text:
User:Fasten/Free Software And Open Source Ethics

—Benjamin Mako Hill, FSF board member

Introduction
This learning resource is meant to support open source programmers in considering the ethical positions surrounding open source software and to develop an independent code of conduct or idioculture.

The ends of free and open source software development
The individual motivations of developers in the open source movement are probably as varied as the people and their software products. There are, however, recurring component vectors that may be useful to categorize motivations. The most common motivations appear to be:

 * Exercise:
 * What are the ends of different groups in the open source movement?
 * What are your personal goals and priorities?
 * Why?

A less relevant component vector can be "to get the software for free oneself" (free as in "free beer", not as in “free speech”), which may be a motivation left over from youth, when one couldn't buy all the software one might have wanted. The position only makes sense if one cannot make a sensible plan to sell a given piece of software, because selling should otherwise lead to the required funding for software purchases and one can always express solidarity with specific groups by offering community editions to members of those groups, either cheap or for free.

Open source karma
The term karma does not refer to a very well-defined concept. Open source karma could be imagined to refer either to an unspecific reputation system or to an unspecific theory of universal karma, but one would probably not see it as a code of conduct, which is another possible interpretation of karma.

Do open source programmers have free will?
One can argue that free will could exist in the form of higher-order volitions, even if the entire universe was a deterministic system (which it most probably is not, due to quantum indeterminism). That is, however, not the question. The question is what determines the activities of open source programmers? Are these activities guided by long-term convictions and reasoning or are they guided by chance, opportunity and incremental improvements towards "inevitable" goals? The open source movement is somewhat anarchistic, because it mostly lacks means to aim for common goals (other than projects), as for instance codes of conduct. Thus one could argue that the responsibility rests with the individual programmer, which appears to connect to the initial argument concerning higher-order volitions. Planning higher-order volitions ahead means to develop a code of conduct, which should be seen as the future-compatible attitude.

Free will can also be seen as a filter on the white noise, the randomness of the universe at the quantum level, that ultimately allows you to implement a code of conduct. Thus successful application of the code of conduct (in the form of higher-order volitions) would be to exercise free will.

 * Exercise:
 * What are existing codes of conduct in the open source movement?
 * Does this appear to be sufficient?
 * How can one prevent the open source movement from releasing the source code for a system that can develop into a sapient artificial intelligence as open source software?
 * What other types of projects may be undesirable as open source software?

Benefits and drawbacks of open source software
Any open source software package exists in relation to other software packages, which may serve a relevant purpose in an economy as commercial software packages. Thus one could argue that releasing open source software has the potential to have detrimental effects on fellow programmers. On the other hand releasing open source software may also have the potential to have beneficial effects on other groups, including commercial entities. An open source programmer might want to at least try to understand the potential effects of releasing a given software package. A fixation on open source software without a proper analysis of the circumstances and potential effects could be seen as a failure to find a sensible intermediate position in relation to important aspects of the software development process and software economy. Furthermore the proverb "What goes around, comes around" could be seen to suggest that somebody who wants to sell software might also want to purchase software (and/or other intellectual goods), at least on occasion, otherwise the categorical imperative is not satisfied.

 * Exercise:
 * Was the demise of SCO a detrimental effect on fellow programmers or an acceptable side effect?
 * What other effects of open source software can be observed or deduced?
 * Is software-that-hasn't-been-written-several-times-already a resource that can be depleted?
 * Does open source software offer certified quality? Why not, is it somehow difficult to sign with more meaningful keys than "I-may-or-may-not-have-written-or-seen-an-arbitrary-subset-of-the-sourcetree"?

Open source social responsibility
The term corporate social responsibility refers to the social responsibility of the corporate sector. In analogy a member of the open source community could and should demand "open source social responsibility".

 * Exercise:
 * What are the ends and side effects of open source software development?
 * What could and should be the responsibilies of open source software developers?
 * What are problems an open source software developer may have an obligation to prevent altogether (possibly by planning ahead)?

One could argue that philanthropic open source software may suffer from the problem that is has the potential to create business opportunities that might otherwise not have existed, possibly without providing any goods or services beneficial to the more usual recipients of charitable giving. Thus the more usual recipients of charitable giving (who very likely do not own a computer) may even be affected negatively by this kind of philanthropy through the diversion of financial resources. Even the GNU General Public License and other licenses that may make commercial use less profitable do have the potential to contribute to this effect. One could see this as a motivation for open source authors and users to intentionally counter this effect, for instance with charitable license terms.

This necessity would be analogous to the conclusion that if any enterprise, business venture or other activity, could be seen to benefit in any way from an assumed, intentional or unintentional, use of metaphysical effects then that would result in an immediate obligation to act as an ethicist in order to reject unethical effects of metaphysics. The exact definition of what could be seen to constitute a metaphysical effect is not required as any divine intervention could be seen to trivially fulfill the condition, thus making all religions metaphysical effects and putting all cultures strongly influenced by religions under that obligation (putting an emphasis on an obligation that should exists anyway, only with less philosophical merit).


text:
User talk:Fasten/Free Software And Open Source Ethics

Pseudo-causality
One could speculate that the open source movement represents (only as one aspect, of course) the mirror of what programmers cause for other professions: potential for rationalization, change of work methods, advantages and disadvantages for employment. That is, however, seldom part of the motivation of open source programmers and thus part of "pseudo-causality", not proper causality (Is the open source movement susceptible to be used for that metaphor?). --Bernhard Fastenrath 13:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Vocational training
Employers should provide vocational training, which should be seen to follow from article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Non-existent IT companies do not provide vocational training.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 2.1

Prove that: X - (X - Y) = The intersection of X and Y

This is saying, prove that subtracting the elements in X that are also in Y, from X as a whole is equivalent to the intersection of X and Y. Review: The intersection means the elements of X and Y, the elements the two sets have in common. Also, subtracting a set from a set, means excluding the elements the sets have in common. We can prove this using both sets of numbers or letters, and venn diagrams.

Proof One: Using Sets of Numbers Let's say set X={1,2,3,4}, and set Y={2,3,4,5} Deal with the left side first, and begin, as always, with what is in the parenthesis. (X-Y) So, we exclude all of the elements of Y from X. The elements they have in common are 2,3,4. We are left with X={1}

Now, we take the original set of X and subtract what we found for (X-Y) X - (X-Y) the same as {1,2,3,4} - {1}

We are left with {2,3,4} for the left side of the equation. Now, let's deal with the right side, the intersection of X and Y. We know, based on the definition of intersection, this means the elements that are in both sets X and Y.

The elements that the sets have in common are 2,3,4. So, the right side of the equation is equal to {2,3,4} Thus, {2,3,4} = {2,3,4}, which proves X - (X-Y) = The intersection of X and Y

Proof Two: Using Venn Diagrams


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 3.1

#23 The Euler Line
The Euler line is the line connecting three certain points within a triangle. These points are the circumcenter, the centroid and the orthocenter. The circumcenter is the point where the perpendicular bisectors of the sides of a triangle meet. The centroid is the point where the lines of a triangle that connect the vertexes to the midpoints of the opposite sides of a triangle meet. The orthocenter is the point where the altitudes of a triangle meet. The altitude is the line segment originating at a vertex of the triangle that meets the line containing the opposite side at a right angle. When all of these points are connected, they form a line which is the Euler line. The centroid lies a third of the distance from the circumcenter to the orthocenter. See figures below.


text:
User talk:Mae8203

 Hello Mae8203, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mae8203


text: File:Euler line2.png

title: File:Euler line2.png


text:
User:Eml5526.s11/MIT's OpenCourseWare course(s)

6.336J / 2.096J / 16.910J Introduction to Numerical Simulation (SMA 5211), Fall 2003

16.920J / 2.097J / 6.339J Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations (SMA 5212), Spring 2003

2.093 / 2.092 Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Fluids I, Fall 2009

2.094 Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Fluids, Spring 2008

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics, Spring 2007

2.093 Computer Methods in Dynamics, Fall 2002


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 1.3

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miset_1.3.jpg

In city geometry and regular geometry, a parabola is a set of points such that each of those points is the same distance from a given point, A, as it is from a given line, L.

To find the midset (a midset is a set of points that are equal distance between two points A and B) of two points in city geometry first find the distance between the two points. To find the distance between 2 points you subtract the 2 y's (y-y2) and add the difference of the x's (x-x2) so using this formula we can see d(a-b)= (-2 - 3) + (2-2) = 5 (find absolute value). Next find the halfway point between the distance of the points: 5/2 = 2.5 (Draw a city geometry circle with radius 2.5 to find where the two points will intersect. Once you find that intersection line you must check to see if more points will be an equal distance away from each point by moving up and down or right and left. Once you have checked all directions and have found the overlapping points you have found the midset you are looking for.
 * 1) 19 - Find the City Geometry midset of (-2,2) and (3,2).


text:
User:Egm6341.s11/Report table

 Please keep this table and the wiki code tidy. Use exactly the same format that I created. Remember to log in before you link to your team's  archived  HW report. Only archived reports are accepted; please do NOT link to current versions. Links to the archived HW reports should be made within one hour of the deadline. Egm6321.f10 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Inspiring video on teamwork and learning: A hole in the wall: How children learn without a teacher

Lecture plan, Good model reports

 All versions:  Spring 2011, Spring 2010

(a) : The deadline for any report is in general on a Wed, unless extended by formal announcement (e.g., to accommodate the travel schedule of students, etc.), or upon a reasonable request. HW7 deadline on Wed, 20 Apr 11, extended to Thu, 21 Apr 11.

(b) : HW1 deadline on Wed, 19 Jan 11 (3rd week), but extended to Wed, 26 Jan 11 (4th week), since teams were formed on Thu, 13 Jan 11 (2nd week).

(c) : 21:00 UTC = 17:00 EDT = 5:00 pm EDT = 4:00 pm EST, i.e., there are 4 hours difference between EDT and UTC, and 5 hours difference between EST and UTC. From mid-March until the beginning of November, we use EDT. From the first Sunday of November, the Eastern time changes from EDT back to the EST, and we use 22:00 UTC = 5:00 pm EST.

(d) : On a Wed due date when there is a live lecture in the recording studio, the deadline is set to 23:59 EST (just before midnight on Wed, or 04:59 UTC on Thu) so to allow students to attend the live lecture. From Sun, 13 Mar 2011, the US switched from EST to EDT. But DON'T PROCRASTINATE until the last few days to do your HW.

 Report tables of other courses

title: User:Egm6341.s11/Report table


text:
User:Eml5526.s11/Report table

 Please keep this table and the wiki code tidy. Use exactly the same format that I created. Remember to log in before you link to your team's  archived  HW report. Only archived reports are accepted; please do NOT link to current versions. Links to the archived HW reports should be made within one hour of the deadline. Egm6321.f10 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Inspiring video on teamwork and learning: A hole in the wall: How children learn without a teacher

Lecture plan, Good model reports

(a) : The deadline for any report is in general on a Wed, unless extended by formal announcement (e.g., to accommodate the travel schedule of students, etc.), or upon a reasonable request. HW7 deadline on Wed, 20 Apr 11, extended to Thu, 21 Apr 11.

(b) : HW1 deadline on Wed, 19 Jan 11 (3rd week), but extended to Wed, 26 Jan 11 (4th week), since teams were formed on Thu, 13 Jan 11 (2nd week).

(c) : 21:00 UTC = 17:00 EDT = 5:00 pm EDT = 4:00 pm EST, i.e., there are 4 hours difference between EDT and UTC, and 5 hours difference between EST and UTC. From mid-March until the beginning of November, we use EDT. From the first Sunday of November, the Eastern time changes from EDT back to the EST, and we use 22:00 UTC = 5:00 pm EST.

(d) : On a Wed due date when there is a live lecture in the recording studio, the deadline is set to 23:59 EST (just before midnight on Wed, or 04:59 UTC on Thu) so to allow students to attend the live lecture. From Sun, 13 Mar 2011, the US switched from EST to EDT. But DON'T PROCRASTINATE until the last few days to do your HW.

 Report tables of other courses

title: User:Eml5526.s11/Report table


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 2.3 Problem 4

Meast88 22:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


title: File:Img007.jpg


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 1.2

Section 1.2 Problem # 11

Find the line tangent to y = x^2 + 12x - 4  @ x=0

Well to start off, first you need to know that a tangent line to a parabola is a line that passes through the parabola in such a way that parabola(x)=line(x) has a double root. So thus, a tangent line is a line that passes through a curve such that curve(x)=line(x) has a double root.

Formula: p(x)-l(x)=(x-c)^2

Work: Start off by plugging the equation in to the formula. (x^2 + 12x - 4) would be plugged in for p(x) and 0 would be c. So the equation would be...(x^2+12x-4)-l(x)=(x-0)^2

This then is reduced down to... (x^2+12x-4)-l(x)=x^2

Now you can add l(x) to both sides to try to get it alone. (x^2+12x-4)=x^2+l(x)

From here, you want to subtract x^2 from both sides. 12x-4=l(x)

Answer: 12x-4


text:
Open academic practice and Excellence in Research for Australia

Abstract
Advocates of open academic practices argue greater public and private benefits than closed practices. Recent developments in Australian and international lobbying and resulting government policy, show an increasing support for such practices. Australian universities and research centres are yet to respond however, with key drivers of their governance limiting development. Perspectives on intellectual property remain protective, and support for publishing in open journals is limited.

This paper examines the extent to which the Australian Research Council's Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) journal lists, recognise and value open academic journals. A team of researchers in the fields of health, education and governance at the University of Canberra have reviewed the 2010 and 2012 guideline documents of ERA, looking for statements or processes that either encourage or discouraged open academic practices. They also examined ERA-ranked and unranked journal lists, rating journals that appear in that list to a criteria of open access, open licensing and open formats.

The 2010 and 2012 ERA Guideline documents make X mention of open academic practices, and the journal ranking lists are made up of X% open journals in fields of health, education and governance. This study concludes that the ERA initiative offers X recognition or valuing for avenues of open academic practices, and recommends that the ERA project should X it's criteria, and X to reflect Federal Government recommendations, and similar international trends.

 * Keywords: open academia, open journals, open publishing, open access, open licensing, open formats, Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)

Introduction
Open academic practices arguably offer greater benefits to public and private investors in research and education than do closed practices, however the majority of scientific and peer-reviewed research and other academic work, is published with exclusions on access, with all copyrights reserved, and using formats that are difficult to distribute and reuse. Restricting access and reuse of academic work offers little in the way of wider dissemination of research findings, such as distribution through niche and target publishing channels, or translation and transformation into other languages and media. In other words, restrictions on access and reuse offer limited public benefit, and little to no new business opportunity.

Recent developments in Australian and other national and international policy toward intellectual property indicate growing acceptance, if not encouragement of free and open access and reuse of research. In Australia, the Australian Ministry for Finance and Deregulation endorsed recommendations made to it by the Gov 2.0 Taskforce (2010), that Public Service Information be free and open for reuse and adaptation, by adopting the Creative Commons Attribution copyright license as a default copyright statement. . Public Service Information arguably includes that of agencies tasked with funding research.

In New Zealand, their Government Open Access and Licensing Framework (NZGOAL) also instructs state service agencies to make their works available online for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution license.

In Europe, The Commission of the European Communities recommends that member states promote the broad dissemination of knowledge created with public funds, by taking steps to encourage open access to research results.

In the United States, The USA Federal Research Public Access Act] requires 11 U.S. government agencies with annual extramural research expenditures over $100 million to make manuscripts of journal articles publicly available via the Internet.

On the other hand, major publishers of academic literature present their case for restricted access and reuse as being necessary and beneficial to the dissemination of information. they cite their management of a trusted brand, reliable information management, review processes, and clear and established lines of contact with major academic institutions and libraries, as the value in their business model, and argue that restricting access reuse to a user pay model is critical to ensuring a financial return.

Weighing up the arguments for and against open academic practices, it is our position that academics, particularly those whose work is majority public-funded, should be encouraged and supported towards open academic practices. At the very least this would mean publishing research findings in journals which provide free and open access to all their articles, with copyright licensing that permits free reuse, and that publishes articles using open file formats that facilitate ease of reuse. Further along a continuum of openness, researchers and their publishers might strive toward transparency in their processes, such as review of articles being made accessible, data and research processes being made accessible, even the data that illustrates the finer detail of research project itself, so that emerging researchers might learn more from past work, and to widen the opportunities for participation in research and learning. An over used but appropriate comparison would be with the principles and practices of open source research and development, which includes computing software for servers, desktops and portables; content such as encyclopedias, books, dictionaries, news; architecture, design, engineering, farming, cooking, and many other fields of research and development that either have their roots in Commons based development and distribution, or are moving toward it.

This research project has evaluated the Australian Research Council's primary mechanism for recognising and compensating public Australian research - the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA), for recognition and support for open academic practices. To make such an evaluation, we first arrived at three criteria for open academic publishing, and surveyed the ERA's journal lists for journals that meat that criteria:
 * 1) open access - where access to published work is available online.
 * 2) free copyright - where people are free to make copies of and derivatives from the original (such as translations and new formats), and to redistribute those copies and derivatives either commercially or non commercially.
 * 3) and reusable formats - where the original is made available in a format that facilitates easy access, copying and reuse, such as an HTML document.

We see these three criteria as minimum standards for open academic publishing, and acknowledge there is plenty of scope for furthering a culture of openness beyond these 3 criteria, such as with open governance - where the data, processes and reviews of research projects are likewise made accessible and reusable.

This paper describes our methods in detail, summarising our findings - with full access to the data and discussion record that make up the process of the project. Finally, we make recommendations to independent and institution based researchers who would like to progress toward open academic practices, while at the same time benefiting from the ERA recognition and compensation, as well as the distribution channels presently exploited by exclusive journals.

The continuum of open academic practices

 * 1) Open access to published findings
 * 2) Free copyrights over published findings
 * 3) Reusable formats for published findings
 * 4) Open access and reusable formats to reviews of research findings
 * 5) Open access, free copyrights, and reusable formats for the data gathered in a research work
 * 6) Transparency in the processes, discussion topics and decision points of research work
 * 7) A general culture of disclosure, transparency, openness, inclusion, participation and action

 * Our focus is on a minimum standard. Our standard ends at 3/7, where published findings should be open access, free in copyright, reusable in format. We have however, in the conduct of this research project, demonstrated the exercise of the full spectrum of open academic practices, where the reviews to our methods and findings are accessible, that data that makes up our research is accessible, freely licensed and available in reusable formats, the processes of the project have been transparently documented and made accessible, and our conduct has been in the spirit of disclosure, transparency, openness, inclusion, participation and action through the use of a popular wiki, and the development of a scalable and reusable method.

What makes academic practice open and why does it matter?

 * Arguments for/against open academic practices
 * Arguments for/against openly published research findings
 * Criteria and examples of open journals
 * Each discipline to present one good example of an open journal in their field
 * Examples of new, innovative or emerging alternative research publishing practices

The problem with closed academic journals

 * Publications are authored, edited and often reviewed by publicly funded academics, and the journals do not compensate for this time
 * Review and publishing turn around time for most journals is slow
 * Journals take the copyrights from the authors, often obtaining exclusive rights
 * Journals charge fees on a pay-per-view basis
 * Journals charge public libraries access fees
 * Journals collect royalties for copies made of a publication that they own copyright for, but the collection agencies do not check that the royalties go back to the author in full

The purpose of the Australian Research Council

 * ARC mission and why the ERA
 * ERA Guidelines
 * ERA journal listing process
 * ERA Criteria
 * ARC and ERA public consultation process

Research questions

 * 1) To what extent does the Australian Research Council's Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) initiative recognise international policy trends in open publishing as they relate to research?
 * 2) To what extent does ERA include open journals in its journal lists?

Method
Seven early to mid-career researchers in the fields of education, health and government, sought review what open academic practices are, determine to what extent such practices are trending internationally, establish a minimum standard criteria for evaluating academic practices for openness, and to evaluate the Australian Research Council (ARC) for awareness and representation of open research practices.

The discipline areas represented in the team of researchers were established based on staff availability and interest at the University of Canberra, largely due to the unfunded and voluntary nature of the project. Two of the lead researchers conducted a literature review, looking for existing research, coverage and commentary on open academic practices broadly. The team used that review to establish a common understanding of open academic practices, and to developed a simple 3 point evaluation criteria that represented a minimum standard of open practice. They then used the ARC's Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) initiative to evaluate ARC's readiness to recognise and support open research practice. The team reviewed the ERA guideline documents for any mention of open academic practice, then surveyed a 50 item random sample, for each of the discipline areas represented in the research, from the journals listed by ERA, evaluating each listed journal on a 3 point criteria of:

 * 1) open access,
 * 2) free copyright and,
 * 3) reusable format.

The result of each journal's evaluation for each of these criteria was recorded as a 1 for "yes", a 0.5 for "yes with conditions", or a 0 for "no".

From the findings of the survey of the ERA journal list samples and the review of the ERA guideline documents, this project believes it can make some quantifiable judgement on the extent to which the ARC recognises, supports and encourages open academic practices.

Researchers
Researchers were recruited from a cross-section of the University of Canberra's (UC) disciplines to check and rate their discipline's Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) ranked journal list on openness criteria. Where disciplines had large fields, the top-ranked journals were selected.

 * 1) Kasia Ball, Nursing, University of Canberra (UC)
 * 2) Leigh Blackall, Education, UC
 * 3) James Neill, Psychology, UC
 * 4) Diane Phillips, Government, UC
 * 5) Jamie Ranse, Disaster management, UC
 * 6) Ben Rattray, Sport and exercise, UC
 * 7) Sarah Stewart, Midwifery, Griffith University

Review of literature
List references here initially. Turn into an annotated bibliography at least. Incorporate it into discussion at best.

 * http://www.ands.org.au/publishing/licensing.html
 * "A fundamental aspiration of the Australian Research Data Commons is that more data is re-usable. One of the essential ingredients of re-usable data is clarity of re-use permissions, terms, and conditions.  Prospective re-users need to know exactly what they can do with the data.  Those conditions and permissions should be explicit. "

 * Butler, L 2003, Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas, Research Evaluation, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 39-46.
 * "The reaction of Australian academics to the use of one performance measure, raw publication counts, can be starkly illustrated using data from the Science Citation Index. The mid-1990s saw the first distribution of research funds to Australian universities based on a formula encapsulating a number of performance measures (graduate student numbers or completion rates, research income, and publications). Many universities reinforce the sector-wide signals by allocating the money they receive under these programs back to the departments, or even individuals, who ‘earn’ them. The reaction of Australians to these signals is entirely predictable — their publication output has increased dramatically in the last decade. But as quality is paid scant regard in the measures, there is little incentive to strive for the top journals, and this paper shows that the biggest increase has been in those journals at the lower end of the impact scale."

 * ERA Key Documents 2010
 * 2012 Draft Guidelines
 * Ranked Journal List Development 2010
 * ERA journal lists
 * ERA listed journals (Lamp. 2010; Deakin uni)
 * ROMEO/SHERPA
 * UCANSearch
 * E-Journals
 * Directory of Open Access Journals

Formulation of minimum standard evaluation criteria
How did we arrive at the three point evaluation standard...

 * Open access
 * Free copyright
 * Reusable format

 * Open access
 * The online access to a digital format of a publication is not limited or restricted in any way

 * Conditions
 * 1) Time based: After a certain time period, the journal allows open access
 * 2) Issue Based: After number of issues, the journal allows open access
 * 3) Topic based: The journal has open access for a particular theme / topic issue
 * 4) Selected Manuscripts: Open access to a select amount / type of manuscript after free registration
 * 5) Note: this is not the final set of access conditions - see spreadsheet

 * Free copyright
 * The copyright used to manage the copy and reuse of the document does not restrict someone's options beyond the moral obligation of recognition to original authors and publishers.
 * To this end we look for copyright licenses equivalent to:
 * Public Domain
 * Creative Commons Attribution
 * Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike
 * General Public License

 * Conditions
 * 1) Note: this is not the final set of access conditions - see spreadsheet

 * Reusable format
 * In a format that is usable on all devices, such as HTML. (PDF is not accessible to many portable computing devices, and can (depending on the publisher) be rendered unusable for people relying on assisted technology.
 * In a format that can be easily edited, copied, and otherwise appropriated. For example, the ease in which a person can copy and paste text from a document (where PDF too often presents inconvenience), or so that a more technically skilled person can program software to automatically search and lift content from a document based on a standard formatting structure in the document, such as in HTML and XML. Such formats enable re purposing of the content such as for special printing processes, republishing online, and syndication.
 * Conditions
 * 1) Note: this is not the final set of access conditions - see spreadsheet

Review of the 2010 and 2012 ERA guideline documents
Leigh read through the 2010 and draft 2012 guideline documents, highlighting words, sentences, sections and chapters that mention or explain open academic practices, or where there are links and references out about it. Leigh wrote a brief report on both documents. James checked the data and report for accuracy. The research team read, suggested edits and agreed to a final version. The final version was submitted to ERA for feedback, along with the journal list survey, with acceptable changes made based on that feedback.

 * 1) Found the link to ERA 2012 on the ERA site: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/default.htm > http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2012/era_2012.htm
 * 2) Followed through the the ERA 2012 Key Documents link > http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2012/key_documents_2012.htm
 * 3) The only format provided for the 2012 Guidelines is a 1.5 meg PDF > http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/era12/ERA2012_SubmissionGuidelines.pdf
 * 4) Passed that PDF to a friend who is totally blind, for his assessment of the document's accessibility for people like him...
 * 5) Word searched the document for:
 * open academia = 0
 * open academic = 0
 * open access = 5
 * creative commons = 0
 * copyleft = 0
 * accessible = 1

Open access
The ERA 2012 Guidelines mention open access five times in the document. Three appear within section six of the document - Other Matters, and two appear within the same one item of the glossary.

With regard to the first three, they appear in sub section 6.6 - Managing Copyright in Research Outputs Nominated for ERA Peer Review and Related Material. In subsection 6.6.1 - Where Copyright Is Owned by Institutions, the first is used within quotation marks:

 * "Where an institution owns the copyright in relevant material, the institution must provide the ARC and ERA reviewers with access to such relevant material, as described in 6.6.
 * For journal articles, book chapters and conference publications in cases where the research output is available in electronic form, this should take the form of storage in an institutionally supported repository on an 'open access' basis"

The next two uses of the phrase are found in 6.6.2 - Where Copyright Is Owned by Eligible Researcher, both are again within quotation marks:

 * "Where one or more eligible researchers own the copyright in research outputs nominated for ERA peer review, then the researcher(s) should be encouraged to give permission for that material to be used for the purposes of ERA so as to allow access to it as described in 6.6. The permission should allow relevant research outputs, where available in electronic form, to be stored in a repository on an 'open access' basis.
 * Where such eligible researchers do not expressly consent to the provision of access to relevant material for ERA purposes in the manner described in 6.6, copyright will be managed in accordance with 6.6.3.
 * Where depositing research outputs in an 'open access' repository was a condition of any funding which enabled the research to be undertaken, full public access to the research output(s) should exist, irrespective of the ERA submission process, as a result of the eligible researcher complying with that funding condition."

The final two uses of the phrase open access are both within the same item of the glossary for the document: Open access repositories, defined as: "Open access repositories provide free public access to research outputs via the internet."

The use of the phrase open access is both important and significant. The Australian Research Council is instructing institutions that participate in Excellence in Research Australia, to make research publications publicly available in open access repositories. In section 6.6.3. it is explained that the ARC can require this, even of material that is owned by third parties, because it is a Commonwealth Agency exercising it's provision under section 183(1) of The Copyright Act.

 * "Acting under section 183(1), the ARC (representing the Commonwealth) on 1 June 2009 authorised each institution participating in ERA to do acts in the copyright of relevant material owned by third parties for the purposes of ERA. This authorisation means that an institution participating in ERA may make all uses of relevant material owned by third parties that are necessary or convenient to enable it to participate in ERA."

In short, the participating institutions are to make a copy of all ERA related works - including those where copyright is owned by a third party, publicly available on an open access repository.

However, it appears that within section 6.6. is an opportunity to conservatively interpret these ERA Guidelines. At the outset it stipulates a term 'relevant material' which "...means research outputs identified by institutions for ERA peer review...". The "ERA Review" is outlined in section 3.5.2. and described as a process where where a discipline goes under review, and is required to provide 30% of its materials submitted to the ERA process. That there, that 30% is what is meant by 'relevant material'. At best, this can be surmised to mean that less than 30% of research submitted for ERA assessment, should be placed on a publicly accessible open access repository, as previously described. At worst, it only means 30% of research if, and only if under an ERA Review.

A comparison between the 2010 and 2012 documents was made difficult by the ARC, when the 2010 Guidelines were taken off the ERA website (sometime before 26 September 2011). A copy was obtained for this review however, and the sections referring to 'open access, 'relevant material' and 'ERA Review' remain exactly the same. It seems to us that the ARC is overly conservative in it's use of the provision open to it under section 183(1) of The Copyright Act, and could go further and require all research that is submitted to it - a publicly funded body for recognising and compensating research, be made publicly available on an open access repository. Doing so would then afford the institutions that participate in the ERA process, the protections they need under that provision also

Managing and offering such a repository could however, be an expensive and cumbersome operation for most institutions, compounding the costs and problems already encumbered in the existing research publication and subscription system of traditionally closed access journals. Institutions would be better to encourage their researchers to engage in copyright negotiations with their publishers, and to take steps toward ensuring that their work is publicly accessible and reusable at the first point of publication - the journal. Failing that, or as well as, individual researchers should take independent charge of the publicly accessible online archiving of their work, by publishing it on an number of free and fee based hosting services, as a second level of backup, or a primary source for access. Failing that, or as a third layer of backup and accessibility, the institution should provide their researchers with a service of publicly accessible online archive, either in its own capacity, or through partnership with third parties such as Archive.org, Wikimedia Foundation, or the Australian National Library.

Survey of ERA ranked journals against open publishing criteria
The researchers used the official downloadable ERA 2010 finalised journal lists and the copy of the ERA lists made available through Deakin University.

Journals were checked for three criteria which identify openness:
 * 1) Free and open access to publications online
 * 2) Open copyrights such as the Creative Commons Attribution and/or Share Alike license or equivalent
 * 3) Open standard file formats such as in Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML), Rich Text Format (RTF), Open Document Text (ODT) or equivalent. Portable Document Format (PDF) while recently becoming an open standard, was not included owing to the difficulties in usability still commonly found in the format's use.

Data was obtained for each journal through a combination of the following strategies:
 * 1) Web search for the journal's official homepage
 * 2) Search the SHERPA/ROMEO database for information about Author republication rights
 * 3) Check subscription-based electronic journal access via insitutional subscription, e.g., E-Journals @ UC,  UCANSearch (Federated institutional subscription journal database search)

The researchers recorded the data for the surveyed journals via a Google Docs spreadsheet using separate discipline sheets. In some instances, journals conditionally satisfied a criteria, such as access being made available after a time embargo, or if an author paid a fee. While not strictly satisfying the criteria of free and open access, such a case was rated 'yes with conditions' and the condition was explained.

Surveyed information was correct to the best of the researchers' knowledge at the time of surveying (mid-2011). Journal data was based on the journal publisher's default policies, however changes to policy occur and exceptions are sometimes negotiated by individual authors.

Notes on the survey of midwifery related journals
There is no field of research that is specific to midwifery in the ERA ranked journals. Midwifery research tends to be lumped in with Nursing, or scattered across a number of other disciples such as Medical and Health Sciences. To find journals that are related to midwifery, Sarah Stewart used the following key words:
 * midw, birth, neonatal (nursing, not medicine), obstetric (nursing, not medicine), paediatric ( and pediatric) (nursing, not medicine), pregnancy, antenatal, postnatal, antepartum, postpartum, intrapartum, childbirth, breastfeeding, lactation, newborn, mother, baby, women, family, perinatal.

Notes on the survey of psychology related journals
"Psychology and Cognitive Sciences" is an ANZ-recognised field of research (ANZFoR; 17). The 2010 finalised ERA list for ANZFoR 17 (Psychology) provided 1608 journal/ANZFoR pairs (see Table *), based on 1324 unique journals.

Table *. Journal/ANZFoR pairs for ANZFoR 17 (Psychology) by FoR codes (Australian Research Council, 2010)

Given the large number of psychology-related journals, the current survey focused only on the 593 Psychology journals with an ANZFor1 code of 1701 (i.e., not journals with 1701 as a second or third ANZFor code; see Table *).

Table *. Frequency and percentage of rankings for journals with ANZFoR1 code of 1701 (ARC, 2010)

Notes on the survey of education related journals

 * 1) Used John Lamp's data base to collect ranked journals from the 2010 ANZFoR code 13 (Education)
 * 2) Took the first 67 (A-B) journals to assess
 * 3) Assessed all 3 criteria for the first 45 using the SHERPA/RoMEO assessment tool, and Google Search where a RoMEO did not list a journal
 * 4) For the remainder, I stopped using the SHERPA/RoMEO tool, finding Google Search and self assessment quicker and more reliable
 * 5) Also for the remainder, I adopted Jamie and Kasia's method of first assessing Access and if it was accessible, then assessing license and format. If it wasn't accessible, I assessed no further.
 * 6) I returned to John Lamp's database, but it had been updated since the ERA announcement to no longer rank journals, making it difficult to draw out Journal titles I had not already assessed. Lamp's new list was now listed in alphabetical order. I reordered my list accordingly, but owing to my list being based on original rankings, I had less journals listed.
 * 7) Another problem detected by Kasia midway through, was that assessing journals when logged in to UC's computer network, may yield false positive access readings, as the UC network may at times be registered on the journal database and therefore granted access as a fee paying institution. While I have double checked, there is room for error here, so my findings a maximum readings.
 * 8) Am not proceeding at this point, until I can work out the most efficient way to grow my list. Need to perhaps copy past Lamps full list, and somehow delete repeated items.
 * 9) Findings to date:
 * of the 67 Education journals assessed to date, 16 grant open access.
 * of those 16, none offer free and reusable copyrights.
 * of those 16, 2 offer their publications in open, reusable and accessible formats (where PDF is generally not considered an open, reusable or accessible format)

Notes on the survey of government related journals
Included in this section of the survey is Governance and Public Administration.

Review of the 2010 ERA guideline documents

 * ERA Key Documents 2010

Survey of ERA ranked journals against open publishing criteria

 * Overall results
 * General comments on the method
 * General comments on the criteria
 * General comments about ERA

Psychology
One hundred and twenty two A* and A ERA ranked journals (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010) were reviewed, as well as * non-ranked open journals.

Validation

 * Networked discussion on the formulation of evaluation criteria (see discussion page)
 * Pre publication response from ARC
 * Project delay pending clarification on the dropping of ranking in the ERA list

Discussion

 * Recommendations


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Proving Sets Equal, Section 2.1

Click to make image bigger.

In order to prove that X∩(Y∪Z) = (X∩Y)∪(X∩Z), you must first learn what the symbols mean. When there is an intersection symbol, ∩, it means that you want to shade in the common area between the two areas intersecting. When there is a union symbol, ∪, it means that you want to shade in everything included in both areas. To prove that X∩(Y∪Z) = (X∩Y)∪(X∩Z), it is best to break it into parts. As shown in the picture above, for X∩(Y∪Z) I first shaded in X. Then I shaded in Y∪Z. After doing those parts separately, I shaded where they had common shaded areas because of the intersection symbol. I did the same thing for (X∩Y)∪(X∩Z) by first shading in X∩Y. Then I shaded in X∩Z. Since there is a union symbol for this one, I then combined the shaded areas for both parts. After breaking up both sides in order to find the shaded region, you can see that the two ultimately equal each other.

By: Katy Anderson


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/If-Then Truth Tables, Section 2.2

Click on image to make it larger.

By, Katelin Barker


text:
User talk:Fregroldsworld

 Hello Fregroldsworld, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fregroldsworld


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 2.4 number 23

For this problem you need to look at the picture in relation to n^2/2 + n/2 = n(n+1)/2. This picture shows a triangle with equal squares along the base and the height. I will label this number n. If we square n we get n^2. This would be the area of a square. But since we only wants n^2/2, and we have a half of a square, we can divide n^2/2. This gives us the first part of the equation we are looking for. The second part comes from the 6 half triangles. There are 6 dark grey figures, and 6 is our n value. But since we only have 6 halves we need to divide n/2. This gives us our second part of the equation. When we put the two parts we found together we get n^2/2 +n/2. Because these fractions have common denominators we can add them to get n^2+ n/2. We can factor the top part (n^2+n) to get n(n+1) and find that it equals n(n+1)/2. This is what we are trying to prove.


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 3.2 Number 28

Find the simple continued fraction expansion of 22/17. Explain your work.

(22/17)=1+(5/17)

1/(5/17)=(17/5)=3+(2/5)

1/(2/5)=(5/2)=2+(1/2)

1/(1/2)=2

1+(1/(3+1/(2+(1/2)))

This method is finding the whole number parts plus the reciprocal of what's left over. Then you repeat this method until only the whole number part is left.


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Continued Fractions, Section 3.2

3.2 #30

√5 To start note that 3 > √5 > 2

So this means that √5 = 2+ (√5-2) Where 2 is the whole number part and (√5-2) is the fractional part of √5.

In a simple continued fraction our numerator is 1. In order to get 1 in the numerator we must use the reciprocal 1/(√5-2).

From this point we want to separate the whole-number part and the fractional part and can do so by multiplying both the numerator and denominator by the conjugate (√5+2) 1 x (√5+2) = (√5+2) and (√5-2) x (√5+2) = (5-4)

When we put both the numerator and denominator together we get (√5+2)/1 or (√5+2)

Now we need to get our original fractional part from (√5+2) in order to continue our fraction and can do so by adding and subtracting 4 from (√5+2) 4+(√5+2-4)

Using the associative property we get the next part of our continued fraction 4+(√5-2)

Repeat these steps to get the continued fraction √5= 2+1/ (4+1/(4+1/(4+1/(4+1/....)


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 2.3

Problem # 6

a) There are exactly 5 regular tessellations       FALSE

A regular tessellation is comprised of a single type of tile in which the tiles fit perfectly around a vertex.

Therefore, we must first find regular polygons whose interior angles can fit at a vertex perfectly in order to form 360 degrees. Through examining several types of polygons (figure 1 below), we can find the number of tiles needed for each polygon by dividing 360 degrees by the sum of each polygons interior angles.

# of sides	        Measure of angles (MOA)		# of tiles at a vertex (360/ MOA) 3			      60 degrees				        6 4			      90 degrees		                         4 5			     540/5 degrees = 108	 	             3.333333 6			     120 degrees				        3

We can see that as the number of sides increase so do the sums of the interior angles. This means that the total number of tiles we can fit around a vertex will keep getting smaller. We can see that 3 and 4 sides work because they produce whole numbers. However a polygon with five sides will not work, since it would require a fraction of an amount of a tile to completely tessellate. We can see that six works, however, since the number of tiles that are needed to tessellate are 3.

The last option we can have to tessellate would be two tiles at a vertex. However, this cannot happen because the angles would have to be 180 degrees each in order to produce the 360 degrees around the vertex. These would be two straight lines and therefore cannot tessellate.

Therefore, since 3, 4, and 6 are the only numbers for sides of polygons that will tessellate perfectly, there are only 3 regular tessellations, not five.

b)  Any quadrilateral tessellates a plane.  TRUE

Since a quadrilateral is a figure that contains exactly four enclosed sides, we know that if lines were drawn from either of its diagonals it would create two trianlges. Within a triangle, the total amount of degrees of the interior angles is 180 degrees. Since a quadrilateral contains two triangles, we can conclude that any quadrilateral possess an interior angle sum of 360 degrees. In order for a figure to tesselate the plane, there needs to be figures that fit to account for 360 degrees around each vertex. Therefore, any quadrilateral can tessellate the plane, using its four interior angles. The quadrilateral will need to be rotated so that a different interior angle is touching each vertex point of the tessellation. This will account for the 360 degrees.

c)  Any triangle will tessellate the plane.  TRUE

This falls along the same lines as the statement above. Since the interior angle sum of a triangel is exactly 180 degrees, two triangles can be rotated so that they fit together to form a quadrilateral with a total interior angle sum of 360 degrees. As mentioned above, a quadrilateral will tessellate a plane, sine 360 degrees is the total number needed around each vertex point of a tesselation. Therefore, any triangle will tesselate the plane as well.

d)  If a triangle is used to tessellate the plane, then exactly 4 angles will fit around each vertex.  FALSE

This can be proven when looking at an equilateral triangle. In order for the triangle to tessellate, the sum of the angles at a vertex must equal to 360 degrees. When we examine the interior angles of an equilateral triangle, we know that since there are 180 degrees in a triangle, each angle must be an equal portion. Therefore, each angle is 60 degrees. If the statement above were to be true, then that would mean that only 4 of the angles of the equilateral triangle would be needed to form the 360 degrees around a vertex. However, this would only give us 240 degrees, leaving us 130 degrees short. Consequently, we can conclude that we actually need six angles to tessellate the equilateral triangle. Thus, this statement is false.

e) If a polygon has more than six sides, then it cannot tessellate the plane. FALSE

Although we learned from part a) that the highest number of sides a polygon can have in order for it to tessellate the plane completely is six, A polygon can semi-tessillate a plane with more than six sides. Within a semi-tessellation, a polygon with more than 6 sides can tessellate along with other polygons inbetween. These other polygons are needed in order to account for the 360 degrees that must lie around a single vertice. Using an octagon for example, we can see that each vertice of an octagon has an angle of 135 degrees. Thus three octagons placed together would equal 405 degrees and would therefore not tessellate. However, If we place two octagons so that they share a common vertice, we are now left with (2 x 135) = 270 degrees.  In order to get up to 360 degrees we must add another polygon with an interior angle of 90 degrees. Since a square has an angle of 90 degrees, we can use 2 octagons and 1 square at a single vertice to create the 360 degrees required to tessellate the plane.


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 2.4:

In the problem Section 2.4: #24, the goal is to determine how the picture shown below "proves" that: 1 + 3 + 5 + ... + (2n-1) = n^2.

The picture below is of my own creation and I uploaded it on my own:

In the problem, we see that each level of the dots on the picture increases by 2 at every level (each level is indicated by the lines dividing the respective sections). If the goal were to find the total number of dots, it could be done by adding up the respective sections, i.e. 1 + 3 + 5, which would reveal the total number of dots between the first 3 levels to be 9.

If it is found that the first three levels would be viewed as n, it is possible that this amount of dots could also be found by using n-squared. This is found to be true as the third level works for this respective formula: 3-squared = 9, which equals the number of dots at the 3rd level and those that have come before it. This also holds true for the other levels: take 6 for example, where n = 6 and therefore the total number of dots found in levels 1-6 would total up to 36, or 6^2. This formula continues to work for each respective level: 4th- 4-squared = 16 dots, 5th- 5-squared = 25 dots, 8th- 8-squared = 64 dots, which equals the total number of dots in the picture below.

Another way of going about this would be to find a formula to find the dots at each individual level, which leads to the formula 2n - 1. By using this formula, with n, the respective level, the number of dots for that respective level can be found, which is shown in the picture below.

There are numerous ways to go about finding out how this picture proves the respective equation and each of the above solutions will successfully do so. It becomes your choice of which one fits your fancy for this particular problem.

Created by TMcCormick31 06:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 1.1

Consider segment AB with length x.

In order to make an equilateral triangle, we need all side length to be the same and all angle measures to be the same. From segment AB, you would draw a point C such that C is the same distance away from A and B as A is from B, length x. From here you would draw in segment AC and segment BC. Interior angles should all be equal since each of the side length constructed can only lend itself to equal angles, meaning that there is no other way to construct this triangle without equal angles. Thus you can make an equilateral triangle from one segment, with that segment ( such as AB) as its side.

(Hbrozowski 06:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC))


text:
Ideas in Geometry/Instructive examples/Section 2.4

Section 2.4 Problem 14

Note: Click on image for download options and its original size.


text:
User talk:Swamps42

 Hello Swamps42, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 07:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 07:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Swamps42


text:
User talk:Egm6936.f09/Gradient of vector: Two tensor conventions

It is important to know these conventions to avoid the confusion in writing the term in the vorticity equation (e.g., Batchelor 1967, p.267) that corresponds to the vorticity production due to vortex line stretching (e.g., Tritton 1988, p.86) as  $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \omega \cdot ( \nabla \mathbf U ) $$  or as  $$\displaystyle ( \nabla \mathbf U ) \cdot \boldsymbol \omega$$.

Both ways of writing this term could be correct, depending on which convention one uses for writing the gradient of a vector in terms of the basis vectors. It is important to note that, for any physical relation, regardless of the various possible tensor forms, there is only a unique component form; an example is the vorticity equation itself. There are two ways (conventions) to express the gradient of a vector, i.e., a second order tensor, in terms of the basis vectors.

Here, as in the article Kolmogorov scales, $$\displaystyle \mathbf U$$ designates a (spatial velocity) vector field defined on the domain $$\displaystyle \mathcal B$$, i.e., $$\displaystyle x \in \mathcal B \mapsto \mathbf U (x) \in \mathbb R^3$$. (Ignore the time dependence of $$\displaystyle \mathbf U$$ here.)

= First convention =

The first convention, often used in continuum mechanics (e.g., Truesdell & Noll 2004, p.15; Gurtin 1981, p.30; Gurtin et al. 2010, p.45; Naghdi 2001, p.21, Eq.5.2; Gonzalez & Stuart 2008, p.48), is

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle {\rm grad} \, {\mathbf U} = \nabla {\mathbf U} = \frac{\partial U_i}{\partial x_j} {\mathbf e_i} \otimes {\mathbf e_j} = U_{i,j} {\mathbf e_i} \otimes {\mathbf e_j} $$  (1)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

in which the index  $$\displaystyle i$$  of the vector component  in the numerator is summed with the index  $$\displaystyle i$$  of the first basis vector   $$\displaystyle \mathbf e_i$$, and the index   $$\displaystyle j$$  of the coordinate  $$\displaystyle x_j$$   in the denominator is summed with the index  $$\displaystyle j$$ of the second basis vector   $$\displaystyle \mathbf e_j$$.

Nabla is not a "vector"
In Eq.(1), "grad" is a differential operator; nabla $$\displaystyle \nabla$$ is simply an abbreviation for "grad", and is not a "vector" in this first convention. In the second convention, on the other hand, nabla is considered as a "vector", and is written here in boldface, i.e., $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \nabla$$ to distinguish from the above $$\displaystyle \nabla \equiv {\rm grad}$$ differential operator in lightface.

Directional derivative
The first convention is likely to have its root in the definition of the gradient of a vector field $$\displaystyle \mathbf U$$ by the directional derivative of  $$\displaystyle \mathbf U$$ at $$\displaystyle x$$  in the direction $$\displaystyle \mathbf h$$ (e.g.,  Truesdell & Noll 2004, p.15; Gurtin 1981, p.29):

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left. \frac{d \mathbf U (x + \epsilon \mathbf h)}{d \epsilon} \right|_{\epsilon = 0} = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{\mathbf U (x + \epsilon \mathbf h) - \mathbf U (x)}{\epsilon}= D \mathbf U (x) \cdot \mathbf h = [{\rm grad} \mathbf U (x)] \cdot \mathbf h \equiv [\nabla \mathbf U (x)] \cdot \mathbf h $$ (1b)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

In some works, the component form of $$\displaystyle \nabla \mathbf U$$ in Eq.(1) was not given explicitly, but can be deduced implicitly from Eq.(1b).

= Second convention, transpose of the first =

The second convention for gradient of a vector, often used in fluid mechanics (e.g., Batchelor 1967, Bird et al. 2006, Pope 2000, Tritton 1988), corresponds to the transpose of the gradient in the first convention.

For this second convention, since boldface nabla is difficult to distinguish from lightface nabla, we use  $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \nabla \equiv \nabla_*$$  (nabla with subscript *) to denote the gradient (of a vector) to distinguish with the symbol  $$\displaystyle \nabla$$  (plain lightface nabla) used for the first convention:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \boldsymbol \nabla {\mathbf U} = \nabla_* {\mathbf U} = \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \mathbf e_i \right ) \left(U_j \mathbf e_j \right ) = \frac{\partial U_j}{\partial x_i} {\mathbf e_i} {\mathbf e_j} = \frac{\partial U_j}{\partial x_i} {\mathbf e_i} \otimes {\mathbf e_j} = \frac{\partial U_i}{\partial x_j} {\mathbf e_j} \otimes {\mathbf e_i} = \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U = \nabla^T {\mathbf U} $$ (2)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

in which the right-arrow nabla $$\displaystyle \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla}$$ in Malvern 1969, p.58, was introduced.

Nabla is a "vector"
In this second convention, the gradient operator  $$\boldsymbol \nabla \equiv \displaystyle \nabla_* \equiv \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla}$$  is thought of as the vector  $$\displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \mathbf e_i$$ (Pope 2000, p.651), i.e.,

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \boldsymbol \nabla \equiv \displaystyle \nabla_* \equiv \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \mathbf e_i $$  (2b)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

that acts on the argument (vector ) on its right side (cf. Pope 2000, p.14).

Note that boldface $$\displaystyle \mathbf{grad}$$ was also used to designate gradient as a vector (e.g., Landau & Lifshitz 1987, p.3, Eq.(2.2)), i.e.,

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \mathbf{grad} \equiv \boldsymbol \nabla \equiv \displaystyle \nabla_* \equiv \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \mathbf e_i $$  (2c)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Again, since it is difficult to distinguish the boldface $$\displaystyle \mathbf{grad} \equiv \boldsymbol \nabla$$ from the lightface $$\displaystyle {\rm grad} \equiv \nabla$$, we will avoid using these boldface symbols, but use $$\displaystyle \nabla_* \equiv \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla}$$ instead.

Thus equivalently

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle {\rm grad} \, {\mathbf U} \equiv \nabla {\mathbf U} = \nabla_*^T {\mathbf U} = {\mathbf U} \overset{\leftarrow}{\nabla} $$  (3)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

where we also introduced the "left-arrow nabla" symbol $$\displaystyle \overset{\leftarrow}{\nabla}$$  used in Malvern 1969, p.58. The left arrow is used to indicate that the differential operator in $$\displaystyle \overset{\leftarrow}{\nabla}$$ acts on the argument (vector  $$\displaystyle \mathbf U$$) on its left side. On the other hand, as a tensor product (or dyadic), vector $$\displaystyle \mathbf U$$ is on the left followed by "vector"  $$\displaystyle \overset{\leftarrow}{\nabla}$$. Thus

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \mathbf U \overset{\leftarrow}{\nabla} = \left( U^i \mathbf e_i \right )\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \mathbf e_j \right ) = \frac{\partial U_i}{\partial x_j} \mathbf e_i \mathbf e_j \equiv \frac{\partial U_i}{\partial x_j} \mathbf e_i \otimes \mathbf e_j \equiv {\rm grad} \, {\mathbf U} \equiv \nabla {\mathbf U} $$ (3b)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

which is identical to Eq.(1).

Directional derivative
With the second convention, the directional derivative is written a bit awardly by having to move the direction $$\displaystyle \mathbf h$$ in front of the gradient $$\displaystyle \nabla_* \mathbf U (x)$$, i.e.,

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle D \mathbf U (x) \cdot \mathbf h = \mathbf h \cdot [\nabla_* \mathbf U (x)] $$  (3c) An example of the use of Eq.(3c) is Pope 2000, p.14, Eq.(2.16), i.e.,
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{d \mathbf s}{d t} = \mathbf s \cdot \nabla_* \mathbf U $$ (3d) = Two conventions for Jacobian matrix =
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Not surprisingly, the above two conventions for writing the gradient of a vector parallels the two similar conventions of writing the Jacobian matrix  containing the derivative of  $$\displaystyle U_i, \ i=1,2,3$$, with respect to $$\displaystyle x_j, \ j=1,2,3$$. The first convention, which is the most used convention (e.g., Battin 1999, p.xxxi; Hughes 1987, p.119; cf. Malvern 1969, p.58), is to write

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \mathbf J = \left[ \frac{\partial U_i}{\partial x_j} \right] = \left[ \displaystyle \begin{array}{lll} \frac{\partial U_1}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial U_1}{\partial x_2} & \frac{\partial U_1}{\partial x_3} \\ \frac{\partial U_2}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial U_2}{\partial x_2} & \frac{\partial U_2}{\partial x_3} \\ \frac{\partial U_3}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial U_3}{\partial x_2} & \frac{\partial U_3}{\partial x_3} \end{array} \right] $$  (4)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

The second convention corresponds to the transpose of the above convention, with $$\displaystyle i$$being the column index, and  $$\displaystyle j$$ the row index (e.g., Zienkiewicz & Taylor 2005, p.20). Thus if $$\displaystyle \mathbf J_*$$designate the Jacobian matrix in the second convention, then we have (cf. Malvern 1969, p.58)

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \mathbf J_* = \mathbf J^T = \left[ \frac{\partial U_i}{\partial x_j} \right] = \left[ \displaystyle \begin{array}{lll} \frac{\partial U_1}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial U_2}{\partial x_1} & \frac{\partial U_3}{\partial x_1} \\ \frac{\partial U_1}{\partial x_2} & \frac{\partial U_2}{\partial x_2} & \frac{\partial U_3}{\partial x_2} \\ \frac{\partial U_1}{\partial x_3} & \frac{\partial U_2}{\partial x_3} & \frac{\partial U_3}{\partial x_3} \end{array} \right] $$  (5)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

= Matrix decomposition =

From the matrix algebra of the component form, we can deduce the corresponding tensor form. Let's take the case of a 2x2 matrix as an example.

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \hat{\mathbf A} = \left[ \begin{array}{ll} A^1_1 & A^1_2 \\ A^2_1 & A^2_2 \end{array} \right] = A^1_1 \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 1 \\ 0 \end{array}\right\} \left\lfloor 1 \ 0 \right\rfloor + A^1_2 \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 1 \\ 0 \end{array}\right\} \left\lfloor 0 \ 1 \right\rfloor + A^2_1 \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 1 \end{array}\right\} \left\lfloor 1 \ 0 \right\rfloor + A^2_2 \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 0 \\ 1 \end{array}\right\} \left\lfloor 0 \ 1 \right\rfloor = \sum_{i,j} A^i_j \hat{\mathbf e}_i \hat{\mathbf e}_j ^T $$  (6)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

where the superscript denotes the row index and the subscript the column index, and where $$\displaystyle \hat{\mathbf e}_i$$  is a column matrix and  $$\displaystyle \hat{\mathbf e}_i^T$$ is its transpose, i.e., the corresponding row matrix, as shown below:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \hat{\mathbf e}_1 := \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 1 \\ 0 \end{array}\right\}, \quad \hat{\mathbf e}_1^T := \left\lfloor 1 \ 0 \right\rfloor, \ etc. $$ (7)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

If we think of $$\displaystyle \hat{\mathbf e}_i$$  as the matrix of components of the vector  $$\displaystyle {\mathbf e}_i$$, then the matrix of components of the tensor product  $$\displaystyle \mathbf e_i \otimes \mathbf e_j$$  is  $$\displaystyle \hat{\mathbf e_i} \hat{\mathbf e_j}^T$$; this association is consistent with the following rule of tensor algebra among 3 vectors  $$\displaystyle \mathbf a, \ \mathbf b , \ \mathbf c$$  (e.g., Gurtin 1981, p.4)

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left( \mathbf a \otimes \mathbf b \right) \cdot \mathbf c = \mathbf a (\mathbf b \cdot \mathbf c) $$ (8)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

since in terms of matrices of components of these vectors, we have

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle ( \hat{\mathbf a} \hat{\mathbf b}^T ) \hat{\mathbf c} = \hat{\mathbf a} ( \hat{\mathbf b}^T \hat{\mathbf c} ) $$  (9)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

which is the matrix of components of the vector $$\displaystyle \mathbf a ( \mathbf b \cdot \mathbf c )$$. Thus the tensor $$\displaystyle \mathbf A$$  with the above matrix of components  $$\displaystyle \hat{\mathbf A}$$ can be written as

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle {\mathbf A} = \sum_{i,j} A^i_j \mathbf e_i \otimes \mathbf e_j = A^i_j \mathbf e_i \otimes \mathbf e_j $$  (10)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

With the above explanation, it is then clear that the first convention of writing the gradient of a vector, i.e.,  $$\displaystyle \nabla {\mathbf U}$$  in Eq.(1), corresponds to the usual convention of writing the Jacobian matrix  $$\displaystyle \mathbf J$$  in Eq.(4), whereas the second convention for the gradient of a vector, i.e.,  $$\displaystyle \nabla_* {\mathbf U}$$ in Eq.(2), corresponds to the second (rare) convention of writing the Jacobian matrix (which is the transpose of the usual Jacobian matrix).

In addition, the main rationale for the second convention in writing  $$\displaystyle \nabla_* {\mathbf U}$$, as explained above, is to think of the gradient operator as a "vector", which can then be formed freely with another vector (e.g.,  $$\displaystyle {\mathbf U}$$) into a dyadic (or tensor product).

= Vorticity production by vortex-line stretching =

Now let's return to the vorticity production by vortex-line stretching; the following relationships hold:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle ({\rm grad} \, {\mathbf U}) \cdot {\boldsymbol \omega} = (\nabla {\mathbf U}) \cdot {\boldsymbol \omega} =({\mathbf U} \overset{\leftarrow}{\nabla}) \cdot {\boldsymbol \omega} = {\boldsymbol \omega} \cdot (\overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} {\mathbf U}) = {\boldsymbol \omega} \cdot (\nabla_* {\mathbf U}) = {\boldsymbol \omega} \cdot (\nabla^T {\mathbf U}) $$  (11)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

We can write:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \boldsymbol \omega \cdot \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U = (\omega_k \mathbf e_k) \cdot \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \mathbf e_j \right ) \left( U_i \mathbf e_i \right ) = \omega_k\frac{\partial U_i}{\partial x_j} (\mathbf e_k \cdot \mathbf e_j) \mathbf e_i = \omega_j \frac{\partial U_i}{\partial x_j} \mathbf e_i \equiv \boldsymbol \omega \cdot ( \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U ) $$  (12)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

where parentheses were put around $$\displaystyle \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U$$  to emphasize the meaning of the gradient of a vector (e.g., Pope 2000, p.14). Many authors (e.g., Aris 1962, p.57, p.79; King et al. 2003, p.50) put the parentheses around  $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \omega \cdot \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla}$$, i.e.,

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle ( \boldsymbol \omega \cdot \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} ) \mathbf U = \left[ (\omega_k \mathbf e_k) \cdot \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}  \mathbf e_j \right ) \right] \left( U_i \mathbf e_i \right ) \equiv \boldsymbol \omega \cdot ( \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U ) \equiv \boldsymbol \omega \cdot \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U $$ (13)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

which could originate from the writing of the material time derivative operator as (Aris 1967, p.114; cf. Pope 2000, p.13)

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{D (\cdot)}{Dt} = \frac{\partial (\cdot)}{\partial t} + (\mathbf U \cdot \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla})(\cdot) $$  (14)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Even though the same component form would result from such notation, the physical meaning of the gradient of a vector field in  $$\displaystyle \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U$$ is lost. Besides, $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \omega \cdot \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla}$$ is not the divergence of  $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \omega$$; its mathematical meaning is a differential operator waiting to operate on  $$\displaystyle \mathbf U$$; one could interpret  $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \omega \cdot \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla}$$ as the gradient projected along the direction  $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \omega$$.

Many other authors simply omit the parentheses to write the vortex stretching term as $$\displaystyle \boldsymbol \omega \cdot \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla}$$ (e.g., Batchelor 1967, p.267; Pope 2000, p.22).

= Other uses and notations =

On the other hand, there is no point of avoiding $$\displaystyle {\nabla} \mathbf U$$, since the strain rate is

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \boldsymbol \epsilon = \frac{1}{2}\left[ \nabla \mathbf U + \nabla^T \mathbf U \right] = \frac{1}{2}\left[ {\mathbf U} \overset{\leftarrow}{\nabla} + \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U \right] = \frac{1}{2}\left[ \nabla_*^T \mathbf U + \nabla_* \mathbf U \right] $$  (15)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Note that other authors (e.g., Dhont 2004, p.20) even put the tensor product between nabla $$\displaystyle \nabla$$ and  $$\displaystyle \mathbf U$$ (perhaps to emphasize the 2nd-order nature of the resulting tensor) to write

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \nabla \otimes \mathbf U \equiv \overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla} \mathbf U = \nabla_* \mathbf U $$ (16)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Here again, as mentioned above, the nabla $$\displaystyle \nabla$$  is viewed as a vector, as in Eq.(2b).

As mentioned above, since there is a unique component form for any physical relation, even though there could be several ways to write the same relation in tensor form, some authors write exclusively in component form (e.g., Berdichevsky 2009). The tensor form has its advantage of being concise, compact, and is thus easier to grasp the relation among the different tensor quantities, without being bogged down by the indices and their summations. To avoid confusion, however, the corresponding key components form should always be given, such as the component form of $$\displaystyle \nabla \mathbf U$$ in Eq.(1).

= Closure =

Most continuum mechanics literature uses the first convention, whereas most fluid mechanics literature uses the second convention. Malvern 1969 is a rare exception and an excellent book that presents both conventions, as the book was intended for a course that graduate students would take before taking more specialized topics such as linear elasticity or fluid mechanics.

= References =

Aris, R., Vectors, tensors, and the basic equations of fluid mechanics, Prentice Hall, NJ; Dover, 1989.

Batchelor, G.K., An introduction to fluid dynamics, Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Battin, R.H., An introduction to the mathematics and methods of astrodynamics, revised edition, AIAA, 1999.

Berdichevsky, V.L., Variational principles of continuum mechanics, Vol.II: Applications, Springer Verlag, 2009.

R. B. Bird, W. E. Stewart and E. N. Lightfood, Transport phenomena, Second edition, Wiley, 2006. amazon

Dhont, G., The finite element method for three-dimensional thermomechanical applications, Wiley, 2004.

Gonzalez, O., Stuart, A.M., A first course in continuum mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Gurtin, M.E., An introduction to continuum mechanics, Academic Press, 1981.

Gurtin, M.E., Fried, E., Anand, L., The mechanics and thermodynamics of continua, Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Hughes, T.J.R., The finite element method: Linear static and dynamic finite element analysis, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1987.

King, A.C., Billingham, J., Otto, S.R., Differential equations: Linear, nonlinear, ordinary, partial, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M., Fluid mechanics, 2nd edition, Pergamon Press, 1987.

Malvern, L.E., Introduction to the mechanics of a continuous medium, Prentice Hall, 1969 (hard cover), 1977 (paperback).

Naghdi, P.M., ME 185 Lecture notes on continuum mechanics, University of California at Berkeley, Mechanical Engineering, edited by J. Casey, 2001.

Stephen B. Pope, Turbulent Flows, Cambridge U. Press, 2000. UF library QA913.P64 2000 Chap 6, pp.182-263, Google Amazon

Tritton, D.J., Physical fluid dynamics, 2nd edition, Oxford Science Publications, 1988.

Truesdell, C., Noll, W., The nonlinear field theories of mechanics, ed. by S. Antman, 3rd edition, Springer Verlag, 2004.

Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L., The Finite element method, 6th edition, Butterworth-Heineman, MA, 2005.


text:
Wiki science

Contents
Wiki science is the study of how the phenomenon of wikis, and free, open collaborative works in general (like free software and open source), are growing, changing and adapting.

 * 1) /Introduction/ [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 2) Birth
 * 3) /Budding Effect/  [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 4) Growth and Maintenance
 * 5) /Vibrant User Base/: Some tips on how to attract and retain a vibrant user base [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 6) /Article Evolution/  [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 7) /Self Healing/  [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 8) /How to Maintain a Wiki/: Dealing  with problem users, switching to new hardware, software or administrator(s).
 * 9) /Children and the Wikimedia Projects/: Dealing with children and mentoring them. [[Image:100%.png]]
 * 10) /Wikipedia's success/: A report on Wikipedia's growth, and success. Chances of dying out. [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 11) /Source Code/: Specific tips for wikis discussing programming topics. [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 12) Trolling
 * 13) /Trolls//: What are trolls and how should they be dealt with?
 * 14) Comparison with other mediums
 * 15) /Accuracy//: The offline media make a big deal about inaccuracies on wikis, is this really a problem?
 * 16) Future
 * 17) /Future of Wiki/ [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 18) /Wikiresearch/: Is it possible to use a wiki as a medium to do scientific research? [[Image:50%.png]]
 * 19) /Semantic Prosthetic/: Some ideas about how to make wikis useful for education. [[Image:100%.png]]
 * 20) /Information Currency/: The use of information currency and information currency markets to quantitate the economic value of information and motivate individuals to contribute valuable information. wikipedia is a free software encyclopedia
 * 21) Case studies
 * 22) /Case Study 1/: A brief report on the use of a wiki for a computer mediated communication class [[Image:25%.png]]
 * 23) Appendices
 * 24) /References/
 * 25) /Index/
 * 26) /Authors/
 * 27) /History/

title: Wiki science


text:
Talk:Wiki science

Edit History
This was clogging up the talk page with uneeded information. Here, please see Talk:Wiki Science/Edit History for the page. --Goldenburg111 20:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Various
This site seems like it might be the best (existing) place to put information about starting/running a Wiki. Does anybody object or have better ideas? Thanks, --Rs2 17:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd love to learn more about that subject and would welcome the development of related content here. If a more suitable spot later became to our attention it would not be difficult to move the content there. --Karl Wick

I think overcapitalisation should be avoided. Does anybody object if I start decapitating? ;) Akagu 15:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The Wikipedia article on wikis explains the difference between the Wiki and the wikis. :) Akagu 00:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I've been dumping my thoughts on running a wiki at Community Wiki, before I discovered this _Wiki Science_ book.

I'd be happy to move my text from

http://CommunityWiki.org/WhyWikiWorks http://CommunityWiki.org/ChoosingaWiki http://CommunityWiki.org/InstantCommunityValues

to this _Wiki Science_ book. (Feel free to move my text over yourself, being careful to leave a forwarding link behind).

I've been told that for a long time people have been trying to move WikiOnWiki pages from the original wiki to MeatBall. I suspect there's still relevant morsels on both wiki.

-- DavidCary 17:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Wiklossary: A simple concise glossary of wiki terms for the new wiki user." http://wiklossary.nearlythere.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi

I just did a couple of things:
 * created and added a msg to all the pages
 * decapitalized many (but not all..) terms
 * copied content of some very modules to bigger ones

I think it is good to avoid creating very small pages that probably never be more than something between a Wikipedia and Wiktionary term. So it's probably good to write an introduction that introduces the reader to many terms that can pop up and to things as a wiki, Wikipedia, Wikibooks... Akagu 00:53, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Science?
Is is science or is it the unsupported opinion of 3 or 4 people? And before you ask, yes there's a difference. -- Tim Starling 08:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what your point is, Tim. I see no reason why there cannot be a scientific study of Wiki. How is a new area of science started? People who are interested in the object to be studied start sharing their views, looking for ways to make objective observations, and by a social process of challenging views, observations, and conclusions a new science defines itself. JWSurf 18:58, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

 * A new area of science is started by writing papers, not textbooks. My point is that you're confusing fact with opinion. -- Tim Starling 00:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If you explain more clearly what bothers you we might get a bit further. I myself still feel ambivalent towards some texts in Wiki Science, but I have the idea it might get somewhere. That's why I've added Wiki Science:Wikiresearch. On the longer run it's good to move this project from Wikibooks to something else (Wikiresearch?), but for now Wikibooks seems like the right place to do it. Akagu 11:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that a scientific study of why Wikis work could be absolutely fascinating. However, what is currently here is sort of the opposite: it's written in the form of "if you do it, they will come: it's magic!" What would be interesting is a case study of a successful Wiki (Wikipedia is the most obvious candidate), and an analysis of how it can accomplish such amazing things. Find out:
 * how many people are involved, and how that number changes over time
 * their usage patterns: how much time are they spending per day/week/month, how consistent is their use, and what kind of work flow do they follow?
 * what kind of expertise they bring to the table, and how often they are working within their expertise?

Wikis as a whole are so anonymous that the whole thing can seem like magic. But there are obviously mundane people involved, spending finite amounts of time doing commonplace things. *That* is where a scientific study (along the lines of social sciences) could be enlightening. A "HOWTO mimic the actions of other Wikipedia founders and admins" is not science. --Habes 22:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You are right. Thanks for finding and writing down the words :)
 * Could you please start a page about it? Or shall I copy your comments and go from there? Possibly people who worked on Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia] can be interested to join here?
 * Part of the Wiki Science pages can be moved to another Wikibook project, Practical Wiki Info or something like that? Akagu 20:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I'm not much of a Wiki participant at the moment, I'm just watching from the sidelines. You're free to run with my ideas if you think they're good.  I'm somewhat skeptical that a coherent study of Wikis can be created using the Wiki model, but then again I would have been skeptical that somethink like Wikipedia was possible.  Likewise, I would be inclined to think that a study like this should be left to people with experience in social science, but expertise seems to appear frequently in Wiki communities.

 * To sum up, I'm skeptical that using a Wiki is the best approach to studying the Wiki phenomenon, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. --Habes 18:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A "HOWTO mimic the actions of other Wikipedia founders and admins" is not science.

What are you trying to say here ? What is science ?

I want my wiki to be successful.

 * Are you saying that so far my actions merely mimic a few superficial features -- it's a "cargo cult" ?

I guess I would agree -- I don't really *know* why I'm doing these things, I'm just *hoping* they will work.

Please teach me more about the scientific reality of the truly important features. Or at least don't stand in my way while I try to find out.

 * Are you saying that building a successful wiki is not science, there's so little known that it's more of a hit-and-miss art ?

I guess I would agree -- but that doesn't stop me from *hoping* there are some scientific principles, and trying to learn them, does it ? I want to hit more often and miss less often -- perhaps I can learn useful heuristics long before a proper science is hammered out.

 * Are you saying methods of building a successful wiki are so well known that it's not science, it's merely engineering and technology to set up a wiki properly and, if you follow the rules, it is guaranteed to work ?

Well, I *wish* that will someday be true, but I'm pretty sure it's not true yet.

-- DavidCary 03:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You should have more information on the following:

 * 1) The History of Wiki's
 * 2) The different types of wikis and wikisoftware
 * 3) A description of the different policies and structures of wikis e.g. whether they allow editing by anyone, whether they have a discussion page etc
 * 4) A good description and analysis of the Wikipedia
 * 5) including a description of the factors that allowed it to grow so quickly
 * 6) the importance of the discussion page
 * 7) the social norms of the wikipedia
 * 8) how article quality is maintained
 * 9) NPOV
 * 10) How these ideas can be generalized to consider other types of generic systems of collaboration and what would be necessary to make them successful

I say this because the intro includes very little information on these topics and it is my view that a number of chapters should be written about just the history of the wikis, the wikipedia, and the underlying ideas or philosopy of the wikipedia that explains its success. In other words we need something similar to the Bazaar and the Cathedral except for wikis instead of open source.

I think the terms Wiki Science and Wiki Research are not defined well. First, most paragraphs/posts don't seem to distinguish between Wikipedia Research and Wiki Research. Both are very different as Wikipedia has distinct properties that won't apply, say, to a corporate Intranet software wiki. Then, I don't agree with the science/research definition given. Wiki Science probably means the Science of Wikis, and Wiki Research probably means research about wikis.

Two things I think are wrong here. First, in most definitions, science and research is about novel results. Second, the definition of Wiki Science is overly specific. Ad (1), mainly recounting how wikis work would not be science, it would largely be a rewrite of other pages. (Very worthwile though!) Ad (2) research into uses of wikis should certainly part of a general definition, but how to grow a wiki is too specific a thing to make it into the top defining sentence, in my opinion.

I'd propose something like "Wiki Science is the research into applications, technology, processes, and consequences of using wikis", and then split this up. I found this page as the chair of WikiSym 2005 which also showcases how varied wiki research can be.

84.59.72.160 17:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC) (This should be Dirk Riehle, looks like I'm not logged in.)

The team
Please add your name to the following list if you plan on contributing the Wiki Science investigation, as encapsulated by the "Wiki Science:" namespace:
 * nsh

Peer-Reviewed Research on Wikis
We should probably try to compile a bibliography of what research on wikis has been published in peer-reviewed journals. It is possible to publish in wiki format. --JWSurf 19:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Public vs. Private
Thusfar, this book talks about public wikis and primarily Wikimedia as the sole model. Meanwhile most wiki use is behind the firewall. Wikipedia is an exception.

Also, is this a science?

Original research
The text looks like original research. If it is original research, it has no place on Wikibooks, per WB:WIW. It clearly is not an instruction manual. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Google search for "wiki science" shows that the term is dubious. Number of hits: 27,500. Also revealing is the search at Google scholar with its 16 hits, mostly of the form "wiki/Science", referring to an article on "Science" at Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay, at least part of the content actually features instructions, such as the Wiki Science/How to start a Wiki chapter. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Focus - blurred
IMHO the book has an unclear focus. For instance, there is quite useful instruction manual Wiki Science/How to Start a Wiki, which once has been a separate book. And there are some philosophically sounding chapters such as "Self-healing", which refer to a wiki website as if it were an agent.

The quality of content varies drastically among chapters.

As a clean up measure, a book of instructions on wikis in general could be created, focusing only on instructions to the exclusion of speculation, coinages of new terms and original research. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I have moved the chapter on starting a wiki to Starting and Running a Wiki Website, to enable focusing this book on speculation, coinage of new terms, case studies, and similar content that has not the character of instructions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wiki science


text:
Wiki science/Introduction

Wiki Science is a collection of information, reflections, guidelines on wikis.

Why do we need a science of wikis?
Wikis are an emergent phenomenon. They have huge potential. There is a lot of discussion of the science of wikis, how they grow and adapt, but it is spread all over hundreds of wikis. This textbook has a clear aim: To observe the development of the wiki phenomenon and to document its processes.

Adding concise information about creating and maintaining wikis has become a little part of the book.

The book itself is a wiki and it is probably the first real test of practicing ../Wikiresearch/.

What ideas feed into the science of wikis

 * Chaos theory
 * Emergent behaviour
 * Artificial life
 * Cognitive neuroscience
 * Total Quality Management

Glossary
A short overview of some known wikis - or less known wikis that tend to pop up in this textbook.

Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a copyleft encyclopedia that is collaboratively developed using wiki software. Wikipedia is managed and operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. In addition to the standard encyclopedic knowledge, Wikipedia includes almanac and gazetteer-like information as well as current events. The content of Wikipedia is entirely created by its users. No single user owns the content; no article is ever finished. The license known as the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) is intended to ensure that everyone who can accept that license is an owner of the right to use and improve the article.

Wikibooks
Wikibooks is a sister project to Wikipedia and is part of the Wikimedia foundation, begun on July 10, 2003. The project is a collection of free textbooks with supporting book-based texts, that is being written collaboratively on this website. The site is a WikiWiki, meaning that anyone, including you, can edit any book module right now by clicking on the edit this page link that appears in every Wikibooks page.

Portland Pattern Repository
The Portland Pattern Repository was the first ever Wiki, and is sometimes referred to simply as Wiki (with a capital 'W') or WikiWikiWeb. It was created March 25, 1995 by Ward Cunningham. It is dedicated to pattern languages as they apply to computer programming, with an increasing emphasis on extreme programming. The site's defining phrase is "People, Projects & Patterns".

Other
Other terms used are:

Talk page
A "talk page" is a page meant for discussion of another page. In Wikibooks, the talk page of any page can be accessed by clicking "Discussion".

User page
In many wiki systems each user has his/her own user page. This usually contains elements such as a little bit of information about the user, and usually the pages which he/she is proud to have contributed to.

If you are logged in, you can access your user page by clicking "My page".

Mentoring
Mentoring in Wikimedia is the process of guiding a user who is less experienced. A person who is mentoring someone's goal is to guide the user into being a productive editor.

title: Wiki science/Introduction