Wikiversity:Colloquium

Start your discussion here Sign your posts with   ~~~~ Welcome Do you have questions, comments or suggestions about Wikiversity? That is what this page is for! Before asking a question, you can find some general information at: What is Wikiversity? Who are Wikiversity participants? Wikiversity Introduction Mediawiki software questions Wikiversity: Chat | Mailing list | Twitter For general questions, use Wikiversity:Help desk

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

On this page, sections containing at least 1 signed contributions are automatically archived, if the last contribution is at least 18 days old.

Will this cause problems with some browsers?

I am only vaguely aware of how different browsers interpret Wikitext. But the box to the right seems like a quick and simple way to conveniently display all the resources on Wikipedia/Wikiversity/Wikibooks. Will there be any "bugs"?

In the case of this particular topic "Optics", there may be so many resources that we need an entire page for the links. But in most cases, a half-dozen links are all we need. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia resources:
w:Optics
w:Geometrical optics
w:Thin lens
w:Paraxial approximation
w:Accommodation (eye)
w:Focus (optics)
w:Optical aberration
w:Corrective lens
b:Physics Study Guide/Optics

Browsers don't interpret Wikitext. Only the wiki server does that. It generates dynamic HTML that must be interpreted by different browsers. There's less risk of a problem with the dynamic HTML than there is with a user having a NoScript add-in so that dynamic HTML is disabled on their browser. What if, instead of having a collapsed list (that I suspect most users won't expand), you have a list of items below the image, something like on the right. A template could be developed to generate the content so that users don't have to manage the HTML details. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In the future I will refrain from using the collapsible list. I did it mostly for fun. Regarding the template, I think we need one. I believe that the wiki-sisters will grow, and if nothing is done clutter of signs will look those billboards you see when driving along highways. Also, the logo will need to be changed to either a generic logo for all sisters, or to a switch that turns the individual ones on and off. If you make a switch, make the simplest option a generic image. And, it would be nice to have simple options for the oft-used combinations (e.g. Wikibooks-Wikipedia-Wikiversity). With the image method I am using, there is no rush to get this done.

Also, a nice convention would be to place this either at the top, alongside the contents, or at the bottom near external links. I want no part in the arguments that will ensue as Wikipedia editors argue which option is more appropriate for a given article. As I said, there is no rush to get this done.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This system is a reason to sometimes keep the convention of using the letter (e.g. v or c) instead of the keyword (Wikiversity or Commons) in the address of the wikilink. In prose, I do much prefer the keyword, e.g. Wikipedia:Optics is better than w:Optics.

Create a link for a special section of a page

Hello , i checked the wikipedia Tutorial but still i can't do it correctly

Categories

أ --Ruaa Elias (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

When linking to Wikipedia from Wikiversity, there's an extra Wikipedia: in front. The link would be Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia links#Categories. But I don't think you were trying to link to Wikipedia. The other part of linking to a section heading is that there must be a matching section heading. For example, to link to this section here, you can use either Wikiversity:Colloquium#Create a link for a special section of a page or just #Create a link for a special section of a page if it's on the same page. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of a "Sister projects" report in the Wikipedia Signpost

Hello, all I'm a volunteer at the Wikipedia Signpost, the Wikimedia movement's biggest internal newspaper. Almost all of our coverage focuses on Wikipedia, with occasional coverage of Commons, the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, Wikidata, the Wikimedia Labs; we have little to nothing to say about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, or Wikivoyage. I'm interested in writing a special long-form "sister projects" report to try and address this shortfall. Is there anyone experienced in the Wikiversity project with whom I can speak with, perhaps over Skype, about the mission, organization, history, successes, troubles, and foibles of being a contributor to this project? If so, please drop me a line at my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks! ResMar 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I see, 2 people contacted you already. w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-09/Wikiversity interview might also be helpful, ----Erkan Yilmaz 11:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this a "fair use" of an image?

Two questions: One: Is it permissible to add this diagram] to the Wikiversity collection of image files? Two: Is it worth the bother? I ask because it would be no trouble to simply link to the image. The only advantage to showing the actual image in a Wikiversity resource is cosmetic.

According to http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html , considerations for "fair" use include:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

It seems to me that 1 and 4 are clearly satisfied. We endorse the lab, except for portions of the lab manual that we found confusing. Pasco should be delighed that we are using their image. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how you use the image. Can it simply be added as a file? No. That's not fair use. But if you create a resource about how to use the Pasco device and then add an image of it to support the article, yes, that would be fair use. It wouldn't diminish the value of the work, because they aren't selling the image, they're selling the product. When you add the file, include a Fair Use tag and the source, and indicate that it is being used for an article about the product.

Is it worth it? It certainly could be, if the image would enhance the description you intend to provide. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Stewards confirmation rules

Hello, I made a proposal on Meta to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --MF-W 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015

Did you know?

With Citoid in VisualEditor, you click the 'book with bookmark' icon and paste in the URL for a reliable source:

Citoid looks up the source for you and returns the citation results. Click the green "Insert" button to accept its results and add them to the article:

After inserting the citation, you can change it. Select the reference, and click the "Edit" button in the context menu to make changes.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's performance, the Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 11:00 (noon) PDT (18:00 UTC). You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal.

Recent improvements

VisualEditor is now substantially faster. In many cases, opening the page in VisualEditor is now faster than opening it in the wikitext editor. The new system has improved the code speed by 37% and network speed by almost 40%.

The Editing team is slowly adding auto-fill features for citations. This is currently available only at the French, Italian, and English Wikipedias. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections by contributing to the Citoid service's definitions for each website.

Citoid requires good TemplateData for your citation templates. If you would like to request this feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

The special character inserter has been improved, based upon feedback from active users. After this, VisualEditor was made available to all users of Wikipedias on the Phase 5 list on 30 March. This affected 53 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh.

Work continues to support languages with complex requirements, such as Korean and Japanese. These languages use input method editors ("IMEs”). Recent improvements to cursoring, backspace, and delete behavior will simplify typing in VisualEditor for these users.

The design for the image selection process is now using a "masonry fit" model. Images in the search results are displayed at the same height but at variable widths, similar to bricks of different sizes in a masonry wall, or the "packed" mode in image galleries. This style helps you find the right image by making it easier to see more details in images.

You can now drag and drop categories to re-arrange their order of appearance ​on the page.

The pop-up window that appears when you click on a reference, image, link, or other element, is called the "context menu". It now displays additional useful information, such as the destination of the link or the image's filename. The team has also added an explicit "Edit" button in the context menu, which helps new editors open the tool to change the item.

Invisible templates are marked by a puzzle piece icon so they can be interacted with. Users also will be able to see and edit HTML anchors now in section headings.

Users of the TemplateData GUI editor can now set a string as an optional text for the 'deprecated' property in addition to boolean value, which lets you tell users of the template what they should do instead. (T90734)

Looking ahead

The special character inserter in VisualEditor will soon use the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki will also have the option of creating a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Instructions for customizing the list will be posted at mediawiki.org.

The team is discussing a test of VisualEditor with new users at the English Wikipedia, to see whether they have met their goals of making VisualEditor suitable for those editors. The timing is unknown, but might be relatively soon. (T90666)

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Can you translate from English into any other language? Please check this list to see whether more interface translations are needed for your language. Contact us to get an account if you want to help!
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
• File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

— Elitre (WMF)

19:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Projectmanagement tooling

One of my customers is in the selection process of a project management tool. On the following page I would like to discuss some solutions. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/System_development/Domains/Overview/Project_management/Software. Who has knowledge about project management tools? Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 07:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Description Lists

Hey! I was wondering if there is any wiki markup for description lists. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Use ; and :

;dt
:dd
;dt
:dd

dt

dd

dt

dd

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --I8086 (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Greetings,

I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Question

Special:Statistics says we have 20,077 content pages at the moment. Towards the end of March of this year, about a month ago, we had nearly 28,000 pages: [1]. Have more than seven thousand content pages been deleted recently? James500 (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The deletion log Special:Log/delete shows just less than 500 deletions for the past month. It would take about 230 deletions for 30 days to account for the difference. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

According to archive.org, the previous count up to 23 August 2014 was 26,930. I do remember seeing some 26,000 fairly recently. Something may be up with the special statistics all pages counter. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If the number of deletions is too small to account for the apparent reduction in the number of "content pages" by 7,888 since March 21, could it be explained by pages being moved out of the mainspace to another namespace, or by mainspace pages being blanked and redirected? James500 (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Something like that I believe is occurring. We host a number of courses from several colleges and universities. The students create files and content pages that may remain outside our content space while in use. Then when the course is over a bot (I'm guessing here) returns them to mainspace. The files that do not have proper licensing appear in Category:Pending deletions. These have been showing up at about 50 a week for awhile now. I usually delete as many as I can. Dave may know more about this. If the bot has removed some content pages as if in a course it may have a bug in it. But, I'm just guessing. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The total number of pages has remained consistent (162,593 -> 163,338). It would seem that content pages is no longer counting some namespace that was included in the past. We would need access to the variable indicated at mw:Manual:Article count to know what is included. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Following up on Dave's suggestion I found this: "MediaWiki 1.26 is currently being developed. Consult the RELEASE-NOTES file for the full list of changes. It is currently deployed on Wikimedia Foundation wikis through incremental "wmf"-branches starting April 08, 2015." MediaWiki 1.25 was deployed last year in September and doesn't come online fully until May 25, 2015, which is too soon to be responsible for the change in content pages. I'll look at mw:MediaWiki 1.26 release notes to see what's going on. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.26 implements a content page search using whether a resource page contains at least one link versus earlier version(s), still checking on this, that look for commas. 1992 Cuba earthquake contains commas but no links. It may not be counted as a content page currently. So I will test that. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a time sequence:

1. 20,087 at 15:32
2. 20,087 at 15:38
3. link edited to 1992 Cuba earthquake at 15:40
4. 20,087 at 15:41
5. 20,087 at 15:50
6. 20,089 at 15:57
7. 20,089 at 17:01

Problem: looking through Recent changes, it appears all the other changes involve adding links to pages that already have links and commas. I can't account for a change of two. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe I may have found the answer. We have a special page called, Special:LonelyPages. These are "The following pages are not linked from or transcluded into other pages in Wikiversity." A-Level Mechanics - Vectors is the first one. If you click on "Page information" while on that page from the left column, what you don't see is "Counted as a content page Yes". The category does not say how many there are, but there are 500 between A-Level Mechanics - Vectors and Coffee house. Including these and for the rest of the alphabet there could easily be between 4,000 and 8,000 such pages. Since I have linked to A-Level Mechanics - Vectors from here, it may now show up as a content page. If so try the next one. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OpenStax College using Wikiversity Quizzes? An opportunity to collaborate.

Does anybody know anything about editing PDF files? In the past, OpenStax College has hosted practice quizzes through Learningpod.¹  Unfortunately, the future of this support is uncertain.²   Wikiversity might be able to fill the gap, but unfortunately our quizzes are rendered with undesirable page gaps. For a discussion of this, see (and perhaps edit):

• [[OpenStax_College/Printing_wikiquizzes_as_in-class_tests]] OpenStax College/Wikiversity testbank of quiz extensions would never be used

Footnotes:

1. http://www.learningpod.com/workbook/openstax-anatomy-and-physiology/658a9bcc-378e-49c1-81d1-194724efef94
2. http://go.learningpod.com/blog/final-message-from-learningpod

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not an open solution (and doesn't directly answer your question), but my approach is to use existing content to make a course management system test bank and use the CMS for real-world student testing. It is relatively easy to convert printed content into a format that can be uploaded into a CMS exam pool. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: I think you solved my problem. There is no need for the entire testbank to be open source. It is not only sufficient, but better if only some of the test questions are open source. Is there a standard CMS testbank format that everybody follows? Who sponsors the software that creates these tests? I am trying to Google it right now, but can't seem to find a good set of search words. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Adding two links that answer my question:

1. http://barrysampson.com/2009/04/08/open-source-lms-10-alternatives-to-moodle/
2. https://docs.moodle.org/28/en/About_Moodle_FAQ

---

Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Our institution uses Blackboard. I've experimented with Moodle, and taken five courses as a student on Moodle. I prefer Blackboard. Blackboard is not open source, but it is available publicly for free with an unlimited number of students at http://coursesites.com. The exam pool import format is tab-separated text. I create them in Excel, usually with a copy and paste and then an Excel macro that moves the typically vertical exam content into the horizontal column format required for upload. It's a little bit of work, but not at all overwhelming. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

An already available ("standard") CMS testbank system is the way to go, if it can be done. The problem is tricky because I need a high level programming language to calculate random numbers to insert into the questions and the answers. This can be done using Matlab (or Python?) to generate many lines of text (for many versions of each question). This forces me to use a Latex-like procedure for writing equations, while most testbuilders use menu-driven equation writing methods. And then there is the problem of images. It turns out that Wikipedia's quizzes are almost uniquely suited for this job ... except for the page break problem.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Y Done with help from at least three people, I found a way to create user-friendly quiz banks on Wikiversity. See OpenStax College, as well as this solution to the pagebreak problem. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OpenStax College quizzes: Where should we put them?

I need to rewrite all the quizzes in Physics equations to fix the page break problem and have many reasons for not keeping them in the namespace "Physics equations":

1. The quizzes were cluttering up Physics equations. In the future "Physics equations" will focus solely on the equations
2. I need a simple consistent namespace because I my tentative plan is to make transclusions to those quizzes. The transclusions will allow me to make multiple versions of a chapter quizzes, midterms, and the final exam without having to copy the quiz over and over again.

I was thinking of Quizbank with subpages like Quizbank/phy (for physics), Quizbank/ast (for astronomy) the short names will facilitate transclusion. We have plans this summer to work on Quizbank/htw and Quizbank/egr for two other courses (engineering thermodydamics and "how things work")

I will start with these pages, but will be creating only a small number of pages for a few days as I get the codewriting software set up. That gives us time to reflect on these choices of namespace names.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Either Quizbank or Testbank and then the subject, or the subject and then Quizbank or Testbank. Since Physics and astronomy is one school here, I'm not sure there's an advantage to having Quizbank by itself unless we are confident other areas will use this model. I personally would go with the topic/Testbank as being easier to manage as a learning project, while maintaining flexibility for different subjects. I would use the term Testbank because that's the term I see every publisher use, and makes the content easier for others to locate.

Regarding the note at Quizbank that mentions using cryptic numbers for subpages, that is one option. But I don't think it adds value. Anyone can search any page here for any key word that would lead them to the questions if they look for them. Google indexes anything in main space. We could create a different namespace if we want, but that only addresses the Google issue, not the local search. Also, security by obscurity is no security. It's like locking a screen door. Anyone that wants to can still walk in.

A more effective approach to assessment is to simply have open tests and an overwhelming bank of questions to choose from. I give weekly 10-question quizzes based on 40 to 50 question test banks, and 50-question final exams based on 600-800 question test banks. I give students access to the entire test bank, typically in a different form (either fill-in-the-blank or Quizlet). I'm not worried in the least that they might memorize all 600 questions. Instead, I'd be thrilled, because they will have thoroughly mastered the material.

To validate that this approach is effective, I have followed up my final exams with third-party certification exams. Last year, my course that uses Windows Server Administration had 16 students. 15 passed the actual certification exam the course targets, and one missed by one question. From a validation standpoint, that's exactly what I'd like to see. The certification is hard enough that not all make it, but the materials are good enough that almost everyone is prepared.

So, feel free to obscure the content if you believe it adds value. But I'd rather go with open content and enough different forms of the quizzes that students would have to memorize so much as to have truly mastered the content in order to 'cheat'. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Having a generic quizbank resource, as described, may be possible. I don't like what the process described would do to mainspace, and the non-informative page names. rather, I'd suggest a generic resource that is about how to set up a quizbank. The actual quizbanks, topic-focused, would be subpages of the topic resource, and so the resource would be standalone, that way. If, later, the idea is to create a WikiBook, as an example, that resource is ready for transwiki, and doesn't need other stuff moved. (For this reason, I also prefer to see local templates instead of using Template namespace for what is specific to a resource.)

Notice that quizbanks could become very large, with some content only being held in history, with a list of versions that could be selectively enabled. (History is not searchable!) Transwiki can (and generally should) include all page history. A creative user could set up a process with high flexibility. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Pages that should be deleted after no improvements (prod)

So as I've been spying recent changes, not editing (I've been here btw), i found pages that have been proposed for deletion, and in the 90 days, haven't been improved. Some of these pages have been listed at Category:Proposed deletions, some of those pages are...:

• Wikiversity:Frequently_visited_pages
• American Sign Language
• Film workspace

So I'm guessing that an administrator is going to delete these pages, or someone can improve these pages before an admin comes and looks at these pages. Thanks. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of speedy deletion and proposed deletion is to avoid discussion.... Yes, pages that have been prodded will generally be deleted after 90 days, if nobody objects by removing the tag. Any user may object and remove the tag. Or, later, finding a page deleted, any user may request it be undeleted, and normally it will be, at least for review. If disagreement remains, then there is Wikiversity:Requests for deletion. So, to see what's going on here:

• Wikiversity:Frequently_visited_pages starts by mentioning a tool that does not exist any more. The page had not been edited since 2007, except for Marshall prodding it. There was an unanswered question on the attached talk page in 2008. Little, if anything, is lost by deletion, and there are other pages or lists that show visit frequencies. Not surprised nobody removed the prod. Some substantial cleanup is needed for this to be properly deleted.
• American Sign Language was created by IP, with a strange edit summary. It's a stub, and the only function appears to be to turn a couple of redlinks blue, which may actually suppress resource creation. Atcovi, if you think this should stay, you have the option of removing the prod. Another option would be to replace it with a new one, resetting the 90 days. However, I'm going to move that page to be a subpage of Sign language (which already links to it), and I'll yank the prod and do a little cleanup. Ah. Sign language may be a copy of the Wikipedia article. I may stub it, creating a space and structure where WV work can be done on sign language resources. Not right now, though.
• Film workspace basically nothing. A small amount of cleanup needed, to remove the only incoming link. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson will continue during the voting. Nominations for the Board of Trustees will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.

The FDC Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. Click here to vote. Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question. Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 FDC election page, the 2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page, and the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Mentorship

Hello, I am looking for a content development mentor because I want to contribute effectively to this project from time to time. Thank you for your help. Note that I eventually plan on becoming a custodian, but I would love to learn the basics correctly and effectively!

--Spyder212 (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me for assistance on User talk:Abd. Tell me (there) what interests you. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I will refer to you in the event that I have questions. --Spyder212 (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Unblock of JWSchmidt

JWSchmidt is asking to be unblocked on the user talk page. I am not familiar with the situation or circumstances that led to this user being blocked. Statements made on the user talk page suggest that positive contributions will result from the unblock. I will unblock this user unless there is a consensus against. Please feel free to advise. Comments, criticisms, questions, and concerns are most welcome. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. John was a founder of Wikiversity. He believed strongly in this wiki. At the time, he was a Wikipedia sysop. He would have been a bureaucrat here, if he had consented. Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/JWSchmidt , a bureaucrat nomination, shows how popular he was, before and at the beginning of 2008.

Then Stuff Happened, later that year. It was a horrific mess. John, who was a custodian and checkuser, was removed. The decision was made privately, bypassing established process.[2]. (There has been some very strange archiving done, but that ended up at [3]). JWS did not take it well.

After that point, JWS was a man obsessed, largely with one user whom he blamed for what had happened. I became involved in Wikiversity in 2010. I attempted to counsel JWSchmidt to drop the cudgel. He did not take it well, considering me part of the conspiracy. See User:JWSchmidt/Blog/29 January 2011. That was one of his more coherent efforts. Great photo.

Finally indef blocked here -- by his nemesis --, he stopped editing everywhere in the WMF. His adminship on en.wikipedia was removed for inactivity in November 2012.

As can be seen in his request, John has now done what he never did before, taking responsibility for his own response. He will be a positive contributor, or at least harmless, and if he slips, we will remind him. The lack of attention that dogged Wikiversity for so long is not the present situation. We will support him, which includes clear warning and even blocking, at times. I doubt it will be necessary. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• A block is useless anyways. People know how to bypass that. ----Erkan Yilmaz 08:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, people know, usually, though that doesn't make it useless. John appears to have never bypassed this latest block. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Why not? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Since there are five votes for unblock and no votes against in almost four days, I've unblocked JWSchmidt. Should the need arise, or later dissenters be enough to warrant reassessment, we can take this up again then. My best to JWSchmidt and I look forward to the contributions. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Limit write/edit access to a group of users

We are planning on a group project, creating learning material for a specific topic. How can we limit write and edit access to our group? Thank you, - Jan

--Jangrode (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think all of us have passionate views about this that diverge in only minor ways. The short answer is that you can't impose such limits. But don't worry, for two reasons:

1. Your odds of getting destructive contributions are small. There are a lot of troublemakers in New York City, thousands of them. But there are millions of decent ones, which means you can walk through most neighborhoods without getting accosted. You do have to be careful about being in certain places at certain times in New York, but most people go their way without difficulty. By analogy, you can cover just about any topic on Wikiversity without interference. Do you plan to cover an extremely controversial topic? If not, then don't worry.
2. In the unlikely event that you do receive unwelcome contributions, most such people are easy to block and their edits are easily reversed.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The above is useful. I would simply add, if contributions seem not useful, do not revert war, but be polite and ask for help. You may ask for custodian attention on WV:RCA, but you may also ask me (I'm not a custodian, but I can sometimes mediate disputes), or any custodian. Remember, it's a wiki, and all the work is there in history and anything can be fixed, nothing is lost.

As well, it is possible to set up a project that has effectively restricted membership, in certain ways. It is not possible to prevent others from editing, and any project must be neutral, and that requires that, in theory, any page must be editable. However, to give you an idea, if I create an essay on a topic, and place it as a subpage of a resource appropriate for the topic of the essay, and the essay is attributed to me, it would be ... rude ... for someone to edit it without my permission. (If they want to create their own edited version, they can separately create it!) Of course, if it were edited in good faith, and no harm is done, and especially if the contribution is positive -- how about a spelling correction? -- I'm not going to object.

Take a look at Landmark Education to see how controversy was avoided in one case. There are two subpages there that are "owned." They are neutrally linked from the page above. The topic is highly controversial on Wikipedia, users have been sanctioned there over it. Not a problem here, because of how the conflict was handled when it appeared. It's all voluntary, but ... most people would actually prefer to cooperate than fight, fighting wastes everyone's time.

You could designate a project manager, and allowing others to sign up as participants, supporting that manager. The project manager may then act as spokesperson for the group and designate participants as approved. Their work may then be routinely seen as positive. We'd like, if possible, all projects to be open, but, at the same time, we want your group to be effective. Usually, there is no problem, so keep it simple. If there is a manager, this has no official standing, but, practically speaking, administration here will respect this if it's possible. Be nice! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The project may be organized in such a way that the top level page is available to everyone, and certain subpages are designated for particular authors or perspectives. Other pages in the project might be necessary for rebuttal, but participation can be directed to different subpages. However, since you haven't yet indicated what the project will be about, it's harder to be more specific in addressing your concerns.

If, instead, you want a platform where you can limit edits, take a look at either Google Sites or PBwiki. I have used both of those, successfully, for controlled student projects. There are also free LMS options, including CourseSites, FreeMoodle, etc. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new user group that would make probationary custodianship easier and safer

Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship#Proposal_to_split_the_tools would create a new user group, Assistant. This group would have all the present custodial tools. The Custodian group, then, would have the right to create and remove Assistant rights. No 'crat needed. An Assistant may then apply for Custodianship, as now, with a vote and a bureaucrat implementing on a showing of consensus. The Assistant group is then subject to the supervision of all custodians, not just a mentor. But the original implementing custodian might be considered the mentor.

A study of all probationary custodianships (a preliminary version is at User:Abd/Policy_development#List_of_Candidates_for_Custodianship_subpages) shows that the mentorship system has worked very well for Wikiversity, contrary to what some have claimed, based on an overheated response to very little disruption, overall. The user group idea would streamline it. It will even work in the absence of bureaucrats, if any permanent custodian can be found, willing to be responsible. If not, the situation is as it always was, no mentor, no probationer.

Please look at the policy talk page and comment on the proposal. If we can find some agreement, a Community Review can be started and we can then, if consensus is found, request developers to set up the new user group. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

A new group may not be necessary. There is an existing Oversighters group that could be enhanced to meet this need. See Special:ListGroupRights, and additional comments at Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship#Proposal_to_split_the_tools. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no people on WV in the Oversight usergroup, so I'm not sure what you are thinking here. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought Oversighter was a subset of Custodian. I now see that it is not. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This really isn't a big deal, let's just get it done. Making a new section below. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but it also doesn't need to be full Custodial powers. I would like to advocate for, either as this group or in addition to this group, something custodians could activate that would allow users to have the ability to edit, move, delete, view content, rollback, etc. This group could be assigned to teachers who bring a class to Wikiversity, or to dedicated users who have a great interest in managing content, but for whatever reason do not yet have enough experience or trust to go to probationary custodian status.

Also, while we are making changes to group rights, I'd like to see the unblockself right removed from custodians. There's no reason for a custodian to unblock him or herself if they've been blocked. They need to stop and communicate. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetically, wouldn't that allow one out-of-control custodian to block all other custodians and become the only acting custodian until someone higher up sorts it out?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It would, but it also wouldn't take long to get a steward to intervene, as that behavior would clearly be unsupported by the community. It would also immediately lead to a block and removal of custodial rights for whomever would be dumb enough to have tried it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Unblockself for (full) custodians is a different issue. Let's not confuse it with the probationary custodian issue. We really only have one clear example of a rogue probationary custodian. If that person had been an Assistant, there would have been no issue. The response would not necessarily have been a block, it would have been removal of Assistant rights. The mentor would not have objected, I'm sure. We have an example of a rogue full custodian, but not here, it was on Beta. Yes, quickly desysopped. As to Assistants, I would give them the full toolset, including unblockself, so that we see how they act. Remember, these are all potentially full custodians. Whenever the assistant is ready, the Custodian vote can be held. If it fails, assistantship can continue as long as the custodial community agrees.

I know of one example in Wikiversity history where a full custodian unblocked himself, aside from test blocks. It was a two-hour block for incivility, and it -- and other behaviors -- ultimately led to desysopping. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is this being forced as all or nothing? There should be an intermediary step that would be more inclusive to a wider audience of editors willing to maintain content but not yet ready for full tools. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not being "forced." Rather, this is two of the most highly-experienced Wikiversity users taking existing policy and suggesting it be implemented in a slightly different way, even though they might disagree on many other issues.

Having played both sides of this game, having seen it work and break down, and reviewing the prior discussions, I took SBJ's proposal,[4] and simplified it. We have had, supposedly, two groups: probationary custodians and full custodians, but no actual difference in tools. Because probationary custodianship was primarily designed to allow people a chance to learn to use the tools, under the supervision of a mentor, it broke down (even though only rarely) because there was no distinction in rights, and it required steward intervention to handle alleged problems. I was actually desysopped twice by requests on meta that did not follow local policy. Under this proposal, if a custodian believed I was doing something improper with the tools, he or she would simply warn or remove the tools, pending. My mentor could restore them -- or any other custodian -- but it would be wheel-warring if done without discussion.

The other problem was requiring bureaucrat action that was mandated by policy, based on nothing other than an agreement between mentor and candidate. This, then, created substantial controversy, in a couple of cases. Unnecessary. We still need bureaucrats to handle full custodian elections, but when there is an election process, with votes showing consensus, it's easy to get a steward to action it if bureaucrats are absent.

If we don't trust custodians to make wise choices in granting Assistant rights, maybe they should not be custodians, but only assistants, and, in fact, the new group would provide an intermediate step between the all or nothing of keep or desysop. It would still require steward action, for generally the wikis have not allowed bureaucrats to desysop. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As to some new group with lesser access to tools, it can be proposed; however, that proposal should not complicate this one. The Assistant group, as proposed, can be used by any Custodian to allow a teacher to manage a resource: it's very simple: the custodian grants the tools with a voluntary restriction. That's all. Use the tools outside the restriction -- which would be stated on the candidate's page -- any custodian can remove the tools if it is a problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This would be an unnecessary violation of the principle of least privilege. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Dave is treating this as a security issue. It's not. Sure, the tools could be made granular, but is it worth the effort? The Assistant user group could be used by any custodian to do what Dave wants, and it was never considered necessary for a probationer to be trusted. There was one example where a probationer was obviously not trusted, and the mentor insisted on the right of removal, and later exercised it. Salmon of Doubt. No disruption, simple. So if there is a violation of the Principle of least privilege, it's existed since almost Day 1 of this wiki. I became a probationary custodian because I asked for Rollback. I was told, become a probationary custodian! And so it started.

The general purpose of probationary custodianship is to train the custodian in the use of tools, and, as well, to test the probationer. The Assistant group will accomplish that, the same as present policy, but with much less fuss. Assistant group tools could be broken down into groups, but I'm not seeing the need for it. So, Dave, if you want to do this, get a specific proposal together. It's separate from the proposal here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Community support/vote to create the "assistant" usergroup

While we certainly need some policies to go along with this, creating a new usergroup for what we've been calling "probationary custodians" would really be a good idea. The usergroup should be defined as having exactly the same permissions as custodians, but allowing for local removal. Let's get it done. This usergroup could be assigned by current "full" custodians, and taken away by current "full" custodians. In other words: a custodian who has been approved by the community can give and take away access to the "buttons" that we use to solve problems on the wiki.

Votes (which we need to show to the "devs"):

• Pro we should have done this years ago. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Pro Yup. Yes, we'll need to write some policies. We would keep the current Candidates for Custodianship, which will allow community comment, but it's not a vote, consensus would not be required, just an agreement between Custodian and Assistant, as shown by setting the bit. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Pro I'm willing to give this a try! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Pro--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - Not with the same rights as custodians. It shouldn't simply be who can turn the switch on and off. If we have concerns about needing the switch, then there must also be something in the rights of the assistants that should be modified. I am particularly concerned about mass delete, but also unblock self. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• If we are going to developers to change the rights groups, we could ask them to remove nuke (massdelete) -- a truly dangerous tool -- from all sets. I've seen what happened to a wiki where it was used. Restoral from backup was required. A bot could handle this if it's ever needed. Has it ever been needed? But, yes, if we want to keep it for custodians, it could be left out of the Assistant set. Unblock self, though, is actually useful on occasion. It's rare, and it tests the competence of the custodian. That's part of the purpose of Assistantship. Obviously, if a Custodian wants to stop an Assistant, the issue is "use of tools" or "all edits"? If the former, just remove the Assistant rights. If the latter, remove the right and block. It's very simple. If this is Assistant vs Assistant, not having the unblock right but having Block, would give an advantage to the first to block the other. Not good. The wheel-warring, if it happens, will attract attention and the issue will soon be resolved!
• If you are blocked, and unblock yourself, you'd better know what you are doing, or your rights are toast! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Board will continue during the voting.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help