text:
Error Analysis in an Undergraduate Science Laboratory

%%% Formula reference page.

Error Analysis
All measurements, however carefully made, give a range of possible values referred to as uncertainty or error. Since all of science depends on measurements, it is important to understand uncertainties and where they come from. Error analysis is the set of techniques for dealing with them.

In science, the word "error" does not take the usual meaning of "mistake". Instead, it is often used interchangeably with "uncertainty" when talking about the result of a measurement. There are many aspects to error analysis and it generally features in some form in every lab throughout a course.

Inevitability
In the first lab, we will measure the length of a pendulum. Without a ruler you might compare it to your own height and (after converting to meters) make an estimate of 1.5m. Of course, this is only approximate. To quantify this, you might say that you are sure it is not less than 1.3m and not more than 1.7m. With a ruler, you measure 1.62m. This is a much better estimate, but there is still uncertainty. You couldn't possibly say that the pendulum isn't 1.62001m long. If you became obsessed with finding the exact length of the pendulum you could buy a fancy device using a laser, but even this will have an error associated with the wavelength of light.

Also, at this point, you would come up against another problem. You would find that the string is slightly stretched when the weight is on it and the length even depends on the temperature or moisture in the room. So which length do you use? This is a problem of definition. During lab, you might find another example. You might ask whether to measure from the bottom, top or middle of the weight. Sometimes one of the choices is preferable for some reason (in this case the middle because it is the center of mass). However, in general, it is more important to be clear about what you mean by "the length of the pendulum" and consistent when taking more than one measurement. Note that the different lengths that you measure from the top, bottom or middle of the weight do not contribute to the error. The error refers to the range of values given by measurements of exactly the same quantity.

Importance
In daily life, we usually deal with errors intuitively. If someone says "I'll meet you at 9:00", there is an understanding of what range of times is OK.

However, if you want to know how long it takes to get to the airport by train you might need to think about the range of possible values. You might say "It'll probably take an hour and a half, but I'll allow two hours." Usually, it will take within about 10 minutes of this most probable time. Sometimes it will take a little less than 1hr20, sometimes a little more than 1hr40, but by allowing the most probable time plus three times this uncertainty of 10 minutes you are almost certain to make it. In more technical applications, for example, air traffic control, more careful consideration of such uncertainties is essential.

In science, when a new theory overthrows an old one a discussion or debate about relevant errors takes place. %%% Example of Experiment %%% %%% Justifying the Errors %%%

In this course, we will definitely not be able to overthrow established theories. Instead, we will verify them with the best accuracy allowed by our equipment. The first experiment involves measuring the gravitational acceleration g. This may seem pointless since it has clearly been measured with much greater accuracy elsewhere. However, the idea is to make the most accurate possible verification using very simple apparatus which can be a genuinely interesting exercise.

This Course
There are several techniques that we will use to deal with errors. All of them are well explained, with more formal justifications, in An Introduction to Error Analysis by John Taylor. Sections appear during the course as follows:

Lab 1 How to estimate error when reading scales, on repeated measurements and in calculations. How to write down measurements and draw conclusions from them.

Lab 2 Errors on graphs and vector diagrams. Best-fit lines.

Lab 3 Error formulae and how they can save time over plugging in limits. Propagating errors for e = |v_f / v_i|.

Lab 4 (Projectile Motion) Neglecting small errors and approximating big errors.

Lab involving multiple measurements of the same quantity Random vs. Systematic error.

Lab involving a sine (possibly not til the second semester) Calculus and how it can save time calculating formulae.

%%%%%%%%% I left a section for the first lab that involves comparison of two measured quantities which are predicted to be equal as opposed to comparison with accepted value.

First Experiment
The goal of each lab is to demonstrate that your equipment is working as well as you could reasonably expect and that the relevant physical law describes it reasonably well. The role of error analysis is to quantify what "reasonably" means. In many labs during the course, including this first one, this is done by first measuring a physical quantity (all measurements give a range of possible values) and then seeing if the accepted value lies within that range.

Estimating your uncertainties is not always easy. Choosing large uncertainties makes it more likely that the accepted value will lie in the range. However, the smaller the uncertainties the better the experiment. Here are some guidelines:

How to estimate error when reading scales
After you have measured your pendulum, imagine that another group measured it again with your ruler but without knowing your result. Would you be surprised if they got a value 1mm different to yours? What about 5mm? The largest change that would //not// make you question if they had make a mistake is a good general guideline for the amount of error you should use.

1. Use a range the same as the scale markings

%%% Diagram of ruler (the one in the current lab manual is pretty good) %%%

When you put the pendulum string up against a ruler you must decide which mark is closest to the end. In the diagram, it is a close call, but we can definitely say that our measurement is between 46.4cm and 46.6cm. These are called the lower and upper limits or, if you are feeling less certain about it, the lowest and highest probable values. Our best estimate is in the middle, 46.5cm. You might decide that no more accurate estimation is possible, so your range of 2mm is the same as the scale markings.

2. Use a range larger than the scale markings

When you are timing the swing of the pendulum the first reading of your stop clock might be 1.43s. However, even before doing the next one you know that it won't be exactly the same. Most of the uncertainty comes from your reaction time and it is much larger than the scale markings (1/100 seconds). In this case, without taking repeated readings you can only really guess what the uncertainty is. In this experiment, we will try to get a feel for it and reduce it if possible.

A vivid example you will encounter later in the course is that of trying to measure the length of a spring that is jiggling. If the end of the spring keeps moving over a range of 5mm then this is the uncertainty. If you can get the oscillations to die down then you can reduce the uncertainty.

3. Use a range less than the scale markings

It doesn't often happen, but sometimes you can do better than simply choose which mark is closest. In the above diagram, you might claim a range of 46.45 to 46.55cm.

How to estimate error on repeated measurements (2/3 Method)
When you have timed the swing of the pendulum a few times you want to find a best estimate and a probable range for "the time of one pendulum swing". We will use these values (in seconds) as an example:

1.43, 1.52, 1.46, 1.64, 1.53, 1.57

The best estimate is the average or mean value which is 1.53s. The probable range should include about 2/3 of the values. A quick way to do this is to ignore the largest 1/6 and the smallest 1/6 and then find the range of what is left. In the example the range is 1.57-1.46=0.11s. If you have 25 values, ignore 4 large and 4 small.

The reasons for choosing a range that includes 2/3 of the values come from the underlying statistics of the Normal Distribution. The difference between each measurement and the mean of many measurements is called the "deviation". The 2/3 method gives us a quick approximation of a kind of average deviation known as the "stardard deviation". This choice allows us to accurately add and multiply errors and has the advantage that the range is not affected much by outliers and occasional mistakes.

How to estimate error in calculations (Plug-in Limits Method)
Most interesting quantities cannot be measured directly. They are the result of a calculation based on one or more direct measurements. A simple example is the area of a rectangle. We must measure the length and width and multiply them. Large length and large width give a large area. Therefore, the "highest probable value" of the area is equal to the highest probable value of the length multiplied by the highest probable value of the width. Similarly, the "lowest probable value" of the area is equal to product of the two lowest probable values.

To measure the gravitational acceleration using a pendulum we must first measure its length and time for one swing and then use the formula:

%%% Formula %%%

There is one extra complication when working out the probable range. Since the time for one swing t is on the bottom of the formula, a small value will make g large. Therefore, to find the highest probable value for g, you should plug into the formula the highest value for l and the //lowest// value for t.

How to write the result of a measurement
The correct way to report //any// measurement is to state your best estimate of the quantity and also a range of values that you are confident it lies in. For the example of the length given above, one way to write it is:

Best estimate: 46.5cm Probable range: 46.4 to 46.6cm

This way is most convenient for the Plug-in Limits Method since the upper and lower limits (46.6cm and 46.4cm respectively) are explicit. However, results of measurements are more commonly written in the more compact form:

$$46.5 \pm 0.1\mathrm{cm}$$

where the value 0.1cm is the "error". Note that the "error" is half the "range". For the example of times given above we can write:

Best estimate: 1.53s Probable range: 1.46 to 1.57s

In this case, the limits are not equally spaced from the best estimate so again we use half the range (1.57-1.46)/2 = 0.06 for the error:

$$1.53 \pm 0.06\mathrm{s}$$

Significant Figures
Since errors are estimated, in this course you should always round errors to one significant figure.

This rules also applies to errors that you calculate. It means that many of the calculations boil down to adding and multiplying single digit numbers which hopefully can mostly be done in your head. Using approximate calculations is useful in many walks of life.

Once you have a value for the error, you must consider which figures in the best estimate are significant. Writing the result of a measurement as:

$$1.532 \pm 0.6 \mathrm{s}$$

is ridiculous since it means the value can be as high as 2.1s or as low as 0.9s. The last two digits have no significance at all. It should be written instead as:

$$1.5 \pm 0.6\mathrm{s}$$

The general rule is:

The last significant figure of the best estimate should be in the same decimal position as the error.

Drawing Conclusions
Following these guidelines, you can write your measurement in a truly meaningful way, but it is still not very interesting on its own. In order to draw a conclusion from your experiment, you must compare //two or more measurements//. There are three general ways that we will do this in this course:

1. Comparing a measured value with an accepted value 2. Comparing two measured values predicted to be equal 3. Verifying a relationship with a graph

We will discuss the first way for this experiment and the other two in later sections. Put briefly, your experiment is a success if the accepted value lies within the range given by your measurement.

Comparing a measured value with an accepted value
If the result of your measurement is written the first way, with a probable range, you can immediately see if the accepted value is between the upper and lower limits. If it is written the second way, with an error, then you can calculate the difference between your best estimate and the accepted value. This is known as the "discrepancy" and you should compare it to your calculated error. There are three possible outcomes:

1. If the discrepancy is smaller than the error then clearly the accepted value is within your measured range and you can claim that your experiment is a success. There are various technical terms to describe this situation. You can say that the two measurements are "consistent". Alternatively, you can say that the two values are the same "within error" or that the discrepancy between them is "insignificant".

2. If it is only just outside the range (let's say, if the discrepancy is less than twice the error), then you can still regard your experiment as satisfactory. The ranges that we use are a little blurry related to the fact that they include about 2/3 of the time values. How much longer or shorter would your times have to be get rid of the discrepancy? Try to remember exactly how you released the pendulum and stopped the clock. Can you explain the discrepancy this way? Write something about this and then your report is complete.

3. If your accepted value is well outside the range this indicates some kind of problem with your experiment or your calculations. Unfortunately these are often difficult to spot. You should talk to your TA and mention any areas you think might have gone wrong. A sensible discussion of the possible causes in your report can fully make up for a bad result.

It might be tempting to ignore errors and say that the two values are "about the same" but this is really just a statement of your intuition about uncertainties. It is such a letdown, when some more careful consideration and a few lines of calculation can yield an unbiased and objective conclusion.

Second Experiment
Errors on graphs and vector diagrams. Best-fit lines.

Graphs
In the first experiment, we measured the time of swing for //one// length of the string. If we had changed the length of the string, the time of swing would have changed. There is a "relationship" between the two. This week we will use a more powerful method of verifying a different physical law. Remember... there are three:

1. Comparing a measured value with an accepted value 2. Comparing two measured values predicted to be equal 3. Verifying a relationship with a graph

We will verify the relationship F = k x.

Reasons for plotting graphs, straight lines
Measured points, however carefully made, will not //exactly// fit on a straight line. We want to find out if this is just because of experimental uncertainties (in which case we have successfully verified the relationship), because we made a mistake, or because F is //not// proportional to x.

Possible Relationships
In this case y means "the quantity on the vertical axis" in this case the force F, and x means "the quantity on the horizontal axis" in this case the extension x.

1. Linear: y = m x + b

In the special case that b = 0, we give the relationship a different name:

2. Proportional: y = m x

Note that this means that if we double F, then x will double.

For both cases there are non-graphical methods to check how well the measurements verify the relationship. However, graphs show it more easily and more clearly.

There are two special cases: 3. Equal: y = x 4. Constant: y = b

Generally we use non-graphical methods for these. For example, in case 4 we have already learned the 2/3 method for quantifying how close to constant a large number of measurements are.

Best-fit lines
The physical law F = kx. Describes the relationship between F and x but since we still don't know k there are a family of lines that we could draw. These lines give the "expected" value of extension for each value of the force.

%%% diagram of proportionality lines %%%

Any of these lines that goes through or close to all the points is OK. (How close? As mentioned last week, if the expected value is within the error bar that's great, but if it is within two deviations from the mean then that's still OK. Beyond that, however, suggests some kind of problem.)

If there are any acceptable lines, there will be a range of lines that are possible.

Error formulae
Error formulae and how they can save time over plugging in limits.

Propagating errors
Propagating errors for a simple formula such as e = |v_f / v_i|.

Fourth Experiment
Neglecting small errors and approximating big errors.

Lab involving multiple measurements of same quantity
Random vs. Systematic error.

Lab involving a sine in the formula
Calculus and how it can save time calculating formulae.


text:
User talk:AlexPenson~enwikiversity

 Hello AlexPenson, 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 random project.
 * Browse everything on 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.
 * 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! --HappyCamper 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called AlexPenson. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name AlexPenson~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:AlexPenson~enwikiversity


text:
User:SPQRobin

See meta:User:SPQRobin.

title: User:SPQRobin


text:
Talk:High School Biology/Course

I would be delighted to contribute to this. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:High School Biology/Course


text: User:Kylu

title: User:Kylu


text:
Template:Bcp-globalgpl/temperate/color+type

This is a DPL-generated list, used to create the key for -flowered plants in

Usage
This template creates DPL lists for plants of a certain color flowers that are templated as blooming during a certain global/temperate season.


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/Global/Temperate/Early Summer/White Flowers/Forbs/DPL


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/Global/Temperate/Early Summer/White Flowers/Trees/DPL


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/Global/Temperate/Early Summer/White Flowers/Shrubs/DPL


text: Bloom Clock/Keys/Global/Temperate/Early Summer/White Flowers/Vines/DPL


text: User:Thuvack/Testing page 4

title: User:Thuvack/Testing page 4


text:
User:AYKUT TAŞKIN

AYKUT

title: User:AYKUT TAŞKIN


text: User:Moulton

title: User:Moulton


text:
User talk:Kholouda

 Hello Kholouda, 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 random project.
 * Browse everything on 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.
 * 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! Jtneill - Talk - c 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kholouda


text: Template:User EEcontrib

title: Template:User EEcontrib


text:
Category:Contributors to the School of Electrical Engineering

A list of users that contribute to the School of Electrical Engineering.


text:
Collaborative research on Wikiversity

Collaborative research in Wikiversity Submitted to Wikimania 2008 Cormac Lawler University of Manchester cormaggio@gmail.com

Abstract
This paper examines the domain of research in the context of a wiki: how a wiki can facilitate research, and some challenges and opportunities of such work. This is set into the context of Wikiversity, both in its development of a research policy, and in two case studies of existing research projects on Wikiversity. It is argued that participative action research is an appropriate model for doing research on a wiki.

Keywords: Wikis, research, methodology, action research.

Introduction: wikis in work and research contexts
The rise of wikis has produced new ways, or at least modes, of working. Collaboration is not new, of course, but the ways in which wikis are being applied in particular contexts may represent qualitatively new work forms for the contexts themselves. These contexts can include schools (both as tools for students [1], and teachers [2]), businesses [3], [4], and non-profit organisations [5] – and aims of their use can vary from improved military intelligence gathering [6] to emancipatory “self-determination” [7]. The impact of wikis is most apparent in Wikipedia’s revolutionary take on the encyclopedia [8], and is reflected in Time magazine’s recognition of “you” as its 2006 person of the year, with Wikipedia as a prime exemplar of a societal shift, mediated by the internet, or so-called “web 2.0” [9]. This paper focuses on wikis in the context of research – surveying their usage in research contexts, and exploring how wikis and research contexts can influence each other – specifically focusing on the context of Wikiversity. Through this, I wish to raise some important challenges and affordances of wikis in supporting and facilitating research, as well as to suggest particular means of researching wikis themselves.

Much of the literature on the use of wikis in research discusses a wiki as a ‘knowledge base’ (eg. [10]) – a strand of literature which is echoed in other contexts [11], and often extending the traditional repository to incorporating more social elements [12]. Hill et al. [13] describe use of a wiki to discuss research ‘best practices’; Knox, DePasquale & Pulimood [14] used a wiki as part of students’ group work about doing research; and Frumkin [15] hints at possibilities afforded by a wiki for researchers in annotating and documenting usage of a digital library. Of course, there are different wiki platforms with different affordances [16]; and Buffa, Sander & Grattarola [17] detail their search for an appropriate tools for their research needs, and describe some of their experiences. Overall, however, the literature is scant in detail of the specific implications of wikis for research, and how they can be used to organise collaborative research. I feel that this question can be illuminated by a look at Wikiversity, how it has been set up to facilitate research, and its applications of and implications for research.

Wikiversity
Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project dedicated to developing learning materials, learning activities, and learning communities. Officially launched in August 2006 (though it had been previously ‘incubated’ in Wikibooks), there are nine individual language projects, as well as a multilingual hub for inter-project coordination.

According to its scope, Wikiversity is envisaged as both a repository of resources, and a space for learning. The first of these fits directly with the work of other Wikimedia Foundation projects – creating, compiling, and aggregating content made available under a free licence; but the second is substantially more problematic, raising the question of how learning can be provided for in this wiki space. ‘Wiki pedagogy’ is a still-emerging field [18], but a strong theme within discussions of Wikiversity’s learning model is around ‘learning by doing’. Though this is not a new phenomenon (cf. [19]), there are unquestionably new ways of learning opened up by the online-networked world, perhaps characterised in the similar concepts of ‘learning through participating’ or ‘learning to be’ [20]. Tapscott [21] cites ‘Wikiversity’ as a new way of doing education, involving opportunities and challenges for students and teachers. Part of this challenge for the Wikiversity community involves ‘learning about learning’ – and part of this requires a research component, which I will now discuss in its historical and wider context.

Developing a research policy on Wikiversity
In the main, Wikimedia projects explicitly exclude original research – see, for example, [22]. Wikipedia has long used this policy as a buffer against unpublished theories – it is one of the central “pillars” of Wikipedia. Policies developed on Wikipedia have become influential across Wikimedia projects, or sometimes adopted de facto – however, it should be borne in mind that each project, and each language community, have always been granted a certain autonomy in self-determining how they work. The arrival of Wikinews challenged this policy, insofar as needing to allow for specific modes of research as an inherent part of the journalistic process. However, Wikiversity’s envisaged scope (as both a learning repository, and a university-like learning ‘space’) brought a wider dimension to the question of research – and hence raised a number of significant challenges to be faced. Thus, Wikiversity was set up with two major questions over its subsequent development – as already mentioned, how to build a model for learning that is appropriate to the wiki way; and how (or whether) to allow for research, with a recommendation on its launch to develop a set of guidelines around research on Wikiversity.

In a meeting on IRC in March 2007 about these research guidelines, and through various Wikiversity pages, a number of questions around research were raised – mainly centred around how the Wikiversity community would deal with “bogus” or “fringe” research, exactly what would constitute “bogus research”, and how it would be determined. Relevant pages are in the references [23], [24], [25], and a transcript of the IRC meeting is at: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:IRC_meeting_about_research/log

Proposed solutions include that:
 * All research-related content and activity would be tagged as research - perhaps with specific tags, like ‘research paper’, ‘research data’, ‘research project workspace’, etc. (note that ‘tagging’ in the Wikimedia context currently equates with ‘categorising’)
 * There would be a research review board/team set up to advise on aspects of the research that might be problematic (eg. ethical or methodological questions)
 * All research activity would be subject to regular wiki review processes, like ‘requests for comments’, or ‘votes for deletion’.
 * Research that promoted partisan or commercial interests would be disallowed
 * Research would be limited to ‘educational research’ (ie that which supports its learning materials/activities)

However, none of the above solutions, nor the formulation of problems that they address, are unproblematic – evidenced by heavy discussion in the IRC meeting, particularly around the second and third solutions, ie whether there would be a review board or a review process (or, indeed, whether there is a contradiction between these proposals). To illustrate this, and to aid further discussion, I will quote from the IRC meeting (where, in the first comment, the quotation was taken from Wikiversity’s proposed ‘Review board’ policy [24]:

 *  "The Review Board helps the community distinguish between valid research methods and bogus research methods." - how can a review board know what is valid in all disciplines?

 * [2 comments cut]

 * the RB (review board) are not expected to know about the specific content of the research, just to analyse what is submitted in front of them

 * [2 comments cut]

 *  WiseWoman: '... who have demonstrated expertise in particular subject areas ...' - The idea being, that the experts in a particular area can take care of it, I assume

 * for example, removing research that breaks the (proposed) ethical guidelines, or has a method flawed beyond repair

 *  gboyers, I do a lot of review of project proposals for various money-dispensing organizations. Even if they are in my field, it takes me quite a lot of time (for which I am normally paid by the MDO) to understand the proposals and then to formulate my problems.

 * but does that mean we need a computing referee, and a biology referee, and a history referee etc? we can't expect to have experts on all the subject areas that this research will involve

 * research methodology should be a learning project in itself...

The major questions here and overall were around whether a group of selected individuals could arbitrate on any research/proposal, and how such a group would be selected. Inevitably, this led to raising the issue of ‘expert’ credentials, and whether such a group would be formed on this basis (with the equally inevitable problems that this poses in an online context). This notion is nuanced by shifting in focus to “expertise”, which could be derived from wiki editing experience, as was already noted in the policy [24]; though there was unresolved discussion on whether expertise would be solely based on wiki-editing experience, or whether someone could claim expertise by pointing to work done elsewhere. However, in this issue and overall, tensions arising from this discussion seem to be inherent, ever-present and never unproblematic features of this context, calling for an open, discursive, developmental, and (self) critical process of wiki policy-making [26], [27].

Equally, on the question of whether such a process would require people of expertise (or, at least, competence) in ‘all areas’, it seems logical to assume that evaluating research does require some expertise – though I would argue it is difficult to answer definitively what the criteria and boundaries of this expertise are, aside from problems of evaluating expertise in such an environment. In any case, it sets up a real challenge to the Wikiversity community in evaluating research which ‘might’ be problematic. Indeed, in WiseWoman’s stated opinion, in defining what is ‘unethical’ or ‘illegal’ research, “you end up reaching into a can of worms”. In this context, I find the following (later) comment useful:

 * [..] determining "good and bonafide research" is a very hard problem, and a core driver for the existence of NPOV on other projects.

Gmaxwell’s raising of ‘NPOV’ is especially acute in this context. ‘NPOV’, another ‘pillar’ of Wikipedia, requires that articles be written from a “neutral point of view”, in which multiple perspectives on a topic are acknowledged and discussed, and no one is privileged [28]. However, it has long been discussed whether this is a useful policy for Wikiversity to adopt de facto, or whether it needs to modify it or develop an alternative to it for its own needs. This has given rise to an acknowledgement in Wikiversity of the value of ‘NPOV’, its echoes in the codes of ‘scholarly ethics’, and an invitation to base materials and/or activities on a point of view, while explicitly acknowledging the nature of that ‘POV’ [29], [30]. Of course, the Wikipedia ideal of NPOV is also problematic and difficult to achieve – and is both a source of much conflict, but also a means of conflict resolution (or a “heat shield”, as Reagle [31] put it). In other words, striving towards NPOV constitutes a process of discussion and negotiation, often between different epistemic or world views – and the NPOV policy document is a working resource to facilitate a community-based process. Similarly, in this IRC discussion, it was advocated by Sj that Wikiversity would adopt “a review process […] with specific procedures but not specific people” – in the same community-based way as is done in discussing the neutrality or deletion of articles [32]. There was critique from JWSchmidt as to how the proposal of a community-based discussion/deletion process differed from a community-based selection of reviewers process; however, I would take from other comments that he saw the latter proposal in the context of a community-based discursive process, to be augmented by some form of recognition of expertise.

What I hope to have done here is to portray the subtleties and complex, problematic nature of many of these issues. (Note, however, that “problematic” does not for me equate with something necessarily negative – often quite the opposite, in that it can provoke in-depth discussion of the issue at hand.) I would also like to emphasise that the agenda of research on Wikiversity has always been seen in the context of learning about doing research – as echoed in Yeoman’s comment above about methodology being a “learning project in itself”. This attitude is extended by Yeoman’s plea to shift focus from a “flood of crackpots”, to “exploring ways of attracting serious researchers” (and to which I would add: “ways of developing senses of good research practice in researchers”). And clearly, this is to be developed in a manner which is appropriate to not just the mission but the climate of Wikiversity – as distinct from Wikipedia and other projects – as is seen in the following comment:

 * so let Wikiversity make the mistakes - let WV be the place that has POV and discussion - let WP keep the verified facts

Finally, I would note that the proposals I initially outlined above do not constitute a combined policy system (i.e. they will not necessarily all be utilised, or all in the same way) – and I also note that the policies in place are mostly a proactive structure, while leaving room for reactive developments. In other words, these proposed solutions have to be seen in the context of dealing with a largely imagined problem (“flood of crackpots”), rather than one which has been experienced directly (except perhaps, and in a different context, in Wikipedia). Solutions will only be tangibly shaped through real cases (i.e. real problems), which will result in the usual developmental model of wiki policy-making. So, in an attempt to relate this discussion to real experience, I will now proceed to situate this developing policy (and discussion) within the context of research practice in Wikiversity.

Wikiversity research case studies
Given that research is a component of Wikiversity, I will outline two case studies - “Bloom Clock” and “Developing Wikiversity through action research” - to illustrate how Wikiversity is being used to conduct research, and then proceed to use these case studies to illuminate the wider context of such research.

Bloom Clock
Bloom clocks are used by gardeners and horticulturists to keep track of what is blooming at a given time in a specific location – often the gardener’s garden – and this data is generally kept from year to year to track changes in plants’ regional blooming seasons. The Wikiversity bloom clock [33] is an attempt to create a distributed bloom clock – ie by involving multiple participants across multiple locations. It works through having a ‘log’ page for every plant, and asking participants to add their wiki signature to a plant’s page on (or close to) a day when the participant has seen the plant blooming – which constitutes ‘logging’ the plant as in bloom. In order to correlate the time of blooming (in the timestamp of the signature) with where the plant is blooming, the participant is asked to add their (user)name and location to the participants’ page.

In order to help people identify plants, there are sets of ‘keys’, working in a similar way to traditional plant/animal identification books – eg. “flowering in late Spring” >> “with white flowers” >> “is herbaceous” – giving a list of plants in all these categories, with photographs to aid identification. If the keys do not help (ie are not yet fully comprehensive), there is also a page for identifying unknown plants, where participants can upload a photo or describe the plant/flower, and other participants will try to identify it.

As with everything in a wiki, the bloom clock is a work in progress, and will improve as more people in more parts of the world begin to participate (though even if only a few people contribute consistently, the bloom clock will become more accurate over time for the areas and plants covered). The bloom clock’s methodology is envisaged to being expanded to other similar distributed data collection projects such as an “entomology clock” (on insects), and on particular organic farming methods - and the templates used in the bloom clock have been adapted for use in a project to glean demographic data about Wikimedians.

Developing Wikiversity through action research
This project [34] has been instigated by myself to develop an understanding of Wikiversity’s work, its conceptual underpinnings, and its wider context (amongst other things), and to use these understandings to develop systems and resources to help participants carry out their work on Wikiversity. I’ve proposed that this be undertaken within an ‘action research’ framework, which I see as a particularly congruent methodology for studying wikis [35]. This is echoed by Atkins, Brown & Hammond [36], who, in outlining enablers for what they call an ‘open participatory learning architecture’, call for ‘action-based research’ to be carried out that would generate “deeper basic insights into human learning (both individual and community)” (p. 36). The project aims to collaboratively build knowledge about Wikiversity in the process of developing Wikiversity, and hopes to generate insights that are meaningful to its participants, and perhaps to participants of similar projects.

Action research is difficult to pin down as a specific methodology [37], but it is essentially concerned with studying a context or process through changing it, and attempting to improve it. It is a developmental, cyclical process – involving planning, taking action, observing and reflecting on the action, and using observations to form further plans, actions, etc. [38], [39]. As part of a ‘participative paradigm’ [40], it is research with as opposed to on people [41], and influenced by the ‘empowering’ work of Paulo Freire [42]. This type of ‘involved’ research has both challenges and opportunities for the researcher [43] – and this particular project I am outlining is further expanded by dealing with an online context [44]. However, my major rationale for equating wikis and action research is based on their dedication to continual systemic improvement through an egalitarian, discursive model [7], [45].

Specifically, this project is addressing the basic questions around a ‘wiki learning model’ that Wikiversity was set up to answer. For example, how ‘learning by doing’ works in this context is only partially and sketchily understood amongst the community – and this project seeks to clarify what it means, and how it can be utilised. Another main question is around building and sustaining learning communities – and yet another is about making Wikiversity work as a ‘personal learning environment’.

Discussion
If Wikiversity were only to allow educational research, it would seem that the Bloom Clock project would not fall within that scope – unless the project was seen as a learning project about plants (a function it clearly serves). This suggests to me that limiting research on Wikiversity to educational research would be blinkered to the fact that all research-related activities (doing research, writing about research, and reading about research) are inherently learning processes, and conversely, that all educational work will at some point lead to a research component – hence its prominence in the modern university. It would also be unclear where to draw the boundaries in such a policy.

Wikiversity’s bloom clock is, so far, a quiet, though still-early success – but the prospect of editable databases for doing research does pose some obvious questions. How can we safeguard large volumes of data in an editable environment? (Scientific data worldwide is thought to be generated and stored in the order of petabytes – where 1 petabyte = 1million gigabytes [46].) In light of this, should we allow for ‘protected’ spaces, and if so, how? What would be a productive and pragmatic ‘boundary’ between closed and open editability? It is also unclear as to the public use of data which is released under the GFDL licence which all Wikimedia projects use [47] – for example, there are other initiatives to provide legal frameworks around publicly available data, such as the Public Domain Dedication and Licence [48] and, perhaps less explicitly, Creative Commons’ ‘CC Zero’ licence [49]. Furthermore, and as raised in discussion, an irony of Wikiversity using a free-content licence is the possibility that research reports written on Wikiversity could be difficult to submit to particular journals, where those journals require copyrighting the published work.

The scientific data mentioned will involve any number of formats (text, image, video, etc), but volumes of words alone which are generated in online discourse are sizeable (as anyone involved in such discourses will testify!) – which pose both opportunities and challenges to the researcher [50]. Also, particularly in the type of collaborative action research outlined above, there are clearly ethical questions around using all participation as data [51], as well as difficulties that any collaborative (and particularly qualitative) research team will have in coming to common conclusions about a particular piece of data [52].

Seeing as academics and others are increasingly relying on sophisticated technological tools, or sometimes ‘virtual research environments’, to facilitate their research processes [53], it is a valid question to see how wikis fit in with this technological array, and whether a wiki could itself constitute such a research environment. The obvious question of choosing a wiki platform appropriate for specific needs must be addressed [16] – for example, semantic functionalities would be clearly important for some groups [54]. Mediawiki, the technology that is used on all Wikimedia projects (and many others), has many affordances, but it is also limited in some respects – and there seems to be a need for researchers to discuss what technical features would be necessary for them to be able to use Wikiversity productively. As raised in discussion, this might involve a social dimension – for example, whether groups could ‘protect’ (or lock) pages from editing, and if so, by what mechanisms and through what processes this would be carried out.

It is quite clear -– from discussions here and from general experience – that ‘research’ does not mean one thing, nor spring from one tradition; epistemological, theoretical and methodological strands of academia and their followers will continue to work in ways that are substantially different and often completely opposed to each other. While, as already discussed, Wikiversity allows for materials and activities based on particular points of view (and this is a necessary freedom for doing research), Wikiversity could extend the tradition of NPOV, in developing an open, scholarly peer review system of critical feedback on research projects from differing traditions. This would be a major component of having research as a communal learning activity within Wikiversity – whether or not there evolves some form of ‘review board’.

Conclusion: opportunities and challenges
As has been hinted at, many of the issues and implications that a wiki raises for practice (particularly research and education) are both challenges and opportunities. For example, there are obvious – and legitimate – fears about students’ perhaps uncritical use of Wikipedia in doing research [55] – but there are also those who argue that Wikipedia offers a chance to gain critical information literacy skills [56]. My own bias here is in favour of the latter, while incorporating a deep and honest acknowledgement of the former’s fears. It is also partly in this context that I have advocated the critical action research model – where participants of a project are encouraged to reflect on the mutual influence between the wiki and the context (research, practice, project), making the process of doing research more transparent.

Even though wiki-based work is new in many ways, it does not necessarily represent a ‘clean break’ with existing ways of working – in particular, research methodologies [57]. I have tried to indicate here how a wiki can be thought of in methodological terms, and the implications it raises for the applications it is put towards. However, there needs to be much more in-depth academic discussion about the use of wikis in research – my literature review for this paper has revealed mainly descriptions of their use as a knowledge base, but with little discussion or analysis of issues related specifically to research. I hope this paper will have at least raised issues that can be introduced into this ongoing discussion.

Though it can certainly be used as such, a wiki is not simply a repository for knowledge to be chunked and managed, but a social space where knowledge is actively constructed [58]. If Wikiversity is to realise, sustain and drive the ideas behind the OER movement and the development of a “meta-university” [59], it needs to take account of what knowledge it is generating and how – both at the level of ‘learning/researching’ and ‘learning about learning/researching’. There is clearly room for many types of research to take place on Wikiversity, but I argue that, in order to address the meta issues of research in a wiki context, such research needs to be in the latter category. Furthermore, I think that research done ‘the wiki way’ must involve both wide participation and critical self-reflection (by the individual and the community), and, even though I by no means see it as the only way, I cannot think of a better model for ‘wiki research’ than action research.

 * Note on data in this paper: In quoting from the IRC meeting on research in Wikiversity, I’ve taken the liberty of making minor spelling corrections.

title: Collaborative research on Wikiversity


text:
User:WAS 4.250

My main account is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WAS_4.250. WAS 4.250 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User:WAS 4.250


text:
User talk:WAS 4.250

My main account is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WAS_4.250. WAS 4.250 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Archives: 1

project content
"copy one or more of your user subpages to project space" Which pages are you thinking of? Do you think User:JWSchmidt/Moulton or User:JWSchmidt/ethics might be useful as pages in the project? --JWSchmidt 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I think both would be appropriate project learning resources. WAS 4.250 18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to defer to your judgment. I confess that I am not entirely familiar with the layout of the project pages, so feel free to copy content from my user subpages to any point in the project where you think it is useful. I am particularly concerned with Case 5 — IDCab systematiclaly publishes false and defamatory content in BLPs...that's basically the subject I am studying at User:JWSchmidt/Moulton. --JWSchmidt 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I'll do that. Also, I suggested at User talk:Salmon of Doubt that "Perhaps someone could move all specific cases to their own learning resource pages, and the "main" cases studies page will contain only generic data and links to the specific cases studies. They can also be subpages rather than sub-subpages and can also be linked to at the main project page." What do you think of that? WAS 4.250 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(<---)Yes, each case on its own page is fine. Will you be able to participate at Wikimedia Ethics/Audio or Wikimedia Ethics/Audio/Transcripts? --JWSchmidt 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * No, I will not be participating. Thanks for asking. WAS 4.250 05:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought
Heya WAS. I'm just as appalled as you are... one not-so-happy solution would be to block them both for a while so they can work on their versions in private on their talk pages (they could be transcluded to the project page in the meantime). Appointing a "moderator" might be a bit better, would you be up for the job? --SB_Johnny talk 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know. What exactly is involved that I am not already doing? WAS 4.250 21:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I could give you buttons (rollback, block, delete, etc.), but I'd need some way to communicate with you off-wiki during the mentorship period. --SB_Johnny talk 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, so sorry, but all communication I do concerning anything related to WikiMedia and its projects is 100% transparent and on the Wikis. Also I never use email for anything - I stopped using email many years ago. Is there any other way I could help other than what I am already doing? I am right now in the middle of responding to the last 24 hours or so of contributions. WAS 4.250 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Understood. I guess just keep doing what you're doing, and if you feel one or more parties needs some time off, ping me on my talk and I'll arrange something. --SB_Johnny talk 22:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Understood. WAS 4.250 22:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * If blocked both sides can be expected to have socks or meat puppets as both have plenty of real life friends willing to help them out. WAS 4.250 21:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * If blocks are circumvented, we are well-staffed Checkuser-wise, so that's not a problem. --SB_Johnny talk 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm wondering if I have enough material yet to write another ballad or atrocious song parody. I really need The Fieryangel here, as he actually knows how to craft decent music.  After all, I'm no Prokofiev.  —Moulton 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Searching for a solution
I am certain, WAS, that you are well aware that my problem with your pet "project" is that parts of it have nothing to do with "ethics" at all. In fact, in order for you and I to reasonably discuss solving the problems, I'm going to have to ask you to acknowledge that the project, as it was operating, was partially being used as a platform to express personal dissatisfaction with a personalized, one-off dispute with the English wikipedia.

Assuming that you can acknowledge that, we can move on. I could obviously use technical means to ban Moulton from any page I wanted to. I am more than proficient enough with Pywikibot to make that happen. I suspect that would quickly lead to Moulton and myself being blocked - and let me make this as clear as I can - I would have no problem at all with just banning the both of us. I suspect that you are reaching the point where you also would have no problem with that.

However, because I believe your project, if you were to clear it out, might, at some point, have some small amount of value, I'll give you the opportunity to solve it. I will take or not take any action you want me to take or not take, so long as the project space here does not decrease in value over the medium (not short) term. I will state for the record, however, that I do not believe it is possible for myself and Moulton to reach agreement on anything, though I am eager to see you try. I strongly suspect that the end result here will either be the deletion of the entire project or topic/project-bans for Moulton and his Wikipedia Review friends along with myself and my Wikipedia friends.

There. Go to it. Salmon of Doubt 22:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Salmon of Doubt, thank you for your well thought out comment. I too am "Searching for a solution". Yes I am well aware that your problem with the ethics project is that you think parts of it have nothing to do with ethics. I acknowledge that all project participants, yourself included, have multiple motives for contributing; and sometimes this has led to it partially being used as a platform to express a variety of personal dissatisfactions such as personalized, one-off disputes in the English wikipedia. If you are serious when you say "I will take or not take any action you want me to take or not take, so long as the project space here does not decrease in value over the medium (not short) term." then please:

 * 1) Don't talk to Moulton or about Moulton on any talk page. (When I first arrived at Wikipedia, I got into a misunderstanding with SlimVirgin who misinterpreted a remark of mine as an attack, and I solved the dispute by promising her - I thought up the offer, she accepted - I would not talk to her or about her anywhere; about 3 to 6 months later she came to my talk page and asked for help on something so I asked if I was relieved of my promise - which she had probably forgotten - and she said yes)
 * 2) Ignore Moulton on all talk pages; except for deleting anything he says on your talk page
 * 3) The only ethics project pages that you edit should be ones you yourself have created, but feel free to own those.

While the above is written in absolutes it should be interpreted in a common sense fashion, because there will be exceptions that arise. Further at some time, things might calm down enough that it would be useful for you to test the waters by slowing finding more and more useful exceptions to the above until at some time it becomes apparent that there is no longer a need for you to follow the above.

Does that make sense to you? Are you willing to give the above a try? WAS 4.250 23:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Done and done. Salmon of Doubt 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much. WAS 4.250 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * This page states that "The English Language Wikipedia does not have a Community Social Contract." This is debatable (I disagree, I suspect you disagree as well.). I understand that projects are not required to adhere to NPOV, but do you honestly believe that it's valuable to use Wikiversity as an attack vector against Wikipedia? Additionally, of the examples listed of failures of Wikipedia, all of the RFCs are about Moulton/Intelligent Design, 3/4 of the arbcom cases are about Moulton/Intelligent Design, the rejected case is about Moulton/Intelligent Design and the adminstrator noticeboard example is about Moulton/Intelligent Design. My statement that I was willing to do everything you requested was based around "the project space here does not decrease in value over the medium (not short) term." The linked page is a diminshment in value of the project space. Please instruct. Salmon of Doubt 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikimedia Ethics/Social contract is a work in progress. Think of it as a stub. Is Wikipedia made worse if 100 stubs are created? No. It too is a work in progress. Please be an inclusionist and not a deletionist here on this project. I suggest you create a learning resource explaining how wikipedia does have a social contract, as I tried to explain to Moulton on one of his talk pages. (I think the Wikipedia one). I do not believe that the ethics project is using Wikiversity as an attack vector against Wikipedia. Instead, I see it as a place where people can say what they really think without being censored and over time there will arise an understanding of which learning resources are useful as guides to ethical behavior and which show examples of unethical behavior and which are themselves acts of unethical behavior. Consider your local library. It probably has "Mein Kampf" in it. Should that book be burned? No. It shows a very flawed point of view to say the least, yet it is instructive as being an example of just that. So too here. The key is to have a library of points of view that include all sides. Thus your help here is very much needed, if you have a different point of view than is already represented, whether I agree with that point of view or not - and I will probably disagree with your point of view as much as I disagree with Moulton's - and agree with other parts as much as I agree with some parts of what Moulton says. Frankly, I expect that every participant at the ethics project both agrees and disagrees with each other to some extent. That is normal and natural. WAS 4.250 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * My library does has Mein Kamph. It does not have Duke, David. Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question. Covington, LA: Free Speech Press, 2001. It does not have Trial by Jewry.  Manhattan Beach, CA: Truth Missions, n.d. It does not invite white power advocates to select the materials used in the study of the Holocaust. Salmon of Doubt 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Review
Please review the edit history of Talk:Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/1. I will repudiate our agreement in 72 hours unless real action is taken to solve this ongoing problem. Salmon of Doubt 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well then, you might as well repudiate our agreement now. WAS 4.250 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok. Salmon of Doubt 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for giving it a try. I'm sorry it did not work out, but Moulton insists on creating drama. I'm sure I will not approve of what you will do in reaction to behavior from Moulton that I also do not approve; but this is just a wiki, and I refuse to get emotionally engaged over it. WAS 4.250 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research, points of views, and scholarly ethics
Hello, WAS, On your remark here: ''I am unaware of any existing WikiVersity policy related to the ability of a project to impose such rules on its participants and am also unaware of any discussion or vote by this project's members on such a thing. Anyone can add anything. That does not make it project policy or WikiVersity policy. Go add "All participants will say neener neener three times fast", and see if it happens. For someone that claims rule based organizations are dysfunctional, you sure act like someone who believes in rules. Even when rules exist; they do not reflect actual behavior. ''

Since the participants of the said project are engaging in original research and are writing outside NPOV, the research guidelines (or betawikiversity:wikiversity:research guidelines) apply. Hillgentleman|Talk 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for that information. Since it requires an email address and I do not use email, I will no longer participate at wikiversity. I can be found at Wikipedia if anyone wishes to contact me. WAS 4.250 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * The email requirement has been proposed (Scholarly ethics) for participants who want to edit outside of the restrictions of NPOV. There is no need to leave Wikiversity if you do not have email. --JWSchmidt 06:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 * As far as I am concerned, it suffices if the person is contactable via an active SUL on another Wiki. Many people register on Wiki with a disposable E-Mail address anyway, so if they disappear from Wiki, I expect their throw-away Wiki E-Mail address will also go dead. —Moulton 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you. WAS 4.250 06:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey has arrived...
Your prayer was answered: User:Jon_Awbrey

Removing discussion
While it may not be pleasant to read, your removal of discussion material strikes me as inappropriate. The Jade Knight 08:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As the affected person, I reviewed WAS 4.250's edit and found it OK. I wasn't happy with my own previous edit (new thread) either - the threads really belong together. No action requested, but thanks for your vigilance, Jade Knight. --McCormack 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD
Your page, Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies 3, is a candidate for speedy deletion. It is currently blank, but states that there are subpages. Could there be links to the subpages, categories added, and the rest? Or would you prefer if this page was to be deleted? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * It serves no current purpose. Please delete it. Thank you. (It is a left-over from the edit wars. Its useful content was merged back into Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies/1.) WAS 4.250 14:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I wanted to make sure. There were many blank pages up for CSD, but none were directly tagged by the author, so I wanted to make sure that the pages weren't blanked before being filled in later. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

you...
...are truly an angel :-). --SB_Johnny talk 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

upsetting people
"JWSchmidt not recognising that he was upsetting people" <-- there are many subcategories of "upset people". For example, think about the person who has, for years, driven along a street at a speed above the speed limit. Then one day, that person is given a ticket for speeding and getting the speeding ticket "upsets the speeder". Personally, I do not have much sympathy for the person who got the speeding ticket. It is not enough to say, "you upset some people so I had to ban/block/desysop you". Many wiki editors become upset when they are challenged and their edits are questioned. When wiki editors are challenged and their edits are questioned then it is time for discussion. Of course, many wiki editors who should have their editing questioned and examined know that their edits will not stand up to critical examination, so they must game the system. Rather than participate in discussion that will reveal the true nature of their editing, all they have to do is complain, "I'm upset," and find some sysop who likes to wield the ban hammer. --JWSchmidt 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 * True. But in this case, your response was misunderstood by non-involved people like Johny (I'm talking about what happened before he got involved). And rather than communicate clearly, you confused them by commenting on a comment about a project about a comment on a comment. Lesson: In terms of people's responses, it does not matter how right you are; it matters how right you are perceived; so successful communication is very very important. WAS 4.250 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo vs. Moulton
So, you were saying Jimbo has no power?

Did you see what he did to our collegial dialogue on my talk page?

There is still Google cache, but it's not fully up to date.

So shall we revise our model of how much fascism Jimbo is teaching to the youth of the world?

Moulton 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to your WV:RCA Question.
Darklama, do you think suggesting that discussing observations about living people in public without checking first with them is unethical? I am not to be allowed to discuss Obama without his personal agreement? You can't be serious. - WAS 4.250 18:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) This all v

 * What I think has to do with English linguistics. I think problems can arise when declarations, directives, representative, and expressives are confused, poorly used, or used inappropriately. I think requiring that declarations about Obama be checked with Obama first before making them or stating them on Wikiversity is reasonable, but that is not to see if he personally agrees, but to see if what is being declared about him is in fact true. I think there should be similar requirements for representative statements in that a person or people that can reasonably be said to represent Obama is checked with first to ensure the facts are true. I think expressives when correctly used can reduce problems with understanding whose views are being expressed and represented.

 * I think the follow examples have different linguistics characteristics that should be kept in mind:
 * "Obama is doing a good job."
 * "Obama must be doing a good job."
 * "Most people think Obama is doing a good job."
 * "Most people must think Obama is doing a good job."
 * "I think Obama is doing a good job."
 * "I think Obama must be doing a good job."
 * "Obama thinks he's doing a good job."
 * "Obama must think he's doing a good job."
 * "I think most people believe that Obama is doing a good job."
 * "I think most people must think that Obama is doing a good job."
 * "Obama told me that he thinks he's doing a good job."
 * "Obama told me that he thinks he must be's doing a good job."
 * "Obama told me that most people think he's doing a good job."
 * "Obama told me that most people must think he's doing a good job."
 * "Obama told me that most people have told him he's doing a good job."
 * "Obama told me that most people have told him he must be doing a good job."

 * I think some of those examples wouldn't be ethical to state without checking with Obama, and I think some would be ethical to state without checking with Obama. I have my doubts that you will find my answer helpful though. -- dark lama  20:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you for an answer. We disagree. Be happy (or not, as you wish). WAS 4.250 06:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethical management of wikis
a standard of ethical management of wikis that should be respected by contributors to wikis funded by that Foundation <-- I hope you don't mind that I came here to reply. This topic seemed to go off at an odd angle from the original thread, although I think your first two questions go very much in the direction of the heart of the trouble Wikimedia has with Moulton. I think you might be asking this: if participant A at a WMF wiki learns of the IP address, email address, real name, address, etc of another WMF wiki participant then should participant A not spread/release/mention that personal information? I say, "yes"! Which is why I made this edit and I tried to get the Wikiversity community to make Privacy policy an official policy that also applied to the #wikiversity-en chat channel. I still think those steps should be taken, but based on events of the past two years I also think there should be some additions to the policy, as discussed at the community review. For example, I think there is also a need to protect people from abuse by anonymous wiki editors. I favor the idea of putting restrictions on what anonymous wiki editors can say about living people. Also, the material that I originally copied from Wikipedia referred to IRC chat as "private correspondence". At the time, in 2008, I had not seen abuse of IRC chat channel operator tools. In 2008 I experienced and learned many things from the banhammer culture. I now think that the Wikiversity community needs protection from channel operators who misuse their kick and ban tools. Having thought about it, I don't think public IRC channel chat is "private correspondence". Or, at the very least, Wikiversity community members need some kind of protection from abusive IRC channel operators. I think it is possible to satisfy both the need to protect anonymous editors and the need to protect the rest of the world from anonymous editors. As for your third question, yes, I think it would be useful to create a learning resource about these issues. I've been trying to find ways to address them through the community review that Ottava asked me to start. I wish Moulton could participate and be allowed to express his point of view, which seems somewhat different from mine. What is your view of all this? --JWSchmidt 22:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I do not mind that you came here to reply. I am not clear why you say it is "at an odd angle from the original thread". I am not clear if you are for or against someone using WikiMedia resources to harass another by distributing another's IP address, email address, real name, address, etc. (I'm against it being done on WikiMedia servers.) I know nothing of the #wikiversity-en WV chat channel. (I joke around, but honestly, even tho I've read claims, I really don't know what to think about that except to suggest you talk to Giano.) You think there is a need to protect people from abuse by wiki editors. One person's protection is to another person simply another's abuse - this is a difficult thing to get right. Moulton can participate and express his point of view .. we all read Wikipedia Review to get the latest uncensored news, do we not? - WAS 4.250 10:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "odd angle" <-- I started that thread in the hope that a Custodian might put a more useful entry into Moulton's block log. I'd like to have Moulton's participation at Wikiversity so he can help the community deal with issues like protecting people from anonymous wiki editors, so, sure, the two threads (that one and this one) are related, but I did not think my philosophical rambling would be welcomed at Cabal Central. "I am not clear if you are for or against someone using WikiMedia resources to harass another by distributing another's IP address, email address, real name, address, etc." <-- I think WMF wiki communities run smoother if such information is not distributed. However, until Wikiversity has a policy in place saying otherwise, I don't object to the use of real world names in the way that Moulton uses them. I'm comfortable with working in an educational environment where people can refer to each other by name. I doubt if anyone has ever personally been harmed (in the sense that is relevant to "outing") by their name being used at Wikiversity and "no harm, no foul" can be applied. Some people have gamed the system by claiming that use of their name was harassment or uncivil or a violation of the WMF privacy policy but I don't think that is the case. Until there is a policy in place at Wikiversity, I think Moulton has a right to defend himself against anonymous editors, a right that roughly balances the need to protect anonymous editors. I might say, "once an anonymous editor starts publishing lies about a living person then the gloves come off". I have only seen Giano in my peripheral vision. I've been around long enough to remember when the wikiversity-en chat channel was a fun meeting place for collaborating editors...then the wiki cops started playing their MMORPG. I still don't really understand Wikipedia Review...I suspect I don't know the inside jokes that seem to amuse the regulars. --JWSchmidt 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "I think Moulton has a right to defend himself against anonymous editors". Yes, but he used his own sites and Wikipedia Review to defend himself and use real world names; and used WikiVersity to link to those web pages. But that was not enough to get him blocked so he repeatedly insisted on using real world names at WikiVersity in what seemed to me and others (e.g. Jimbo) to be a deliberate continual escalation for the purpose of getting blocked. He went out of his way to get blocked and had the appearance of intending to continue escalating as much as needed until he did get blocked. When someone acts like that, you might as well give them what they are asking for (to get blocked) earlier rather than later. I would have preferred that he continued in trying to build the wiki ethics learning resource with me, but he decided that was less fun or less effective (I don't know which ... perhaps both). Maybe he needed more material for song lyrics. WAS 4.250 18:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I'll point out a few more things. Barry does not believe in rule based systems, does believe in using drama to teach; and is using Wikiversity to use drama to teach that rule based systems don't work by finding edge cases (deliberately leveling down instead of up, demanding people play by the rules when he knows rule based systems don't work, acting all surprised by who he finds behind the curtain labeled "The Curtain of Wizard of Oz") and pushing til things break. Destroy the village to save the village? Well, it is all just avatars in a virtual world anyway, right? - WAS 4.250 19:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "He went out of his way to get blocked" <-- Only in the sense that he kept dressing like a witch during a witch trial. I think Moulton is antithetical to the philosophy: "If it is broke, don't fix it".--JWSchmidt 19:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes. WAS 4.250 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "It's not easy being green." --Kermit the Frog  16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I'll say! --Elphaba Thropp 16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

debugging
I was amused by Sokal's Hoax when I first heard about it. In the early 90s I had been startled by The Emperor's New Mind as a loud salvo in the never ending effort of physical scientists to explain human consciousness. I wrote a rather critical review of that book and the attempt by Penrose to account for consciousness in terms of speculative theories like quantum gravity. Can you expand on the conclusion you drew from the mention of Sokal at Jimbo's user talk page? "they need to change their methods" <-- Who is "they"? "against Barry's in-your-face methods" <-- I'd appreciate it if you could make a list of those "methods" so we can discuss them and how people react to them. --JWSchmidt 18:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "problematic organizations", Adambro just made another unjustified call for a block. --JWSchmidt 23:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I think The Emperor's New Mind is bullshit. I far prefer "Society of Mind" by Minsky.

 * The methods that I find unsustainable in this context can be summarized by (1)bullying (method favored by the people Barry is so angry against) or (2)using Wikimedia servers to connect avatars to real world persons (Barry's in-your-face method). Bullying is justified -so says they- by necessity; just as Barry defends his methods. That argument works for the short term, but for the long term something more sustainable is needed. WAS 4.250 20:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I would be glad to participate in a learning project where an effort was made to ground Minsky's theoretical scheme for content-addressable memory (from The Society of Mind) in the actual biology of brains. In the case of the Wikipedian's who "bullied" Moulton, I believe their actions extended into the legal category of online harassment. I'd like it if Moulton were allowed to participate at Wikiversity and describe/defend his own "methods". I'd like to see a thriving learning project where we could all fully explore the ethics of allowing anonymous people to publish claims about living people. --JWSchmidt 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work reviewing edits.
, particularly see the bottom at this point. Looks like we have a decent contributor, really. So far. Fingers crossed. I'm putting in extra time at this point monitoring the situation, that wouldn't be usual, the positive contributions are well worth the review. It's much easier to review than to write! Thanks for your help with those edits, if I do it all, I could be a bit vulnerable. --Abd 00:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 * You are very welcome. I have a long history of encouraging edits to be kept if useful and only deleted en masse when for some reason it isn't worth the time to review them (such as when someone is trying to introduce subtle errors). WAS 4.250 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

 * My view on this matter is simple, and it was developed under fire, so to speak, on Wikipedia, and it is pretty much policy there, certainly it is widely understood. If an editor is blocked, the default is that all edits by this editor, while blocked, may be reverted without consideration of the content. If it were necessary to examine the content, this would make the block unnecessary! While we might think that, indeed, lots of blocks are unnecessary, nevertheless wikis have procedures to challenge blocks and reverse them if warranted. Given that, reverting edits of a blocked editor is really just a routine maintenance task, and any editor may assist administrators in this.

 * The key is what happens after that, and not everyone understands this part. If any editor sees such an edit, and concludes, after checking, that the edit is adequately acceptable, the editor may revert it back in. Now, I've seen protest over this. "Meat puppetry!" "Helping a banned editor!" and the like. But, in fact, it is just a user deciding that the content is either an improvement, or, at worst, is harmless. The purpose of the block, which is to keep out content considered more likely than not to be harmful, is not frustrated by these reviews, which are voluntary.

 * If the content restored by an editor is offensive, then the restoring editor is responsible for it. The "crime" has been adding offensive content, and that the content came from someone else originally is largely irrelevant. While I've seen grumblings, whenever this has come up for review on Wikipedia, the community has confirmed that it is the user who is blocked, not the content. Wikpedia does not censor. Neither should we.

 * Note that I've been taking a central position here. I am helping with block enforcement by identifying and reverting edits by a blocked user, and I am then, with help from others, including you, reviewing them and restoring what I consider useful for consideration or as content, and I'm doing this with care and caution. Any user could do this, with respect to any blocked editor or with respect to all of them. Thanks again. - (22:09, 22 August 2010 Abd)

 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=IT4&rls=en&q=1657+%22Blaise+Pascal%22+%22I+have+made+this+longer%2C+because+I+have+not+had+the+time+to+make+it+shorter.%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai - WAS 4.250 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment regarding cold fusion
You wrote:

 * (<---) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion says "In 1989, the majority of a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive. A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first." Why should anyone - even you - believe that their evaluation of the evidence is inferior to yours"? - WAS 4.250 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As I replied on the Colloquium, the text you quoted from the WP article drastically misrepresents the 2004 DoE review. I'll explain further here.

In 1989, the review heavily rejected cold fusion. It was dominated by the chair, John Huizenga, who later wrote a book about the affair, Cold fusion: scientific fiasco of the century. The report would have been drastically negative, but the co-chair was a Nobel-Prize winning physicist, Norman Ramsey, who threatened to very noisily resign if the report was not toned down. From what I've been able to tell, there was only one other panel member who supported Ramsey's position, making the majority who wanted to completely trash the idea of cold fusion about 13:2. But what Ramsey wanted was simple scientific prudence, and it was accepted. The preamble Ramsey demanded, and got, said things like "... it is not possible at this time to state categorically that all the claims for cold fusion have either been convincingly either proved or disproved."

The actual recommendations included:
 * The Panel recommends against any special funding for the investigation of phenomena attributed to cold fusion. Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion.
 * The Panel is sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system.

For background, "special funding" would have meant a crash federal program, possibly prepared to invest billions of dollars.

In fact, however, no Department of Energy funding was forthcoming, so far. Huizenga and others made sure not; reasonable proposals were made and denied. In any case, the point here is that the reality in 1989 was extremely negative.

In 2004, the recommendation was nearly the same, but this time, the report was explicit that the recommendations were unanimous. We also have what we never had with the 1989 panel, the original written comments from the nine experts who provided them. We can see that some of the experts were totally unwilling to look at any evidence. We can see errors that they made in interpreting the evidence. The other nine experts attended a one-day seminar in Washington, D.C. to hear presentations by cold fusion researchers. From what I know of the field, one day is absolutely not enough to absorb the massive evidence (over three thousand papers) to penetrate the huge wall of assumptions that were created in 1989, I'd have thought of a week conference with lots of interaction, questions, specific issue workshops, etc. I've been told by experts on CF that there were no questions.

Nevertheless, with these problems, the 2004 report, summarized by an anonymous bureaucrat, still tells us that exactly half the experts considered the evidence for anomalous heat to be "conclusive." (If half think it's "conclusive," what do the other half think? "Bogus"?) That would be pretty black-and-white, don't you think?

It also says that one-third of the experts considered the evidence for a nuclear origin for the heat to be "convincing" or "somewhat convincing." As I've mentioned, they only had a day! Note that if someone doesn't think the excess heat is real, they have no reason to think that the origin is nuclear!

And the review paper presented to them was clearly misinterpreted, because when the summarizer covered the critical heat/helium issue -- this is what convinced me that CF was real, and that it was, in fact, an "unknown nuclear reaction" that results in fusion, i.e., the conversion of deuterium to helium --, he or she radically misrepresented what the review paper actually said. Yet, for years, the Wikipedia article presented the error -- which is blatant, and which presents what is massive and strong correlation as if it were anti-correlation -- as being the evidence. That treated the anonymous review, not subject to peer review, as if it were a strong secondary source, even when it blatantly contradicts the primary source, which we also have. Actual secondary reviews showing the truth about heat and helium were rejected as being research done by "believers."

I pointed this stuff out on w:Talk:Cold fusion and was banned for it, bottom line.

I've now spent about two years with the evidence in this field, having the technical background to understand the issues. Yes, my position is different from that of the panel, because I've spent maybe a hundred times as much time with the evidence. Yet it's not far from one-third of the panel's experts. And my position is also amply covered in the latest and most definitive review of the field, the featured review by Storms in the October, 2010, issue of Naturwissenschaften, "Status of cold fusion (2010)." That paper passed rigorous peer review, NW has access to the best experts. The review is the 19th positive review of cold fusion in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals since the 2004 DoE panel report. There are no negative reviews, in fact, only a letter from an isolated skeptic, presented by the editors of the Journal of Environmental Monitoring as if he were a crank.

I do know what I'm writing about, WAS. I'm credited in that Naturwissenschaften review, p. 29, just before the bibliography.

And you? What do you know about this topic? You actually believed a Wikipedia article without checking the sources? (In this case, you could have looked at the sources and seen text from the 1989 review about "not persuasive," -- do you realize that I absolutely agree that it wasn't persuasive, there had been way too little confirmation, practically none, by that report -- and then you could have seen "conclusions similar to the first" and easily, you'd have assumed that this was also a massive rejection, as long as you didn't become familiar with both reports and the "conclusions."

In particular, if you'd have read the whole 2004 report -- which is pretty brief -- you might have smelled a rat. But I've seen many WP editors snookered by that kind of warped presentation of evidence, the editors involved were experts at it, using this in all kinds of fringe science fields. And using admin tools to back it up.)

If you'd like to learn about cold fusion, come on over to Cold fusion and help study the topic! How about developing a seminar covering the 1989 or 2004 DoE reviews? History is part of the topic. I have piles of sources on this, the material is massive, many books have been written, about the people and the history, as well as the science. Much material is available on-line. Huizenga was right. "Scientific fiasco of the century." And the academic sources tend to agree, with "fiasco" referring to the rejection as well as to naive promotion. --Abd 19:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't believe in cold fusion, but I do have an open mind on the subject. What are the best theories regarding the mechanism? Have any theoretical physicists come up with a mathematical model? Can you provide links? - WAS 4.250 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is only one solid theory, which is that deuterium is, by an "unknown nuclear reaction," being converted to helium, with practically no detectable radiation. That is firmly rooted in replicable and replicated experiment showing strong correlation of heat and helium at the right value. Mechanism? Read Storms. No theory of mechanism is yet adequate.

 * Yes, Takahashi has done math for a particular physical configuration called Tetrahedral Symmetric, it would arise if someone two deuterium *molecules* come to occupy a particular lattice site. He shows that this would collapse into a BEC and fuse within one femtosecond. Storms doesn't like the theory because -- how the hell do you get the TS condition to form.

 * Bottom line: mechanism, so far, lots of theories, none capable of decent prediction of actual reaction rates. TSC theory (Takahashi) at least predicts helium and no radiation (Be-8 formed from the four deuterons, decays promptly to 2 He-4), but it would also predict alphas at energies much higher than observed..... no cigar yet. Gotta go, kids dinner and bed. --Abd 23:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed section you had edited on my Talk page.
No problem with your edit, WAS, but I've asked TCNSV not to post on my Talk page, so your question to him there invited response, demonstrating quite why I don't want him posting there. I've removed that entire section from my Talk page; if there are any issues there of value to Wikiversity, they can be discussed elsewhere, perhaps to better effect. You remain welcome on my Talk page, personally.

At some point we should, I'd think, discuss certain comments that were made during the recent Moulton flap, but no rush. Thanks for your long-term support of Wikiversity. --Abd 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:WAS 4.250


text: User:Thuvack/Testing page 4/box-header

title: User:Thuvack/Testing page 4/box-header


text: User:Thuvack/Testing page 4/box-footer

title: User:Thuvack/Testing page 4/box-footer


text:
Wikimedia Ethics

Welcome
Please make sure you have reviewed the page What is Wikiversity? before you participate and contribute to this project.

What are ethics?
Ethics are moral standards of conduct agreed upon to define right and wrong. That which is ethical is considered morally correct. That which is unethical is considered morally wrong. Ethics are usually considered in a professional code of conduct as a qualified professional is under more expection than an unqualified individual to have a learned understanding of the accepted principles of right and wrong.

Learning ethics in online media
Principles of ethics in online media is the scope for this resource; however, this resource draws upon comparisons that center on the English Wikipedia, which has over a quarter-million biographies of living persons (BLPs) as well as many articles that characterize people, organizations, events, and other aspects of human activity. The degree to which the content and practices of Wikimedia projects adhere to commonly recognized principles of ethics, which include such comparisons of Wikipedia, are what this resource examines.

Temporary guideline: This project currently does not accept case studies of living people until further notice.

List of subpages

 * All subpages: special:prefixindex//
 * All talk subpages: special:prefixindex//
 * All recently edited pages: /Dynamic page list/

Resource Management

 * /Audio/
 * /Audio/Transcripts/
 * /Brainstorming/
 * /Participants and objectives/
 * /Project Timetable/
 * User:Privatemusings/EthicsSandbox - a personal sandbox space in which all are welcome to try and help energise this project.

Learning resources

 * /Introduction/
 * /Overview/

 * /Change BLP policy/
 * /Ethical Code for Wikipedians/
 * /Ethics on Wikipedia and the Internet/
 * Fundamentals of ethics
 * /List of questions/
 * /Response Testing on WMF projects/
 * /Social contract/
 * /Paid editing and Wikipedia Zero/
 * /Suggested essays/

How to improve this resource

 * 1) Identify principles for objective evaluation
 * 2) Evaluate Wikimedia systems
 * 3) Identify what needs to be learned by the community
 * 4) Create or update collaborative research pages and workshops

title: Wikimedia Ethics


text:
User talk:SPQRobin

Hello, welcome around here. I hope we can help you succeed in your learning goals. Below more info about Wikiversity, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Hello SPQRobin, 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 random project.
 * Browse everything on 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.
 * 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! Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:SPQRobin


text: Template:SA

title: Template:SA


text:
Talk:Wikimedia Ethics

Archive: 2008

title: Talk:Wikimedia Ethics


text:
Talk:ICDL

Merge proposal
Should this page be merged into the EDCL page and then deleted? I'm pretty sure the ICDL and the ECDL are the same qualification. Srippon 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:ICDL


text:
Talk:European Computer Driving Licence

Merge proposal
Should the ICDL page be merged into this one and then deleted? I'm pretty sure the ICDL and the ECDL are the same qualification. Srippon 00:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:European Computer Driving Licence


text:
User:LadyWinch

Hello- Interested in continuing lifelong education and free is a great way to do it!

title: User:LadyWinch


text: Wikiversity:Publicity/to do

title: Wikiversity:Publicity/to do


text:
Social psychology (psychology)/Admin

Administrative information for instructors of Social psychology (psychology).

Welcoming

 * SPPP2008 (user page) -> better is to use which includes a comment line to explain the template code
 * SPPPW (talk page) -> use

Withdrawn

 * SPPP2008Withdrawn

Essay

 * SPEssay

title: Social psychology (psychology)/Admin


text:
Wikiversity:How does Wikiversity work?

A brief overview of Wikiversity and how it 'works' is discussed below.

title: Wikiversity:How does Wikiversity work?


text:
Random

Learning and research project about randomness and wikis - feel free to join in.

A launching point for exploring Wikiversity - visit random links and see what you find....

Examples and navigation

 * Random 'pre-selected' Wikiversity page
 * Random page in the main namespace (same as "Random Page" on sister projects)
 * Random topic
 * Special:RandomRootpage/Topic
 * Random school
 * Random portal
 * Random draft
 * Random page about Wikiversity
 * Random mascot
 * Coin toss
 * Dice
 * Die roll
 * Extension:Random (sandbox server) e.g., use it to roll a die.

title: Random


text:
User talk:LadyWinch

 Hello LadyWinch, 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 random project.
 * Browse everything on 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.
 * 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! Jtneill - Talk - c 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 Woof! My name is Jack(Russell). I am a dog and a Wikiversity mascot. I am pretty new around Wikiversity. Perhaps we can learn together! Tail wag...

title: User talk:LadyWinch


text: Template:Welcome/Mascot

title: Template:Welcome/Mascot


text:
User talk:Goodgirl (usurped)~enwikiversity

Request for Usurpation
Hello, Goodgirl. A request has been made at Changing username to usurp, or "take over", your username because you have not used it to edit, and another user would like to use it to edit. w:Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations says that any unused username may be usurped if the user is given 14 days notice to object and does not do so.

If you have an email set in your preferences, you should be getting an email from a bureaucrat explaining how to consent or object to this process.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to utilize the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one).

If you do nothing : the request will be filled after 14 days, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed : please log in and make an edit. You may make an edit here saying "No", you may make an edit to blank this page, or any other edit you like; making any edit at all prevents your username from being usurped, because users with edits cannot have their usernames usurped.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. --84.58.194.239 06:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Goodgirl (usurped). To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Goodgirl (usurped)~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)