Wikiversity talk:Research Namespace/Implementation

Quantity or Quality?
I've found the proposal and a lot of the discussion confusing. Although I understand at least some of the rationale, it seems to address some quite different problems. Some of the confusion is, I believe, inherited from Wikipedia, where 'research', or rather 'original research', is used as a euphemism for 'stuff we don't want here' regardless of whether it involves any research (or 'research proposals', which seem to be a major - and justified, I think - target here).

At the beginning, I identified at least two quite different targets for moving to "Research": content contrary to prevalent views of the subject matter, and content that really involves research. These are really different issues. JackPotte, along with frustration looking at recent changes obscured by apparently bot-driven multitudes of new pages of dubious value, alerted me to another issue: large numbers of pages as a potential nuisance. I imagine this is the motivation for the implementation detail that would move some pages to "Research" purely on the basis of their quantity. However I think that would prove mainly just an excuse to avoid the onerous task of justifying moves on the basis of what the pages do - or, worse, how they appear in the directory structure.

Maybe I misunderstand the proposal, but it seems that a straightforward text-book treatment of a plant genus with a plethora of species would have pages on the individual species moved to research, likewise some category of electronic component (logic chips?).

There may be some serious nuisances to be dealt with, but if they are handled with a nod-nod, wink-wink approach instead of the more difficult process of addressing the problem openly, there may be unfortunate consequences.--Alkhowarizmi (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think (as maybe some others contributors) that a certain number of whacky works will be classified in "Research:" by politness or tact. But it is not the main goal of this new name-space. Concerning the other points, I fear we will have to spend time to correct problems one by one. --Thierry613 (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Large collections of information such as plant genus or logic chips would not likely to be moved to researchspace unless the editors of the mainspace resource so choose. Nobody is interested in interfering with editors who are making progress on an educational resource.  Wikiversity is not the kind of place where administrators micromanage the work of others.  And Wikiversity is not likely to evolve into a place where low-quality work is routinely expunged, since we welcome student contributions.  Even if researchspace becomes a dumping ground for low quality work, no great harm would be done.  Having said that, I agree with Thierry613 in saying that the main goal of researchspace is not to be such a dumping ground.  Researcspace could be so much more as a collaborative space where students or even professionals could collaboratively develop new ideas (namespace is not the best place for collaboration).  I am heavily involved with the attempt to create  refereed online journals hosted by Wikimedia, and researchspace could be a place to develop drafts of articles for such journals.  The point is that neither student research or drafts of journal articles need to be placed in the same space as resources that are "ready to use" by students and teachers. Also, the fact that we don't yet know all the policy details should not prevent us from developing the space, unless there are consequences that I do not know about.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Implementation

 * Just FYI but the "Guidelines" of this section are not what you have voted an apparent consensus on! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)