text:
Wikiversity talk:Civility/Extension 0.2

Comments
Better than draft one, definitely. I think the "Outing" section actually belongs over at Privacy policy, however, and potentially severe consequences may be appropriate for it. The appropriate/inappropriate sections are good, though so many exceptions to "inappropriate" make the policy messy and also make me wonder if we've missed other exceptions. I also dislike this: "regardless of consent to drop NPOV" (exception 3). I think users should have the opportunity to explore alternative ways of handling things so long as there is consent. I also think it may be necessary to distinguish between negative discussions/mentions of users and neutral or positive discussions/mentions of users. I am also concerned with the "provisions"; they are appropriate for privacy issues, but I am not certain that they are appropriate here. Finally: I would support the proposed policy as a guideline. I would probably vote "neutral" on it as a policy, though with some changes and some more time, I might support as a policy. The Jade Knight 09:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * "better than draft one" - ??!! But nobody changed anything yet... It's identical. ;-) More comment when more have commented. --McCormack 09:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I must have misread the first section of draft one to read "inappropriate", thinking that your two sections were "inappropriate" and "particularly inappropriate". I'm rather tired.  Oh well.  I still have objections, as stated.  The Jade Knight 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I swear I copied and pasted... --McCormack 10:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the privacy policy proposal already covers the issues involved in outing, I don't think this proposal nor that one should mention outing specifically as it has both a negative connotation, isn't self explanatory and doesn't help explain what should be avoided. I agree with Jade Knight though that the privacy policy might need to mention what appropriate actions should be taken when a person's privacy is violated. I also share some of Jade Knight's other concerns with this proposed extension. I am concerned this proposal was too broad and could be used to attack people for criticizing or providing feedback on edits or actions made. I've gone ahead and removed the outing section and rephrased the rest of it, to distinguish more between talking about people and talking about learning resources. I think this does a better job of clarifying what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. Without the changes this very comment could be attacked as violating this proposal for example. --darklama 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have the spirit of it better, but I'd like to see some sort of compromise between your two versions. Not sure what that means quite yet.  But we should encourage the good, discouage the bad, and make it clear what is not acceptable.  The wikilawyering clause is needed, BTW.  Oh, and we need something about name-calling groups of people.  "Those [unnamed] users" or even "users who do X are...".  The only problem is phrasing it such so appropriate uses are ok, but inappropriate ones are not.  The Jade Knight 14:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think discussing the bad should be discouraged, only that discussions should focus on what a person did or didn't do, rather than voicing opinions on a person's character, mental state, etc. that have to do with labeling people. I didn't remove the wikilawyering clause, someone else might have though. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't removed. I'm just saying it's needed.  Anyway, the problem with saying it's ok to discuss behavior and not people makes it really easy to get around: instead of saying "XYZ is a troll" you just say "XYZ is trolling".  Or, in the case of JWSchmidt's recent learning projects, there's this general "deletionists do X" format.  The Jade Knight 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean. I've added bits about name-calling and labeling people. I think however at times its appropriate to discuss behavior and it should not be hard or nearly impossible to do. I think saying "XYZ is trolling" might be appropriate way to describe a person's actions on the request custodian action page, if specific actions/behaviors of XYZ are also mentioned for example, but there might be better ways to discuss behaviors as well. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Could you first create an essay about Outing (first describe what it is, then describe how it happens, then finally describe what kind of harm it does). This would allow the community to have a well crafted opinion piece, and also form a basis for coming up with an actual guideline/policy to adequately meet the problems detailed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

deleted content
I think this special exception is needed. I cannot support this policy proposal unless something is done about those who seek to being the "troll" meme and the "I want a pony" meme (I will not talk to you) to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I changed the "special exception" to "..or used to justify or protect against appropriate criticisms of incivility." I meant to say "generalize" in my edit summery rather then "general". The special exception suggested that people are free to be uncivil to people who they feel have been uncivil to them, which I don't think is appropriate nor should it be encouraged, and only mentions specific cases. This sort of back and forth uncivil behavior leads to fights that either never end or forces a third party to block. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Exactly. so since a few select custodians and 'crats have claimed the "high ground" and the right to call other Wikiversity participants "troll" and to refuse to engage with them in discussion, they are free to be uncivil. That is their choice, their "vision" of Wikiversity. My view is that these "special" people should be asked to leave Wikiversity. However, since they have claimed ownership of Wikiversity, those of us who are targets of their incivility need to have some protection from these bullies. The "special exception" provides that protection in the form of free speech that can be used to discuss the bad behavior of the bullies. This will allow Wikiversity to understand the consequences of allowing bullies into Wikiversity and allow the community to take corrective measures. --JWSchmidt 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * If I understand you right, you feel that people should be allowed to respond in kind, an eye for an eye? I disagree. I believe speech aimed at criticizing a person for being a person that someone dislikes should not be protected even when others engage in it. I believe making a distinction between "criticizing a person" and "criticizing what a person does or has done" is important, with the first being inappropriate and the later being ok. I believe such a distinction still allows people discuss issues and help people to learn what the consequences of there actions might be. Concerning "free speech", many countries that have freedom of speech laws include limitations on freedom of speech. See Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for instance. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree with Dark Lama; those being hostile should have appropriate measures taken to discipline them, but those who have received hostility should not get a carte blanche to retaliate. Additionally, I disagree with JWSchmidt's edit because it is too specific—there are a hundred ways to insult a user besides "troll".  The Jade Knight 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this would open up hunting season on Jimbo (diff). The Jade Knight 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"I believe making a distinction between "criticizing a person" and "criticizing what a person does or has done" is important" <-- I agree.

Fair and responsible
I believe this needs to be more aligned with what Sue Gardener has already stated in her e-mail, 11 may 2008. That e-mail obviously came at a time that was critical of Wikinews members and the Foundation itself. The principles stated by Gardener are have been pragmatically followed. I don't see a need to reinvent the wheel from what she has already outlined about being fair and responsible. Let me know if this helps. Dzonatas 03:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Crediting Reviews and Critics
I feel that the following, added by User:Original Spin, should be discussed before being added; I am not sure if it is appropriate here. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While everyone prefers favorable reviews of one's work, the reality is that one will typically find mixed reviews, including the occasional stinging criticism. It's important in an academic culture to acknowledge comments and criticisms which help shape the final product, including the comments and criticisms that might be considered discouraging. It's good policy and good manners to thank your reviewers, even when your inner child would rather not give them any credit for finding subtle or hidden flaws in what you believed to be your finest work.

title: Wikiversity talk:Civility/Extension 0.2


text:
User:JWSchmidt/Blog/15 September 2008

My talk
Near the top of my user talk page it says:

The bad with the good. If you have a complaint about something I have done, please feel free to let me know what is on your mind. I strive to assume good faith and improve my behavior in response to honest criticism. For example, I often like to explore the boundary between what is socially acceptable and what is outrageous. If something I have done upsets you, please let me know. Also, I am sometimes blunt and and terse and my actions might seem needlessly confrontational. Let me know when I "cross the line" and start to disrupt the atmosphere of collaboration rather than support it.

After SB Johnny went out of his way to let me know that he refused to tell me what was on his mind, he told me that this is what was on his mind and that I had requested that page. In fact, what I requested is stated at the top of my user talk page: "Let me know when I 'cross the line' and start to disrupt the atmosphere of collaboration rather than support it." By refusing to use my user talk page to tell me what was on his mind, SB Johnny demonstrated what he means by "It is felt that lesser options than this review have already been exhausted".

When SB Johnny drew my attention to this, I asked him, " now the question is, do you still refuse to discuss things?". The expected answer came as soon as I tried to join the discussion and it was announced that somebody owned that page, and I was not allowed to join the discussion.

My fork
Since McCormack wouldn't let me edit his page, I've moved to this page. Please feel free to join me for OPEN discussion at the fork page --JWSchmidt 10:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Day 1 Reflections
So far I have had a chance to read three of the cases and start to respond to them. Below are short summaries...click on the links such as "case 1 details" in order to see more detailed comments from me on each case.

case 1 details. My learning project about deletionism was not appreciated. However, the learning resource was about the idea that Wikiversity should welcome the contributions of new users and help them learn how to edit. Deleting the good faith contributions of new Wikiversity participants is not welcoming. Other people prefer to delete the contributions of new Wikiversity participants and they can often be heard calling such contributions "garbage". I prefer to welcome new users and expand new pages.

case 2 details. Some people wanted to use a Wikipedia deletion template according to Wikipedia rules for deletion. I fixed the template to conform to Wikiversity deletion policy.

case 3 details. There is one Wikiversity participant who does not want to provide a link at the top of the Main Page from the word "students" to the main Wikiversity student portal page. I think Wikiversity should have such a link.

General reflections. The view of Wikiversity provided by Michael, SBJ, Cormac, and McCormack is rather alarming. It is a view of Wikiversity that does not mesh with reality. It will take me many hours to go through the charges and sort them out for the Wikiversity community. At the rate I work, I estimate it will take approximately three weeks to complete this project. I suppose at some point a few people will bother to examine the charges and they will see the extent to which these authors have misrepresented events in order to depict my editing in the worst possible light. It is really quite boring and sickening to participate in this process of answering to these twisted charges. However, I suppose this was inevitably the only way to sort things out at Wikiversity. I hope this process leads to a constructive discussion about the motivation and editing history of McCormack. McCormack has called me troll and I believe he would do anything within his powers to damage me, which largely amounts to putting on public display these twisted cases and charges. Dear reader: this is sickening stuff, but please try to read along. I know most of you care deeply about Wikiversity and that makes it hard to look at a witch hunt taking place within what we hope will become a center for scholarship. I know that some of you have been made uneasy by some of my learning projects. I still request that you discuss with me any issues you have with respect to my editing. Use my talk page. Come to #wikiversity-en and chat (however, see the next paragraph below. Special thanks to those of you who do take the time to talk to me and help develop Wikiversity resources with me. As always, it is a joy to collaborate with you. Eventually this process will end and we can get back to more interesting types of learning projects. Keep learning the wiki way!

UPDATE: I was banned from #wikiversity-en without warning, discussion or a reason given. This ban on my participation in #wikiversity-en is a clear violation of channel ops power. You can still find me in #wikiversity. I was banned from #wikiversity-en by User:SB Johnny who also blocked me from editing Wikiversity in order to prevent me from responding to all the false and distorted charges he made against me. His bad block was eventually overturned by the Wikiversity community, but I remain banned from #wikiversity-en. User:SB Johnny also used his false and distorted charges to attract the attention of a Steward and have my custodianship stripped from me. This was another abuse of his power since there was no reason to remove my custodial status and certainly no community consensus for such a move. As time permits, I will continue to respond to the false and distorted charges that have been made against me. --JWSchmidt 16:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Day 2 Reflections
I could not really work today because of this. Everything else seems unimportant.

There was an interesting session today in the #wikiversity-en chat channel. Ottava Rima was able to initiate an exchange of views between McCormack and myself. I learned that I had intimidated him by my editing style. I apologized for intimidating him. Hopefully this is a start towards getting us to the point where we can talk things out.

I also had a chance to read Learning from conflict and incivility/Jade Knight. So I started a conversation with User:Jade Knight. Hopefully our dialog will increase mutual understanding. 1, 2, 3, 4.

I again ask that if you have a complaint about something I have done, please feel free to let me know what is on your mind. If you have written about your complaint on some page other than my user talk page, then I probably have not seen it. I really do think it is helpful for people to come talk to me one-on-one when they do not like something I have done. Eventually I will have the chance to read everything here, but it will take a while.

Day 3 Reflections
Another day during which it is essentially impossible to think and work (see this and this).

While I've only gotten through case #3, I was asked to look at case 34 out of sequence. I was interested to learn that I am "an aggrieved Wikipedian". I feel the need to make another page to add to my collection that includes JWSchmidt is a Troll and Campaign for the inclusion in Wikipedia of religious views expressed as science. "enemies at Wikipedia and the foundation" <-- I demand that the four authors of this charge list my enemies. Other than one banned Wikipedian who has stalked me in real life, I do not know of any such enemies. I invite the Wikiversity community to read this. I spent weeks discussing with Moultan the fact that if he could not give up his interest in the real world identities of wiki users then he would be blocked from editing Wikiversity. I repeatedly asked him not to discuss the real world identities of wiki users while in #wikiversity-en. I will never apologize for my scholarly collaborations and various learning projects I have engaged in with Moulton or any of my other wiki friends. Yes, I have failed to turn Moulton away from his interest in the real world identities of wiki users. I take full responsibility for my failure. I did my best.

Day 4 reflections
case 4 details. I stand by my position that Wikiversity can decide for itself what is allowed on Wikiversity user pages.

cases 5 & 6. I just noticed that some cases are missing. It makes me wonder what we are not being shown. Given the absurd charges that we have been shown, what must have been in #5 and #6?

case 7 details. I made good faith edits to improve a template.

I've spent a significant amount of time trying to think of ways to both protect the good faith contributions of Wikiversity participants and prevent Wikiversity from filling up with stub pages. I still think that welcome templates are a good start. I recently tried to start some discussion on this idea which involves a special "Training:" namespace where stub pages could be used as learning exercises for Wikiversity participants who are learning how to edit.

I spoke with User:Emesee on IRC channel #wikiversity-en and I thanked him for agreeing to remain as a custodian.

Update. User:Emesee was one of the few Wikiversity custodians to stand up and resist the attacks that have been made on Wikiversity. For his trouble, he had his custodianship stripped away without community consensus. More comments on this sad turn of events can be found at this page. --JWSchmidt 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Day 5 reflections
More bad news. --JWSchmidt 13:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Restart
I was blocked from editing Wikiversity before I could respond to all of the false and distorted charges that have been made against me in the review. Note: there was never a valid reason for the block. I thank those honorable Wikiversity participants who spoke out against this bad block and who were able to get me unblocked. During the time I was blocked, additional false charges have been made against me. The effort continues to use these false charges to "justify" blocking me from editing, banning me from #wikiversity-en and removing my custodianship status.

At this time, due to real world commitments, I have limited online time. Since my return to editing, I posted some of my thoughts about what is currently happening at Wikiversity at User:JWSchmidt/Blog/10 October 2008. As time permits, I will continue the sickening task of responding to all the false and distorted charges that have been made against me. --JWSchmidt 18:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this thread at User:JWSchmidt/Blog/19 October 2008.

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

title: User:JWSchmidt/Blog/15 September 2008


text:
User talk:Jessi18me

Welcome to Wikiversity
 Hello Jessi18me, 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.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help, guidance, suggestions, or the rest, feel free to contact me. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jessi18me


text:
User talk:Kaywiz

Welcome to Wikiversity
 Hello Kaywiz, 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.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help, guidance, suggestions, or the rest, feel free to contact me. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kaywiz


text:
User talk:Crpal03

Welcome
Hello and welcome. I noticed your user page. It seems to be an advertisement for a business or a company. Is this intentional? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand? Am I doing something wrong? Do you have a manual somewhere? Can I upload files or images? --cpalmtag@wi.rr.com 14:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong. I mostly wanted to find out a little about you and see if you were here to participate. Sometimes people go through the internet and post "advertisements" (links, business opportunities, etc), and just leave. I wanted to make sure that you were not one of those people. If you would like some more information about Wikiversity, you can find it at Help:Guides. Now, some helpful hits - I had to fix your "tag" above (the little entry with the ~ that puts a time stamp and name behind your messages. Be sure to place this at the very end of your message so it does not get lost. If you want to indent, use : (a colon) flush against the left hand side of the box, and it will move your entry in. Each colon and it will move it in further. If you have any particular questions, you can ask me. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Crpal03


text:
User talk:JWSchmidt/JWSchmidt is a Troll

Posting talk page comments in inappropriate places
Thank you for making this edit. However you posted the comment to the wrong page. Please do not post talk page comments to project pages. The talk pages should be used for this purpose instead. Thank you for observing this in future. --McCormack 07:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your persistence in posting talk page comments to the project page. To help you further with this, I have created two subpage links for your use. This will enable you to post your comments on a project page rather than a talk page. --McCormack 07:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi, JWS. I must admit that some of the edits I had to make just now on your review were some of the most gut-wrenching edits I have ever had to make on Wikiversity. I was revolted by what I had to do. Two community members had requested opening a new case, and I felt that openness required them to be enabled to express themselves in this way. Unfortunately I also know their concerns to be correct. However it is a truly horrible process to have to dig all this stuff up and throw it at you, and you are not the only person suffering as a result. Please think what you are putting yourself and others through, and please end this process in as quick and painless a manner as possible. You yourself have always claimed that the "tools" are "no big deal". If you lay them down, you will be freeing up your own time - you only have to gain from this. The door is open to you, and I can see only sunshine outside the door for you. I will ask this only once and won't bother you with this request again. --McCormack 16:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
User:Mk~enwikiversity/ipc

INTERNATIONAL PROJECT

{| id="Todo" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border:2px #A3D9BE solid;"  Internet- and Project Competence
 * colspan="2" style="background:#cef2e0; text-align:center; padding:2px; border-bottom:1px #A3D9BE solid;" |
 * colspan="2" style="background:#cef2e0; text-align:center; padding:2px; border-bottom:1px #A3D9BE solid;" |
 * style="background:#f5fffa; padding:1.2em;" valign="top" |
 * style="background:#f5fffa; padding:1.2em;" valign="top" |

{| style="width:100%; background-color:transparent;"
 * style="width:40%; padding-right:1.2em;" valign="top" |

Background
We think that the basic objective of schools and universities is to prepare students for the knowledge society, i.e. to train their knowledge networking skills. Students should get used to search for information and to transform it into knowledge through individual and collaborative, participative techniques. In this context, we would like to stress the perspectives offered by various web 2.0 tools such as weblogs, wikis, video conferences and discussion boards. Thanks to all these different tools, people (students) from different countries and cultures can take part in the collective construction of knowledge by carrying out international projects. This implies, of course, a high degree of communicative competence and - besides technological skills - social skills such as empathy. Follow link for a brief course description: course description

current international project
We will carry out projects about primary school teaching, open learning and the ideas of formal and informal instruction together with students from Bulgaria, the USA and Germany. The professors involved are Leigh Ausband (USA), Iliana Mirtschewa (Bulgaria) and Klaudia Schultheis (Germany). Our students will work together on some of the topics and prepare presentations and thus create content which they will present online.

 * style="width:60%; background:#f5fffa; border-left:1px solid #cef2e0; padding-left:1.2em;" valign="top" |

specified period
13th Oct – 1st Dec (6 weeks)

project schedule

 * }

participants
In order to sign up, please click on edit (here above) and replace "XY" by Your personal information (cf. Michael Kratky)

KWL CHART (template)
Please click on "edit" (here above), copy the code, paste it on your personal user site and insert Your text in the columns.

Resources
Leigh Ausband's proposals:
 * Resources for Web 2.0

 * Google Groups

 * Blogging websites: wordpress.com or blogger.com
 * }

title: User:Mk~enwikiversity/ipc


text:
User:Mk~enwikiversity/ipc/description

{| id="Todo" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border:2px #A3D9BE solid;"  Course Description
 * colspan="2" style="background:#cef2e0; text-align:center; padding:2px; border-bottom:1px #A3D9BE solid;" |
 * colspan="2" style="background:#cef2e0; text-align:center; padding:2px; border-bottom:1px #A3D9BE solid;" |
 * style="background:#f5fffa; padding:1.2em;" valign="top" |
 * style="background:#f5fffa; padding:1.2em;" valign="top" |

{| style="width:100%; background-color:transparent;"
 * style="width:50%; padding-right:1.2em;" valign="top" |

to put it into a nutshell...
The course „Internet- and Project-Competence“ has been designed to bring students to carry out real projects and to develop their communication-skills in order to enhance the flow of information between young people world wide. Within one semester, the students will

 * create an online community with international partners and search for information
 * carry out their projects (often combined with an excursion)
 * present the results of their projects on a website

Objectives
The main objective of IPC is to make students carry out projects collectively and to communicate with each other in order to produce knowledge. This meta-objective can be split up into the following items:

 * Capacity for teamwork
 * Capacity to resolve conflicts
 * Patience and perseverance
 * Planning skills
 * Communicative competence
 * Initiative
 * Web 2.0 literacy

 * style="width:50%; background:#f5fffa; border-left:1px solid #cef2e0; padding-left:1.2em;" valign="top" |

Course outline
Phase 1

 * Choice of a topic/country and formation of an online community
 * Drafting a thesis, developing a research design (questionnaires, interviews)
 * Preparation of the excursion/investigation

Phase 2

 * Students carry out projects, prove/disprove the validity of their thesis,
 * upload of the results in a self-created website,
 * and present their website to the public.

Certificate

Having passed the module, students may obtain the “IPC Certificate“, which assesses students‘ internet- and project competences (such as capacity for teamwork, communicative competence etc.)
 * }
 * }

title: User:Mk~enwikiversity/ipc/description


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.Lulz.Layton.Eric/Hw2

Lecture Notes
Continuing where we left off from last homework...

Step 2
The second step is to draw the element pictures. In these pictures you should label the element dofs and the element forces in either global or local coordinates.

Step 3
The third step is to develop the global force-displacement relationship at the element level. As we saw earlier, for a specified element the force-displacement relationship is: $$\textbf{k}^{(e)}*\textbf{d}^{(e)}=\textbf{f}^{(e)}$$

Where k(e) is the element stiffness matrix, d(e) is the element displacement matrix and f(e) the element force matrix.

The axial stiffness of a specified element is determined by the equation:

$$k^{(e)}=\frac{E^{(e)}A^{(e)}}{L^{(e)}}$$

Where E is the Young's modulus for the element, A is the cross-sectional area for the element and L is the length if the element.

Now we need to find the director cosines (l(e) and m(e)) for each element using the following equations:

$$l^{(e)}=\textbf{i}^{\sim}\cdot\textbf{i}=cos\theta^{(e)}$$

$$m^{(e)}=\textbf{j}^{\sim}\cdot\textbf{j}=sin\theta^{(e)}$$

Using the director cosines, axial stiffness and the following formula we can determine the element stiffness matrix.

$$\textbf{k}^{(e)}=k^{(e)}\left[\begin{array}{c c c c} (l^{(e)})^2 & l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & -(l^{(e)})^2 & -l^{(e)}m^{(e)}\\ l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & (m^{(e)})^2 & -l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & -(m^{(e)})^2\\ (l^{(e)})^2 & -l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & (l^{(e)})^2 & l^{(e)}m^{(e)}\\ -l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & -(m^{(e)})^2 & l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & (m^{(e)})^2 \end{array}\right ]$$

For element 1:

$$\theta=30$$

$$l=cos\theta=\frac{\sqrt{3}}2$$

$$m=sin\theta=\frac{1}2$$

$$k=\frac{EA}L=\frac{(3)(1)}4=\frac{3}4$$

This gives us the stiffness matrix for element 1:

$$k^{(1)}=\left[\begin{array}{c c c c} \frac{9}{16} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{9}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16}\\ \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{3}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{3}{16}\\ -\frac{9}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{9}{16} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16}\\ -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{3}{16} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{3}{16} \end{array}\right]$$

Notice that the stiffness matrix for element 1 is symmetric.

For element 2:

$$\theta=-45$$

$$l=cos(-45)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}2$$

$$m=sim(-45)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}2$$

$$k=\frac{EA}L=\frac{(5)(2)}2=5$$

This gives us the stiffness matrix for element 2:

$$k^{(2)}=\left[\begin{array}{c c c c} \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2\\ -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2\\ -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2\\ \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 \end{array}\right]$$

Notice that the stiffness matrix for element 2 is also symmetric.

Now we have to assemble the global stiffness matrix. This is illustrated in the picture below where the shaded area represents the addition of overlapping parts of $$\textbf{k}^{(1)}$$ and $$\textbf{k}^{(2)}$$.

$$K_{33}=k_{33}^{(1)} + k_{11}^{(2)}$$

$$K_{34}=k_{34}^{(1)} + k_{12}^{(2)}$$

$$K_{43}=k_{43}^{(1)} + k_{21}^{(2)}$$

$$K_{44}=k_{44}^{(1)} + k_{22}^{(2)}$$

For this example we get:

$$\textbf{K}=\left[\begin{array}{c c c c c c} \frac{9}{16} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{9}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & 0 & 0\\ \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{3}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{3}{16} & 0 & 0\\ -\frac{9}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{49}{16} & \frac{-40+3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2\\ -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{3}{16} & \frac{-40+3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{43}{16} & -\frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2\\ 0 & 0 & -\frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2\\ 0 & 0 & -\frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 \end{array}\right]$$

Step 4
Now on the fourth step we eliminate known dofs to reduce the global force-displacement relationship.

Due to the applied constraints, $$d_1=d_2=d_5=d_6=0$$. This allows us to eliminate columns 1,2,5 and 6 due to the principal of virtual work. We also note that $$F_1=F_2=F_3=F_5=F_6=0$$. This allows us to eliminate rows 1,2,5 and 6 by the same principal. The resulting, simplified force-displacement relationship follows:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c c} K_{33} & K_{34}\\ K_{34} & K_{44} \end{array}\right] \begin{Bmatrix} d_3\\ d_4 \end{Bmatrix}=\begin{Bmatrix} F_3\\ F_4 \end{Bmatrix}$$

Let $$F_3=0$$ and $$F_4=7$$.Now plugging in numbers we get:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c c} \frac{49}{16} & \frac{-40+3\sqrt{3}}{16}\\ \frac{-40+3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{43}{16} \end{array}\right] \begin{Bmatrix} d_3\\ d_4 \end{Bmatrix}= \begin{Bmatrix} 0\\ 7 \end{Bmatrix}$$

Now we can solve for the unknown displacement dofs by multiplying both sides by:

$$\textbf{K}^{-1}=\frac{1}{det\textbf{K}} \left[\begin{array}{c c} K_{44} & -K_{34}\\ -K_{43} & K_{33} \end{array}\right]$$.

Plugging in numbers we get:

$$\textbf{K}^{-1}=\frac{1}{3.4988} \left[\begin{array}{c c} \frac{49}{16} & \frac{40-3\sqrt{3}}{16}\\ \frac{40-3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{43}{16} \end{array}\right]$$

It is important to note that: $$\textbf{K}^{-1}\neq\frac{1}{det\textbf{K}}\textbf{K}^T$$

Following through with this, we get:

$$\begin{Bmatrix} d_3\\ d_4\end{Bmatrix}= \textbf{K}^{-1}\begin{Bmatrix} F_3\\ F_4\end{Bmatrix}$$

Plugging in the numbers now gives:

$$\begin{Bmatrix} d_3\\ d_4\end{Bmatrix}= \left[\begin{array} {c c} .8753 & .6217\\ .627 & .7681 \end{array}\right] \begin{Bmatrix} 0\\ 7\end{Bmatrix}$$

Solving this system gives us:

$$d_3=4.352$$

$$d_4=6.127$$

Step 5
Now in step five we can compute reactions by one of two methods.

The first method is to use the element force-displacement relationship.

$$\textbf{k}^{(e)}\textbf{d}^{(e)}=\textbf{f}^{(e)}$$

For element 1 we would have:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c c c c} \frac{9}{16} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{9}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16}\\ \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{3}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{3}{16}\\ -\frac{9}{16} & -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{9}{16} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16}\\ -\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & -\frac{3}{16} & \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{16} & \frac{3}{16} \end{array}\right]\begin{Bmatrix} 0\\ 0\\ 4.352\\ 6.127\end{Bmatrix}= \begin{Bmatrix} f_1^{(1)}\\ f_2^{(1)}\\ f_3^{(1)}\\ f_4^{(1)}\end{Bmatrix}$$

Solving this system we get:

$$f_1^{(1)}=-4.438$$

$$f_2^{(1)}=-2.562$$

$$f_3^{(1)}=4.438$$

$$f_4^{(1)}=2.562$$

For element 2 we have:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c c c c} \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2\\ -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2\\ -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2\\ \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 & \frac{5}2 & -\frac{5}2 \end{array}\right]\begin{Bmatrix} 4.352\\ 6.127\\ 0\\ 0\end{Bmatrix}= \begin{Bmatrix} f_1^{(2)}\\ f_2^{(2)}\\ f_3^{(2)}\\ f_4^{(2)}\end{Bmatrix}$$

Solving this system we get:

$$f_1^{(2)}=-4.438$$

$$f_2^{(2)}=4.438$$

$$f_3^{(2)}=4.438$$

$$f_4^{(2)}=-4.438$$

Alternate Method
Another method to solve the truss problem is by using statics. Since the system is statically indeterminate we should use the Euler Cut method. In the Euler Cut method, the global free body diagram can be cut at any point and into and dimensions that make the problem easier to solve.

Proof that P1 = P2
We are asked to prove that P1 = P2. From previous calculations we have a full FD calculation for element 1:

$$\begin{bmatrix} -0.5625 & -0.32476 \\ -0.32476 & -0.1875 \\ 0.5625 & 0.32476 \\ 0.32476 & 0.1875 \end{bmatrix}\begin{Bmatrix} 4.352 \\ 6.1271 \end{Bmatrix} = \begin{Bmatrix} -4.4378 \\ -2.5622 \\ 4.4378 \\ 2.5622 \end{Bmatrix} = \begin{Bmatrix} f_1^{(1)} \\ f_2^{(1)} \\ f_3^{(1)} \\ f_4^{(1)} \end{Bmatrix}$$

The root sum squared method can be used for the proof required. Generally the root sum squared equation is:

$$P_1^{(e)} = \sqrt{\left(f_1^{(e)}\right)^2 + \left(f_2^{(e)}\right)^2}$$

We can then expand that to our condition and create a system of equations for P1 and P2.

$$P_1^{(1)} = \sqrt{\left(f_1^{(1)}\right)^2 + \left(f_2^{(1)}\right)^2}$$

$$P_2^{(1)} = \sqrt{\left(f_3^{(1)}\right)^2 + \left(f_3^{(1)}\right)^2}$$

From the FD matrix we have values for all of the local forces used in this system so P1 and P2 can be calculated directly and their equality proven.

$$P_1^{(1)} = \sqrt{(-4.4378)^2 + (-2.5622)^2} = 5.1243$$

$$P_2^{(1)} = \sqrt{(4.4378)^2 + (2.5622)^2} = 5.1243$$

Derivation of $$\vec{\tilde{i}}\cdot\vec{j}$$
The definition of $$\vec{\tilde{i}}$$ given in the lecture notes is: $$\vec{\tilde{i}}=\cos\theta^{(e)}\vec{i}+\sin\theta^{(e)}\vec{j}$$

Taking the dot product of $$\vec{\tilde{i}}$$ and $$\vec{j}$$ yields: $$\vec{\tilde{i}}\cdot\vec{j}=\cos\theta^{(e)}\vec{i}\cdot\vec{j}+\sin\theta^{(e)}\vec{j}\cdot\vec{j}$$

By definition, $$\vec{i}\cdot\vec{j}$$ is equal to 0, and $$\vec{j}\cdot\vec{j}$$ is equal to 1. Using these relationships reduces the above equation to: $$\vec{\tilde{i}}\cdot\vec{j}=\sin\theta^{(e)}$$

Previously, the direction cosine $$m^{\left(e\right)}$$ was defined as $$ \cos \left(\frac{\pi }{2}-\theta ^{(e)}\right)$$, which is equivalent to $$\sin\theta^{\left(e\right)}$$. Thus the derived expression for $$\vec{\tilde{i}}\cdot\vec{j}$$ is: $$\vec{\tilde{i}}\cdot\vec{j}=m^{(e)}$$

Derivation of Element Stiffness Matrices
$$ \bar{k}^{(e)}= \begin{bmatrix} k_{11}^{(e)} & k_{12}^{(e)} & k_{13}^{(e)} & k_{14}^{(e)} \\ k_{21}^{(e)} & k_{22}^{(e)} & k_{23}^{(e)} & k_{24}^{(e)} \\ k_{31}^{(e)} & k_{32}^{(e)} & k_{33}^{(e)} & k_{34}^{(e)} \\ k_{41}^{(e)} & k_{42}^{(e)} & k_{43}^{(e)} & k_{44}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix}; e = 1,2 $$

For an elastic bar element:

$$ \bar{k}^{(e)}= K^{(e)} \begin{bmatrix} (l^{(e)})^2 & l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & -(l^{(e)})^2 & -l^{(e)}m^{(e)} \\ l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & (m^{(e)})^2 & -l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & -(m^{(e)})^2 \\ -(l^{(e)})^2 & -l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & (l^{(e)})^2 & l^{(e)}m^{(e)} \\ -l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & -(m^{(e)})^2 & l^{(e)}m^{(e)} & (m^{(e)})^2 \end{bmatrix}; K^{(e)} = \frac{E^{(e)}A^{(e)}}{L^{(e)}} $$

$$ l^{(e)} = \frac{(x_j-x_i)}{L^{(e)}}; m^{(e)} = \frac{(y_j-y_i)}{L^{(e)}} $$

Where x and y are the global coordinates of the nodes i and j at either end of the bar element.

Using MATLAB
Global coordinates of nodes:

nodes = [x1, y1; x2, y2; x3, y3];

>> nodes = [0, 0; 4*cos(pi/6) 4*sin(pi/6); 4*cos(pi/6)+2*cos(pi/4) 4*sin(pi/6)-2*sin(pi/4)]

nodes =

0           0       3.4641            2       4.8783      0.58579

Directional forces l and m: >> l_1 = (3.4641-0)/4

l_1 =

0.86603

>> m_1 = (2-0)/4

m_1 =

0.5

>> l_2 = (4.8783-3.4641)/2

l_2 =

0.7071

>> m_2 = (0.5858-2)/2

m_2 =

-0.7071

Elemental Stiffness Matrices: >> k_1 = 3*1/4*[l_1^2 l_1*m_1 -l_1^2 -l_1*m_1; l_1*m_1 m_1^2 -l_1*m_1 -m_1^2; -l_1^2 -l_1*m_1 l_1^2 l_1*m_1; -l_1*m_1 -m_1^2 l_1*m_1 m_1^2]

k_1 =

0.5625     0.32476      -0.5625     -0.32476      0.32476       0.1875     -0.32476      -0.1875      -0.5625     -0.32476       0.5625      0.32476     -0.32476      -0.1875      0.32476       0.1875

>> k_2 = 5*2/2*[l_2^2 l_2*m_2 -l_2^2 -l_2*m_2; l_2*m_2 m_2^2 -l_2*m_2 -m_2^2; -l_2^2 -l_2*m_2 l_2^2 l_2*m_2; -l_2*m_2 -m_2^2 l_2*m_2 m_2^2]

k_2 =

2.5        -2.5         -2.5          2.5         -2.5          2.5          2.5         -2.5         -2.5          2.5          2.5         -2.5          2.5         -2.5         -2.5          2.5

Node Equation Verification
The homework question on page 11-4 of the class notes asked the class to verify the node equation for the following node:

Using the laws of statics ($$\sum $$Fx = 0 and $$\sum $$Fy = 0) we know that sin(30) * p(1)1 must equal sin(45) * p(2)2. We also know that P must equal cos(30) * p(1)1 + cos(45) * p(2)2. These two equations simplify as follows:

$$(1/2)p^1_1 - (\sqrt(2)/2)p^2_2 = 0$$

$$(\sqrt(3)/2)p^1_1 + (\sqrt(2)/2)p^2_2 - P = 0$$

The force P is a known value therefore this is a system of two equations with two unknowns ($$p^1_1, p^2_2)$$. Solving for these unknowns in terms of P gives us:

$$p^1_1 = P/(1/2+\sqrt(3)/2)$$

$$p^2_2 = P/[\sqrt(2)(1/2+\sqrt(3)/2)]$$

MATLAB Code
The code below represents the program that calculates the displacements and reactions of the nodes of the system described above. The code utilizes three functions which are below the main code. The professor provided the main code while the three functions were copied from code provided by the online resources of the textbook

Two Bar Truss System.m
% Two bar truss example clear all; e = [3 5]; A = [1 2]; P = 7; L=[4 2]; alpha = pi/3; beta = pi/4;

nodes = [0, 0; L(1)*cos(pi/2-alpha), L(1)*sin(pi/2-alpha); L(1)*cos(pi/2-alpha)+L(2)*sin(beta),L(1)*sin(pi/2-alpha)-L(2)*cos(beta)];

dof=2*length(nodes);

conn=[1,2; 2,3]; lmm = [1, 2, 3, 4; 3, 4, 5, 6]; elems=size(lmm,1); K=zeros(dof); R = zeros(dof,1); debc = [1, 2, 5, 6]; ebcVals = zeros(length(debc),1);

%load vector R = zeros(dof,1); R(4) = P;

% Assemble global stiffness matrix K=zeros(dof); for i=1:elems lm=lmm(i,:); con=conn(i,:); k_local=e(i)*A(i)/L(i)*[1 -1; -1 1] k=PlaneTrussElement(e(i), A(i), nodes(con,:)) K(lm, lm) = K(lm, lm) + k; end K R % Nodal solution and reactions [d, reactions] = NodalSoln(K, R, debc, ebcVals) results=[]; for i=1:elems results = [results; PlaneTrussResults(e, A, ...           nodes(conn(i,:),:), d(lmm(i,:)))]; end format short g results

PlaneTrussElement.m
function k = PlaneTrussElement(e, A, coord) % PlaneTrussElement(e, A, coord) % Generates stiffness matrix for a plane truss element % e = modulus of elasticity % A = area of cross-section % coord = coordinates at the element ends

x1=coord(1,1); y1=coord(1,2); x2=coord(2,1); y2=coord(2,2); L=sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2); ls=(x2-x1)/L; ms=(y2-y1)/L; k = e*A/L*[ls^2, ls*ms,-ls^2,-ls*ms; ls*ms, ms^2,-ls*ms,-ms^2; -ls^2,-ls*ms,ls^2,ls*ms; -ls*ms,-ms^2,ls*ms,ms^2];

NodalSoln.m
function [d, rf] = NodalSoln(K, R, debc, ebcVals) % [nd, rf] = NodalSoln(K, R, debc, ebcVals) % Computes nodal solution and reactions % K = global coefficient matrix % R = global right hand side vector % debc = list of degrees of freedom with specified values % ebcVals = specified values dof = length(R); df = setdiff(1:dof, debc); Kf = K(df, df); Rf = R(df) - K(df, debc)*ebcVals; dfVals = Kf\Rf; d = zeros(dof,1); d(debc) = ebcVals; d(df) = dfVals; rf = K(debc,:)*d - R(debc);

Plane Truss Results.m
function results = PlaneTrussResults(e, A, coord, disps) % results = PlaneTrussResults(e, A, coord, disps) % Compute plane truss element results % e = modulus of elasticity % A = Area of cross-section % coord = coordinates at the element ends % disps = displacements at element ends % The output quantities are eps = axial strain % sigma = axial stress and force = axial force.

x1=coord(1,1); y1=coord(1,2); x2=coord(2,1); y2=coord(2,2); L=sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2); ls=(x2-x1)/L; ms=(y2-y1)/L; T=[ls,ms,0,0; 0,0,ls,ms]; d = T*disps; eps= (d(2)-d(1))/L; sigma = e.*eps; force = sigma.*A; results=[eps, sigma, force];

The output to the command window when the program is executed is shown below. The matrices k_local and k are the local and elemental stiffness matrices. The global stiffness matrix is K. The displacement matrix is d. The x and y reactions of global nodes 1 and 3 are shown in the reactions matrix. The results matrix is composed of a 2 by 1 and two 2 by 2 matrices concatenated together. The first column in results represents the strain for elements 1 and 2. The second and third columns represent the stress matrix of the elements where the diagonals are the correct values. The fourth and fifth columns represent the axial force matrix of the elements where, again, the diagonals are the correct values.

>> TwoBarTrussSystem

k_local =

0.7500  -0.7500   -0.7500    0.7500

k =

0.5625   0.3248   -0.5625   -0.3248    0.3248    0.1875   -0.3248   -0.1875   -0.5625   -0.3248    0.5625    0.3248   -0.3248   -0.1875    0.3248    0.1875

k_local =

5   -5    -5     5

k =

2.5000  -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000

K =

0.5625   0.3248   -0.5625   -0.3248         0         0    0.3248    0.1875   -0.3248   -0.1875         0         0   -0.5625   -0.3248    3.0625   -2.1752   -2.5000    2.5000   -0.3248   -0.1875   -2.1752    2.6875    2.5000   -2.5000         0         0   -2.5000    2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000         0         0    2.5000   -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000

R =

0    0     0     7     0     0

d =

0        0    4.3520    6.1271         0         0

reactions =

-4.4378  -2.5622    4.4378   -4.4378

results =

1.7081      5.1244       8.5406       5.1244       17.081       0.6276       1.8828        3.138       1.8828        6.276

Contributing Team Members
Aaron Fisher - Eml4500.f08.Lulz.fisher 18:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric Layton - Eml4500.f08.Lulz.Layton.Eric 17:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam Miorelli - Eml4500.f08.lulz.abcd 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Mitchell - Eml4500.f08.Lulz.mitchell.bm 17:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

John Saxon - Eml4500.f08.Lulz.js 16:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Strack - Eml4500.f08.lulz.strack 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User:Eml4500.f08.Lulz.Layton.Eric/Hw2


text: Wikiversity:Student union/Tab3

title: Wikiversity:Student union/Tab3


text: Wikiversity:Student union/Page3/box-header


text: Wikiversity:Student union/Page3/box-footer


text: Wikiversity:Student union/Page3/Tab2

title: Wikiversity:Student union/Page3/Tab2


text: Wikiversity:Student union/Page3

title: Wikiversity:Student union/Page3


text:
Wikiversity:Student union/Page3/Introduction

Any user who is taking part with the Student union project - please feel free to add your username to the Participant list, this is only optional but will easily identify who is a participant of the Student union project. Those who are helping maintaining the Student union pages please add your user name to the Maintenance list.


text:
Wikiversity:Student union/Page3/Participants

User's who are taking part with the project please add your user name below in this box.

 * User:JWSchmidt - I hope to have a chance to return to useful work after we complete the review.
 * The Jade Knight 06:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


text:
Wikiversity:Student union/Page3/Maintenance

User's who are maintaining the Student union pages please place your user name below.

 * DarkObsidian 17:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


text:
User:Eas4200c.f08.blue.a/Lecture 8

The motivation for this problem is that we are trying to study a box beam with a rectangular cross-section as a model for aerospace structures. These structures have a variety of applications in the aerospace industry such as in the fuselage and the wings, for example.

In continuation of problem 1.1, we left off on lecture 7 discussing the results of the Case 1 example. We saw that the strongest structure ended up having a height that was 3 times longer than it was wide.

Lecture 8 presented the idea of looking into the shear stress caused by Tmax(1). Where:

Recalling that we allow this equivalences due to Assumption 2. Furthermore:

Recalling that this is due to Assumption 3. As you can see, this is not acceptable.

The Mohr's Circle defines the region by which sigma and tau interact on this beam. Notice that tau is exactly half of sigma.

CASE 2:

Now, let's assume the maximum shear stress reaches the allowable shear stress first.

This is valid due to the assumption that there is a uniform stress distribution throughout the member.

It is clear to see that the only way to maximize T is by maximizing (ab), since thickness and allowable shear stress are fixed.

where (ab)max is the maximized value of (ab), which coincidentally is only when a=b=L/4

title: User:Eas4200c.f08.blue.a/Lecture 8


text:
9/8/08

 Mtg. 6; Monday 8, September 2008  EML 4500

2) Elem. Picture

3) Global Force Displacement (F.D.)

title: 9/8/08


text:
User:Cb genius~enwikiversity

Christinedagoo/aim.com From Wikiversity Jump to: navigation, search Cb genius 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No Pun Only For Comedy

As We Continue To Rest Ike Eisenhower

Ike Pulls Another Fast One

cb_genius As a matter of fact being the only potbellied creature with His Artifacts. I could and someday be red by someone who might say this cheese maker really has a fine shape. Yet, do not leave IT up to someone else to let you in, build your own leave IT in transmission and go on the get an go of life yes, become a lifer in educamation and discover the true true mesning of a NOMAD...WOW Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary TENTH ADDITION WOW - as described by a firm belever in the one and only SJ President--Cb genius 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)link title

title: User:Cb genius~enwikiversity


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.ateam.nobrega/hw 1

8/25/08
Dr. Vu-Quoc reviewed the class syllabus in detail. The topics that will be learned in the eml4500 include matrix algebra and its application to finite element solution, linear stability analysis of beam/truss structures, and construction of a FE code. He also intoduced the concept of collaborative learning; we will be working in teams throughout the semester to complete homework reports. Each team is responsible for summarizing each leacture and identifing confusing or ambiguous points discussed. All of the teams' input will be used by Dr. Vo-Quoc as feedback and address any underliying issues if necessary. Each student is reponsible for creating their own wikipedia account to complete their homework. I am confused about how to submit or post information on my wikipage. I am unfamiliar with the interface and controls.

8/27/08
Wikipedia is a free open-content encyclopedia. The articles are written by users and can be edited by anyone with a wikipedia account. For this reason, vandalism is a concern. However, if a students wokr is vandalized the previous version of the article is available in the history and can be restored quite easily. Also, an archived copy of the final collective assignment must be created and submitted to the professor and teachong assistants as to avoid problems with vandalism. Groups working on similar research can collaborate across the globe using the various wikipedia applications.

Trusses, Beams and Frames (Ch4)
Trusses are structural systems arranged to resist primarily axial forces. Beams are long slender members that are commonly subjected to normal loading with respect to their longitudinal axis; as a result, they must withstand shear and bending forces. Frames can be viewed as a hybrid between trusses and beams because they are meant to resist bending and axial forces. Consider a truss composed of two elastic (deformable) bars as shown in Figure 1. The bars are fixed (constrained to zero displacement) at the two ends shown and a known force P is applied at the joint of the two bars. By inspection one realizes that there are four reaction forces, one in the x direction and one in the y direction of each fixed end. However, only 3 equations can be formed with the given information. Thus, this problem is statically indeterminate.

Another method may be appropriate to solve this problem. First, inspect the system as a whole by drawing a global force body diagram (FBD). Then analyze each individual component by drawing bar element force body diagrams. These diagrams are featured below; the global FBD corresponds to Figure 2 and the FBDs of bar elements one and two are represented in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.

title: User:Eml4500.f08.ateam.nobrega/hw 1


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.ateam.nobrega/hw 2

It is important to note that the matrix, k(1), is symmetric along the diagonal. This means that values with interchangeable row and column indices are equal; for example, k(13) is equal to k(31) and k(12) is equivalent to k(21). Thus, only three values need to be computed. The remaining coefficients have the same absolute value and only differ by a positive or negative sign. In general, the transpose of matrix k(ij)(e) is equal to the original matrix.

The yellow highlighted portion of matrix k(1) is referred to as the upper triangular portion; whereas the lower triangular portion is not highlighted. The blue highlighted portion provides the line of symmetry.

Element 2:

$$ k^{(2)} = \frac{E^{(2)}A^{(2)}}{L^{(2)}} = 5(2)/2=5 $$

$$ \theta^{(2)} = -\frac{4} $$

$$ \theta = \cos{\frac{-\pi}{4}} = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4} $$

$$ m^{(e)} = \sin{\frac{-\pi}{4}} = -\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} $$ $$ k^{(2)} = k_{(ij)}^{(e)} $$

$$ K_{(11)}^{(2)} = K^{(1)} \cdot (l^{(1)})^{2} $$

Observations:

1) The absolute values of all coefficients k(ij)(e), e=2 (I,j) =1,…,4 are the same =>  compute1 coefficient For other coefficients the corresponding sign (positive or negative).

2) (k(2))^T = k(2) . Thus k(2) is symmetric.

Elem. FD rel: [k(e)][d(e)]= [F(e)] $$ d^{(e)} = \begin{bmatrix} d_{(1)}^{(e)}\\ d_{(2)}^{(e)}\\ d_{(3)}^{(e)}\\ d_{(4)}^{(e)}\\ \end{bmatrix} F^{(e)} = \begin{bmatrix} F_{(1)}^{(e)}\\ F_{(2)}^{(e)}\\ F_{(3)}^{(e)}\\ F_{(4)}^{(e)}\\ \end{bmatrix} $$ The column matrices d and F are both 4x1.

The global FD relation is [K][d] = [F], where K is an nxn matrix, d is an nx1 matrix and F is a nx1. In the example provided n is equal to six. Professor Vu-Quoc also mentioned a book titled "The Dragons of Eden" by [| Carl Sagan].

title: User:Eml4500.f08.ateam.nobrega/hw 2


text:
Wikiversity:Fair use

What is Fair use?
See Fair use

About
Currently this page is setup to help develop a clear, easy to read and understandable offical Fair use policy.

Current progress

 * learning resource about Fair use
 * wv:Uploading_files#Fair_use_considerations

Wikimedia foundation rules

 * Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)

A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status. See for full explanation meta:Resolution:Licensing_policy

title: Wikiversity:Fair use


text:
User:JWSchmidt/Blog/16 September 2008

How I came to know MoultonI became aware of Moulton on or about 4 August 2008, even though he came to Wikiversity on 8 July 2008. Since then I have been gradually learning about Moulton's editing history at Wikipedia. When I first saw Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia I linked it to an existing Wikiversity topic, Topic:Wikipedia studies. At that time I did not have any knowledge of Moulton's editing history at Wikipedia. As someone who has been learning about that editing history during the past few weeks and who has had a chance to spend long happy hours with Moulton in conversation and collaborative learning I hope to be able to help the Wikiversity community understand him. This exercise is important because many participants at Wikiversity and Wikipedia have not had a chance to get to know Moulton, so there is a significant amount of confusion about his motivations. Of course, my understanding is limited, so I look forward to the day when he can once again collaborate with me in editing Wikiversity pages such as this one.

Moulton's road to Wikiversity began long ago when he became enchanted by the power of online learning communities. That was before the World Wide Web. Moulton has spent years working in and studying online communities and he is an unequaled resource for Wikiversity. Moulton came to Wikiversity along the same path that I did, by way of Wikipedia. While I was able to have many positive experiences at Wikipedia, Moulton fell into one of Wikipedia's notorious black holes of POV-pushing and page ownership. Tragically, this black hole included biographies of living persons.

Biographies of living persons
The intersection of Moulton with Wikipedia biographies of living persons is an interesting case study related to the larger problem of achieving accuracy in Wikipedia articles. By understanding what happened to Moulton we might be able to improve Wikipedia. The basic problem is that anyone can start a biographical Wikipedia article and write it in a biased way that does not follow the Wikipedia rules that are designed to lead to the creation of fair and balanced biographies of notable people. The additional problem is that some of Wikipedia's biased biographies are created and owned by editors who are pushing a particular agenda. Moulton crossed paths with some persistent editors who behaved as if they owned a set of biographical articles and could use those articles as part of a protracted edit war that is roughly centered on the Creation-evolution controversy.

The  Biography
 is Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at a major university. She holds Doctor of Science and Master of Science degrees from a major university and a Bachelor of Science degree from a major university. She has been a member of the faculty at  since 1991 and a full professor since 2005.

With over a quarter of a million biographies, Wikipedia has many biographical articles about university professors. In 1997, Dr.  published an important book in an innovative branch of Computer Science. One might guess that her Wikipedia biography would have been started in order to describe her scientific research and seminal contributions, however, that is not the case.

On Feb. 21, 2006, The New York Times published "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition" by Kenneth Chang. The petition comprised a two-sentence statement, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Dr.  was one of a group of 105 scientists, researchers, and academics who agreed with this statement when it was circulated (in E-Mail) in academia in 2001.

On March 8, 2006 the Wikipedia  biography article about Dr.  was started by a Wikipedia editor who copied the online Faculty Profile of Dr. . In addition to the copied Faculty Profile, the Wikipedia article included a section called, "Intelligent Design Support". Based on the edits of the creator of this BLP, it is clear that the purpose of this editor was to create an article that labels Dr.  as a supporter of Intelligent Design and as "anti-evolution". The Wikipedia user account "" that was used to create this BLP was a single purpose account, used only to push into Wikipedia the claim that Dr.  is anti-evolution and a supporter of Intelligent Design. Note that person editing as "" is an experienced wiki editor who decided to use a "throw-away account" in order to make a biographical article that violates the Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons, which reads in part: "Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing a point of view, ask for credible third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

Dr.  agreed with this statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." This is a reasonable statement for a skeptical scientist to make.

Evolution
There has been a long-lasting struggle at Wikipedia over articles related to evolution and intelligent design. Intelligent design-advocates can cause problems on Wikipedia and that can lead to "a response" from Wikipedians who oppose the goals of the intelligent design movement. It is a fundamental human problem that when we "come under attack" we get upset and often start fighting back. However, the rules of Wikipedia basically say, "stay calm, stay polite, listen to well-intentioned complaints from other people even if you think the complaints are misguided". During conflicts that exist at the boundary between religion and science there is a problem in how language serves our needs. Scientists and non-scientists do not share a common set of definitions for terms such as "evolution". Important words mean different things to scientists and to non-scientists. This means that scientists and non-scientists are constantly talking past each other and not understanding each other. So, Wikipedians who are editing at the boundary between science and religion need to be aware of this, they need to be mature and recognize the problem, and they need to make a special effort to understand what they hear and they need to do their "work" at Wikipedia with constant attention to the goal of making sure that all points of view are heard and fairly presented by Wikipedia.

Most scientists would probably agree that: "the vast (vast) majority of scientific opinion supports evolution". For most people, the term "evolution" (when used in its biological context) is treated synonymously with 'darwinian natural selection'. However, typical dictionary definitions of "evolution" do not mention "natural selection" at all when giving the meaning of "evolution" (example, my dictionary is The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language from 1978, see also this). The Wikipedia article on Evolution correctly makes a distinction between the terms "evolution" and "natural selection". The distinction is that natural selection is a mechanism or process that can play an important role in the way many types of evolutionary change take place. Further, scientists who study evolution know that natural selection is not the only process that is important for the evolution of life. So for a scientist to say,1) "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

in no way contradicts or conflicts with

2) "the vast (vast) majority of scientific opinion supports evolution".

Do you see the distinction? Many scientists study other mechanisms of evolution besides natural selection. Darwinian natural selection only deals with how a biological species can transform into a new species. Many people who study the complexity of life study molecular evolution and the transition of molecules to the living state (abiogenesis), a transition that involved the evolution of molecular complexity before there ever was a "species" that could be subjected to Darwinian natural selection. Anyhow, the bottom line is that some Wikipedian's jumped to the conclusion that anyone who agrees with statement #1 (above) is a friend of the Discovery Institute and their methods and their goals. That's false and and it has been a long bloody struggle to try to root this misconception out of Wikipedia. Much of the blood was Moulton's.

Original research at Wikipedia
Wikipedia's policy No original research is designed to keep out of Wikipedia novel conclusions that cannot be supported by previously published reliable sources. As discussed above, some Wikipedia editors created a novel idea and pushed it into Wikipedia. One Wikipedian wrote that he viewed Picard's agreement with the two sentence statement ("We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.") as "anti-science". This was all part of a justification for not allowing the <self-censored page name> article to be corrected and for trying to ignore Moulton's attempt to fix the negative bias in the article. Of course, it is not easy to put an "anti-science" label on professional scientists, so the editors trying to label Dr. <self-censored name> as anti-science have generally satisfied themselves with trying to place terms such as "anti-evolution" and "Darwin dissenter" and "intelligent design support" on her bio as many times as possible. This effort to mis-lable Dr. <self-censored name>'s views has persisted over a long period of time at Wikipedia. (Update: still continuing as of July, 2010)

Here is an example that I helped correct recently: "She is dismissive of scientific reductionism" was added to Dr. <self-censored name>'s BLP. However, scientific reductionism was not mentioned in the article cited to support this statement. The phrase, "She is dismissive of scientific reductionism" is an imagined interpretation of Dr. <self-censored name>'s thinking. The contorted "reasoning" used to support adding this claim to the <self-censored page name> article was given on the article's talk page and makes interesting reading because it illustrates the lengths that Wikipedia editors went to in order to depict Dr. <self-censored name> as anti-science. In the context of the editing history of this Wikipedia page, this contorted "reasoning" can be seen as just one attempt in a long series to depict <self-censored name> as anti-science. The <self-censored name> biography has gotten much better as more Wikipedians have paid attention to the problem, and some of <self-censored name>'s actual views on intelligent design are now included. Her actual views confirm the validity of Moulton's original complaint about the negative bias that was in the BLP when he first found it.

So this is the mess that Moulton walked into at Wikipedia. When he tried to fix Wikipedia's bias, he ended up getting indefinitely blocked. Rather than being welcomed to help get Wikipedia BLPs right, Moulton was actively opposed by other editors working to use BLPs as a way to put a false negative label on people. I believe that Moulton came away with a desire to change Wikipedia so that anonymous editors are not free to put false information into BLPs.

The Wikipedia community is struggling to find ways to prevent bias in biographies of living persons. I've been trying to use the "Moulton Case Study" as a way to start thinking about possible modifications to the way biographies of living persons are edited at Wikipedia. Can we find ways to prevent bad situations such as what Moulton fell into? Should we "just say no" to editing of biographies of living persons by anonymous editors? If editors such as the anonymous editor who first created the <self-censored page name> article were not able to edit anonymously, would Wikipedia have fewer problems? I think Moulton feels that it is a fundamental error to allow people to anonymously edit biographies of living persons. This stance has lead Moulton into a study of the real life identities of wiki editors that is not welcome within the Wikimedia Foundation. So while I think Moulton could make real contributions and help improve things by "working from inside" Wikimedia, his interest in real life identities of wiki editors makes it impossible for him to merge into WMF wiki communities. I still hope Moulton will give up his interest in real life identities of wiki editors and help Wikimedians improve our wiki communities.

Original Research at Wikiversity
For me, my experiment with an "on-wiki" analysis of a problematical Wikipedia biography of a living person has been an interesting learning experience. My approach to studying topics is to adopt working hypotheses and then try to find evidence that will disprove those hypotheses. I got started reading the history of the <self-censored page name> biographical article at Wikipedia and started keeping notes on a user subpage here at Wikiversity. My notes then got moved into the main namespace. A major limitation on my investigation was that I was working in isolation from the editors I was reading about. Things got slightly better when user "Salmon of Doubt" started participating and functioned to help balance Moulton's perspective. Other Wikipedian's were invited to participate, but I think only one other Wikipedian has come over to help. Given the difficulty in getting good participation, I'm not sure that such "in wiki" investigations are worth while. It would only really work if we could get all the involved editors to come help sort out what happened in a case like the <self-censored page name> biography. My main research method (looking at edit histories) just hits too many mysteries....human input from the editors is needed. Much of the <self-censored page name> biographical page editing is over a year old and people forget what they were thinking at the time. So we have "page history" but the real history is being lost. It is hard to learn and reconstruct a coherent narrative from just the page history. Also, I have no training in this sort of thing anyhow, so its silly for me to think I can really figure out what went on a year or two ago at Wikipedia. These sorts of problems make it hard for the Wikimedia community to learn from its past failings. Maybe if people like me bumble around for a while it will attract the attention of the people who can actually make this kind of "Wikipedia Studies" project work. still, its disappointing how few Wikipedians could be induced to come help. I guess most people just know right from the start that this kind of study project is not likely to pay big dividends. Experienced wiki watchers like Jimbo probably have an intuition for these things. The most experienced wiki-watchers are probably too busy to have time for joining in and offering guidance at Wikiversity.

It was suggested that Wikiversity can both study Wikipedia and impose "an explicit ban on 'case studies' using real examples of non-notable people, in exchange for hypotheticals." I wish this proposal could be clarified. Some people have interpreted this to mean that Wikiversity participants cannot discuss problems in the Dr. <self-censored name> biography. I think this means that people will have to do their research off wiki and then express their research results in terms of hypotheticals. The problem with this approach is that hypotheticals do not provide the sense of urgency that can be generated by actual real-world examples. If we only generate hypotheticals, people yawn, nothing changes and Wikipedia continues to have biased BLPs. I thought we were supposed to do all we can to make sure we get BLPs right, but apparently there are higher priorities related to not upsetting some Wikipedians. This seems to put the interests of some Wikipedians ahead of the need to get BLPs right. In my view, this raises serious questions about the ethical foundations of Wikipedia. Are we, as Wikipedians, more interested in ourselves than the people we harm with our bad BLPs? I think this is the kind of question that motivates Moulton to study Wikimedia and push for change.

title: User:JWSchmidt/Blog/16 September 2008


text:
Architectural engineering

An architectural engineer applies the skills of many engineering disciplines to the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and renovation of buildings while paying attention to their impacts on the surrounding environment. In countries such as Canada, the UK and Australia, architectural engineering is more commonly known as Building engineering, building systems engineering, or building services engineering. In some languages, such as Korean, "architect" is literally translated as "architectural engineer".

With the establishment of a separate NCEES Professional Engineering registration examination in the 1990s, architectural engineering is now recognized as a distinct engineering discipline in the United States. But many practicing 'architectural engineers' hold degrees or registration in civil, mechanical, electrical, or another engineering field and become architectural engineers via experience. Conversely, many degree-holding architectural engineers have professional registration in civil or mechanical engineering, for example. The number of architectural engineering degree programs is increasing, but demand far exceeds the availability in the U.S., especially on the East and West Coasts, and in the South. Note that "architectural engineering technology" is different from architectural engineering.

Difference from architecture
A common confusion is the distinction between architecture and architectural engineering. In essence, architectural engineering is the engineering discipline for the analysis, design, and construction of building systems. Architects are directly responsible for the form and appearance of a building, including the way in which people use and experience the spaces of the building. Architects traditionally act as the leader of the design team, and are thus known as the 'prime professional'. They coordinate the efforts of the various engineering and other design consultants for building projects.

Before about 1975, architectural engineering graduates in the U.S. typically went to work as 'technical architects'. Since that time architectural engineering defined itself as consulting engineers for buildings. Architectural engineers thus concentrate on ensuring that "the buildings work", e.g., that they stand up, that the HVAC systems operate well, that light and electrical power are delivered safely and as needed, and that fire safety is addressed.

By the 1950's, there were approximately 60 architectural engineering degree programs in the U.S. However, as architecture split from engineering -- most architecture programs were in engineering schools -- many architectural engineering programs lost institutional support. But from a low of eight programs in the early 1980's, and with the redefinition of the discipline as 'engineers for building systems', architectural engineering education is experiencing significant growth. Demand for admission to the programs, and quality of applicants, is very high. The academic honor society for architectural engineering is Phi Alpha Epsilon.

The Architectural Engineer
Architectural engineers' roles can overlap with that of the architect and other project engineers. Like architects, they seek to achieve optimal designs within the overall constraints, except using primarily the tools of engineering rather than architecture. In most parts of the world, architectural engineers are not entitled to practice architecture unless they are also licensed as architects. In some juristictions, registered professional architectural engineers are limited, by virtue of the exams taken, to practicing only one or more of the component areas of building engineering practice such as mechanical (HVAC/plumbing/etc.), electrical, structural, or fire protection.

In recent years there has been increasing emphasis on sustainable and green design, including in engineered building systems. Architectural engineers increasingly seek LEED ((R) USGBC) Accredited Design Professional (LADP) status in addition to their Professional Engineering registration.

Potential Careers

 * Consulting Engineer/Design Engineer/Designer. An Engineer, usually a Professional Engineer, or if early in his or her career, an Engineer-in-Training that designs and specifies building systems, analyses problems, or optimizes conditions, for example.  Typically employed by, or owner of, a consulting engineering firm, but also commonly in an A/E (architectural and engineering services) firm.

 * Plant/Facilities Engineer. The owner's management liaison person interacting with architects, contractors, and engineers in the design and construction of remodeling, additions, and new facilities. Manages and develops such programs within the plant as energy conservation, preventative maintenance, and retrofits.

 * Sales/Applications Engineer. Provides technical advice and application of their representative products to the building industry's architects, engineers, and constructors.

 * Construction Project Manager. Manages the construction of a building project.  Responsibilities include the scheduling of labor trades, material, and equipment for the most economical and expeditious construction of buildings.

 * Construction Estimator. The estimator is responsible for the takeoff material, type of labor, and equipment, and calculating the cost for the construction project plus preparing the necessary documents for the estimate.

 * Structural Engineer. Analyzes, calculates, and selects systems and components for various structures.  Graduates are employed within the building industry, but also in other structural areas.  Graduate study, and additional registration exams in structural engineering are recommended.

 * Electrical Systems Engineer. Designs and specifies electrical power, lighting, and communication systems for buildings. Employed in an electrical consulting design office or in electrical design-construction offices. Other responsibilities may be preparing specifications and cost estimates.

 * Electrical Utility Engineer. Coordinates new building construction with building owners, design engineers, and contractors, and educates customers on conservation and cost saving opportunities while optimizing the loads on the utility.

 * Building Inspector. Employed by a public agency. Responsible for the public interest to inspect building projects for code compliance.

 * Fire Safety/Protection Engineer. Designs various types of fire protection systems within the building. Systems include sprinkler, chemical suppression, smoke control, and detection devices.

 * Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Engineer. Designs the HVAC systems and prepares the specifications.

 * Plumbing Engineer. Designs the potable water, process fluids, and wastewater systems for the buildings.

 * Professor/Researcher. Teaches and performs research and service.  Typically requires completion of a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in engineering degree.

title: Architectural engineering


text:
Hebrew Study Guide

This study guide is intended for use in learning Hebrew for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of Scripture. Below find links to helpful resources.

Lots of helpful resources are located at http://www.hebrew4christians.com/ Hebrew Alphabet: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet/aleph-bet.html an alphabet song with flashcards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCzoTs1AdE

Hebrew lessons in Wikiversity.

Vowels:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Two/Vowel_List/vowel_list.html http://www.akhlah.com/coloring/hebrew_vowels.html an easy way to remember some of the vowel sounds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUwOa5aBidA Pronunciation: a page showing pronunciation http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/tan/psa119.htm#008

title: Hebrew Study Guide


text:
Talk:Nursing Study Guide/Nutritional Issues

Help! saw the boxes, one asking for a category, another saying Please help by choosing project boxes to classify this resource by: subject, educational level, and resource type.

I don't know the official way to go about categorizing it and giving it the designations above, but it is intended to be a study guide for nursing students seeking to become RNs; the subject would be nursing, educational level for Associate of Science level, and resource type would be study guide.

If someone can add in those categories and/or designations, I'd appreciate the help.

Regards, MaryAnninMiami


text:
User talk:Geonautika

Welcome
 Hello Geonautika, 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.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geonautika


text:
User talk:Michaelmuffin

 Hello Michaelmuffin, 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.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Gbaor 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Michaelmuffin


text:
User:Privatemusings/EthicsSandbox

My Sandbox for work on the Ethics Project
I'm working away here to try and collect my thoughts, as well as allow some space for discussion before moving into project space when it feels right (in a week, a month, or whenever!) - please do feel free to create sub-pages, or comment on the discussion page - or edit anything at all except the 1st person stuff :-) thanks for coming and taking a look :-) Privatemusings 03:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My perspective in an IRC nutshell
being an excerpt from another misspent hour on IRC :-)

I bang on all the time about the tensions between rules and principles...

with 'rules' being analogous to wiki policies

I've seen many people write about how important it is to understand the various policies....

but I don't think it is at all!

It's far (far) more important to understand the principles behind them - and I see the 'ethics' project as examining and discussing those tensions, and seeking out 'better practice' where poss.....

(in fact I'm gonna copy this little rant into my sandbox :-) )

Grounding
Amongst some friends, we have a shorthand saying 'UDA' - by which we mean 'usual disclaimer applies' (it applies to everything). 'UDA' can be shortened to "I'm an idiot", but here's a slightly longer 'Usual Disclaimer', and some guidelines;

Usual Disclaimer
I have great faith in wiki editors as a group of people - and sincerely believe that in almost all cases, people act in the best of faith, and do what they think is 'right'. People give and take many different things from their wiki experience, but we're all here as humans, and as volunteers, and as such we deserve respect. The project also deserves respect, and respect does not preclude criticism, though demands courtesy. I enjoy sharing, and intend to share, my ideas and thoughts about a wide range of wiki related stuff, but that's all they are really... words on a screen.. one chap's thoughts - pull up a chair if you'd like to talk about it....

Guidelines

 * I will not publish or forward emails, or private chat logs anywhere, ever.
 * I will not share information submitted in confidence to me with anyone, ever.
 * I will remain open to discussion at all times, and I'm happy to pause any course of action whatsoever pending discussion - just ask.

CoI / Outing tension
pseudonymous identities are regularly discussed in some contexts....
 * COI / Outing / BLP thing again
 * and again.......

Questions
I wrote some of these up ages ago and called some of them 'unanswerable questions' - mileage varies on whether or not I'm right ;-)

 * Is it within policy to discuss the real name of a pseudonymous editor?
 * Is policy prescriptive or descriptive?
 * Is Wikimedia doing as much as it should to prevent defamation?

email and ethics
/me gets all wanna-be Socratic...
 * Should email be private?
 * Does that mean one shouldn't forward it without permission?
 * Is it ethical to forward email to arbcom?

Stuff 'on my radar' as possibly relevant to an 'ethics' project

 * Discussions of competence - how to assess competence (ie. editor competence, admin competence etc.) ethically and responsibly - including analysis of systemic competencies (eg. Dispute resolution, OTRS etc.)
 * 'Vested Contributors' and 'Outsiders' - inherent dangers therein
 * Authority and the Wiki - the effect (and effectiveness) of blocks, bans, 'power' (trump cards)
 * BLP Issues
 * Moral / Ethical obligations of editors?
 * Moral / Ethical obligations of admin.s?
 * Moral / Ethical obligations of the 'wiki' as a whole (Wikipedia, Wikimedia etc.)

 * Wikipedia as Cult - how effectively do we prevent 'thought crime' etc. from existing?
 * Community Health in the big picture
 * is wiki actually just dead set bad for many?
 * Guidelines for the young re : editing time etc. ?
 * Culture Clashes? - pornography, profanity, etc.

 * Conflation of dissent / disruption - does it happen?
 * Disruption and ethics - do 'rights and wrongs' matter in dealing with disruption?

Pages / resources
/casestudy

title: User:Privatemusings/EthicsSandbox


text:
User:Privatemusings/EthicsSandbox/casestudy

An aspect of the 'Privatemusings' case - 'Privileged' information and competing priorities
This area could include discussions of checkuser information, cross-wiki identity issues, and the use of email

Privatemusings' Alternate accounts
As the author, and protagonist in this situation, it's possible that unintended biases are unavoidable. As such, I would appreciate vigorous editing of the below to present everything as neutrally as possible. I'd be happy to remove this 'disclaimer' should a strong consensus to do so evolve. Equally, do let me know if you feel this is inappropriate or wrong for any reason. Feel free to remove the whole lot, and we can talk about it, if you'd prefer. Here's some background too.

w:User:Privatemusings was, in late 2007, a self declared 'sockpuppet' account at Wikipedia, meaning that the human behind the account also edited Wikipedia using other usernames. Editing by this account in a contentious area of policy debate was considered disruptive, and some administrators requested information concerning the identity of alternate accounts. This was provided via email, which you can review here.

The information contained in this email was shared amongst various senior wiki administrators, apparently including arbitrators and Jimbo. Privatemusings asserted, and continues to assert, that this was unethical behaviour. When this matter was before the English Wikipedia's Arbitration committee, no comment was made.

 * Question: Was it ethical, in these circumstances, to share private emails without the author's consent?

Same story, another perspective
w:User:Privatemusings was, in late 2007 an abusive sockpuppeteer, meaning he broke site policies by creating 8 separate identities. This behaviour can cause severe disruption, and in particular, sock puppet accounts have always been prohibited from working in policy space. This was later confirmed by the Arbitration Committee, the body empowered by the foundation to consider such matters, which also handed down a 3 month ban and an indefinite restriction on Privatemusings working on biographies, where his editing was also extremely problematic.

As problems began to develop, administrators active in the area asked Privatemusings to identify his alternative accounts, and despite him doing so, he continued to cause disruption, as evidenced by several heated discussions on the administrators noticeboards.

The central task of a wiki administrator is to maintain the smooth running of the site, in order to build the best encyclopedia possible, a task which may involving blocking or banning disruptive users. An administrator who had received note of Privatemusings' alternative accounts felt that he was using them in a way clearly contrary to policy, and clearly not in the best interest of the project. It was important to clearly assess the needs of the project at this point, which included asking for advice from several arbcom members, and the co-founder of Wikipedia. Every recipient of this information felt that this was disruptive behaviour, clearly disallowed under policy, Again this was quickly confirmed by the arbcom in the case which followed shortly thereafter.

 * Question: Was it ethical, in these circumstances, to share information concerning the multiple accounts used, in order to minimise disruption, and maintain policy compliance?


text:
User:Ravindran rao

i am a very good looking handsome guy

title: User:Ravindran rao