Now that we have everyone's attention, I'd like to see if anyone would care to comment on the substantial topic at hand, namely solved problem pages on Wikiversity.
To recap, I am thinking of setting up one or more pages of math problems solved by Maxima, a symbolic computation system. I am imagining that there would be a main page and a page for each solved problem. Each problem page would have a brief discussion and then a solution with formulas, code, and graphics as needed. Is that something that is suitable for Wikiversity?
To make it more concrete, I am thinking that the solved problem pages will look something like this article (I didn't write the article).
http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/11018
Thanks for any light you can shed on this question.
Robert Dodier
Why not? On 23/12/2013 4:45 PM, "Robert Dodier" robert.dodier@gmail.com wrote:
Now that we have everyone's attention, I'd like to see if anyone would care to comment on the substantial topic at hand, namely solved problem pages on Wikiversity.
To recap, I am thinking of setting up one or more pages of math problems solved by Maxima, a symbolic computation system. I am imagining that there would be a main page and a page for each solved problem. Each problem page would have a brief discussion and then a solution with formulas, code, and graphics as needed. Is that something that is suitable for Wikiversity?
To make it more concrete, I am thinking that the solved problem pages will look something like this article (I didn't write the article).
http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/11018
Thanks for any light you can shed on this question.
Robert Dodier
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Who will vet these solutions? I note an interpretation issue in the language, for example, of this *particular* problem which makes the solution untrue.
The problem begins by stating that the points are "uniformly" distributed, but then within the programming code, it *randomly* distributes them. The meaning (at least in American English, and mathematics) of 'random' and 'uniform' is not interchangeable.
If the points are "uniformly" distributed, the probability that n of them are in the same hemisphere is 100% if n is 1 or 2, and 0% is n is greater than two.
So I would expect subject matter experts would be a requirement if we are to *solve* problems and present these are the sort of solutions you'd expect to see in a University.
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Dodier robert.dodier@gmail.com To: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2013 2:36 pm Subject: [Wikiversity-l] rebooting the discussion of solved problem pages on Wikiversity
Now that we have everyone's attention, I'd like to see if anyone would care to comment on the substantial topic at hand, namely solved problem pages on Wikiversity.
To recap, I am thinking of setting up one or more pages of math problems solved by Maxima, a symbolic computation system. I am imagining that there would be a main page and a page for each solved problem. Each problem page would have a brief discussion and then a solution with formulas, code, and graphics as needed. Is that something that is suitable for Wikiversity?
To make it more concrete, I am thinking that the solved problem pages will look something like this article (I didn't write the article).
http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/11018
Thanks for any light you can shed on this question.
Robert Dodier
_______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
It's great that this is coming up, because it's an opportunity to again explain progressive education and the learning-by-doing model, and the incredible potential of Wikiversity.
If a solution is presented as fact, if error (or reasonably possible error) is presented as fact in a top level page, there is a neutrality violation. WMF policy requires neutrality. However, if a student submits an exercise, or, for that matter, a professor expresses a presumably informed opinion, attributed as opinion, there is no neutrality violation *unless this is unattributed or presented as fact.* So how material is presented is crucial to maintaining neutrality.
One cause of the general lack of major drama on Wikiversity (in spite of what has been seen here, you won't *usually* see this mess on Wikiversity) is that there are so few users. But that's not the deep reason. The deep reason is that the progressive education model *incorporates* disagreement as part of the learning process.
This is, then, ideal for, among other things, cutting edge science, where there may be *deep* disagreement. The scientific method does not reject experimental evidence, normally, it attempts to explain it, through the creation of predictive models that can be tested. If a model can't be tested, it is technically pseudoscientific. That doesn't mean that it's wrong, by the way.
Back to the immediate topic, suppose there is a group of students who want to learn math. Perhaps they can find a teacher, but suppose now that there is no teacher. Suppose that everyone one of us is such a student, that there are no experts. This, in fact, is the position of real scientists. The "student/teacher" model is for children, and it doesn't necessarily work well even there, and definitely not for deep education, where it's necessary for the student to discover and build understanding out of their own experience. Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data storage unit with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and understanding its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through this process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be filled with the wisdom of the teacher.
So these students might pose problems, and then attempt to solve them. They may share their solutions with each other. In the scientific method, one becomes highly critical of one's own solutions, searching vigorously for error. Perhaps the solution is tested against known or expected results. If a number of students come up with the same result through different pathways, that tends to validate each of those pathways. These students, if they cooperate, may build a body of knowledge. If an expert teacher comes along, they will be prepared to understand the teaching.
They will make mistakes. We have been taught a certain horror of error. Most of us were punished, as children, openly or subtly, for making mistakes. However, in my training, it's pointed out that there is an easy way to avoid error: don't attempt anything difficult. Play small. Then you'll be safe! You will be Right, with a small life. It can get very small....
Making mistakes is crucial to deep learning. If we are unlucky enough to get a thing right the first time, our knowledge of it will be shallow compared to our knowledge if we've made lots of mistakes, as long as we can recognize the errors and move on.
So, suppose the discussed problem were on Wikiversity, in the manner I suggested. First of all, as pointed out by Wjhonson, the problem is misstated.
Suppose the problem is on a higher level page, where it should be neutral. Anyone can edit the problem there to fix it according to the obvious intention (so that the subpage solutions then solve the actually stated problem). If that affects the subpage, where the problem might be restated, that can also be fixed, but there the author of that page may have an enhanced right to object. The author is the author! Don't mess with the author's text without the author's consent! The author can also object over the higher level statement of the problem, and then there could be a dispute to be resolved.
Normally, these things can be, with a level of Assumption of Good Faith, readily resolved, directly.
If not, then, with something as I've stated, there can be ready assistance from the community. Nobody is "wrong." If there is an intractable dispute, that is presented. We will not be looking to figure out who is wrong so we can block them and delete their contributions. We will be looking to create and maintain neutrality and the possibility of education.
If one view is "mainstream" and another is "fringe," this can be presented in balance by reference to sources. Fringe views are not suppressed on Wikiversity. If they are found in reliable source, as they sometimes are, they should not be suppressed on Wikpedia, either, but the Wikipedia process can easily break down and be other than what policies and even ArbComm decisions imply.
In the WV cold fusion resource, there have been fringe or idiosyncratic theories presented. I would never totally remove these, but they have been categorized as such, moved to subpages, etc. It's been remarkable to see the results.
I think one editor was quite ready to fight, expected it. When he saw my removal of his section, where his theory was presented as The Truth, equally in presentation with notable theories, he was unhappy. But then he saw that I'd created a subpage just for his theory, linked from the main theory page. Where he could fully express himself. Without harm. He consented and was even pleased.
Wikiversity is *radically inclusive.* Inclusionist heaven.
Deletionists (who hold a position that is at least reasonable for an encyclopedia) see Wikiversity, shake their heads in disgust, maybe try to get something deleted and fail, and go away with an idea that Wikiversity is hopeless, a haven for kooks and nut cases and dangerous trolls.
In a Landmark Education resource, that I created over two years ago, when I had just done the initial training, an editor showed up recently, a WP admin, who has a history of anticult editing, he's known for it. This could have been a total mess. He was editing the resource, adding highly critical material that was presented with (to me) clear bias. So we discussed it, and we forked the resource, creating what I've called "sections," after the university practice of having sections of a class, each with a different "instructor." He has his section and I have mine, and we sometimes cooperate on them. And we have a third section, defined as open (and which must, then, be neutral). That section will represent a high level of consensus, if we ever get there. The top level resource is rigorously neutral (and we just faced an issue there, and resolved it.) We are both learning.
This math problem issue is trivial by comparison.
Basically, I encourage the user to go ahead with the guidelines I suggested. The process itself is educational.
If an appropriately placed Problems page is created, that will then open the door for others to create problems and put up solution pages.
We should have, by the way, lots of links to Planet Math pages, that's one thing that I got out of the mess here. I encourage scholars to add them, in appropriate places, and will assist in handling any possible problems that arise. We do not own our scholars, and we do not own the eyeballs of our readers. Our goal is education, not hits. If we do our job, people's education will be enhanced, and we don't care if they got part of their education elsewhere.
And if we do our job, we will have the support we need. Mostly, what Wikiversity is missing is organization of resources. Clear guidelines were never created, lots of things were proposed, but there was no coherent decision structure. That is a basic structural problem for all the WMF wikis.
As a collection of peers, without relying on outside intervention, can we solve that problem? I saw the possibility of that for Wikiversity, years ago, but I certainly can't do it alone. There are a few who seem to get the idea. Possibly, not quite yet enough for established process to be reliable. Wikiversity could become the crown jewel of WMF wikis, completing the encyclopedia by opening up connection with genuine education.
In theory and occasional practice, sister wiki links to Wikiversity can be added to relevant Wikipedia articles. These would normally be External Links. I've seen this opposed on Wikipedia, on the argument that WV pages were "self published," which is preposterous. I.e., they are no more self published than any Wikpedia page, and any Wikipedia editor can edit WV pages if there is a problem with them.
But there is more that's possible. Student projects could include creating alternate versions of WP articles, which could then be proposed for RfC for an en masse replacement of the WP article. I've seen that done, and it worked. If an outside article (in the case I saw it was Optics, written by ScienceApologist, in his user space on Wikisource, he was banned at the time) is *better* than the existing WP article, it's a simple Yes/No decision in an RfC. WP process can handle that! It can bypass the piecemeal creation of patchwork messes that is common on Wikipedia, even on noncontroversial articles, not to mention controversial ones.
I can hear the screams now, already. However, this idea would leave the Wikipedia community still in clear control of Wikpedia content. What the screams will be about is the loss of control by small factions that is currently common on Wikipedia. Those factions often think of themselves as "the community," but they actually do not trust the real, larger community, and they complain bitterly when it overrules them.
I hope that all who read this will consider lending a hand. If we believe that we already know the answers, we will be quite limited. I have ideas, pieces, possibilities. The real solutions will be a product of community effort.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.
From: Wjhonson wjhonson@aol.com To: wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] rebooting the discussion of solved problem pages on Wikiversity
Who will vet these solutions? I note an interpretation issue in the language, for example, of this *particular* problem which makes the solution untrue. [...]
So I would expect subject matter experts would be a requirement if we are to *solve* problems and present these are the sort of solutions you'd expect to see in a University.
http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/11018 Thanks for any light you can shed on this question. Robert Dodier
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Abd ulRahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com wrote:
Back to the immediate topic, suppose there is a group of students who want to learn math. Perhaps they can find a teacher, but suppose now that there is no teacher. Suppose that everyone one of us is such a student, that there are no experts. This, in fact, is the position of real scientists. The "student/teacher" model is for children, and it doesn't necessarily work well even there, and definitely not for deep education, where it's necessary for the student to discover and build understanding out of their own experience. Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data storage unit with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and understanding its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through this process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be filled with the wisdom of the teacher.
This is something that we talk a lot about on Yet One Other Website (peeragogy.org).
I am sincerely interested to think about how wikiversity does or does not fit together with other efforts. It certainly can't be insular...
I should make it clear that what I've expressed are my personal views, explaining the stands I've taken over the last four years or so. These views are not always popular, but do enjoy some substantial (and growing) support. I was blocked for almost two years, as a result of what might superficially be called the Ottava wars. (There were really deeper issues and forces involved.)
I'm very involved with other activities, including being, effectively, sole parent to a 12 year old girl, serving as a coach in the Landmark Self Expression and Leadership Program, starting up a nonprofit to facilitate recommended basic research into "the scientific fiasco of the century," as it was called in the 1990s (by a skeptic, and I say that he didn't know the half of it)
However, I intend to continue involvement with Wikiversity, where I have expertise and interest; in general, as well, I'm highly interested in encouraging the use of Wikiversity for what it's truly good for, the development of educational resources. Some WV resources are very poor, badly organized, highly incomplete, the place is littered with incomplete projects. However, it's an open space with enormous potential.
Joe, you are very welcome, as I said. I wrote, here, precisely so that you would not think that what you encountered was typical of Wikiversity. It's not. Because we are open to immediate editing from any WMF global account, we get a lot of Wikipedians showing up who may expect Wikiversity to follow Wikipedia standards. We try to educate them in our different approach. Sometimes when they realize the implications, they get excited. Other times they are so attached to the Wikipedia Way that they are upset. What? Fringe views being advocated? Horrors!
Actually, though, there is much less of that on Wikiversity than one might think. What there really is on Wikiversity is freedom.
It's been abused at times. Some have used Wikiversity as a platform from which to attack Wikipedians. As a custodian and scholar, I stood firmly against that. We cannot expect stewards to stand by while one of the wikis is used to attack others. However, *studying* what happens on Wikipedia is legitimate. Hence we need "ethical standards," governing such study, and we need predictable, reliable enforcement.
If we don't develop our own standards, others will impose standards on us. Wikiverity took an enormous hit when we saw Jimbo Wales descend from the heavens and intervene, deleting, desysopping, and blocking. That incident on Wikiversity, and a similar one just after it on Commons, led to Jimbo surrendering his intrusive Founder tools. It's just what happened. From my point of view, he was neither right nor wrong, or, perhaps, a bit of both. From my point of view, Jimbo has a tiger by the tail. That can be an "interesting" place to be.
In any case, one of the founders of Wikiversity remains blocked, because he never got over what had happened to him, with the influx of Wikipedians. I invited him back many times, but he was unwilling to give up the story, the litany of Horrible Things that had happened, and How could that Horrible Person still be a Bureaucrat?
We do not create the future by trying to fix the past.
My conclusion is that no one person can transform the projects. It must be a community effort, but it starts with communication that is deeper than the snarky sound bites that become standard wiki fare.
One more thing. when I was new to Wikversity, I attended a major alternative education conference, and talked up Wikiversity. While a lot of interest was expressed, it would have taken follow up to convert this into an expanded user base. And then Stuff started to happen on Wikiversity, and I realized that it was not yet a safe place. It could be safe. Right now, it's safe because little is happening but the routine usage of the project. No protective structures have been created. It will take a critical mass of users who see the need, for that to happen.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.
From: Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com To: Abd ulRahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com; Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] rebooting the discussion of solved problem pages on Wikiversity
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Abd ulRahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com wrote:
Back to the immediate topic, suppose there is a group of students who want to learn math. Perhaps they can find a teacher, but suppose now that there is no teacher. Suppose that everyone one of us is such a student, that there are no experts. This, in fact, is the position of real scientists. The "student/teacher" model is for children, and it doesn't necessarily work well even there, and definitely not for deep education, where it's necessary for the student to discover and build understanding out of their own experience. Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data storage unit with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and understanding its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through this process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be filled with the wisdom of the teacher.
This is something that we talk a lot about on Yet One Other Website (peeragogy.org).
I am sincerely interested to think about how wikiversity does or does not fit together with other efforts. It certainly can't be insular...
Joe, regarding peeragogy, you interested in checking the Wikipedia article Networked learning? On 25/12/2013 5:47 AM, "Joe Corneli" holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Abd ulRahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com wrote:
Back to the immediate topic, suppose there is a group of students who
want
to learn math. Perhaps they can find a teacher, but suppose now that
there
is no teacher. Suppose that everyone one of us is such a student, that
there
are no experts. This, in fact, is the position of real scientists. The "student/teacher" model is for children, and it doesn't necessarily work well even there, and definitely not for deep education, where it's
necessary
for the student to discover and build understanding out of their own experience. Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data storage
unit
with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and
understanding
its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through this process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be filled with the wisdom of the teacher.
This is something that we talk a lot about on Yet One Other Website (peeragogy.org).
I am sincerely interested to think about how wikiversity does or does not fit together with other efforts. It certainly can't be insular...
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Thanks Leigh:
It looks relevant, definitely. I didn't realize the connection with Christopher Alexander goes so deep (it's been a while since I looked at his book). I'll have to add something about that in the section of the Peeragogy Handbook on patterns (which I'm revising currently).
Thank you!
Joe
PS. I added a "See also" link to that article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_learning, which is basically the "literature review" for Peeragogy.
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Leigh Blackall leighblackall@gmail.com wrote:
Joe, regarding peeragogy, you interested in checking the Wikipedia article Networked learning?
On 25/12/2013 5:47 AM, "Joe Corneli" holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Abd ulRahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com wrote:
Back to the immediate topic, suppose there is a group of students who want to learn math. Perhaps they can find a teacher, but suppose now that there is no teacher. Suppose that everyone one of us is such a student, that there are no experts. This, in fact, is the position of real scientists. The "student/teacher" model is for children, and it doesn't necessarily work well even there, and definitely not for deep education, where it's necessary for the student to discover and build understanding out of their own experience. Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data storage unit with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and understanding its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through this process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be filled with the wisdom of the teacher.
This is something that we talk a lot about on Yet One Other Website (peeragogy.org).
I am sincerely interested to think about how wikiversity does or does not fit together with other efforts. It certainly can't be insular...
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
And likewise Joe, if there's something missing in the WP article, please add it. The talk page reveals an interesting debate. On 26/12/2013 5:51 AM, "Joe Corneli" holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Leigh:
It looks relevant, definitely. I didn't realize the connection with Christopher Alexander goes so deep (it's been a while since I looked at his book). I'll have to add something about that in the section of the Peeragogy Handbook on patterns (which I'm revising currently).
Thank you!
Joe
PS. I added a "See also" link to that article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_learning, which is basically the "literature review" for Peeragogy.
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Leigh Blackall leighblackall@gmail.com wrote:
Joe, regarding peeragogy, you interested in checking the Wikipedia
article
Networked learning?
On 25/12/2013 5:47 AM, "Joe Corneli" holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Abd ulRahman Lomax <abdlomax@yahoo.com
wrote:
Back to the immediate topic, suppose there is a group of students who want to learn math. Perhaps they can find a teacher, but suppose now that there is no teacher. Suppose that everyone one of us is such a student, that there are no experts. This, in fact, is the position of real scientists. The "student/teacher" model is for children, and it doesn't necessarily
work
well even there, and definitely not for deep education, where it's necessary for the student to discover and build understanding out of their own experience. Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data
storage
unit with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and understanding its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through
this
process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be
filled
with the wisdom of the teacher.
This is something that we talk a lot about on Yet One Other Website (peeragogy.org).
I am sincerely interested to think about how wikiversity does or does not fit together with other efforts. It certainly can't be insular...
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
On 24.12.2013, at 13.47, Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Abd ulRahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com wrote:
Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data storage unit with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and understanding its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through this process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be filled with the wisdom of the teacher.
This is something that we talk a lot about on Yet One Other Website (peeragogy.org).
I am sincerely interested to think about how wikiversity does or does not fit together with other efforts. It certainly can't be insular…
In the article "Learning in and with an open wiki project: Wikiversity's potential in global capacity building" (http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2252/2093) there are some recommendations for the Wikiversity (http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2252/2093#p6), to make it more "peeragogy" than it use to be in 1998 (when the article was written). Now it looks that the MOOC-sites are building on these principles when the Wikiversity will slowly vanishing. A sad part in here is that the MOOC-sites are not fee or open.
- Teemu
-------------------------------------------------- Teemu Leinonen http://teemuleinonen.fi +358 50 351 6796 Media Lab http://mlab.uiah.fi Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture --------------------------------------------------
In the referenced page, the problem is probably mis-stated, because, as stated, the probability is zero for N > 1.
This kind of exercise should probably not be a mainspace page. I would suggest a subpage under an appropriate math resource, for "Problems." The problem would be given in a section on that page, with, then, a link to a subpage "Solution by Abd" -- if I were the author. That would be an attributed page. It could contain errors. How to handle that can vary, but the identification of error is a critical part of the educational process. I'd be happy to assist.
This is important to understand. Attributed text, sections, subpages need not be neutral. That is what makes it possible to build sophisticated content on WV, including original research.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 23, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Robert Dodier robert.dodier@gmail.com wrote:
Now that we have everyone's attention, I'd like to see if anyone would care to comment on the substantial topic at hand, namely solved problem pages on Wikiversity.
To recap, I am thinking of setting up one or more pages of math problems solved by Maxima, a symbolic computation system. I am imagining that there would be a main page and a page for each solved problem. Each problem page would have a brief discussion and then a solution with formulas, code, and graphics as needed. Is that something that is suitable for Wikiversity?
To make it more concrete, I am thinking that the solved problem pages will look something like this article (I didn't write the article).
http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/11018
Thanks for any light you can shed on this question.
Robert Dodier
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com wrote:
This kind of exercise should probably not be a mainspace page. I would suggest a subpage under an appropriate math resource, for "Problems." The problem would be given in a section on that page, with, then, a link to a subpage "Solution by Abd" -- if I were the author. That would be an attributed page. It could contain errors. How to handle that can vary, but the identification of error is a critical part of the educational process. I'd be happy to assist.
BTW this is exactly the kind of thing we have going on Another Website. If that model can work well on WV that would be great.
It does work well on Wikiversity, I've created pages like this, there has never been a problem with them. What is a problem is when a user creates a mainspace page that is not what might be called a mainspace topic.
Exactly where the line is drawn often is not clear. Generaly, though, my position has been that if a university might offer a course with the name of our mainspace page, the name is appropriate. If not, if it might be the title of a particular lecture in a course, or an accessory resource for a course, then it is best as a subpage.
Wikibooks is organized with mainspace pages being book titles and chapters being subpages.
Student problems would never be a "course." That are something that is part of course activity.
We can create a stub course if we want to organize student problems under a course that has not yet been created. It is common that we will link to a relevant Wikipedia article, it's often the first thing I do when I create a WV resource. We could also link to any similarly relevant "Another Website." I.e., Planet Math.
This is not "advertising" Planet Math. It would be a link to a specific page that might overlap the Wikipedia article. In education, there is no harm in redundancy, if those are the same, and redundancy also can compensate for errors and omissions. As always with external links, choices will be made based on usefulness to the reader, as a matter of editorial consensus.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell I'm so excited I can't wait for Now
From: Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com To: Mailing list for Wikiversity wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] rebooting the discussion of solved problem pages on Wikiversity
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abdlomax@yahoo.com wrote:
This kind of exercise should probably not be a mainspace page. I would suggest a subpage under an appropriate math resource, for "Problems." The problem would be given in a section on that page, with, then, a link to a subpage "Solution by Abd" -- if I were the author. That would be an attributed page. It could contain errors. How to handle that can vary, but the identification of error is a critical part of the educational process. I'd be happy to assist.
BTW this is exactly the kind of thing we have going on Another Website. If that model can work well on WV that would be great.
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org