Wikiversity talk:Curriculum committee

School
I want to clean up the School: and Topic: resources. These are both like Wikiproject and Taskforces. We should have few schools like Math, Science, Economics, Government, etc. Some may cross over, but that's fine. As math overlaps with Science and Economics. I propose to remove the topics: namespace, and move them to subpages of School as courses. I plan on using merges, moves, and redirects over deletion.

Its confusing and redundant for topics to be misnamed. New editors don't know the difference between an article title and a topic title. Even when this is figured out, it is still redundant and confusing. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, first item: Sidelight, would you like to prepare a list of Schools? It is possible for Schools to be more specific than you suggest, but I think we should look at what we have. I suggest /Curriculum committee/List of Schools.
 * as to Topics, they serve a different purpose. Again, a list of topics might be in order. /Curriculum committee/List of Topics.


 * What do you think Topic: here represents? From looking it up it is a community, something like a wikiproject or taskforce. We don't have a lot of contributors so we should keep schools to a minimum anyways, but even with a lot of contributors it is structurally better like this. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it actually represents, that's why I want to look at a list. The word has an obvious meaning, aside from our usage, and we might end up using it that way. It's more specific than School, a Topic page would mostly link to resources, both on and off wiki, I'd think. A School is designed to organize a particular curriculum, here, that's how I'd interpret it, off-hand. A School would link to resources, as entries in a School catalog actually exist in brick and mortar schools.
 * Some present resources would become subpages of other more general resources, or we may create general resources to contain existing very specific resources.
 * The point here is for us to start carefully considering overall structure. One effort that may be undertaken here is to collect links to prior consideration of similar issues. I haven't made a search for that yet. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. You say it has an obvious meaning. What it really is, is not what the name implies. From flipping through Wikiversity, it appears not to be the obvious meaning, that I thought it was. It was like what I interpreted to be a taskforce. (I updated the guidelines to update this finding, but even still it clearly said it was a wikiproject or taskforce). I wanted to create a resource of wikiprojects, but found it was already here, in the open but incognito. It serves useless from what I thought was its meaning, as a category. We have category: for that. As a double over for a article, it is useless and confusing as well. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, topic has an ordinary meaning in ordinary language. It's been used in various ways, not always consistently with the ordinary meaning. That can be confusing. Categories cannot do what a topic page might very well do. An example is link to external resources. Consider this: suppose a Topic page is a page where you will look if you are interested in a topic, the ordinary meaning of the word. That topic page will point to learning resources and learning opportunities. Some may be off-wiki, so categories can't point to them. Categories can only point to on-wiki resources. Schools would generally not point to off-wiki resources. (But Schools would generally have a related Topic list.)
 * Further, a Topic page can actually review what it points to. "Good site to learn about the history of basketweaving [signed]" Or "Great information about keeping pets, but prejudiced against chinchillas. [signed]" (My daughter really would detest that site!) Similar reviews might exist with respect to on-wiki resources. "Undeveloped. [signed]" "Great information about early U.S. History, but needs to be completed." [signed]. Again, categories can't do that in any easy way.
 * So there is a clear potential role for the Topic namespace, whether or not it has actually been used that way.
 * We don't do articles on Wikiversity, in theory, at last not at the top level in mainspace. The theory is often violated. Basically, if it's an article on a topic, and the topic is notable, it belongs on Wikipedia. However, articles do get created here as learning exercises. Those should probably be placed under relevant learning resources. That is what we have here: educational resources, including "learning opportunities." --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're saying what topic should mean. Wikiversity defined topic as a wikiproject or taskforce (I further defined it as taskforce only), which I'd like to replace this definition as "courses". For topic to be a link, Dave Braunschweig created resource pages that were links, and I added the category as "study guide." Portals and study guides do more for external links than do topics. Topics is confusing and in my opinion should be phased out. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Sidelight, I'm not proposing "should." I don't do "should." I'm pointing to how the word will be understood by a non-Wikiversitan, and then considering possibilities. That's all. If we use the namespace for what the word would readily mean to most, without explanation, that is minimally confusing. I'm really doing the same for "School." "Portal" doesn't have such a clear meaning, not to me. A portal is a door. So? Yes, I can readily *learn* a related usage, I suppose. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 05:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In particular, the Topic: namespace is not searchable. It's only proper use is as an organization tool for work on Wikiversity, not for project content.  It took me many months to finally figure that out.  There are a few appropriate uses for it, but only as collaboration tools for larger projects.  Many of the things originally done with Topic: pages would have been better as Portal: pages, something everyone understands.  Except that they aren't searchable either, so should only link to other content.  I personally don't see any advantage for the use of Topic: space to indicate divisions or departments within a school.  It focuses effort on silos of independent thought rather than focusing effort on the content itself.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 05:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Does everyone understand that topic: 's definition by Wikiversity means a community with participants (students and teachers) like what w:Wikipedia:Wikiproject is on Wikipedia? I also thought topic: was as you all say. Using courses for this [as a subpage to schools], I think we can all agree on. Some of us agree with portal. We can do this, and deal with topic: on its own. - Sidelight12 Talk 05:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's late and I'm only going to point out that if we have a structure that takes a sophisticated user "months to finally figure ... out," something is seriously missing. Like clarity. So ... why, as well, would we have non-searchable namespaces? However, I just checked. I searched the Portal namespace for "box" and found the Box footer page. I did other searches in the Portal namespace. Looks to me like all the spaces are searchable, but I didn't check the others. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 05:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Navigability
We need to organize Wikiversity: pages, either by merging, using a template for navigability, or deciding on moving proposed policy into policy. The don't need a lot of overly complex rules, we just need basic rules, and structure. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I and some others have been acting to organize, ad hoc, but we will be more effective if we first find consensus on organizational principles. I'm not terribly worried about making "overly complex rules," but we do need, not exactly "rules" -- we aren't going to be slapping wrists with a ruler -- but simply guidelines, and they should be, if possible, simple. What you say: "basic rules and structure."
 * Some merges will occur, I anticipate, but first, before we create a lot of possibly disruptive activity, let's get clear and seek community approval. I have little doubt that if we are careful, what we do will find approval. There has been little or no opposition to our ad hoc work, but before we can engage a broader community in cleanup, and avoid the continual creation of more mess, we need the guidelines.
 * Wikiversity is no longer a new project, there are users with experience, and they will show up during this process. I've invited one of the WV founders to request unblock, plus our 'crat is probably coming off of vacation soon, and I've been intensely active here since 2010.
 * What we are doing is fully consistent with the highly inclusive traditions of Wikiversity. By setting up standards as to where content would easily and properly fit, we may also avoid unnecessary deletion discussions. WV:RFD used to be quite active! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)