Wikiversity:Colloquium

Start your discussion here Please do not include wiki markup or links in section titles. Sign your posts with   ~~~~ Welcome Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking, check the general information at: What is Wikiversity? Who are Wikiversity participants? Wikiversity Introduction MediaWiki software questions Wikiversity: Chat | Mailing list | X

Purge Cache - Colloquium Archives - RSS version

var wgArticlePath = "/wiki/$1"; var wgServer = "http://en.wikiversity.org"; var wgPageName = "Wikiversity:Colloquium"; var wgTitle = "Wikiversity Colloquium"; var wgContentLanguage = "en"; var x-feed-reverse = "true"; var x-blog-description = "You have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That's what this page is for!";

RSS

"Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." — Benjamin N. Cardozo (discuss)

Wikiversity project to encourage Wikimedia work within a University System

Hi folks. I've initiated a Wikiversity project, SUNY Wikimedia Project, which seeks to connect students, faculty and staff in the State University of New York (SUNY) system who are interested in working on Wikimedia projects. I'm currently organizing a panel presentation at an upcoming conference, and seeking participation in other projects as well. My question for Wikiversity: is this the kind of projects Wikiversity seeks to host, sponsor and empower? I've been trying to figure out the current mission and direction of Wikiversity, and it seems to me that this would be a good fit for this project. I'd certainly appreciate any thoughts. Thanks! Stevesuny (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I certainly think so: Wikiversity has a very loose mission about being a community for learning, so as long as you avoid a handful of forbidden kinds of content, there's really not much you can't host here as long as it's plausibly educational in nature, including many resources about Wikimedia projects themselves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be good to go IMO. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, this is not only within the scope of Wikiversity but one of its explicit goals, and it's something we'd like to encourage more of.

Here's a couple of observations and tips I'd give, based on results of past courses:

• Don't fall into the trap of treating the wiki like a clunky version of Google Docs. One of the most fundamental features of a wiki is that it's collaborative; projects should aim to make use of that.
• Keep in mind that textual contributions to the wiki are required to be freely licensed, are publicly visible, and may be indexed by search engines. Give students alternative options for completing coursework if they're unable or unwilling to agree to those licenses. Avoid assignments which require students to post personally identifiable information.
• While fair use content is permitted on Wikiversity under limited circumstances, advising students to use freely licensed content only (and to upload it to Commons instead of locally) may be simpler. Give students a brief overview/refresher about copyright law before any assignments that are likely to involve uploading images.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. These comments are more directly relevant to WikimediaCourse, another Wikiversity project I've started. In that effort, I will be hosting a live class for tuitioned students at SUNY Poly, where I teach. The open component is a work in progress: of course, the syllabus, the assignments, access to seeing student work, and the student projects themselves will be open (I'm not sure I'll offer students an alternative option). I'd love to have open students from anywhere, and will see what happens. If anyone is interested, I'd welcome comments and suggestions for making the course better. Stevesuny (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Announcing new Wikiversity projects?

Hi again. Is there a preferred place in Wikiversity to post a description (example follows) of a new project, to seek input and comment and suggestions? Or, is this the place? I'd like to share a few projects, and didn't want to clog the Colloquium.

Here is the post I'd put somplace called "New Projects":

I am planning a project called "Course: Designing and Writing Interactive Texts Using MediaWiki". The project, similar to my current project, Digital Media and Information in Society; will house the learning materials for a course being offered at the University where I teach. The course is focused on the theory and practice of hypertextual writing and reading; and will use MediaWiki as the primary teaching and learning platform.

The project is to develop a syllabus with explicit goals, outcomes, objectives, resources, links to live/recorded zoom sessions, assignments and rubrics. All students (including registered students, and open enrollment students if any materialize) will complete their assignments in a Wikiversity space, or perhaps in some other spaces to be determined.

The initial project overview is in my sandbox

Stevesuny (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a good general place to announce new things or ask for help. Once a resource is mature and usable, it can be added to Main Page/News. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikiversity Namespace Question

Hi folks, as a newcomer to Wikiversity and the Wikiworld, and having enjoyed the freedom of Wikiversity, I've spent a bit of time exploring the structure and community of Wikiversity, and am wondering about the use of the namespace (something I've only just discovered).

Is there a preferred or desired naming structure for projects that house the syllabus of a course being taught, with explicit goals, outcomes, objectives, resources, links to live/recorded zoom sessions, assignments and rubrics.

To date, I've created two: Digital Media and Information in Society and WikimediaCourse, and am about to initiate a third, and thought perhaps I should do the naming differently...

Thanks! Stevesuny (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Virtually anything you'd create would likely be in the main namespace. If you're working on some really early draft material that you don't want to publish to the community at large, you can use Draft or User. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Stevesuny: The pages on namespaces and content organization are unclear and full of jargon. I've complained about it several times, but I suppose it's probably best to group related contents under a single page in namespace, just as one would organize any hierarchical structure such as a file system. I typically use my userpage for stuff that I don't feel is sufficiently well-developed to move into its own resource in mainspace and then move it when and if I'm satisfied with the direction. Otherwise if I didn't end up satisfied with it I'd have to bother someone to delete the resource. The help docs for most wikimedia projects are not as accessible or easily understood as they probably could be though. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 03:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as organization and naming conventions go, there's a lot of junk left over from an early, overly complex organizational scheme which tried to slot everything into a hierarchy of "schools", "divisions", "departments", and "lessons". Most of that is (thankfully) gone but there's still bits and pieces of it left around. If you find pages in the Wikiversity namespace still recommending this structure, please tag them as {{historical}}.

In my opinion, the site could probably use another pass of simplification. There's a lot of residual "cruft" in the Portal: and School: namespaces that should probably be folded into the main (resource) namespace or removed altogether. In many cases, there's much more navigational structure than actual learning material. This should be fixed; if we don't have any substantial learning material on a subject, we shouldn't waste visitors' time leading them through a maze of abandoned portals, directories, and introduction pages.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's mostly this page Wikiversity:Namespaces. Hard to make sense of any of it. Generally it's unclear how one should organize their content. Really each user should be encouraged or at least entitled to organize their content within a user directory in mainspace, e.g. your content would go under Omphalographer/ but I recall reading a discussion where Dan Polansky was explicitly told not to do this. It's common sense and common practice to have user directories. That's how the filesystem in any multi-user operating system is organized. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 08:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I could see adding to the Namespaces something for users, professors, labs or research groups: Replicating, in part, the structure of a bricks-and-mortar university. I think Wikiversity can play a significant role by inviting professors to put some of their courses and other learning materials on Wikiversity, even if they are in support of credit-bearing courses. We can use categories, rather than namespace, to organize by topic or subject area. Stevesuny (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

With the guidelines and rules as unclear as they are I doubt that many professors really need the grief of having to deal with all of this. Each user should be entitled to a page in mainspace, essentially a "user" directory, presumably with the same name as their account. I don't see the use in imposing any further structure, though I think users should be encouraged to correctly tag their resources and that there should be a way to browse by topic, which would presumably rely on category tags. While wikiversity is supposedly a collaborative effort, again I can't imagine many professors really want anyone mucking about with their material. Most of the pages here do indeed have a primary author. I would never modify one without speaking with the author and obtaining their consent on the talk page first. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Here it is, https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/June_2023 "We don't name main space resources after users except as subpages." God only knows why. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 08:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of CourseCat template from resources

I understand that this template is being used to assist the categorization of Wikiversity resources, and I'm usually adding them to uncategorized resources. I recently noticed that several users are removing the addition of {{CourseCat}} (example). Should we keep them uncategorized or re-add the template and tell them not to remove it? I'm looking forward to hearing from the community. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Stevesuny: Can you explain the removal? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know what it was or where it came from :). I'll check it out.

It might also be a casualty of my workflow, which sometimes involves generating mediawiki markup in chatGPT or in tiddlywiki, and replacing entire pages by select all/paste. I'm struggling with managing multi-page wiki projects, and maintaining categorization. One strategy I've hit on is to transclude an entire cluster of pages from my sandbox into the main namespace, and categorize in the main namespace space. See WikimediaCourse for an example. And I know: this workflow has the disadvantage of obliterating collaborative work... Stevesuny (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

{{CourseCat}} looks interesting: I looked briefly at the documentation, and it looks like it relies on more structure to find "chapter" ; I'll added it into the mainpage of my courses (WikimediaCourse and Digital Media and Information in Society) and see what it does. Thanks! Stevesuny (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, if there are any specific teacher's preferences about resource categorizations then I think that should be prioritized. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Deprecate and remove the Collection: namespace.

Issue has been closed as resolved

The Books feature was an initiative by Wikimedia, launched around 2009, to allow users to create collections of pages and render them as a PDF "book", and order physical copies of those books online. These books were represented on Wikiversity as pages under the Collection: namespace. This feature was never heavily used on Wikiversity, and most of the books which were created were either collections of all pages from a course, or arbitrary collections of unrelated pages. Wikimedia's PDF book renderer went offline around 2017; subsequently, some of the other on-wiki tools were disabled as well. As a result, these pages no longer have any clear purpose; most resources on Wikiversity are already organized hierarchically and placed into categories, so there's no need for additional tools to create collections of pages. (For more background on the whole situation, please refer to w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 181#The future of the Book namespace, a 2021 discussion in which Wikipedia decided to similarly remove their Book: namespace.) Proposal: All remaining pages in the Collection: namespace should be deleted by a curator. Once this is complete, I will make a Phabricator request to disable the namespace entirely. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Support And I'm willing to do the deletion after this RfC closes (two weeks? one month? whenever it's called by someone?). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC) I think we can request discussion closure at WV:RCA after reasonable amount of time. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 08:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC) I Support the disestablishment of the collection namespace, having fewer namespaces like these can make things easier for content management. On the other hand, I think deletion should be handled by custodians in order to handle refunding requests from original creators (Note:Curators can handle deletion but not the opposite). If I was requested to move collection pages to other namespaces (such as userspace etc.) then I will be glad to handle that. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 08:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Closing as resolved as per request by MathXplore -- Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines

I'm currently working on my first article at WikiJournal Preprints/Castle Eppstein, and I have a question regarding the naming and abstracts of articles. Should I follow WP lede and naming guidelines? Or do you guys have your own? Crainsaw (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

We already have Wikiversity:Naming conventions, I think this can help you. I don't see any major issues to your title. Thank you for joining Wikiversity. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Technical questions, and a few concerns

I'm unable to use harv references on my pre-print WikiJournal Preprints/Castle Eppstein properly, can anybody help me?

Also, I'm concerned about the peer review process. The recent addition to the Journal of Humanities Loveday, 1458 , had been submitted in 2020, and got accepted 3 years later. WikiJournal Preprints/Fascism and Italy is still not under peer-review, since submission way back in april 2019. It usually only takes 2-6 weeks for a peer review, what's taking so long? Not enough volunteers? Crainsaw (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct: we do not have enough editors here. As for the references, what exactly is the problem? They seem to be working. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Crainsaw (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Could I conduct the peer reviews? Crainsaw (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the lack of prospective reviewers to participate on a formally organized review, I think you are better off moving WikiJournal Preprints/Castle Eppstein to Castle Eppstein and figure out what it is that you are trying to do in the article that an encyclopedia article would not do. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a resource will be the best fit, sources are scarce. There are a lot of primary sources in the article, and there's some Synth as well. Crainsaw (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If you place Template:Original research at the top of the article, no one should complain that you placed the original-research article at Castle Eppstein, I think. But if you want to keep the article in the preprint space, no one will complain either, I guess. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What should we do with country name redirects to the "Comparative law and justice" series?

I recently noticed that we have several country name redirects like Algeria and Brazil etc. that are going to the "Comparative law and justice" series. While there is connection between the redirect and their targets, it is not reasonable to assume that many readers are interested in law and justice. Is there anything we should do with these kind of redirects? We may change the redirect target to their respective topic category or portal, or transform them into a disambiguation-like page. Some users may say that these should be deleted as bad redirects. Or should we keep them in their current state until we have a better idea? I'm looking forward to hearing from others about this matter. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

These should essentially be disambiguation pages that also include any resources about these places in particular and probably other resources related to culture, like language courses. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Should we import disambiguation-related templates from enwiki to setup disambiguation pages? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think one is sufficient: this project isn't that big so a single {{dab}} tempate should be fine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose:

1) Delete Algeria and Brazil as wrongly pointing the readers to one resource in exclusion of other resources. Once they get deleted, the search function automatically serves as an analog of disambiguation page. If that is opposed, creating a simple disambiguation page (no templates and complications or perhaps a very simple template saying "This is a disambiguation page", "This is a directory page", etc.) is a decent alternative. The deletion option is easier to maintain than a disambiguation/directory page, and it shows no editorial preference for some pages over others. On the other hand, one may indeed want to manually curate the list of pages directed to from e.g. "Algeria", and place a link to search results as one items in the disambiguation/directory page. Thus, the disambiguation/directory page would be something like "top 7 most relevant results", manually curated; other options for organizing a disambiguation/directory page are possible.

2) Delete Comparative law and justice/Algeria as completely useless: the page has no a single statement of value and not a single further reading. The last substantive edit is from 2009‎. Proceed similarly with content-free pages via speedy deletion.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I added {{prod}} to Comparative law and justice/Algeria, I will also check other pages in this series. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 04:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(New) Feature on Kartographer: Adding geopoints via QID

Since September 2022, it is possible to create geopoints using a QID. Many wiki contributors have asked for this feature, but it is not being used much. Therefore, we would like to remind you about it. More information can be found on the project page. If you have any comments, please let us know on the talk page. – Best regards, the team of Technical Wishes at Wikimedia Deutschland

Thereza Mengs (WMDE) 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Question about Peer Reviews

Maybe Talk:WikiJournal of Humanities is a better palce for this, but,

as per my understanding off WikiJournal of Humanities/Peer reviewers only qualified external professionals are allowed to formally peer-review articles.

Which seems a bit unnecessary considering anyone can write articles, also Nupedia vibes, this seriously hurts the journal's growth due to lack of volunteers.

I propose that editors on wikipedia who've written extensively on related topics also be invited to peer-review articles, this would add a lot more volunteers (thus making the whole process faster and smoother), and get qualified people from wikipedia over to wikiversity. Crainsaw (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Crainsaw: (You chose a good venue, I think.) I think you have a good point that the requirements on reviewers are excessive. I suspect those "peer-review articles" in Wikiversity cannot be taken very seriously. My guess is that you are unlikely to attract enough reviewers for your article, qualified or less qualified. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I was involved with the creation of a wikijournal, and much of the initial leadership is still active. The wikijournals have always been largely independent of the rest of Wikiversity. They may or may not have strong opinions about changing the editorial standards of one journal, but my guess is that they will consider "WikiJournal" to be a sort of brand or trademark. We must honor that position if they hold it. Degrading the reputation of one wikijournal for high editorial standards hurts the reputation of all wikijournals. In the early days of their existence, the Wikijournals requested that the Wikimedia Foundation create a separate wiki for these journals . The Wikiversity community unanimously supported that request for the WikiJournals to separate from Wikiversity. (see proof)-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've posted at Talk:WikiJournal User Group#Peer Reviews, which I believe would be a better board.

To address your point about editorial standards: It's a Wiki, anybody can contribute, so anybody should also be allowed to review it, people who mightn't have academic qualifications, but are still experts in their fields are also possible peer reviewers. The peer reviews are public. That's what makes a Wiki a Wiki, we can't mimic everything from Traditional journals, the fact the Wikijournals has an ISSN and gets a DOI for every publication and is indexed by Google Scholar goes to show Wikijournals done a good job at fitting in. Crainsaw (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As for Meta: Proposal: WikiJournal as a sister project, there is no unanimity (there are opposes), but there is indeed an overwhelming majority supporting the proposal. The proposal has not been implemented yet. The takeaway is that WikiJournal is to be treated as a dedicated/formally separate project within Wikiversity and that whatever rules it has established for itself so far should be take seriously, I guess. (Given the low activity within WikiJournal, it is not clear to me to what extent making it a sister project is really desirable.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. The vote was 177/40, or about a 80% to 20% split (if you ignore those who remained neutral.) When I "counted the vote" I failed to realize that the ayes and nays were in different sections. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion states:

• "Delete these pages as soon as possible when legitimately labeled for speedy deletion. Normally {{delete}} should be replaced with {{deletion request}} and discussion started at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion when not a legitimate speedy deletion candidate."

Is that true/accurate? Should placement of template "deletion request" really be accompanied by a discussion started at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As you can see, in practice, the deletion process is pretty broken: some proposed deletions expire and aren't actually deleted for months. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Since you are an admin, you can delete expired (3 months gone?) proposed deletions, can't you? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I can and I do sometimes, but I do prefer to actually investigate before deleting and that has some overhead. Since I made my last comment, I deleted something that was a valid deletion proposal. Unfortunately, with as small as this project is, there is still some real junk on here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be better to use Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion, similarly how Wiktionary works. Then, multiple people would explicitly approve a deletion in each request for it and provide a rationale for it. Then, one could feel more comfortable deleting the items based on evidence of consensus on a per-item level. And this is what the quoted text at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion seems to suggest. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You may have overlooked the qualifier at the end, "…when not a legitimate speedy deletion candidate". {{delete}} is for deletion of material like spam, broken redirects, or accidentally created pages which shouldn't require discussion; {{deletion request}} is for tagging other content for discussion at RfD. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

My point is not about speedy but rather about how to administer non-speedy deletion request, that is, whether non-speedy deletion request is to be accompanied by listing at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. Since the quotation I provided suggests the accompaniment to me, but I was told elsewhere the accompaniment is not to be there, and indeed, people are in fact adding non-speedy deletion requrest without listing the pages at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I always thought placing {{subst:prod}} on a page guaranteed that the page would automatically appear in Category:60-day proposed deletions. Am I wrong about that???     ...    . Also, in the past, Dave and I preferred that people not use "deletion request" because it created long discussions at a rate that exceeded our ability to resolve them. Maybe that has changed now that we have several active and competent new housecleaners on Wikiversity.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 06:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The practice you mention contradicts the text I quoted at the top, doesn't it? (Sure, pages proposed for deletion appear at "Category:60-day proposed deletions", and I did not suggest otherwise.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Original LLM (Large Language Model) Prompts for Learning and Research (no LLM generated content)

So I had an idea. If no one objects I may create some content related to prompt libraries that are meant for learning, research, and teaching. That is, prompts for large language models that can assist one in learning, teaching, research, and learning. I will not post any content generated by any large language model. That will only create original content that is prompts related to various topics that individuals can use with LLM's to potentially facilitate learning, teaching, more research. I'm not sure when I will start doing this. Maybe soon. I sort of see LLM's like calculators (or spoken/natural language mini software programs that output text) for math or science that can be applied to many subjects. Again this will only be original content, no LLM generated content. This will be content to potentially customize for specific uses, and then provide to an LLM to then output various useful results related to learning, teaching, and research. That is, if no one objects. Bless up and limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 03:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the sort of content you're proposing, and what educational purpose it would serve? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sort of like this Large language models. I seemed to see no major opposition so I am trying to create something constructive and informational. Bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 03:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

A set of LLM chat prompts to ask an LLM what you can do with LLMs? This seems oddly circular. We don't host collections of queries to type into search engines to find information about subjects; I don't see why LLM prompts should be any different in this regard. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It strikes me as faintly promotional. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Ten: Is there a rule against copy/pasting LLM content? I hope not, because I just pasted a chat with BARD at Physics/A/Dice group theory.

My research online suggests that LLM-output should be free from U.S. copyright protection since it is not a result of an activity of human mind, but I also found articles suggesting the copyright issue is a gray zone. I would recommend to you to do your own research online and figure out whether you can confidently claim that LLM-output is free from copyright. I for one feel uncomfortable placing LLM-output into Wikiversity except as fair use. Some time ago, I created Is the output of ChatGPT copyrighted?. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"Open"AI's TOS seems to grant users ownership: "Ownership of Content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output." Not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like a violation of copyright to post ChatGPT output. Not that I'd want to in the first place, in most cases. The model, its training data, training methods, parameters and other operational details are apparently trade secrets and I wouldn't be comfortable relying on it. In my experience, its output is of poor quality as far as discourse goes. It would make for a rather mediocre resource at best. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That's rather compelling, isn't it? A link: https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use. I highlight to the extent permitted by applicable law, though. Could someone argue that the copyright holders of the training data hold copyright in the output? I would argue they do not since copyright only protects expression, not information, but I am not a lawyer.

One would be posting ChatGPT content at least for two purposes: 1) commentary on ChatGPT accuracy; 2) as a writing aid, where one lest ChatGPT formulate things, but one performs checking of the output/content independently as a reviewer. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

From my limited experience its output is very generic and formulaic, which is part of my gripe in the essay. Let the copyright lawyers and other suits figure out the details, most of the output is hardly worth bothering with in the first place. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously though if you take an off-the-shelf LLM (one that's actually 'open') or use a service like ChatGPT and it spits out a paragraph from some book, that doesn't automatically make it your intellectual property. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that a trained model using neural networks would output a word-for-word paragraph from a particular source, but I am no expert on the matter. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It will if you train it only on that paragraph. It might even if you have a reasonably large dataset and you start it off with some text from that paragraph. It seems likely that OpenAI would have taken some measure to prevent this, but chatgpt in particular is so over-parameterized that it can memorize en.wikipedia and have plenty of room to spare. Really most large ANN models are quite over-parameterized and can easily memorize a small dataset. Overfitting is a big problem. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Completing a word or sentence or paragraph was actually the object of many generative natural language models, including many that were a tiny fraction of ChatGPT's size. I'm behind on the literature, so I don't know how chatgpt avoids it, but perhaps their loss function was engineered to penalize verbatim outputs over a certain length. Interesting that they won't tell you the size of the training set they use. If my goal were to repeat or imitate ChatGPT's functionality, (with the disclaimer that I've not read any recent literature) I'd optimize prediction on a dataset including wikipedia, quora, stackexchange, and whatever else, and then (possibly fixing those parameters) optimize a smaller, downstream part of the network just on conversation and Q&A examples e.g. reddit, quora, stackexchange, with a penalty on verbatim output. In other words, it would overfit much of the dataset but mince everything up and recombine it in a generic, grammatical, conversational format. Rather crude, but then you could (somewhat disingenuously) call it a self-contained "AI". All just speculation though, I'm not even very familiar with transformer models nor at all with the state of the art. I'd be impressed with if it were, say, a large college research project rather than the overhyped flagship product of a privatized NPO, largely built off the efforts of others and then withheld as a trade secret and sold as a subscription service. I don't like any of this. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

While you may find it "unlikely", the New York Times actually filed a lawsuit against OpenAI a few days ago because they found that it will reproduce lengthy excerpts from many New York Times stories nearly verbatim when prompted to do so. Details here, with numerous examples in the legal complaint: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/27/24016212/new-york-times-openai-microsoft-lawsuit-copyright-infringement. With this in mind, it seems likely that it will reproduce content from other sources as well, and not necessarily only when it was requested. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect it isn't the linguistic component of the model that's large, but all the other info it has to store, in which case "large language model" is probably a misleading term. It would make sense to try and isolate this subcomponent that interperets questions and distills into words information retrieved from "memory", perhaps by architectural choices and training method. It wouldn't surprise me if chatGPT does just that somehow (nor if it's been done in a thousand papers already). It would likely be far smaller than 700GB. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 06:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And don't take NYT's word for it (nor for anything else). Download a basic model, train it for a while and see what it spits out. It seems like since GPUs became powerful and feedforward CNNs and transformer networks became the hottest craze, you don't hear much about other architectures which are frankly much more interesting if less performant (perhaps for being less suited to GPU acceleration, though CNNs and transformer networks are very good models and inherently well suited to many tasks as well as the hardware they run on). Have a look at Boltzmann networks. Anyone in physics will probably get a kick out of it. You could train them on an image library, and then during inference you could show them a small portion of the image and after running the network for a while, it would complete the rest of it. The last public chatGPT model is really kind of boring if you ask me, and so are CNNs, or at least the process of training them on a large dataset is very tedious.AP295 (discuss • contribs) 06:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Does the article indicate the length of the verbatim content? Since, in the article, I only find "can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style", but it says nothing about the length of that output. Is it really able to recall a complete paragraph verbatim? If so, is there a specific example anywhere on the web? Since, this problem should be reproducible, shouldn't it? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There are examples in the legal complaint, which is embedded in the article. Many of the excerpts regurgitated by ChatGPT are multiple paragraphs long, and differ from the original by no more than a word or two. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 08:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's a pdf of that complaint: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec2023.pdf --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I neither endorse nor object to the idea, but I've a new essay, partly inspired by a brief conversation with ChatGPT that did not make a favorable impression. You might find it relevant. A compendium of doublespeak, stock phrases, non-answers and excuses. If you don't care to read the whole thing I'll summarize by saying that educators should probably not simply refer their students to ChatGPT as busywork and that I do not believe it encourages good writing habits. Most of its responses to political questions looked like ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag. Every answer comprised a litany of talking points bookended by non-statements and newspeak. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Large language models may become exponentially better (and more useful) over time. Computers may have not been useful to most students in the 1960's or 1970's but 40-55 years later computers have changed everything and everyone uses them. I think educational, teaching, and research use of large language models might be like this. Ostensibly. Bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed they may. At present and for the foreseeable future I'd far rather talk to a person. ChatGPT is barely even a lookup device at this point, which your own resource reflects in that it comprises a bunch of search queries. I don't think the present version of ChatGPT uses language like what I describe in my essay by accident. Nobody really talks like that except the news an politicians. Read Orwell's essay if you have time. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

A discussion has been started on a large collection of orphaned subpages

I think this problem was fully resolved--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is an understanding that we need to be careful about what goes on the top page in mainspace, and that student efforts in subpages are generally encouraged (especially if they are organized by an instructor.) But we have no established policy on subpages, which makes it difficult for me to process requests for speedy deletion. If you want to get involved with a potential "test case" to help me decide what to delete and what to move, please look at MDLD and leave a comment at Talk:MDLD. I don't know what to do with pages like these. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC) I would find it best to discuss the MDLD matter here in Colloquium, where it has the highest visibility. And I would ping User:Bocardodarapti, who created these pages, to join the discussion here. My guess is that these pages are not really orphaned but rather part of a system of transcluded little items and sometimes larger items, and that would be argument for keeping them and not moving them; but the author should do a better job of explaining what these pages are and how it all works. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC) If a page doesn't obviously break the rules, why not just move it to its authors userspace and be done with it? Or if it doesn't follow policy, then it should be deleted. I don't quite understand the problem of these backlogged deletion requests I suppose. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Did you perhaps not read what I wrote above? If these pages are part of a meaningful system of transclusion, they should not be moved anywhere and should be left alone. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Well pardon me. Perhaps you can cite an example so I can understand? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Sure: MDLD/dimensional (fgvs) looks meaningless on its own but is transcluded in Mathematics for Applied Sciences (Osnabrück 2023-2024)/Part I/Lecture 24 and elsewhere. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Would it not be fairly easy for someone to write a script that updates these links? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC) I don't know. The author Bocardodarapti says he teaches a course at a university using these pages at Wikiversity. What good reasons do we have to interfere with what he is doing in the mainspace, other than that some components of it look strange without context? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) It wasn't my suggestion to do so, but I guess I assumed that was the pretext for this topic (that is to say, deciding whether to move or delete), which I already said is somewhat unclear. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) As the discussion seems to move here, I also include here my comments (nothing is orphaned, unless by accident). Some comments on the remarks above. I guess I have to explain how I work and what the reasons are for doing so. 1) First of all, it would be nice if no move are taken which result in pages like Mathematics for Applied Sciences (Osnabrück 2023-2024)/Part I/Lecture 7, where a large section is now missing. This is all part of the course Mathematics for Applied Sciences (Osnabrück 2023-2024)/Part I which is taught at the university of Osnabrueck by me as a professor of mathematics. There is a German and an English version, as there is a certain amount of international students who use the English version. If you really think that Wikiversity is no space to write and present the material of a mathematical course taught at a university, please tell me, though I would be surprised. 2) I do not produce here any nonsense, to the best of my knowledge. In the German wikiversity, I have done about 26 (just counted) mathematical courses over 15 years, all given at my university. See v:de:Hauptseite for a list. 3) The material is not original research, my original research I submit to journals (see arxive or Zentralblatt). The material is quite standard for a university beginners class, trivial or not. (it is the first time I hear people saying that a mathematic course is trivial) 4) The approach for the number ${}\pi$ as the double of the first zero of cosine goes back to Landau and is well established since 100 years. In this approach, the sine and cosine are defined by their power series and the relation to the circle is developed later. 5) I agree that I did not make any systematic effort here (on the English wikiversity) to explain the way I am working. Let me try to do this in the following. 6) Modular approach (small bits). If you look in any mathematical book you will see that it consists of quite small and well differentiated items: Definitions, facts, proofs, examples, remarks, exercises, usually with a consisting numbering to find them quickly. Along these mathematical textforms I organize the material, in order then to be used in a course (by transclusion, see again the course). This has many advantages. a) The material can be used in several courses just by transclusion. A theorem like Polynomial ring/Field/Zero/Linear factor/Fact is used in an analysis course, in linear algebra, for applied mathematics, in Galois theory. Exercises can be used on an exercise sheet and on an exam. A fact can be transcluded with one proof or another. Learning lists can be made like List of definitions. b) One can always link to the relevant definitions, when the term is used. c) One can link in a proof to the relevant facts (or exercises) which are used. d) the material can be categorized in a systematic and detailed way (this I have not done here, as I want to transclude it from Wikidata). 7) The naming of the pages: I basically list the relevant items used, like Real numbers/Sequence/Limit and convergence/Definition. It is a definition which describes for a sequence within the real numbers what it means to be convergent. That I use here "/" has the mentioned effect that it is formally a subpage of Real numbers. For convergence in another ordered field or complex numbers or a metric space I (would) use a similar naming. In practical terms, I do not see any problem. An alternative would be to use - instead of /. 8) MDLD (mathematical definition link deviation): these are pages which help to make links to definitions. Basically everywhere I want that a term used somewhere is linked to its definition. In order to avoid always writing the link to the definitions, these deviations do the job. See e.g. what links to Real numbers/Sequence/Limit and convergence/Definition. How it is used, you can basically look everywhere in the course, like Mathematics for Applied Sciences (Osnabrück 2023-2024)/Part I/Lecture 15. Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC) @Bocardodarapti: I will move the pages back as soon as possible. This is my fault for thinking two of your templates were related to a page somebody copy/pasted from Wikipedia. The disconnect to the Wikipedia article was so great I assumed your templates were some sort of nonsense. How soon do you need the damage fixed? My grandchildren are due here in about 20 minutes and they will tear the house apart if I don't watch them carefully.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your reply, no action needed right now, as the students are typically enjoying their holidays. Enjoy your time with your grandchildren, Holger Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC) The grandchidren aren't here yet, which gave me a bit of time. I attempted to undo all the moves, but it is possible that I missed one. I will double check my logs for a missing item. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) I think the whole system would be easier to track and understand if it would have something like a proper namespace. Thus, all pages could start e.g. with "Modular math/", or the like. Then, the word "modular" would immediately strike anyone seeing one of the small or not so small modules. Thus, e.g. Real numbers/Sequence/Limit and convergence/Definition would be moved Modular math/Real numbers/Sequence/Limit and convergence/Definition. Of course, this move should be done only if there is express consensus to do so. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Support. And, if some of those subpages are only used for transclusion on other pages, it might be appropriate to put a <noinclude>-d banner at the top of those pages as an explanation - otherwise visitors (and editors!) who land on those pages are going to be confused. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 08:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Right: a no-include banner is a good idea. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Support motion and all amendments just mentioned. And, we should give the author curator status so (he/she) can page protect the existing templates instead of moving them into the "proper subspace". Finally, I suggest the proper subspace should be under MDLD, since so many templates are already located there.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC) The proposal adding something like Modular math in front is reasonable. However, I wonder if this is really necessary, some thoughts on this: It makes the names even longer. It is not clear to me whether the reason would be primarily a naming convention or the risk of misinterpretation. In practical terms (based on 15 years on German wikiversity), there is no big risk of confusion (despite the instance which led to the current discussion): The naming of the items end with /Definition or /Fact or /Proof, so everybody who is acquainted with mathematical items should recognize this, as it is also clear from the categorification as mathematical definition etc. (also the color thing should help and the header line). Also, a 'normal reader' will arrive at these items only from a course where it is used. If these seems not enough, one could add everywhere a category like '(part of) Project:Modular Maths', where one can explain the structure. As all the items have special framings (I mean e.g. Template:Mathematical_text/Definition), this could be made without much effort (also the proposed movings would not be a big deal). The statement 'only used for transclusion' is not completely correct. If, starting from the course, someone wants to recall a definition or a fact used in a proof, this person will end up at the definition/fact itself. (I have to admit I do not understand the banner thing. I definitely do not want something which looks like a warning). MDLD would not be a good name for the subspace, as this ('mathematical definition link deviation') is specific for the links to the definition (so would be a subsubspace).Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) @Bocardodarapti: I have two suggestions: Consider applying to be a Curator in this wiki. It would allow you to protect your pages so that only administrators can make edits. Also, a warning will appear if a Curator or Custodian tries to nominate the page for deletion. There are still ways we could accidentally move a protected page, but the risks are much reduced. It's your project and your decision, but consider placing more of your short pages under a short mainspace page, like "Mm. Explain the purpose of Mm on that main page, and then either (1) move all your "items" into Mm subspace, or (2) start placing all your new items there. If you want others to use your items, having them under one mainspace page will make it easier for people to find them. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC) You may think that e.g. Pi/Real cosine function/Definition is self-explanatory, but I argue that it isn't. 1) It looks like it is part of "Pi" resource, but it isn't, and there is in fact no resource about "Pi". There is also no resource Pi/Real cosine function, and thus, atypically for a wiki page with slashes ("/"), the implied parent page is missing. 2) The page on its own appears useless and nothing on the screen suggests it is part of something useful; it is not clear what the page does that Wikipedia does not do better and in a more comprehensive fashion. The only thing the page does is that it defines pi as twice the x value at which cos is zero, where 0 <= x <= 2; it contains no link and no explanation why this definition is chosen. 3) From reading the page title, I would start guessing that this is a definition of the real cosine function of pi, but it isn't; it is a definition of pi via cosine. If it is called Modular math/Pi/Real cosine function/Definition, Mediawiki is going to automatically generate a link to "Modular math", and when one clicks on the link, there is going to be an explanation like "This resource consists from relatively small modules from which courses are being built via transclusion"; or longer. The thing is self-explanatory only if you already expect this kind of highly modular thing to exist and be useful; I for one--and I have mathematics background--did not come to the page with such an expectation. Editors and viewers with different levels of knowledge and wit may come across the resource. That is why it is good to aim at having things rather self-explanatory rather than relying on knowledge and wit. Therefore, I still think that adding "Modular math" is a good approach. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Modular math works for me, but the author wanted a short name. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC) "Modular math" is more newcomer friendly, but if the author would insist on "MM" (or "ModMath"?), that would also work as long as the "MM"/"ModMath" page existed and explained "this is part of modular math ...". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Happy new year to everyone! I think it would be expected too much that a title explains completely its content. I would consider something like Pi/Real cosine function/Definition sufficiently self-explanatory. ad 1). This is true, I use the slash here atypically. If the community insists on this, I could live with a Superpage like Modular mathematics/. Still I think this is not necessary, and I have made above some other proposals on how to add an explanation (via category). ad 2). I disagree. A definition is a definition is a definition. It is not an explanation, not a motivation, not a historical account, not a didactic approach or a learning philosophy. All this does indeed the Wikipedia article. The usefulness of a definition can not be read from a definition itself, but from where it is used (remarks, theorems). The usage of such a page can be seen easily by going to 'What links here'. An important point in mathematics is that it should always be clear what the definitions of the concepts as the starting points are. Therefore, there should be always direct links to the definition used (not from the context, not by scrolling through books). There are many definitions of pi, and, depending on the course, I use also other (more circle oriented) definitions. The definition as it stands is not chosen, it is chosen in the course (as is standard on the academic level, see e.g. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis, page 2,3.) There might be in the same fashion something like Pi/Half circle length/Definition or Pi/Unit circle/Area/Definition. ad 3) true, its via. Typically, I use only 'Keywords'. ad Curator. Thanks for the proposal. I will have a research semester Mid Jan to May 24 at w:Simons_Laufer_Mathematical_Sciences_Institute, so I will not do here much anyway. Basically I would only use it if I move some of my pages and to delete the old names. Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC) I would argue that we have empirical evidence that I and Guy vandegrift found the page I mentioned confusing. We were not trying to cause harm; the page really looked weird to us. It could have been our mistake not to click on "what links here", but it is not a usual Wikipedia or Wikiversity practice that one can make sense of a page only after one clicks on "what links here". An alternative to "Modular math" prefix is a banner that says: "This is a module that is part of modular mathematics. It is used in other pages via transclusion." And the phrase "modular mathematics" would link to a page that would explain more. Then, no one could reasonably argue that the thing is not self-explanatory. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC) And I'd argue that adding prefixes to the page titles is something which should be done regardless. There's a standing convention at Wikiversity that learning resources are organized as subpages of a top-level page representing the course or subject matter, so that all top-level pages represent reasonable starting points for a reader, and to reduce conflicts between courses which may have substantially different viewpoints on a topic. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Should Erotic mnemonics be a top page in namespace?

Collapse as resolved problem--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 05:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The author says Erotic mnemonics is research, so at best it should be a subpage in namespace. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 07:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I don't see why research needs to be a subpage, as long as it is properly marked as research via a template at the top, which it is. A question in these kinds of pages is whether an article author can occupy the title for themselves. I have solved this problem e.g. by using title "One man's look at hedonism", but I feel my original solution, of "Hedonism (Polansky)" was better; I was told it was dispreferred or something of the sort. Thus, this could be "One man's look at erotic mnemonics". On the other hand, one may choose a different approach: an article is allowed to occupy a title until someone wants to create an article under the same title; only at that time will one try to figure out how to disambiguate. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC) There is a different question: is the article nonsense rather than research? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I'm having difficulty seeing how the content has value to anyone but the author. I'd recommend moving it to user space. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I also want to move it to userspace.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I find moving to userspace a fine option, or deletion (a less kind option). --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Polansky]] (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC) Will do.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC) While you're all at it, you might as well do the same for the 'learning resource' on how to make a bong out of toilet paper. The "random" button takes one to some odd pages. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Minimum useful content

I think that in order to be kept, pages should have a minimum useful content. This would be an interpretation of the current deletion guideline, WV:Deletion: "Resources may be eligible for proposed deletion when education objectives and learning outcomes are scarce, and objections to deletion are unlikely."

Some proposed principles:

• A definition and a link to Wikipedia or Wikibooks is not a minimum useful content.
• The above, expanded with random brainstormed questions, is not a minimum useful content.
• A single recipe on what is otherwise a large subject is not a minimum useful content. For example, a page on Java programming pretending to be a course but only containing hello world should be deleted.
• A page may be kept if it does not have a minimum useful content of its own but it exists as a directory to other useful content. Thus, a page on "Volcano" can exist if it links e.g. to more than subminimal "Origin of volcanos", or "Volcano/Joe Hoe essay on volcanos".
• A definition and a collection of good further reading may be considered to be minimum useful content; this is debatable, but seems roughly okay. Since, the reader can then use the further reading list as instruction on what to read to learn.

The above is new policy in so far as it is so specifically formulated, but it is also a particular interpretation of the existing quoted guideline.

Rationale: reduce the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of worthless pages. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Time and age: Freshly created subminimal page can be speedy deleted; the author can be told to work on it in their user space. If one wants to be more kind or lenient, freshly created subminimal page can be tagged for 3-month deferred deletion, during which time the author has a chance to make the page more than subminimal. For pages that existed in a subminimal state for more than a year, speedy is okay, but if one wants to be more kind or lenient, the page can be tagged for 3-month deferred deletion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Example: Response rate should be deleted: it does not even contain a definition and the only link is to Wikipedia. If this page would be kept, we may proceed in volume as follows: pick a domain; collect terms from the domain that have a Wikipedia page; for each term, create a page with literally no content (not even a definition), and link it to Wikipedia. That cannot be part of the purpose of Wikiversity. "Response rate" is labeled as stub, but it is not a stub in Wikipedia terminology since it has no content whatsoever. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we need to improve the appearance and quality of our stubs. But what is the harm with a couple of thoughtful sentences, a few links to Wikipedia and Wikibooks, and an invitation to create a project under this particular name?Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The harm is that it creates and solidifies the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of useless pseudo-content. Then, when someone sees a link to Wikiversity on Google on, say, "Response rate" mentioned above, they think: no point even clicking there, it is one of those worthless Wikiversity pages. Thus, the association in the minds created is this: Wikiversity --> worthless site, generally not worth visiting. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem removing Response rate, but with only 16 pageviews last year it is neither harmful nor useful. But it is a good example of how we should change the template and format for future stubs. The page was created by User:Jtneill as Special:Permalink/413780. It links to a great deal of valuable Wikiversity material in the form of a category statement. But outsiders likely don't know what a category statement is, so in its original form, the stub was indeed worthless. So I made some edits to encourage people to go to Category:Survey design, where they will see an impressive collection of Wikiversity resources (see for example Survey design.) Jtneill was right to create that stub. The problem was with how the stub was written. Only people familiar with Wikiversity would click the category link. If you see a stub you don't like, don't delete it, fix it! Especially if was written by somebody like Professor Jtneill, who has a long history of making valuable contributions to Wikiversity.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

To determine the harm, one cannot only take "Response rate" in isolation but rather consider all similar pages and their aggregate impact on the minds of those visiting Wikiversity. I am hitting at subpar pages via Random button very easily, which suggests there are many of them. Thus, the question is not so much what is the harm of "Response rate" but rather what is the harm of the class of subpar pages as a whole.

If one accepts "Response rate" with its freedom from content, one is forced to accept nearly anything.

Jtneill could have changed mind. I created Lexical unit with a definition and further reading other than Wikipedia, but I now acknowledge the page was subminimal, and I am okay with it being deleted.

Generally, pages need to be assessed regardless of who made them. Out of courtesy, one may ping a respected creator to explain why they think a page is useful. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think something like Response rate should have its place, as it yields to relevant material. The problem is not its content, but a missing declaration of what it is. It looks a bit to me like a disambiguation page on Wikipedia. I would declare it via a template as something like a 'distribution page' (directory is probably to much, do not know what a good name would be). The stub-sign should be removed. Then the impression of uselessness is avoided. Wikiversity has not only 'learning/teaching resources' in the strict sense, but also supporting pages like templates... I am also a bit alerted that definitions are declared to be 'not a minimum useful content'. The rationale: reduce the impression that Wikiversity is a repository of worthless pages, I support.Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

To give a positive example of what a good declaration is: the wikidebate banner. Then I know what it is (and that I am personally not interested). Essays should be declared as essays, university material as university material, etc. Frustration comes from wrong expectations, something which looks like a course at first sight and then turns out to be nothing (like geometry, where most 'chapters' are just red).Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As I argued, the above approach gives a guide on how to turn Wikiversity into a collection of useless substubs providing nothing that is not in Wikipedia or Wikibooks already, with no tracing to sources, not even with definitions. I am baffled by this kind of position. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As for "then the impression of uselessness is avoided": in me, the impression of uselessness-which to me is obvious--is not removed by removing of tagging. I see with my eyes easily and directly that a page that has nothing but a link to Wikipedia is useless, without anyone tagging that for me via a "stub" template. I feel this is just absurd, but then, I am only a single person. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a page with only a link to Wikipedia should be deleted. But in the example it has the link to the category with useful material. My 'Then' refers to the declaration, not for removing the stub, sorry for this. ( I would remove the stub, as I would consider the page to be nothing more like a link to material, not to be something to be extended).Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we're focusing on the wrong problem here. Having stubs as subpages of a course is fine, more or less. Having stubs as top-level resources is more of an issue, since it's often unclear what course they're meant to be associated with or how they're meant to be expanded - particularly if the stub doesn't explain that context itself.

Top-level pages on Wikiversity should generally represent courses, subjects, or other organized projects. We aren't writing an encyclopedia or a dictionary here; there's no reasonable expectation that a viewer be able to type in any word or phrase and bring up a top-level page specifically dedicated to it. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A compromise just occurred to me: Both sides have valid points, and the compromise involves two alternatives to the binary choice between deleting or keeping a page like Response rate: Either (1) move the page into subspace, or (2) blank the page into its own history and insert a redirect. Blanking preserves the author's ability to recover the effort in perpetuity. In the case of Response rate, the redirect should be to Survey design. Whoever does the blanking and/or redirecting should consider leaving a message on the user's talk page.

• The script for redirecting is #REDIRECT[[Pagename]]
• The message on the author's talk page should contain a link to the stub's original location (in our example it would be to Response rate.) This will permit the author to click the link and trace back to the redirect page and recover the original effort.

This solution puts custodians and curators out of the loop: Long discussions are necessary only if an edit war breaks out between authors and movers.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think Response rate is vaguely tolerable if one applies the justification that it is part of something worthwhile. What I find vital is that it is not then used as a justification for keeping other worthless pages. Even so, deleting Response rate as a substub would cause no harm: there is no content proper and there are almost no page views (17 in the whole year is a very low number). Thus, it would ease deliberation and administration to delete these kinds of substubs. I do support stubs as pages having minimal useful content; pages with no content is not what Wikipedia calls "stubs". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this essay belong in mainspace?

See the link at War_Seminar/Winning_the_War_on_Terror. For me it was tldr. Leave you comments on this page or here on the Colloquium:--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Being rather long is not bad per se, is it? It has about 200 KB, which seems okay (not e.g. 2 MB). The feature that distinguishes Wikiversity from Wikipedia is that it allows original research and original essays. Moreover, the page gives a good first impression: the table of contents seems okay at a glance, and when I started to read the page, it seems written by a competent writer. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, the page seems fine at Winning_the_War_on_Terror, just like wikidebates are fine without a prefix "Wikidebate/". We have categories to organize pages with a similar subject. The page was not created as part of "War Seminar" project, was it? And if it was not, it does not belong to that project. War_Seminar/Winning_the_War_on_Terror is currently a redirect, created recently. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I took over the page War Seminar because it went dormant over 7 years ago. I didn't have time to read all of Winning_the_War_on_Terror, but it seemed well written. Its author was very active until about one year ago. Your praise of Winning_the_War_on_Terror parallels my first impression, so I suggest we leave it in mainspace for a year or so. See Talk:War_Seminar#Pages_moved_here.

My motive in taking over War Seminar was to create a subspace for student essays. After a couple of bad experiences with erroneously deleting pages, I decided to almost never delete. Wikiversity has lots of poor quality pages, and we will never accomplish much if we go slowly and carefully. I can go faster if move pages. I simply didn't have time to read Winning_the_War_on_Terror, so you input was greatly appreciated. Thanks.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, thank you for all the administration work that you are tirelessly doing. I remember one mistake that you made recently, but it was easily corrected and you readily admitted the mistake. Moreover, the page in which you made a mistake had a confusing name and looked confusing, so no surprise it confused someone; it confused me as well.

As for leaving Winning the War on Terror in the mainspace, I propose to leave it there indefinitely. Pages with original essays of decent basic quality--not perfect but decent--should not be moved out of the mainspace once the author gone, in my view (or is there policy to the contrary?). They are what is unique about Wikiversity, unlike some of the Wikibooks-like courses. There, such pages should perhaps be protected from further editing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

By contrast, the Random page function easily discovers countless very poorly executed pages, and these should be moved to user space out of courtesy, or deleted. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky:Thanks for the review of "Winning the War..". I agree with you on all the aforementioned policy statements. In the unlikely event that Wikiversity ever becomes a dominant idea-sharing force in society, some of your policy positins will need to change. But in the future, we will have AI ChatBots to move the furniture around. BTW the odds of Wikiversity becoming that force are small but not zero. Moreover, even a small growth in the importance of Wikiversity might motivate others to create a better wiki along the same lines. A good example is the WikiJournals, which remained very minor players ... but perhaps that's because so many traditional journals went open-source. Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Wikiversity has a great potential in principle, given its great and user-friendly Mediawiki technology time-tested in Wikipedia (revision histories of plain text markup rendered as HTML, refs, images, etc.), but for some reason, it did not really catch on much. I am enthusiastic about Wikidebates, but they do not get much traffic, and if they ever do, it may become very challenging to moderate them. Let us see. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you use Wikidata in Wikimedia sibling projects? Tell us about your experiences

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English.

Hello, the Wikidata for Wikimedia Projects team at Wikimedia Deutschland would like to hear about your experiences using Wikidata in the sibling projects. If you are interested in sharing your opinion and insights, please consider signing up for an interview with us in this Registration form.
Currently, we are only able to conduct interviews in English.

The front page of the form has more details about what the conversation will be like, including how we would compensate you for your time.

For more information, visit our project issue page where you can also share your experiences in written form, without an interview.
We look forward to speaking with you, Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Are long meaningless pages in mainspace worse than stubs?

I just moved nine long and pointless mainspace articles into the subpace of the following mainspace top page:

• Grants and fundraising.

As far as I am concerned, all the subpages to this page can be deleted. But if we decide to keep the subpages, what do we do with the aforementioned top page that hosts the subpages?

Discussion

• In the good old days discussions like this occurred on talk pages. If this effort to get us on a talk page fails, just go back to the Colloquium.

I think long and meaningless pages are Wikiversity's worst enemy because (1) they are more difficult for the cleanup crew to discuss and evaluate, and (2) they waste the reader's time, especially for newbies who try the links when they should just go back to Google. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Going through the subpages in order:

• Grants and fundraising/Construction Engineering Research Grant Group is a half-formed description of a project with no supporting material, untouched since 2007.  Delete.
• Grants and fundraising/Funding is a Marshallsumter page, a collage of unrelated quotes about funding, scientific research agencies, and (sigh) dominant groups.  Delete.
• Grants and fundraising/Fundraising is kind of a mess. I think the intent was to serve as a top-level page for projects to obtain grants for Wikiversity, but it lacks focus. (I've already removed a bizarre section where one editor wrote about his "research on money creation" where he attempted to defraud a bank.) Some of the links might be useful, but most of them are broken or irrelevant.  Delete.
• Grants and fundraising/Fundraising/Video Kiosk was a specific project to create a Wikiversity internet kiosk, which never really went anywhere. Probably safe at this point to say this is never happening.  Delete.
• Grants and fundraising/Grant applications is another Marshallsumter page, this one largely about his (failed) attempt to obtain NSF funding to write more pages about dominant groups.  Delete.
• Grants and fundraising/Grants is effectively just a link collection, and all of the useful-looking links are broken.  Delete.
• Grants and fundraising/Raising funds for the arts is a misformatted mess, but the underlying text looks sound. I'm not sure how useful it is - a lot of it looks like it's just stating the obvious - but  Keep for now, or at least give it a closer look.
• Grants and fundraising/Research grant collaboration group looks like an early attempt to create a course about how to write research grants (yay!), but one which never produced any learning materials beyond a course outline and participant list (boo!).  Keep
• Grants and fundraising/Wikiversity nonprofit corporation was a brief attempt to establish a Wikiversity non-profit for some poorly defined purpose. This never got off the ground.  Delete.

There's also:

• Wikiversity:Grants and fundraising/Wikiversity Grant proposals - which I think you might have meant to move to the main resource namespace? - which is devoid of any content beyond a link to a single mailing list post that's old enough to be going to college next year.  Delete.
• Wikiversity:Funding, which is mostly a list of research foundations. The title is misleading, as it isn't actually about funding Wikiversity (which is handled by Wikimedia). I'm not sure what to do with this one; I'm tempted to replace it all with a redirect to WMF fundraising pages on meta.

Overall: it would be great if Wikiversity had some content about the research grant process, BUT we would need a subject-matter expert to write it (and that isn't me). This is a sufficiently niche topic that a useful resource on it will probably need to rely on personal experience, not just summaries of online or print resources.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at them! I didn't notice any of authors of your proposed deletion lists having made any edits in the past couple of years (and most have been dormant much longer.) That means the articles are no longer a student's learning experience. Erroneous page deletions are a pain to reverse, so I have gotten in the habit of putting stuff in the principal author's userspace. We can't carefully referee everything on Wikiversity, so guessing and moving to userspace is quicker than deliberating and deleting....

Also in favor of moving, is the fact that precedence is a good thing. One of my mistaken removals of a page from namespace was a mistake that someone else made years ago. Both of us chose to move instead of delete. And both of us moved it back. See the two bizzare transclusion pages somebody decided to put in namespace:

• Yes I answered both correctly
• No I answered one or both incorrectly

I added the redirect to userspace and put a warning on it so folks won't move the redirect out of namespace.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: "Erroneous page deletions are a pain to reverse, so I have gotten in the habit of putting stuff in the principal author's userspace. We can't carefully referee everything on Wikiversity, so guessing and moving to userspace is quicker than deliberating and deleting....": A decent solution. Sometimes too kind, but decent anyway. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I've moved those two pages back under the learning project they were linked from. They were obviously meant to be part of Instructional design/Learning objectives/Examples and Non-Examples of Conditions Phrases (which links to both near the bottom of the page); there's no need to move them to userspace. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: I've said it before here, but I think there need to be clearer, jargon-free guidelines on how to organize one's material on Wikiversity. I don't think the article on namespaces is very clear or concise. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that nobody has ever really commented in the past when I've suggested there's a need for better documentation on content organization and namespaces. If anyone cares for my opinion and I'm sure they don't, it would make sense for each person to have their content located in individual "user" directories, just like unix. These need not be our userspaces but I suppose that would make sense. I anticipate that some users might perhaps argue that content should be "collaborative" and therefore not be associated with an individual user. While I understand this idea, in reality many if not most resources are largely the efforts of a single user and there's generally a commensurate and reasonable sense of proprietorship. No regular user would make a large change to another user's material without at least having a conversation and obtaining consent to do so first. Whatever convention Wikiversity uses should reflect this natural tendency, in my opinion. At any rate, there's a need for clearer documentation so that people aren't putting everything in mainspace and have to use silly titles in order to avoid conflicts with other's resources. Unless we're to have only one single course on any given subject, there has to be a sensible and easily-described convention. It should also account for other content e.g. one off articles and essays that are not part of a more complete course. Just my two cents. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Reusing references: Can we look over your shoulder?

Apologies for writing in English.

The Technical Wishes team at Wikimedia Deutschland is planning to make reusing references easier. For our research, we are looking for wiki contributors willing to show us how they are interacting with references.

• The format will be a 1-hour video call, where you would share your screen. More information here.
• Interviews can be conducted in English, German or Dutch.
• Compensation is available.
• Sessions will be held in January and February.
• Sign up here if you are interested.
• Please note that we probably won’t be able to have sessions with everyone who is interested. Our UX researcher will try to create a good balance of wiki contributors, e.g. in terms of wiki experience, tech experience, editing preferences, gender, disability and more. If you’re a fit, she will reach out to you to schedule an appointment.

We’re looking forward to seeing you, Thereza Mengs (WMDE)

Proposal to globally ban Guido den Broeder

Hi, this is to let you all know that there is a proposal to ban User:Guido den Broeder at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. You are receiving this notification as Guido den Broeder has made at least one edit to this wiki as per the m:Global bans policy. Best, --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 05:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have responded on nl:wikibooks. Please stop spamming pings. Guido den Broeder (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Already Y Done, the discussion has ended. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 07:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

mediawiki2latex

Hi, mediawiki2latex exports Wikiversity to Pdf, Epub, Odt and LaTeX. I suggest to add a new link to the tools in the in the section Tools. You may try this out yourself just now by copying User:Dirk_Hünniger/common.js to common.js in your user namespace or by using the link above. I did a very similar proposal five three years ago, but some work has been done on mediawiki2latex, so I propose it again. Yours Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for Color Boxes

I am editing a course page, and I am trying to design it so that exercises are "inside the text" so to speak. The intent is that the reader should never just be reading but always participating.

But because of that structure, I feel like it's often visually unclear where the exercise ends and the exposition picks back up. Therefore I'd like to put the exercises into some kind of a delimited box -- like a color box -- very similar to how definitions can be put into a color box with the "Definition" template. However, as far as I can tell there are no templates for exercises.

So I have two questions.

(1) How can I make color boxes? I've googled around for this but most color boxes seem intended for single-line and inline uses, whereas most exercises are multi-line. (I apologize if this is a dumb question, I'm not super handy with the technical aspects of Wikis.)

(2) Would it make sense to make an official exercise template like there is a template for definitions? It seems like that would be a common enough thing that we might want it semi-standardized across Wikiversity. Or perhaps specifically a template for math exercises, if there is a reason for those to be distinctly styled?

Thanks for any help! Addemf (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest something like Template:inputcolorvariantexercise, with he colors and the design one can play. I would also use the same template for showing exercises. If you then want to change the design, you can do it on the template. The following is the command when you want to include the exercise Functions/R/Strongly increasing/Injective/Exercise. It is best when the exercises are written somewhere else on neutral ground, so everybody can use them by inserting them with different styles.

{{ inputcolorvariantexercise |Functions/R/Strongly increasing/Injective/Exercise|m| }} gives

Exercise

Prove that a strictly increasing function

$f\colon \mathbb {R} \longrightarrow \mathbb {R}$

is injective.

One can also do so that you can write the exercise text directly in your main text. It is also possible to make a variant with a solution (to expand, say). Many things are possible. But I would not strive for an offical how to present exercises, as people like different styles. Also note that the style of the exercise itself is different from the style presented by inserting the exercise. Bocardodarapti (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A reply The {{robelbox}} template can be used to put content in colored boxes, like this reply is. However, be aware that it prevents the visual editor from being used normally on your page, and can make text harder to read; I'd recommend that you avoid using it for large stretches of content.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

the unprotection of making a blog post

Sign Hi folks, i noticed that making a blog post is protected. I understand why but i must request for it to be lifted cause young bloggers like me need the opportunity to get ratings on our work. Yellow Mellow Madie (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

How's that? Where are you trying to make a blog post? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Informing you about the Mental Health Resource Center and inviting any comments you may have

Hello all! I work in the Community Resilience and Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Mental Health Resource Center is a group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community.

The Mental Health Resource Center launched in August 2023. The goal is to review the comments and suggestions to improve the Mental Health Resource Center each quarter. As there have not been many comments yet, I’d like to invite you to provide comments and resource suggestions as you are able to do so on the Mental Health Resource Center talk page. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Thank you! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this needs community attention rather than custodian action, should this be moved to Wikiversity:Colloquium? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 07:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Doing it now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the move. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 07:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am reaching out to you today to announce that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter is now open. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll now through 2 February 2024. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.

The current version of the U4C Charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.

Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Test tools?

<span data-templatescript="WikiSign.js" class="sign-button mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive">{{{1|Sign}}}</span>

Does Wikiversity have test tools such as true/false questions, multiple choice, matching, sorting, quizzes, etc.? These are tools that are used in Moodle, for example. Where can I find them and how can I integrate them into Wikiversity? Thanks for help. Matutinho (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A good place to start is Help:Quiz. There is a link at the top of that page to Help:Quiz-Simple, which is a great entry point. I spent a great deal of time making quizzes for physics and astronomy a few years ago. My effort is at Quizbank. I eventually migrated the project to www.myopenmath.com. If you are going to seriously do quizzes, myopenmath.com is superior. I finally settled in on a method whereby the quizzes are on Myopenmath, but the hints and ancillary materials were on Wikiversity's Quizbank (or another Wikiversity page.) To this day I get enough pageviews on some of my Quizbank pages to know that my questions are being used. I don't know how and by whom.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Last days to vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am reaching out to you today to remind you that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) charter will close on 2 February 2024. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.

The current version of the U4C charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.

Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 17:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata for Beginners

Hey, I am hosting a Wikidata for Beginners workshop on Wednesday, 14 February 2024, as a part of Love Data Week 2024 (LDW), so you are welcome to attend. I would like to ask you to keep an eye on that landing page to prevent any vandalism, as it's linked to the LDW page, too. Thx. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 09:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection Y Done by special:redirect/logid/3387071. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 09:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Announcing the results of the UCoC Coordinating Committee Charter ratification vote

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Thank you everyone for following the progress of the Universal Code of Conduct. I am writing to you today to announce the outcome of the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. 1746 contributors voted in this ratification vote with 1249 voters supporting the Charter and 420 voters not. The ratification vote process allowed for voters to provide comments about the Charter.

A report of voting statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published on Meta-wiki in the coming weeks.

Please look forward to hearing about the next steps soon.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

How to handle very-low-value pages AKA deletion and move to userspace convention

I am starting this discussion based on a prelude:

• Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024

I and Guy vandegrift differ at times about what belongs to mainspace. Guy has been doing a lot of tireless deletion/move-to-userspace work, often based on my proposals; thank you! Some of the deletion proposals resulted in RFD discussions at Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. An example of where we see things differently is Student Projects/PhotoTalks, which I find not good enough for mainspace. The relevant guideline (not policy) is Wikiversity:Deletions; the key phrase is "learning outcomes are scarce".

I will let Guy pick the questions he wants to put forward for discussion. Reposts from the linked discussion are perhaps not amiss. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me violate the above a bit, and put one item for me into the discussion. As a point of contrast: I find the page Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Truth, Objectivity, and Relativism to be of rather low quality: there are too many dubious statements and there is a conspicuous lack of good further reading specific to the subject of the subpage. But it is not the kind of page that I would send for deletion as part of the current cleanup effort. The kind of page that I am sending for deletion is Student Projects/PhotoTalks, which is not a "project" in a meaningful sense and from which the reader can hardly learn anything. And I have no qualms with "PhotoTalks" being moved to user space, although I find it too kind anyway; but I have no fundamental problem with this kind of arguably great-than-expected kindness. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I was pinged because I made some comments etc. about deleting media files. Mostly those deletions were suggested because of copyright issues.

I understand that Wikiversity is a place to learn and study and in all levels. And sometimes you can learn by other peoples mistakes. But it raises 2 problems:

1. If a page is of low quality and it contains mistakes should it at least be flagged as low quality and with mistakes? Otherwise someone may learn something wrong. But who check all the pages and make sure the quality is okay? An when should this happen? If I make a page for a school project then it would not give a fair impression of my skills if other users starts to correct my errors. So it should not happen untill after the project is over and my skills have been evaluated.
2. Just because we can learn from eachothers mistakes does that mean we should keep everything? On Commons Scope page it says: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." I think the same could apply here.

Anyway I think it is a very good idea to agree on some guide/policy etc. because I think it will make it much easier for everyone. But I do not think I can contribute very much to that because I'm not really active outside the file namespace. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 08:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• My answer to all this can be found on Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is a lot to respond to in Wikiversity:Deletion Convention 2024. I will make it brief, to save the attention of everyone, but I can post more if wished and answer any questions anyone has for me.

  1) The quote "Too many bad articles and we don't have the time to remove them, too few bad articles, and there is no need delete them" provides a recipe to keep a growing number of very-low-value pages in the mainspace, which cannot be a good thing.

  2) Very-low-value pages should IMHO ideally either be moved to user space or deleted; they should not stay in the mainspace.

  3) Page "Finding and using free content" should be deleted; two of the three links do not show valuable content (are quasi-broken) and the 3rd link is an internal one.

  4) No admin should feel compelled to do most of the deletion work alone. One option is to do the deletion work only on, say, Tuesdays and only delete, say, at most 7 pages per Tuesday, to give other admins plenty of time to join the effort.

  --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Dan Polansky: I woke up this morning with an idea that is directly related to your point 1) directly above. I believe that idea will render the other points (2-4) moot: Simply move the page to draftspace and leave a redirect. Also, I strongly oppose not leaving a redirect in case the student wants to come back and read or edit the page. (rewritten)-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  The problem with the Draft namespace is this (per Wikiversity:Drafts): "Resources which remain in the draft space for over 180 days (6 months) without being substantially edited may be deleted." And thus, the deletion is only deferred anyway (or does "may" mean deletion is just an option taken on a whim?), but not very much, but the process then takes more work/more steps.

  Students can easily find their pages in their contribution list (e.g. Special:Contributions/Dan Polansky), which should be easy to overview unless the student was very prolific. Therefore, keeping redirects seems inessential. And if the moving is to userspace, finding the contribution is also easy, using a template that lists userspace subpages. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Three items:

1. What about moving to userspace with a redirect, and with template at the top of the page identifying that page as being in the person's userspace?
2. Also, I just got a thank you from a person whose article I moved to userspace instead of deleting.
3. No consensus is being formed here, and if nothing happens I will no choice but to use my authority as a Custodian and impose something. What I do will be based largely on previous practice, because as you know, our stated policy guidelines were never taken seriously.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Since I'm really not active here I would hate to make things more complicated. But I just saw Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Student_Projects/PhotoTalks and in my opinion this should be deleted as a speedy per Wikiversity:Deletions#Criteria #1. I see no reason to even discuss it.

If it was a new page and the user was still working on it then I would not judge it too hard. But it has not been edited for many years.

According to Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? Wikiversity is a learning community for learning, teaching, researching, serving and sharing materials and ideas. Can anyone explain why the page meets any of that? Who will learn anything from the page. What would they learn from it? Is there any research in this? Etc.

I do not agree that we gain (almost) nothing by deleting low quality pages. If anyone searches then junk will also show up. If users see too much junk it will give the impression that this project is a low quality project. Personally I would not use a project if I know that there are no minimum/quality requirements.

I fully understand that it is a huge task to clean up and I know there are cases where someone might disagree. But it should be possible for those that disagree to provide some good arguments why the page should not be deleted. So perhaps modify {{Prod}} a bit so that if anyone wants to remove the template they should at least add a reason on the talk page.

So my suggestion is delete vandalism etc. at once. If there could be any doubt add {{Prod}}, wait 30 days (or whatever) then delete. If someone disagree they should be required to provice a realistic argument why it is not a deletion. If nominator does still not agree the page should be kept then start a formal deletion and hope there is anyone else that would like to comment. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The following comment preceded the previous one, but was placed under the wrong section by the author Guy vandegrift: Why are we talking about Student Projects/Geography??? It's a student project and nobody is going there to look for ideas about teaching. Pageviews count the times an editor looks at the page, but if you look at the pageviews after the page was completed this is what you get.. Also look at Student_Projects#Student_Pages. I think it's almost 300 pages. In the experimental sciences we learn to make estimates. I estimate that it will take 100 person hours to get the references right on all these pages. I don't want to waste one more hour of my time on this. In 2020 a Bureaucrat Dave Braunschweig allowed the page to be at its current location. Why am I being asked to revert that decision? I repeat: Nobody cares about Student_Projects/Geography. It does no harm, except that talking about it wastes time and space on the Colloquium.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, I did not nominate User:PURNA BISWAS2/Student Projects/Geography for deletion (when it was at Student Projects/Geography), although it indeed does not belong to mainspace, IMHO. I am focusing on top-level mainspace pages with arguably unacceptable quality/implemented scope. To give an idea for what I mean, I just used "Random page" wiki function to find the following pages arguably worthy of deletion/moving to userspace: The Distribution of Addition and Subtraction over Multiplication in Elementary Algebra, The iam conjecture, Web Design:Useful Books, Internet Abuse, and Wikitext 101. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, the "vote" is 2 for deletion, with only me wanting to keep the page. It looks like Wikiversity is now refereeing the quality of student efforts. As per the old (informal) policy, I will move it to the author's userspace. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you know that Student_Projects/PhotoTalks was created as a Student Project? But even if it was there is no rule saying that it has to be kept online forever? Student Projects could be deleted after some time - one year for example. As you said nobody is going there to look. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 06:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I support deleting as little as possible that is not blatant spam. I think deleting user creations discourages users from actively using the wiki. Deleting any content that is not blatant spam that may have been created in good faith may actually be a form of punishment effectively (from a behavioral psychology point of view). If something is not actual spam, then IMO it should not ever be deleted. It should either be moved to draft namespace or user namespace... or like a "Recycle bin" so others could access and reuse/repurpose the content or utilize it later - even if it is just a bare bones minimal page (like a stub). Deleting content I think will continue to hinder this wiki from growing and reaching its potential. ChatGPT reached 100 million users in a few months? And this wiki has existed for how long and has how many users? This wiki has so much potential but I often stop myself from editing here and tell myself it is not a good use of time because something I may create in good faith may be deleted (thereby wasting my time and efforts). Limitless peace. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The key question of this thread is not when things should be outright deleted but rather when can they be moved out of mainspace. And if I read the above correctly, it opposes the former (deletion) but not the latter (move to userspace); correct me if I am wrong. (A wiki is nothing like a chatbot; not much point comparing the two.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

In section #Expanding WV:Deletions with provision for moving to user space, I proposed to codify moving to userspace as common. Even stronger language could be used than I used, in favor of moving to user space. This could lead people to think that even if their creation gets removed from mainspace, it will at least end up in their user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Then I shall clarify. If pages are kept in main namespace, OK. If they are moved to userspace or draft namespace then those pages should be organized and linked to in such a way that they are not effectively impossible or extremely difficult to find or notice (if one's intention is to see less developed content and stubs for possible development). I oppose outright deletion for reasons I noted. Bless up. 06:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What to do about WV:Verifiability

My edits to the page have been challenged elsewhere, but a proper venue seems to be Colloquium. We should figure out what to do about them.

1) Revert to the state before my edits. I find this suboptimal since I find these edits to be an improvement, but I am no dictator here.

2) Keep in the state in which I left the page. Still far from ideal, but at least some defects have been addressed.

3) Make amends to the state in which I left the page.

I will point out that even after the changes I made, the page is at odds with the actual widespread practice. One only has to look e.g. at Student Projects and its subpages to see that requirements of either reference-verifiable statements or original "scholarly research" are being largely ignored. To wit, e.g. Student Projects/Geography contains only one external link (to youtube) and surely is not "original scholarly research" by any standard; it is a rather unoriginal yet original in the sense of copyright law writeup, perhaps by a student. Student Projects has other such pages.

Ideally, we would figure out how to amend WV:Verifiability to match the intended tolerance for unreferenced texts in Wikiversity. In the meantime, it seems advisable not to pretend the page is a binding policy that is actually enforced. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am neutral on this. If you follow the rules, we should revert your changes because no census was reached. If we follow past policy, no action needs to be taken because much of what was written was never properly voted on. Wikiversity is a very small organization. We are so small in number that we can either improve the wiki or improve the rules, but not both, IMHO. I am getting caught up in all this because I am one of the few Custodians who is deleting pages, and I might stop doing that (I'm only a volunteer.) ... Also, it's OK to discuss things on the Colloquium, but decisions need to be done in Wikiversity space because: (1) That's the way we used to do it, and (2) these decisions take a long time (many months) and discussions get archived or lost before everybody votes.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Expanding WV:Deletions with provision for moving to user space

I propose to add something like the following to WV:Deletions:

"==Moving to user space==

"A page that meets the criteria for deletion can be moved to user space instead, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, etc. Rationale: The database storage is not saved by deletion and there is generally no harm in being kind to those who hone their writing and wiki editing skills in Wikiversity."

Thoughts? Any supports? Phrasing modification proposals? Should the rationale be omitted? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The policy you proposed is better than what we have. But I keep coming back to the "calculation" of what is and is not possible. We need to move fast and efficiently because removing less than 10% of the low quality pages accomplish nothing. It is time consuming to go into the history and decide who the author(s) were. I propose Draft:Archive/Pagename for all such pages. This will allow people to search Draft:Archive to locate their work. I also propose that we give high priority to two distinctly different types of pages:

1. Old pages that have been dormant for 5 years or more.
2. Vast quantities of new pages that a hyperactive newbie creates. Half of them are doing real harm with nonsense pages, and need to be asked to leave (or at least work in userspace.) The other half need to be encouraged to work under one or two subpages.

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Are the pages in "Draft:Archives/..." exempt from "Resources which remain in the draft space for over 180 days (6 months) without being substantially edited may be deleted", which was voted on in Wikiversity talk:Drafts#Draft namespace resource retention in April 2019? If they are not exempt, why should a page creator prefer the Draft page over user space, in which the material can be left alone indefinitely? I for one would prefer my writings to end up in my user space and stay there "forever", publicly accessible.

Yes, you are right that figuring out the right user is more work and sometimes may be harder to do or impossible. For that scenario, the draft space seems to be a fine option.

Shouldn't we codify both options, as "can"? We would start by adding the user space option as proposed above, and I would propose another option for the Draft space in a separate thread? (Or you could do it if preferred.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Draft:Archive would be exempt from removal. Putting the material in Draft:Archive has lots of advantages: (1) Virtually all pages have multiple authors (2) people can easily search this DraftArchive space using either Google or Wikiversity's search option. (3) Nobody in their right mind is going to judge Wikiversity by what they read in a space called "Draft:Archive". What distinguishes Wikiversity from the other wikis is the we "learn by doing", and we all learn from our mistakes. Before we propose this option to the community, I suggest we just do it for about ten pages, and see who complains.

Also, the page created used the singular: See Draft:Archive. Feel free to replace Lorem ipsum with proposed guidlines.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Since the proposed plan is to let very-low-quality material sit somewhere in the Draft:Archive/... indefinitely, I think the better plan is to let sit all pages in the Draft:... space indefinitely, which would require a formal abolishment of Wikiversity talk:Drafts#Draft namespace resource retention via new voting somewhere. But even if we want to have Draft:Archive/... exempt from expiry, it probably requires a process as formal as the linked vote, doesn't it? I struggle to find the significant difference between the kind of material that belongs to Draft/... and the kind that belongs to Draft/Archive/... --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a way out of any legal conundrums associated with Draft:Archive: Let's consider it my personal project, always under construction. That way I don't need anyone's permission to maintain the page, unless someone can make the argument that it hurts Wikiversity. I haven't read the Wikiversity policy, but I doubt there is a deletion date for drafts that are still being edited. I have certain rules for this project. The following items are not allowed, for example:

1. Bad attempts at humor, or commercial advertising (this eliminates most spam)
2. Excessive pages by a single editor
3. All hate speech, and any pseudoscience that is patently false

• Also, any link, image, or template that interferes with Wikiversity can be "dewikified" using <nowiki>...</nowiki>

As I was looking for pages to place in this archive, I took a second look at Student Projects/PhotoTalks. Those who want to remove it from its subspace may outnumber me. But they are wrong. I spent several years at a University consulting with primary and secondary teachers on the teaching of math and science (my efforts were largely useless because at that level teaching is 99% babysitting and 1% content.) But assigning a young student to learn how to create a page on Wikiversity with images is an excellent thing to do. Even if the person who created the page was not a child.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic, do you have any objections to expanding the WV:Deletions page as proposed, to codify moving to user pages? The text says "can" (an option), captures actual recent practice and does not preclude using Draft namespace for a similar purpose. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As I am a newbie and have been somewhat active, I wonder whether I am doing things the right way.

I don't want to bother anyone by asking them to review what is quite a lot of writing. But if I have been doing anything which has stood out as less than ideal, please feel free to let me know. Addemf (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Addemf: Everything you wrote looks OK to me. Your topic is outside my field of expertise, though. If you need any help, click "discuss" after my username:Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! As long as none of the style or ways that I'm editing are upsetting to anyone, I'm pleased!  :) Addemf (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete pure junk

I think pure junk should be deleted rather than moved to userspace or draftspace.

For instance: Draft:Istanamshjs. The title is nonsense, the "content" is nonsense; not even sentences.

This kind of "contribution" is not worth anyone's time, not even the time to push the "move" button. The only button this deserves is "delete with extreme prejudice".

WV:Deletions does not disagree, or outright agreees.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: You are asking to delete this page approximately one day after it was created. It is perfectly acceptable to start a draft with an outline. There is a bit of justifiable prejudice against IP editors because they tend not to stay long. But perhaps the person is being cautious about registering with an unfamiliar organization. I still haven't made the decision to sign up for CNN. I admit that the draft looks incoherent, and give this project a 5% chance of going anywhere, and that probability will go down every day this draft is not edited. This leaves me with three questions: (1) What probability of success is the threshold for deleting a draft? (2) How do we obtain that probability? By one person's opinion, or do we need some sort of consensus? (3) At what point do we reach a point of diminishing return on our efforts? In other words, bringing this up on the Colloquium or RFD wastes our time. Just give it a {{subst:prod}} and move on.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: {{ping}} only works if you also sign a post. So if you go back and edit a comment to add a ping, you should also re-sign that post. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf: I'm confused: I thought I did sign the post. Perhaps my numbered list confused people. I will re-edit, but not resign because that confuses the record.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I submit that Draft:Istanamshjs is not a draft of anything but a pure junk. To my mind, the page is not acceptable at all, and I don't care about whether the author was an IP in this instance.

I brought this to Colloquium so that we can agree that some pages are junk enough to be deleted outright rather than being "salvaged" in Draft space. If there is no such agreement, we can as well rename "Draft" space to "Dustbin".

I find this lenience toward pure junk very perplexing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I quote this junk in full:

<small>

This page Istanamshjs Does not exist

This Page but,Always you can Make a new draft for                           

Review.


Did you mean Islam JTK?

Islam 1988 Monopoly

Islam 1991 User

Islam 1996 

Islam 1998

Islam 1999

Islam 2000 Event help

Islam 2021

Privacy Policy  Terms  Help of Service   Feedback  Advice  Settings 


Sign in  Sign Up

</small> This is not a draft. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion

I am planning to close a number of discussions at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion. A few of them have unresolved issues, but the discussions are so contorted that we need to resolve those issues with fresh starts for each issue. I will collapse the discussions to leave room for you to list any items that need to be resolved.

1. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Wikiversity:Deletion_Convention_2024
2. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Thousands_of_unused_files
3. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter
4. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Draft:Proof_for_NP_unequal_P_by_Thomas_Käfer
5. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#PhotoTalks
6. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Wikisphere
7. Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Ukulele

Yours truly, Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 04:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolvable outcomes based on existing discussion and WV:Deletions guideline:

Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Wikiversity:Deletion_Convention_2024: not a specific deletion proposal => no action taken.

Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Thousands_of_unused_files: not clear

Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter: not clear; something was already done

Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Draft:Proof_for_NP_unequal_P_by_Thomas_Käfer: delete.

Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#PhotoTalks: move out of mainspace (2:1)

Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Wikisphere: move out of mainspace (already done, but redirect was kept)

Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Ukulele: delete (or move out of mainspace).

On a process/administration note, I do not find collapsing discussions useful at all, not even before archiving. The English Wiktionary does not collapse its RFD discussions. The English Wiktionary closes each discussion with a closure statement, e.g. "RFD-kept" or "RFD-deleted". It would be great to proceed in a similar fashion. From the archives of Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion, I see the English Wikiversity did not use to collapse discussions. For instance, Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/16 uses boxed closures using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} but no collapsed closures; and each boxed closure states the specific outcome. I think even these boxes with blue background are unnecessary and make the archived discussions harder to read. The phrasing of the closing statement is not that important; it can be "Deleted per consensus", "No consensus for deletion". One can emphasize closing if one wishes: "Closed: deleted per consensus", "Closed: no consensus for deletion", etc.

If discussions are to be collapsed, the collapsing should be on a per discussion level rather than multiple discussions being in a single collapsed section (perhaps that was just an editing error?)

On a time note: closing Ukulele is too early IMHO since not even one week elapsed. We should agree on a minimum period for keeping RFD discussions open and keep that period. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The confusion about Ukulele is my fault. I closed the discussion ("turned it blue") and collapsed it because there was a consensus to delete. I will not move the discussion into the archive ("hide it") until it is deleted. I need to prioritise my efforts, and deleting well designed stubs is not a high priority. I said this is my fault because I forgot to change the tag on Ukalele from "rfd" to "speedy". Now anybody who wants to delete will see it on Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion.Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter Can be closed. Someone just have to decide if the pages made by MS and/or Kizer should be deleted or not. If someone know the answer to the off topic question it would be Great but if not that page could be discussed in a new RFD.--MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The start of Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter mentions "out invalid fair use files"; are there still any files (not pages) by User:Marshallsumter that someone considers problematic? Either way, it is probably a good idea to close this old RFD thread, and open a new one if required, say, "Files by User:Marshallsumter with invalid fair use". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I created a space for this discussion at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Archiving_of_Invalid_fair_use_by_User:Marshallsumter --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Good. The title is a bit ambiguous: are we talking files or pages? Anyway, let us see what discussion develops there. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Invalid fair use files are a copyright problem. My plan was to delete pages in user namespace. Once the pages were deleted many files would be orphan and easy to find and delete. Very simple plan - at least in my head :-D However the files have been found and deleted now. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem deleting user namespace pages that are causing trouble. In fact, I'm still a bit concerned about moving "dead" pages to either userspace or Draft:Archive for exactly that reason. If anybody ever runs into a problem caused by such pages, let me know.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Collapsing discussions in Requests for Deletion (RFD)

I register my opposition to the use of collapsing in Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion. Collapsing the discussions makes it harder to skim the RFD page just by scrolling down and see what is going on there. As a weak argument, collapsing RFD discussions is not common in the English Wiktionary. One does not need collapsing to move from one discussion to another: there is a table of contents for that. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Should we allow custodians to use mass-delete?

At special:permalink/2609683#Does_anybody_know_how_to_delete_all_pages_by_a_single_user?, there was a related discussion about this matter. I'm bringing this agenda here for the community's attention. As can be seen at Special:ListGroupRights, only bureaucrats are allowed to use mass-delete under current settings, but many Wikimedia projects allow this to admins (equal to our custodians). Global sysops can also use mass-delete. What does our community think about this? Should we keep the current settings, or should we grant mass-delete to our custodians as a new standard? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@MathXplore Sounds like a good idea to me - I can see value in Special:Nuke being available to custodians on en.wv. Consider starting a proposal at Wikiversity talk:Custodianship. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have started a proposal at Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship#Proposal_to_allow_custodians_to_use_mass-delete per suggestion. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for Integrating University Knowledge into Wikipedia

Hello! I share with you this proposal, it is still not very mature, I would appreciate ideas and suggestions to carry it out. Any opinion is welcome. Thanks

The aim of this proposal is to compile and share all academic content from universities on Wikipedia. This involves adding the syllabi of all subjects from all university degrees to the platform, providing free and open access to university knowledge for anyone or any artificial intelligence.

Implementation:

1. Acquisition and Digitalization of Notes:

• Students are encouraged to digitize their notes and publish them under the CC BY SA license for inclusion in Wikipedia.
• Participation from students can be promoted through annual awards for the best notes in each degree, whether in the form of monetary incentives, meal vouchers, or transportation grants. It is crucial to avoid plagiarism and respect copyright.
• Collaboration with student delegations and the involvement of professors in this task are encouraged.

2. Uploading Content to Wikimedia Commons:

• Students can upload their notes to the Wikimedia Commons repository with their full name, which enhances their visibility on Google and improves their curriculum vitae.

3. Distribution of Content on Wikipedia:

• The notes are reviewed and understood, and the information is distributed across related Wikipedia articles.
• To achieve this, two options can be considered:

1. Hiring specialized editors.
2. Requesting the collaboration of Wikipedia volunteers, possibly establishing a Wikiproject dedicated to organizing tasks and coordinating content contributions.

This proposal aims to enrich Wikipedia's content with verified and accessible academic knowledge, benefiting students, researchers, and learning enthusiasts worldwide.

In commons there are already uploaded notes for several subjects, see Lecture Notes Uni4all (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

My advice is to start small. Go on Wikiversity and start a small project. Focus on quality versus volume. We are a community that shares your goals, but we live in a much larger and more diverse world that is not ready for your plan.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO to my knowledge, lecture notes could simply be added to this wiki. If there is a better way to think about that please LMK. Bless up! Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 02:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Archive namespace?

What about an Archive namespace? ... Its not exactly for drafts... but this could be utilized to sort of wall off Creative Commons content created in good faith from the main namespace that might otherwise be deleted? Or maybe Draft can serve this function, if such a function is desired? bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you already know about an informal version of this I started a few weeks ago at Draft:Archive.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not know that until today. That is awesome!! thanks and limitless peace! now I know! thanks. Bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 08:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Michael Ten: I hate to bother you about this, but now that you know about Draft:Archive, I presume you are willing to change your vote so that WikiService and be moved to Draft:Archive/2024/WikiService. You can change your vote at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Voting_on_WikiService simply by deleting and rewriting. Equivalently, you can affirm right here that we should move WikiService to Draft:Archive/2024/WikiService, and I will report that affirmation and close the discussion over there. The page has had no significant edits since 2008, and the significant authors have been dormant for a decade (BTW I am OK with deleting something this old.)--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 09:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Age and dormant are not deletion criteria per WV:Deletions. A valuable page can be dormant and that is fine per WV:Deletions, unless I have overlooked something. The problem with the page is that it is worthless and will not help readers learn anything; if the page were excellent since 2008 and without further changes, it would be kept. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Draftify

I created Template:Draftify today. Does a template like this already exist? I applied this template to Metadata. bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this template should be deleted. Instead, I propose an alternative in #Expanding WV:Deletions with Moving to Draft archive. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Expanding WV:Deletions with Moving to Draft archive

I propose to expand WV:Deletion with the following:

"==Moving to Draft archive==

"A page that meets the criteria for deletion can be moved to Draft:Archive instead, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, etc. Rationale: The database storage is not saved by deletion and there is generally no harm in being kind to those who hone their writing and wiki editing skills in Wikiversity."

This matches the practice launched recently by Guy Vandegrift.

This presupposes there will be consensus for this practice.

As a result, we may still use speedy delete and/or rfd process, and handle pages by moving them rather than deleting them. By contrast, this template Draftify introduces a new implied process with unclear rules for what can be moved to Draft space.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky and Michael Ten: As I understand it, the plan is to have three options: Delete, Draftspace, or Draft:Archive. If we have three templates, the person who selects the template will have made a de facto vote on the question. This could speed up the voting process.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

My questions would be these: do you agree with the wording I proposed above? Do you agree that the wording matches the recent practice concerning Draft:Archive or do you think changes need to be made to the wording I proposed? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing this, and this seems quite fruitful. I suggested the following amendment or something to this effect (this is just a suggestion and open to constructive changes, unless what you originally proposed is most ideal unmodified).

"==Moving to Draft archive==

"A page that meets the criteria for deletion from the main resource namespace that was most likely created in good faith and is not blatant spam should be moved to the "Draft:" namespace instead of being deleted, unless an overriding rationale for deletion prevails such as the page being offensive, copyright violation, spam, and/or so forth. The rational for this is as follows. Not deleting Creating Commons Content created in good faith is fruitful to the Creative Commons as a whole, database storage is not reduced by deleting content, and there is generally no harm moving good faith content to the Draft: namespace. Additionally, whether someone created good faith Creative Commons content (related to teaching, learning, or research) to hone their writing and wiki editing skills, simply to plant the seed of an idea for others to build off of later, or so forth, moving such content to the "Draft:" namespace can give others an opportunity to develop the content later, use the content as food for thought that might spark new, useful, or novel ideas, and/or possibly another creative fruitful intellectual processes related to Creative Commons content creation not described here.

Bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)