Wikiversity has been proved to attract lunatics and Beta Wikiversity has it's shiny role there. So, I think they proved not to be able to take care about nurturing the new projects (unlike Wikisource); at least not without the Incubator admins.
In other words, I would go with closure. What do you think?
I know about at least one such lunatic myself, but I won't mention names of course :)
Can anybody please remind me why is it separate from Incubator in the first place?
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2017-04-15 22:36 GMT+03:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
Wikiversity has been proved to attract lunatics and Beta Wikiversity has it's shiny role there. So, I think they proved not to be able to take care about nurturing the new projects (unlike Wikisource); at least not without the Incubator admins.
In other words, I would go with closure. What do you think?
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I know about at least one such lunatic myself, but I won't mention names of course :)
Can anybody please remind me why is it separate from Incubator in the first place?
Although I think others could have more precise answer, I think that both Beta Wikiversity and Old Wikisource precede Incubator.
Incubator was actually cranked up slightly before Beta Wikiversity.
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 02:23, 2 June 2006 https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 08:59, 15 August 2006
Wikisource is 2,5 years older https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=3 00: 51, 24 November 2003
The more precise answer for having Beta Wikiversity from its supporters typically is: "Wikiversity is different project than other wikis so it needs its own site."
Kind regards
Danny B.
---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Komu: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Datum: 15. 4. 2017 22:13:32 Předmět: Re: [Langcom] Beta Wikiversity "On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I know about at least one such lunatic myself, but I won't mention names
of
course :)
Can anybody please remind me why is it separate from Incubator in the
first
place?
Although I think others could have more precise answer, I think that both Beta Wikiversity and Old Wikisource precede Incubator.
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom "
2017-04-17 13:08 GMT+03:00 Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz:
Incubator was actually cranked up slightly before Beta Wikiversity.
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 02:23, 2 June 2006 https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 08:59, 15 August 2006
Wikisource is 2,5 years older https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=3 00:51, 24 November 2003
The more precise answer for having Beta Wikiversity from its supporters typically is: "Wikiversity is different project than other wikis so it needs its own site."
This doesn't sound like a valid reason. If it at least explained WHAT is different, I
If there aren't any stronger arguments for keeping the Beta Wikiversity, then it should be moved to the common Incubator. I couldn't find any good arguments against moving to Incubator at the previous discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Move_Beta_Wik... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Be...
(To alleviate any doubt—I'm only talking about Wikiversity and not Wikisource or any other project.)
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
One small concern: Would we able to enable the Quiz extension in case of such a move? It is one of the distinctive features of VW.
2017-04-17 15:02 GMT+03:00 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
2017-04-17 13:08 GMT+03:00 Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz:
Incubator was actually cranked up slightly before Beta Wikiversity.
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 02:23, 2 June 2006 https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 08:59, 15 August 2006
Wikisource is 2,5 years older https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=3 00:51, 24 November 2003
The more precise answer for having Beta Wikiversity from its supporters typically is: "Wikiversity is different project than other wikis so it needs its own site."
This doesn't sound like a valid reason. If it at least explained WHAT is different, I
If there aren't any stronger arguments for keeping the Beta Wikiversity, then it should be moved to the common Incubator. I couldn't find any good arguments against moving to Incubator at the previous discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Move_Beta_ Wikiversity_to_Incubator https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_ projects/Closure_of_Beta_Wikiversity
(To alleviate any doubt—I'm only talking about Wikiversity and not Wikisource or any other project.)
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Magnus just blogged about using questions based on Wikidata information... I do not know the Quiz extension. How do the two compare. Thanks, GerardM
http://blog.magnusmanske.de/?p=446
On 17 April 2017 at 14:06, Vito Genovese vitomedia@gmail.com wrote:
One small concern: Would we able to enable the Quiz extension in case of such a move? It is one of the distinctive features of VW.
2017-04-17 15:02 GMT+03:00 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
2017-04-17 13:08 GMT+03:00 Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz:
Incubator was actually cranked up slightly before Beta Wikiversity.
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 02:23, 2 June 2006 https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 08:59, 15 August 2006
Wikisource is 2,5 years older https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=3 00:51, 24 November 2003
The more precise answer for having Beta Wikiversity from its supporters typically is: "Wikiversity is different project than other wikis so it needs its own site."
This doesn't sound like a valid reason. If it at least explained WHAT is different, I
If there aren't any stronger arguments for keeping the Beta Wikiversity, then it should be moved to the common Incubator. I couldn't find any good arguments against moving to Incubator at the previous discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projec ts/Move_Beta_Wikiversity_to_Incubator https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projec ts/Closure_of_Beta_Wikiversity
(To alleviate any doubt—I'm only talking about Wikiversity and not Wikisource or any other project.)
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Thank you, Gerard. This is certainly exciting news.
As I understand it, Comprende! invokes data from WMF projects such as Wikidata (you match the structure of your questions with Wikidata items) or Commons (you can label Commons images to be used in questions), whereas Quiz lets everything be based on user input. It would certainly be an improvement, but user input should still be in the picture, imho.
By the way, here is a help page on Quiz for those who are not familiar with the extension:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Help:Quiz
Feel free to test the questions. The responses are not saved.
2017-04-17 16:04 GMT+03:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Magnus just blogged about using questions based on Wikidata information... I do not know the Quiz extension. How do the two compare. Thanks, GerardM
http://blog.magnusmanske.de/?p=446
On 17 April 2017 at 14:06, Vito Genovese vitomedia@gmail.com wrote:
One small concern: Would we able to enable the Quiz extension in case of such a move? It is one of the distinctive features of VW.
2017-04-17 15:02 GMT+03:00 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il :
2017-04-17 13:08 GMT+03:00 Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz:
Incubator was actually cranked up slightly before Beta Wikiversity.
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 02:23, 2 June 2006 https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 08:59, 15 August 2006
Wikisource is 2,5 years older https://wikisource.org/w/index .php?oldid=3 00:51, 24 November 2003
The more precise answer for having Beta Wikiversity from its supporters typically is: "Wikiversity is different project than other wikis so it needs its own site."
This doesn't sound like a valid reason. If it at least explained WHAT is different, I
If there aren't any stronger arguments for keeping the Beta Wikiversity, then it should be moved to the common Incubator. I couldn't find any good arguments against moving to Incubator at the previous discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projec ts/Move_Beta_Wikiversity_to_Incubator https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projec ts/Closure_of_Beta_Wikiversity
(To alleviate any doubt—I'm only talking about Wikiversity and not Wikisource or any other project.)
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Yes, that extension can also be enabled on Incubator.
Am 17.04.2017 2:54 nachm. schrieb "Vito Genovese" vitomedia@gmail.com:
One small concern: Would we able to enable the Quiz extension in case of such a move? It is one of the distinctive features of VW.
2017-04-17 15:02 GMT+03:00 Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il:
2017-04-17 13:08 GMT+03:00 Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz:
Incubator was actually cranked up slightly before Beta Wikiversity.
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 02:23, 2 June 2006 https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 08:59, 15 August 2006
Wikisource is 2,5 years older https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=3 00:51, 24 November 2003
The more precise answer for having Beta Wikiversity from its supporters typically is: "Wikiversity is different project than other wikis so it needs its own site."
This doesn't sound like a valid reason. If it at least explained WHAT is different, I
If there aren't any stronger arguments for keeping the Beta Wikiversity, then it should be moved to the common Incubator. I couldn't find any good arguments against moving to Incubator at the previous discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projec ts/Move_Beta_Wikiversity_to_Incubator https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projec ts/Closure_of_Beta_Wikiversity
(To alleviate any doubt—I'm only talking about Wikiversity and not Wikisource or any other project.)
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: Vito Genovese vitomedia@gmail.com Komu: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Datum: 17. 4. 2017 14:54:25 Předmět: Re: [Langcom] Beta Wikiversity " One small concern: Would we able to enable the Quiz extension in case of such a move? It is one of the distinctive features of VW.
"
Hello Vito,
thanks for raising this concern.
Although I am not sysadmin of WMF wikis, so I can't guarantee this answer, I strongly believe that there won't be any issue with that considering that the extension doesn't change (or rather: interfere with) any existing setup as well as Incubator has other project specific extension installed - GeoCrumbs (formerly known as BreadCrumbs) because of Wikivoyage.
And as one of the Incubator admins and bureaucrats, I don't have any problem with having such extension installed there.
Are you aware of any other specific extensions installed on Beta or any other Wikiversity?
Kind regards
Danny B.
Are you aware of any other specific extensions installed on Beta or any other Wikiversity?
According to what I've been able to gather from < https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php%3E, the following extensions are enabled in the respective Wikiversity editions:
* intersection (also known as DynamicPageList), Quiz, SubPageList3: Default for all Wikiversity editions * Translate & TranslationNotifications: beta.wikiversity * NewUserMessage: de, ru * SandboxLink: en * DoubleWiki: fr * EducationProgram: de, it * Josa: ko
I've also compared enwiki, the most extension-rich project I could think of, with beta.wv and en.wv. I've noticed that all three projects have Kartographer, but enwiki has the <mapframe> function disabled. Other than that, I haven't been able to find anything.
A quick review of the extensions listed above: Josa is specific to Korean. EduPro is not required for beta projects. The same goes for DoubleWiki. NewUserMessage and SandboxLink are for established projects. Incubator already has Translate and DynamicPageList. The remaining two default extensions, on the other hand, may need to be installed. SubPageList3 is handy for course lists I think. Comprende! may supersede Quiz, if it's going to be enabled some time soon.
2017-04-17 16:25 GMT+03:00 Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz:
---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: Vito Genovese vitomedia@gmail.com Komu: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee <langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
Datum: 17. 4. 2017 14:54:25 Předmět: Re: [Langcom] Beta Wikiversity
One small concern: Would we able to enable the Quiz extension in case of such a move? It is one of the distinctive features of WV.
Hello Vito,
thanks for raising this concern.
Although I am not sysadmin of WMF wikis, so I can't guarantee this answer, I strongly believe that there won't be any issue with that considering that the extension doesn't change (or rather: interfere with) any existing setup as well as Incubator has other project specific extension installed - GeoCrumbs (formerly known as BreadCrumbs) because of Wikivoyage.
And as one of the Incubator admins and bureaucrats, I don't have any problem with having such extension installed there.
Are you aware of any other specific extensions installed on Beta or any other Wikiversity?
Kind regards
Danny B.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Sorry, sent before completing the sentence:
This doesn't sound like a valid reason. If it at least explained WHAT is different between Wikiversity and other projects, it would be possible to consider them.
בתאריך 17 באפר׳ 2017 15:02, "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il כתב:
2017-04-17 13:08 GMT+03:00 Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz:
Incubator was actually cranked up slightly before Beta Wikiversity.
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 02:23, 2 June 2006 https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?oldid=1 08:59, 15 August 2006
Wikisource is 2,5 years older https://wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=3 00:51, 24 November 2003
The more precise answer for having Beta Wikiversity from its supporters typically is: "Wikiversity is different project than other wikis so it needs its own site."
This doesn't sound like a valid reason. If it at least explained WHAT is different, I
If there aren't any stronger arguments for keeping the Beta Wikiversity, then it should be moved to the common Incubator. I couldn't find any good arguments against moving to Incubator at the previous discussions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Move_Beta_ Wikiversity_to_Incubator https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_ projects/Closure_of_Beta_Wikiversity
(To alleviate any doubt—I'm only talking about Wikiversity and not Wikisource or any other project.)
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
Hi,
I can't speak and don't know well beta wikiversity but for wikisource there is a some good arguments for keeping it. As both closure are often cite together I'd like to give some explanations here (rather short, don't hesitate to ask if you ant to know more).
First, Old Wikisource (historical name, but « Multingual Wikisource / mulwikisource » is more and more used) is not just a incubator but a central hub, a bit like the meta for wikisources.
Wikisources has very specified tools and extensions that are specific to Wikisource (first and most importantly the Proofread Extension - with its 2 specific namepaces - which is used for 94 % of fr.ws texts, 97 % of pl.ws, 50 % of it.ws, etc.). It's not undoable but moving mul.ws to incubator would require a lot of technical works to avoid breaking basic things (and we only have 2-3 devs who know how Wikisource works).
Multilingual wikisource is quite active (and not just of incubation - althought it's the main activity - but for meta centralisation too). And Wikisource dynamic is very different from other project, ad no activity is not a bad sign ; the basic unit of work is a book and it can be completely finished unlike Wikipedia article, Wiktionary entry, Commons cat, etc.
Finally, mul.ws precedes Incubator and precedes all Wikisources, Wikisource was a multingual project between 2003 and 2005 ; there is a fringe movement for re-uniting again all the Wikisources on mul.ws (it probably will never happen but I think it's a nice goal and along the way a lot of efforts are done for internationalisation and mulculturalisation of Wikisources tools).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Nicolas, Multilingual Wikisource is a non-issue and it won't be an issue as long as it has a decent community fulfilling its goals and helping others.
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I can't speak and don't know well beta wikiversity but for wikisource there is a some good arguments for keeping it. As both closure are often cite together I'd like to give some explanations here (rather short, don't hesitate to ask if you ant to know more).
First, Old Wikisource (historical name, but « Multingual Wikisource / mulwikisource » is more and more used) is not just a incubator but a central hub, a bit like the meta for wikisources.
Wikisources has very specified tools and extensions that are specific to Wikisource (first and most importantly the Proofread Extension - with its 2 specific namepaces - which is used for 94 % of fr.ws texts, 97 % of pl.ws, 50 % of it.ws, etc.). It's not undoable but moving mul.ws to incubator would require a lot of technical works to avoid breaking basic things (and we only have 2-3 devs who know how Wikisource works).
Multilingual wikisource is quite active (and not just of incubation - althought it's the main activity - but for meta centralisation too). And Wikisource dynamic is very different from other project, ad no activity is not a bad sign ; the basic unit of work is a book and it can be completely finished unlike Wikipedia article, Wiktionary entry, Commons cat, etc.
Finally, mul.ws precedes Incubator and precedes all Wikisources, Wikisource was a multingual project between 2003 and 2005 ; there is a fringe movement for re-uniting again all the Wikisources on mul.ws (it probably will never happen but I think it's a nice goal and along the way a lot of efforts are done for internationalisation and mulculturalisation of Wikisources tools).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, At that I am on the record that the language committee should ease up on the creation of new Wikisources particularly when there is institutional support for a Wikisource in a language. When the Board has approved new rules for our committee I want it to be discussed again. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 April 2017 at 07:41, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Nicolas, Multilingual Wikisource is a non-issue and it won't be an issue as long as it has a decent community fulfilling its goals and helping others.
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON vigneron.nicolas@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I can't speak and don't know well beta wikiversity but for wikisource
there
is a some good arguments for keeping it. As both closure are often cite together I'd like to give some explanations here (rather short, don't hesitate to ask if you ant to know more).
First, Old Wikisource (historical name, but « Multingual Wikisource / mulwikisource » is more and more used) is not just a incubator but a
central
hub, a bit like the meta for wikisources.
Wikisources has very specified tools and extensions that are specific to Wikisource (first and most importantly the Proofread Extension - with
its 2
specific namepaces - which is used for 94 % of fr.ws texts, 97 % of
pl.ws,
50 % of it.ws, etc.). It's not undoable but moving mul.ws to incubator
would
require a lot of technical works to avoid breaking basic things (and we
only
have 2-3 devs who know how Wikisource works).
Multilingual wikisource is quite active (and not just of incubation - althought it's the main activity - but for meta centralisation too). And Wikisource dynamic is very different from other project, ad no activity
is
not a bad sign ; the basic unit of work is a book and it can be
completely
finished unlike Wikipedia article, Wiktionary entry, Commons cat, etc.
Finally, mul.ws precedes Incubator and precedes all Wikisources,
Wikisource
was a multingual project between 2003 and 2005 ; there is a fringe
movement
for re-uniting again all the Wikisources on mul.ws (it probably will
never
happen but I think it's a nice goal and along the way a lot of efforts
are
done for internationalisation and mulculturalisation of Wikisources
tools).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 16 Apr 2017, at 07:41, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
At that I am on the record that the language committee should ease up on the creation of new Wikisources particularly when there is institutional support for a Wikisource in a language.
What do you mean by “ease up on”?
Michael
Hoi, So far I have argued that when an organisation wants to support a Wikisource for its language, on the strength of that organisation and particularly as we have good instances of such cooperation in India we should allow for the existence of a Wikisource and not be as stubbornly apply the rules for a second project.
Wikisource helps editors and is not so much a project that is visited by readers. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2017 at 13:02, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 16 Apr 2017, at 07:41, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
At that I am on the record that the language committee should ease up on
the creation of new Wikisources particularly when there is institutional support for a Wikisource in a language.
What do you mean by “ease up on”?
Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Wikisource is not quite related to this thread, which is about Wikiversity.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2017-04-17 14:24 GMT+03:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So far I have argued that when an organisation wants to support a Wikisource for its language, on the strength of that organisation and particularly as we have good instances of such cooperation in India we should allow for the existence of a Wikisource and not be as stubbornly apply the rules for a second project.
Wikisource helps editors and is not so much a project that is visited by readers. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 April 2017 at 13:02, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 16 Apr 2017, at 07:41, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
At that I am on the record that the language committee should ease up
on the creation of new Wikisources particularly when there is institutional support for a Wikisource in a language.
What do you mean by “ease up on”?
Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
tl;dr: I support closure of BWV and all WVs. Rationale below.
----
While I totally agree with the closure (and I have provided quite a solid reasoning for that in relevant eternal RFC on Meta [1] which should be reminded here as well), I would prefer if wording like "attract lunatics" (despite I have the same feeling and although obviously meant as hyperbole) could be avoided to prevent further heating of the discussion. WV users tend to put themselves in position of victims of incomprehension and derision which motivates other uninvolved users to rather support the WV existence just for balancing the situation and helping the "victims".
Despite not being the LangCom member I totally agree with the Beta Wikiversity closure.
My position in this is actually yet more strict: I think that during the time of its existence the project - unlike other projects - did not prove its viability and value to be worth to be treated as separated project. (Note for those who don't remember it or don't know the history - in a nutshell Wikiversity was originally part of Wikibooks, but then it spinned off.)
There are only 15 Wikiversities after more than 11 years of its existence. Compare to 18 Wikivoyages (2nd lowest count) after slightly more than 4 years or 33 Wikinewses (3rd lowest count) after nearly 12,5 years.
I think that for this particular project it is worth to not "shatter forces" (as we say in Czech, (~= to not split the effort)) and go further with the closure - to move all existing domains back under Wikibooks, assuming typically using new namespaces for that.
I also think, that at least there should be some evaluation of all 15 existing subdomains done to prove if they are alive (= not only maintenance edits, but also significant new content in recent time of say half a year, also reasonable number of active editors) and if they stick to the project description - I know about pages being totally out of scope of not only Wikiversity, but any WMF project, but kept on Wikiversity using the eternal argument "Wikiversity is different from other WMF projects and supports everything what could be useful for education" [read: you can write there nearly literally everything, because you can always pronounce it having a potential for education and it won't be deleted].
But this evaluation or even closure/move of (all) subprojects is further action. I just mentioned that as another supportive argument for why Beta Wikiversity should be closed (it also contains some out of scope stuff).
Going further and accepting the statement that no new Wikiversities should be created in favour of having them rahter stay in Wikibooks, the Beta WV content then could be imported to existing Wikibooks instead of Incubator (IIANM, there is no language in Beta WV which wouldn't have its own Wikibooks, and in case that yes, then Wb/<code> on Incubator can be used).
Note: Beta WV also contains some cross-wiki stuff which should be in case of its closure imported to Meta (not to Incubator which is not intended for such stuff (in favour of Meta) besides it does not have environment set for that) as the cross-project & cross-lingual communication hub.
One technical argument: Similar to known and often mentioned fact that MediaWiki isn't the best solution for the purpose of effective media storage (Commons), MediaWiki is also not effective software for online interactive education (uninteractive is covered by Wikibooks) and there are much better platforms for that even some allowing the free content.
Speaking of which brings to the attention that unlike all other WMF projects which (in a nutshell) create static (as opposite to interactive in this case) consumable content built by users *together*, Wikiversity wants/tends to be interactive project (on teacher-student basis) as well as that because of the principle of that there is less cooperative approach to build pages (ie. ownership of pages-student's (home)works etc.) which seems to me to be against basic principles of WMF projects.
Last but not least: There was also a proposal from some Wikiversity users to move Wikiversity under different legal body (= it would not be ran by WMF anymore) because "they don't feel that they and the project are treated as well and supportive as they should be", but I am not able to find that mention ATM.
Apologies for a bit longer email, but I think that for this particular case (considering the evolution of the RFC [1]) it is worth to have solid basis and arguments, so I wanted to provide you guys some you can use as well as further thoughts for future. Hope you find it useful.
Kind regards
Danny B.
Disclaimer: I don't have anything against the general *existence* of Wikiversity as the online free education resource, but I believe that the current setup (running it on MW and under WMF while claiming and insisting on being different) is not good solution.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Move_Beta _Wikiversity_to_Incubator
---------- Původní e-mail ---------- Od: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Komu: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Datum: 15. 4. 2017 21:37:01 Předmět: [Langcom] Beta Wikiversity "Wikiversity has been proved to attract lunatics and Beta Wikiversity has it's shiny role there. So, I think they proved not to be able to take care about nurturing the new projects (unlike Wikisource); at least not without the Incubator admins.
In other words, I would go with closure. What do you think?
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom "