Wikiversity talk:Productive forking and tailoring is encouraged

A couple of thoughts come to mind: first, is there a time window we are considering before materials are merged or removed?(saw that as one of the statements in the doc.) Second, should we promote a modularized or "object based" development? Such an approach would allow for a module to be used in other courses... reducing development time and better utilization of resources. For example a module in statistics could be used in management, accounting, and economics. What do you think? --Mfinney 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it will be impractical to restrict individuals in how they choose to structure their contributions. If after creating 200 daily lesson plans and FDL'ing in preparation for a high school class, the author and students cannot find them because they have been modulized for general use and relocated, we will pickup a reputation for a useless chaotic environment.  Hence the idea that anyone who sees potential as you state above is encouraged to fork or copy the original lesson plan with proper attribution credit and then modularize appropriately (tailor) and link in from the multiple classes.  Now we have the originals and the new version.  Both can be linked to from appropriate locations.  This type of thing will result in stray files but that can be managed effectively with the tools provided by the wikimedia software. Mirwin 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes

 * Messedrocker 05:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * digital_metalk 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- sebmol ? 12:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Doesn't need to be a policy.
 * Mirwin 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Call it what then? Put under possible work methods?

Comments

 * Wikipedia already does this with U.S. government and 1911 Britannica publications. Messedrocker 05:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the last two paragraphs about? Do we need those? Awolf002 00:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Last two paragraphs were quick attempt to define when it is ok to simply delete a forked version created by someone else who is not using it or responding. Essentially never modded significantly and then abandoned by its user for some reason.  Personally at other wikis I have never had a problem with a few duplicate files but I know others do .... and then it occurred to me we might be talking about hundreds, thousands, millions of 101 lab exercises or other handouts.  I could live without them depending on how other cleanup procedures evolve. Mirwin 07:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This could definitely be worked into a workable policy (akin to "being bold"), but I won't vote on what's there just yet. I don't agree with specifying materials as "active" or "idle" - I, personally, can't see this as practical, or beneficial. Cormaggio 08:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can address the "millions of 101 exercises" when we actually have them. Right now, deleting something the "looks old" is just not making sense. Awolf002 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

GFDL requirements
Please note that the requirement to provide a back-link to the copied page is a requirement of the GFDL. This policy needs to be clearer that this isn't simply an administrative convenience that can be ignored. It's a fundamental requirement of the project's copyright licence. Uncle G 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. Feel free to edit the page appropriately.  I'm assuming that's true even of pages on the same project?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although some argue that each project as a whole comprises a single document, that is not a practical interpretation of the GFDL, especially for those who want to mirror items individually.  The practical, and also common, interpretation is that each page is a single document, and the edit history is its list of authors, titles, and history for the purpose of the GFDL.  Therefore, copying and pasting a page to a new page is making a copy, under the GFDL, and subject to all of the requirements thereof, including preserving a link to the "network location" of the source, and retaining (or at least linking to) the prior authorship, title, and history. Uncle G 10:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)