what they wanted. Except when they weren't, and policies were not clear, so we used to have contentious deletion discussions. We have largely settled on inclusion, with organization, which can include pushing certain otherwise problematic resources into user space. High inclusion, though, without organization, can be predicted to create chaos, reducing accessibility. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)