text:
ExtraDix

The sorting algorithm ExtraDix is an extension of the well-known RadixSort (hence its name Extended raDix). It is not based on comparing key values, it is stable and sorts indirectly by first calculating the correct sorting order and only then moving the data records. The algorithm is very fast, there is no best case nor worst case as regards timing, the time necessary for sorting increases directly and in linear fashion with the number of records and the algorithm can be used for all basic data types. A pseudo-code and a C-version were put under GPL and can be downloaded from SourceForge.

How it works
RadixSort was originally used to sort punched cards. When sorting punched cards RadixSort uses 10 different symbols, the numbers from 0 to 9. The punched card sorting machine was first adjusted to sort by the least significant digit and would distribute the punched cards into the 10 appropriate buckets numbered 0 to 9. Into each bucket went all the cards having that digit at this particular position in the key - in their original order. After finishing the first pass, the complete stack was collected again starting with bucket number zero and keeping the cards in the order in which they were put into the bucket. Then the sorting machine was adjusted to sort on the second last digit and the sorting was repeated. This adjusting, sorting and collecting was repeated until all the punched cards were in correct sorting order.

ExtraDix works with the 256 different symbols that can be represented by a single byte.

ExtraDix produces a 'logical' sort simply because the interpretation of such a byte is done using a list (such as the extended ASCII-code when dealing with strings) and the sorting of this list follows directly the binary numbering. For instance, when sorting strings, if the actual byte consists of the digit zero, then the record goes into bucket number 48; if it is an 'A', the record goes into bucket 65. The algorithm does not take into account what might be meant by the contents, it is simply a number between zero and 255. The same applies to the bytes of long integers or float numbers.

ExtraDix eliminates the difference between data and address since the value of the actual byte in the key is automatically also the address of the destination bucket.

Normally the sorting key will consist of more than one byte. When processing just one byte of the keys of all records this is called a sorting sequence and processing all the bytes of all the keys is called a sorting process. When sorting by unsigned integer, which is normally composed of four bytes, there will be four sorting sequence for the whole sorting process.

The simulated sorting machine
For the realisation of the algorithm a sorting machine with 256 buckets is simulated. Since the data records have to be collected exactly in the order they were distributed to the buckets, FIFOs are used.

If, for example, 1.000 records were to be sorted, it would be wasteful to format 256 FIFOs with 1.000 elements in each; since one can not know beforehand how many records will go into any particular bucket, one would have to allow for the worst posibility for every one of them. This problem is eliminated by using a central administration for all FIFOs and they share the space for storing 1.000 elements. When a sorting process is started, memory for storing all the necessary elements is requested from the operating system.

Originally in Radixsort, for any byte of the key the complete data record / punched card was moved. With random access to the input data this is not necessary any more. It is enough to store the position of the record in the FIFO. In which FIFO the record number has to go is simply determined by the value of the byte in the key at the actual sorting position.

Internally the FIFOs are organized as linked lists and the administration of these lists is done by help of an array in which pointers to the first element and to the last element of the individual FIFOs are stored. The content of the FIFO elements are the record numbers of the input data and a pointer to the next element within the same FIFO. In this way a very simple and fast handling of the FIFOs is achieved.

With Radixsort after each sorting sequence all the data records are collected in order to form a new stack that will feed into the next sorting sequence. Since for a simulated sorting machine only a relatively small amount of memory is needed, ExtraDix works with two sets of FIFOs. When collecting the references to the data records from one set of FIFOs, this information is directly sorted into the other set of FIFOs. These sets of FIFOs, representing the buckets, are used alternately.

Sorting unsigned integers
On Personal Computers unsigned integers are represented by four bytes; the first byte is the least significant and the fourth byte has the highest significance. ExtraDix starts with the least significant byte, i.e. the first one.

When starting a sorting process all the references to the data records are stored in the first FIFO of the second set, making the data in their original order available for the first sorting sequence.

In the first sorting sequence the first byte of every key is processed. During such a sequence all the FIFOs of the other set are emptied, starting with FIFO number zero up to FIFO number 255. When reading from a FIFO we get the number of the data record in the input data. Using this number, a pointer to the key in the data record is computed and the content of the byte at the sorting position gives the number of the FIFO where the reference to the data record shall go, which is identical with the index in the FIFO-administration.

After three more sorting sequences the correct sort is known. Now the references to the data records have to be collected from the FIFOs by reading the record numbers from them; moving the data records in this order to the target array gives the desired result. With a little bit more effort (two integer arrays to remember the new position when a data record had to be swapped because its space was needed to store a result) the records can be sorted at the original location as well.

Every byte of the sorting keys is processed exactly once. The time needed for processing each of these bytes is exactly the same for any other record. So the time needed for a sorting process increases in a linear fashion with the number of records to be sorted.

Sorting unsigned integer with one, two or eight bytes is done in a similar fashion.

Sorting signed integers
When sorting signed integers the sorting process has to be modified slightly. For the bytes without a sign bit everything stays as before. When reaching the highest byte a little trick is used. We add 128 to this byte and ignore the carry. The result is that the most negative number is pushed up to zero and the positive numbers start at 128; the sorting order is preserved and thats all we need.

Timewise there is no difference between sorting signed and unsigned integers.

Sorting byte sequences
The convention with byte sequences and strings is that the first byte is the most significant one. ExtraDix starts sorting with the least significant byte which is the last one. Al sequences have to have the same length.

Again every byte of the keys is only handled once and the time needed increases in a linear fashion equal to the number of records to be sorted.

Sorting strings
In C/C++ a string is terminated with a binary zero; behind this byte the rest of the byte sequence could be filled with random data. If strings are sorted with the function for sorting sequences, it could happen that the sorting appears unstable; this is due to the fact that the records were sorted by random data.

When storing strings like names in a table, the space for storing them is normally much bigger than the average length of the strings. When using the the function for sorting by sequences for sorting strings, a lot of time is used for handling random data in the trailing bytes of the string. In order to speed up the sorting of strings an additional variant was implemented which can be used for strings up to 255 characters.

All the data records are first sorted by length. For this an additional register is used. During the sort, before reading from the other register, it is checked whether there are strings which now have to be sorted by their last character. If so, the references to these records are sorted to the other register, before the actual register is emptied. By doing it in this way it is simulated that these records had been sorted by zero-bytes during all the previous sequences; the stability is preserved.

Lets say the space for containing the strings is 24 bytes long and the average string is only 6 bytes long. In this case 75% of the sorting operations were senseless when using the method for byte sequences. In the variant for strings there is one sorting sequence for sorting by length and the other activities sum up as if all the strings had the average length. If the space for storing strings is much bigger than the average string length, the difference can be considerable.

Sorting floating-point and double numbers
In IEEE P754 a float with 32 bits is defined as follows

MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM MMMMMMME EEEEEEES +++++  0        8        16       24     31

where M stands for mantissa, E for exponent and S for the sign-bit. And a double with 64 bits has this definition:

MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM MMMMEEEE EEEEEEES +++++++++  0        8        16       24       32       40       48       56     63

When sorting integers it was only necessary to consider the sign-bit when handling the most significant byte. Since the numerical representation of floats and doubles differs, the sign bit has to be taken into account with every byte of a key.

On the other hand it is not necessary to distinguish between mantissa and exponent. This is because the mantissa is normalized; the decimal equivalent is to move the point to the left -and increasing the exponent- until one has something like 0.xxxx * 10yy. If we make a bitwise BucketSort starting with the least significant bit, the actual bit will always have a higher significance than the bit before, no matter whether it is a bit of the mantissa or of the exponent. The only exception is again the sign-bit. Normally a binary 1 is bigger that a binary 0, but with the sign-bit it is different. Therefore the byte with the highest significance has to be handled twice. Read on for an explanation as to why.

Sorting floats
First we have four sorting sequences. In each of these sequences the sign of a number is evaluated; if the sign-bit is 1, the numbering of the buckets is inverted. When handling byte number four the sort is done including the sign-bit but its influence can be ignored. Afterwards we have a sort by the sign-bit. For sorting by 32-bit floats we need 5 sorting sequences.

Sorting doubles
First we have eight sorting sequences. In each of these sequences the sign of the number is evaluated; if the sign-bit is 1, then the numbering of the buckets is inverted. When handling byte number eight the sort is done including the sign-bit but its influence can be ignored. Afterwards we have a sort by the sign-bit. For sorting by 64-bit doubles we need 9 sorting sequences.

Memory required
For the sorting process two FIFO sets are needed. Each FIFO administration has exactly 256 elements and each element has two integers, namely the pointers to the first and to the last entry. Normally integers have 4 bytes so that each FIFO administration needs 2k Bytes and for two FIFO administration 4k Bytes are necessary, no matter how many data records have to be sorted.

Every element of a FIFO consists of the original position of the data record and the link to the next element of the same FIFO. Any of these elements has 8 bytes; since two sets of FIFOs are used the necessary memory comes to S = n * 16 bytes where n is the number of data records to be sorted.

If the result of a sort has to be stored at the same location as the data input, then two integer arrays of length n are needed to remember where a record was stored when its space was needed for the result, and space for intermediate storage of one data record.

In total the memory needs of ExtraDix are aproximately S = 4k + n * 24, which is moderate.

Time needed to sort data with ExtraDix
Before every sort sequence the FIFO-administration has to be reset by storing 512 negative values. In addition, at the end of each sort sequence, all the 256 FIFOs have to be checked. When there are only few records to be sorted these procedures take up a relatively large portion of the total time needed for the sort.

However, when large numbers of records are to be sorted, this "overhead cost" becomes negligable, because the actual time of this overhead component is constant regardless of the number of records to be sorted.

Normally each byte in any sorting key is only processed once; if the byte contains a sign or part of a mantissa or an exponent, it has to be processed once for any of these aspects. Additionally a few address calculations are necessary and some values have to be changed for linking the elements within the FIFOs.

For any byte of any key only two conditions have to be checked plus some trivial computations made, and thus only a few processor cycles are necessary per key byte, which in turn means that the processing of the keys is very fast. The processing time is the same for every key byte so that the time for sorting increases solely in line with the number of records to be sorted.

The time necessary to process one byte of the key does not change with the content of the individual records. This means that there is no best case and no worst case. All sorts at all times take exactly the same time for the same type of data.

Comparing ExtraDix with Quicksort
In order to compare different algorithms for sorting data, various texts were copied until a length of one million words was reached. A program was then written which produced a set of one million data records. Each record consisted of the word itself, its length, the position of the word in the text, and long, long long, float and double numbers were generated by bit shiftings thus generating what appeared to be random numbers. The data records had a length of 54 bytes and the word itself was stored in a string of 25 bytes. The computer used was a normal PC running at 1.8 GHz; the table with the test data was loaded into its working memory before starting the sort.

To make a useful comparison, the Quicksort algorithm was used in an implementation in which the pivot element was always the last element in a scope. Sometimes this decision produces very long response times; in the following diagrams this effect was eliminated by interpolation so that the result obtained using Quicksort looks somewhat better than would normally be obtained.

In the next two diagrams the linear increase of sorting time with the number of records of ExtraDix can be seen clearly. The increase of sorting time with Quicksort follows the function f(n) = n * ln(n) so that the difference in time between ExtraDix and Quicksort becomes bigger and bigger as more and more records are sorted.

From the above it can be seen that using ExtraDix does make sense. However, this leaves open the question at what point it is more efficient to use ExtraDix. The next two diagrams show what happened when 2.000 data records were sorted; the time was measured in microseconds. From a few hundred data records onwards the administrative overhead for the FIFO routine was negligable. This shows that ExtraDix under normal conditions acts as a good general purpose sorting algorithm.

Calling the ExtraDix function
The subroutine ExtraDix is re-entrant; when it is made part of a shared library, the code can be called by any desired number of routines at the same time without mutual interaction.

If ExtraDix becomes part of a library, its source code is compiled before the structure of the data records to be sorted is known. Because of this, the function call had to be designed in such a way that it would be suitable for any type of sort. The function call has only one parameter i.e. the pointer to a structure of the type ED_SortInfo. In this structure all the information needed by ExtraDix to perform a sort is stored. The structure is built as follows:

struct ED_SortInfo { int	SortOrder;              // ascending or descending int	ColType;               // the type of column int	ColStart;              // where the column to be sorted starts int	ColWidth;              // the width of the column int	NumLines;              // how many lines there are in the table int	LineSize;              // the width of the lines void*	Source;                // the pointer to the data input void*	Dest;                  // where to store the result }; The data records to be sorted are stored in the working memory at the position given by Source. Data records normally have their own structures but the types of these records can not be known by ExtraDix. As a neutral solution a pointer to void is used in order to point to the start of data. The data records have the length of LineSize and in total NumLines shall be sorted. Adapting Source and NumLines makes it possible to sort parts of a list.

Since ExtraDix does not care about the content of the data record, it is sufficient to know where in the record the sorting key is and which variant of the algorithm has to be used. The variant is selected by help of ColType. Possible variants are strings, unsigned integer, signed integer, floating point with single and double precision. Since there are different interpretations depending on the processor, the used compiler and the programming language, it is necessary to tell ExtraDix where in the record the key starts and how many bytes it has. ExtraDix has no problem at all with 7 byte signed integers but floats must have 4 or 8 bytes.

Through SortOrder, which can have the values ED_ASCEND or ED_DESCEND, is selected whether the smallest key shall to be at the top of the resulting list or at the bottom.

The last parameter of the structure is a pointer to the position in the working memory, where the result is to be stored. If this pointer has the value NULL the records are sorted within the original data space. If Dest is different from NULL, this is the address where the result will go. It is the responsibility of the user to make sure that there are no conflicts when storing the result.

The information about where in the data record the key is found is a little bit complicated. This is due to the fact that different processors do not permit the storage of any data type at any memory location. For example integer values with 4 bytes have to start at addresses that can be divided by 4 without a remainder; if the address does not meet this condition, the process will be terminated.

In order to prevent this from happening, the compiler adds additional bytes to the structure and each compiler does this differently. This insertion of filling bytes is called padding. To make sure that programs using ExtraDix will run without changes on different platforms, the parameters of the structure should be computed by the compiler. Examples for how to do this can be found in the test suite.

Tip: When transferring data between platforms you have to make sure that the same padding is used. Mostly it should be sufficient to compare the length of the structures.

Dual license
The way ExtraDix works is explained both in pseudo-code and in a translation to a C-program. Both were published under GPL and are available as a download from SourceForge.

The author of a novel does not lose his intellectual property when somebody copies his work and renames the main characters or when the work is translated to a foreign language. In the same way the intellectual property on ExtraDix is seen: Any translation of the pseudo-code to a natural language or a programming language (including the compilates) has to be put under GPL, if copies are distributed.

When programs are linked with ExtraDix by embedding the source code, linking the program with static / dynamic libraries containing ExtraDix or using server processes or operating systems exporting the functionality of ExtraDix, this program must only be used by the programmer himself or within his organisation. If copies of the program are distributed to third parties, it has to be under the GPL or there must be an individual license with the author of ExtraDix. Any other use is not legal.

title: ExtraDix


text:
User talk:Jeidefp

Flightpath
I've deleted this page. It looks like an encyclopaedic entry and I think you might have meant to create it on Wikipedia instead of here. Regards. Adambro 14:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Jeidefp


text: Template:Research project

title: Template:Research project


text:
The Republic of China

At the end of the 20th century China was undergoing an identity crisis. For 100 years China had been humiliated and forced into accepting the conditions the western powers brought to them. Starting with the opium wars and the opening of China to the west everyday Chinese were increasingly exposed to foreign ideas and cultures. Three main reactions became common in Chinese society.

A liberal, modern school of thought believed that China should adapt western influences fully, and by embracing these beliefs be able to compete with the west on equal footing. The conservative segments of the Chinese populace believed that these cultural influences were eroding the Chinese identity and threatened the country as a whole. These conservative Chinese usually had long entrenched loyalties to the current economic situation. For example many of these Chinese were part of the scholar-official class and therefore had vested interest in seeing the Confucian system continued on. A middle group also existed who seeked to reconcile these two extreme points of view by adapting some Western ideas and technology well not shedding their unique Chinese identity.

The 1800s in China is marked by these three groups responding to ever increasing external pressure from the west as well as a number of internal conflicts. The usual approach to reforming the obviously broken system under the late Qing was to attempt to integrate specific western technologies and ideas into the already existent Chinese mentality. The problem, however, was that these approaches did not address the underlying weaknesses in Chinas society. They also discounted the floodgate effect that allowing any western technology began.

To illustrate this let us examine the introduction of Western military technology and how it snowballed into an increased penetration of all western thought. As the Chinese scrambled to adopt to western arms in the face of the devastating defeats in the opium war they were forced to also import the western technologies and expertise to maintain these weapons. This meant that they also needed language schools for the Chinese students. These schools inevitably led to the spread of Western knowledge far outside of a specifically military field because the students would assimilate and share the knowledge that came with the language. Thus by trying to put off a drastic modernizing reform program the Chinese adopted stop gap measure which managed to keep China supported but not to address the underlying issues.

title: The Republic of China


text:
Sport sponsorship and media

Please visit the course blog for news, links and further announcements about this unit of study.

UCNISS will be running this unit of study again in February 2011. Please contact Robin McConnell if you would like to sign up for that course.

Sport sponsorship and media focuses on the importance of sponsorship and media to sporting organisations. Writing and evaluating sponsorship proposals is emphasised. Various sources are evaluated, and strategies identified to improve/maintain quality media coverage of athletes and their sport.

Learning Outcomes

 * 1) explain and identify the components of a sponsorship plan;
 * 2) develop, construct and evaluate sponsorship proposals;
 * 3) understand the role the media plays in sport and sponsorship;
 * 4) be able to evaluate media coverage of sport and athletes; and
 * 5) identify and develop strategies to improve the media coverage of sport and athletes.

Topics
At the moment, I am linking out to the course blog, Youtube videos and Slideshare presentations for this course. All content is licensed CC By. I plan to update this wiki when the course is more settled.

Course orientation

 * A welcome message and orientation advice

Advertising, sponsorship and grants

 * Mini lecture for advertising, sponsorship and grants
 * Video
 * Slides

Community and sport sponsorship

 * Mini-lecture for considering Community and sport sponsorship.

The class sponsorship challenge

 * Here is a video quiz on sponsorship. Listen to the questions on the video and send in your honest ( I know, I know, would they be anything else!) total of correct answers by ###

The role of a media manager

 * Here is a 2 part interview with Ben Pollack, Media Manager of the Canberra Raiders.
 * Ben Pollack interview part 1
 * Ben Pollack interview part 2

Critical perspectives on the media

 * /Social media in sport sponsorship and media/

Another guest interview

 * Interview with Narelle Casey - Narelle Casey, Sponsorship Executive with the Canberra Raiders, talks about issues in sports sponsorship in this video interview conducted by Professor Robin McConnell at the University of Canberra.

Career considerations

 * Chris Kimball (ABC Stateline) on Journalism - Chris Kimball, University of Canberra Alumni and a journalist with ABC's "Stateline" program, talks to Robin and Annalise from the University of Canberra about getting started in journalism, sports sponsorship, and the use of social media.

 * Social media and sport - We had a guest lecture today, from Leigh Blackall - Learning Commons Coordinator with UCNISS. Leigh specialises in the use of social media for educational purposes. He's adapted that somewhat to talk to us about what he sees in social media in sport.

Media Conference
All tutorial classes will be divided into small groups. Each group will be responsible for organizing and running a mock press conference during a tutorial session. Groups are graded on their ability to complete required tasks, attention to significant detail and level of professionalism in delivery of their “product”. At the end of the media conference an account is handed in of what each member of the group did to organize and stage the media conference. In addition, each group is required to nominate a minimum of two representatives from their group who will attend other tutorial press conferences and be prepared to ask questions, from the seeking of detail to incisive questioning, in those conferences. Failure to attend those other tutorials will result in the original group losing five marks off their total grade. Further guidelines regarding this assessment will be provided in class.
 * Worth 30%

 * Criteria
 * 1) Overall impact of organization and presentation 5%
 * 2) Attention to detail 5%
 * 3) Level of professionalism 5%
 * 4) Ability to utilize the conference for communication of ideas 5%
 * 5) Ability to handle challenging questions 5%
 * 6) Attendance of group representatives at other conferences 5%

Develop and Present a Sponsorship Proposal
You are to prepare a sport sponsorship proposal on behalf of a sporting organization or individual club, coach or athlete etc. of your choice. The proposal is to specifically designed to best meet the needs of the client. The sports sponsorship proposal is to be submitted in written form and also presented orally in a tutorial presentation limited to no more than 20 minutes. Present your proposal as though you were presenting it to your client. The Proposal is marked out of 20% and the Presentation is marked out of 20% also. Students will hand in a log book outlining the hours worked with the sport organization. This will record all meetings, the research conducted, time spent identifying potential sponsors and time spent developing and preparing the sponsorship proposal. Further guidelines relating to this assignment and each aspect of assessment will be provided in class.
 * Worth 40%

Proposal 20%
 * Criteria
 * This is assessed on:
 * Rationale and relevance 4%
 * Structure and coverage of key elements 5%
 * Clarity 4%
 * Log Book 7%

Presentation 20%
 * This is assessed on:
 * Congruence with proposal 5%
 * Client engagement 5%
 * Communication skills 5%
 * Professionalism 5%

Examination
The final assessment component of this unit is the exam which takes place in the exam period. This will draw on material covered in the lectures and may include questions based on student experiences identifying and securing sponsors. The exam will consist of multiple choice questions and short answer questions and will be two (2) hours in length.
 * Worth 30%

Workload
In planning your time commitments you should note that this is a 3 credit point unit. The total notional workload over a semester or term (15 weeks) is assumed to be 150 hours. These hours include time spent in lectures, tutorials and on assessments.

Attribution
This course has been developed by Robin McConnell with assistance from Leigh Blackall for Sport Studies, within the Faculty of Health, University of Canberra.

The original unit outline as approved by the University of Canberra 2009.

title: Sport sponsorship and media


text:
Portal talk:GreySmith Institute

Old talk page

Welcome to the start of the new look for GreySmith Institute

It's not just that I got bored with the blue on blue colorscheme, but more that I realized that the research architecture needed to be streamlined. This new organization was developed for my SRF project, as a way of deciding which laboratories were the most important to GreySmith Institutes future development.

Essentially it is organized into 6 rows of 3 labs each. Instead of tabs, I envision push buttons over each Lab description that will redirect to the laboratory main page. The top three labs are the Admin Lab, where we experiment with Agile Business Techniques, the Financial Lab where we experiment with financial techniques, and the Media Lab where we experiment with publishing across the many media.

The next row consists of the Souper Computer Lab, where we experiment with heterogenous cluster computers based on a charitable model, the Visualization Lab where we experiment with Display walls, and Visualization techniques, and the Neuropsych lab where we experiment with wetlab techniques

The third row consists of the Neural Network Lab, the Software Development Lab, and the Digital Electronic Lab.

The fourth row consists of the Circadian and Brain Rhythm Lab, the Rodent-Psych Lab, and the Cyto-Architectomics Lab.

The fifth row consists of the Magnetic Resonance Chemistry Lab, the MRI Lab, and the Connectomics Lab

The Sixth row consists of the Genomics Lab, the Bio-Chemistry Lab, and the Cyto-chemistry Lab

title: Portal talk:GreySmith Institute


text: File:CLT.svg

title: File:CLT.svg


text:
User talk:Rmcconnell

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --AFriedman (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 Hi! Our name is Vicky-Verity. We are twins and are Wikiversity mascots. We think Wikiversity is a great place to learn and make friends (when we aren't sleeping). Leave us a message!

title: User talk:Rmcconnell


text: File:Grid paper.jpg

title: File:Grid paper.jpg


text: File:STEP1 0.01.jpg

title: File:STEP1 0.01.jpg


text: File:STEP2 0.01&150.jpg

title: File:STEP2 0.01&150.jpg


text: File:STEP3 155.jpg

title: File:STEP3 155.jpg


text: File:STEP3 300.jpg

title: File:STEP3 300.jpg


text: File:45 Step1First.jpg

title: File:45 Step1First.jpg


text: File:45 Step1Critical.jpg

title: File:45 Step1Critical.jpg


text: File:45 Step1Begin.jpg

title: File:45 Step1Begin.jpg


text: File:45 Step1Last.jpg

title: File:45 Step1Last.jpg


text:
Instructional design/Rapid Prototyping/Techniques

Prototype Design Process
 According to Jones and Richey, there are four steps to successful prototyping:
 * Identify prototype content - What salient features of your design do you want to test? What do you hope to learn about your design? Select a minimal amount of content to prototype.
 * Build prototype - Using the methods described below, build a prototype of your concept.
 * Review prototype - Evaluate your prototype on pre-determined standards. Does the prototype provide insight into your design? Are all stakeholders satisfied with the results? If not, return to steps 1 and 2.
 * Freeze design - Once all stakeholders and designers are satisfied, cease adding new features and begin development of the pilot, or beta, version of the instruction.

==A Description of Prototype Formats == Prototypes come in several different formats. Based on your design needs and constraints, each prototype format serves a very specific role.

 * If your goals include planning, organizing, visualizing, or communicating design concepts, you should utilize a scope/visual format.
 * If your goals include testing, proof-of-concept, or demonstrating design concepts, you should utilize an executable format.

Scope/Visual Formats

 * Alpha Prototype: Typically the first version of the prototype that illustrates format, navigation, content, and graphics. May have some user and computer interactions.
 * Documentation Prototype: Models the completed user documentation [paper or online]. Illustrates format, graphics, and presentation.
 * Generic Template Prototype: Used across multiple units to illustrate content; instructional strategies, media, setting, and measurement tools.
 * User-Interface Prototype: Illustrates navigation and flow without complete functionality (syntactically incomplete). Also known as a Mockup Prototype.

Executable Formats

 * Beta Prototype: Essentially a finished product that is ready for pilot test or research; has complete functionality (syntactically complete). Also known as a Pilot Prototype.
 * Functional Prototype: Demonstrates user and computer interactions. May be syntactically complete or incomplete. Also known as Technical Prototype.
 * Rough Cut Prototype:Illustrates labeling conventions, sequencing, clarity of the message, and pacing in a videotape.
 * Rough Sequence Prototype:Illustrates clarity of images sequenced together in videotape.

Prototyping Methods

 * Once you've selected your format, you can select your prototyping method. Make sure to consider your needs and constraints when selecting your prototyping method.

If you are building a Scope/Visual format prototype, select one of the following methods:
 * Sketching: A rapidly executed freehand drawing that is not intended as a finished work.
 * Storyboarding: Graphic organizers such as a series of illustrations or images displayed in sequence for the purpose of pre-visualizing a sequence of events.
 * Algorithms and Flowcharts: A diagram that illustrates the steps of a given process as boxes of various kinds, and their order by connections with arrows.
 * Scenarios: Brief written draft outlining one or more design scenarios, including detailed descriptions of instructional contexts. Often take form as short stories.

If you are building a Executable format prototype, select one of the following methods:
 * Wizard-of-Oz (Paper Prototyping): Basic interactions and interfaces are constructed on paper and tested by end users. Interactions are simulated by having someone (an evaluator) adjust the prototype according to a user's interactions.
 * Physical Prototyping: Using foam, cardboard, and other materials to construct representations of objects.
 * Facade Prototyping: The construction of interfaces with an ability to specify input behavior. Often contains meaningless data and content placeholders.
 * High-Fidelity Prototyping: Interactive, functional software that includes content. Often developed in Adobe Flash or similar authoring tools.

You will practice using these concepts in the next section.

Please proceed to the next section:


text:
Instructional design/Rapid Prototyping/Strengths and Weaknesses

Conclusion
Now that you have experience designing a Rapid Prototyping plan, it's time for us to draw conclusions about your experience. What are the strengths of using Rapid Prototyping in your design process? What are the weaknesses? Post your ideas here and comment on others in this forum.

You have completed this Rapid Prototyping lesson. Congratulations!


text:
Instructional design/Rapid Prototyping/Building a Plan

Rapid Prototyping Guideline
You are now ready to prepare your first Rapid Prototyping plan!

 * Use this step-by-step guideto help critique and design Rapid Prototyping plans.

Design Scenario
In this scenario, Sarah the Designer is developing an online nutrition course for the Boy Scouts of America. The youth group requires very effective instruction and offers a vast amount of resources and support for Sarah. She has been given a content-packet and interviews with Boy Scout nutrition Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). Her instruction is scheduled to go live in four months.

After reviewing her scenario, Sarah realizes that her scoring system has too many loose-ends and holes. In addition, while attempting to write dialogue between three players, she learns that her scoring system can be easily abused, thereby ruining any chance at learning gains.

Review Sarah's Rapid Prototyping Plan.

 * Using the guidelines provided above, critique the designer's use of Rapid Prototyping throughout her design process in this thread. Include with your critique of the designer's plan any recommendations you would make.

Your Design Challenge
Congratulations on the big job! You've just been promoted to Senior Instructional Designer at your firm, and your first project has already come across your desk!

The executive board has just signed a large contract with Coca-Cola, agreeing to provide training for the next ten years to its bottling-plant employees. You are in charge of providing effective, efficient, and appealing training to the Coca-Cola employees.

To begin, your team has identified a pre-existing online workplace safety course that is outdated. After a quick analysis of the course, your team determines that the course's structure needs to be completely redesigned. Management has indicated that new course should allow the learners more control over the pace and sequencing of the course content.

As you will be designing this course structure from the ground-up, implement a rapid prototyping plan to determine the most effective navigation and organization structure.

This course should be live within a month, so you realistically need to have the first prototype done within a week. You have four members on your team: yourself, a graphic designer, a programmer, and another instructional designer. Management says they will pay for test subjects if needed. You also have standard office supplies available, including use of a desktop computer with the Microsoft Office Suite installed.

 * Using the guidelines provided above, create a detailed design plan in this forum. Be sure to list specific methods and expected results. When you are finished, review the other responses and critique them just as you did in the example above.

Please proceed to the next section:


text:
User talk:Nguyenmn

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 08:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nguyenmn


text:
User talk:Devine

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Devine


text:
User:Samuel nyamai

User Samuel Nyamai

title: User:Samuel nyamai


text:
User talk:Samuel nyamai

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. -- Grunny ( talk ) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samuel nyamai


text:
User:Dr Michael J Bruce-de-Rouche/Speed

What is speed? And how do we develop and improve speed?

Speed can be defined as the ability to get from point A to B as quickly as possible, but if speed were that simple I guess I would not be writing this book, my definition of speed is more holistic, it is based on fitness and the ability of the athlete to maintain his speed, in other words, the one that decelerates the least in the process. I believe that straight line top speed can be increased by an average 15%, there are however a number of considerations, like running technique, the ability to marry frequency and range, primarily these considerations are based on three factors, Strength, Agility and Speed in short S.A.S®

title: User:Dr Michael J Bruce-de-Rouche/Speed


text:
Instructional design/Technology-based lessons/What is a TBCL

Key Components of a TBCL
A TBCL is easily recognized when you walk into a classroom and see a group of students (many with eyes glazed over)

staring at a teacher (who is often lecturing), or busily flipping through the pages of a textbook and filling out

answers on a piece of paper.

The key components of a TBCL are the students, teacher, a textbook, some paper, and a pencil.

Teacher Perspective
A textbook chapter lesson (TBCL) is a lesson that a teacher follows the directions

of a textbook, assigns readings and problems from the textbook for homework, and then

gives the students a paper and pencil test to see if they have accomplished the

desired level of mastery.

Student Perspective
Students that learn through a TBCL are usually given a textbook that they are

responsible for until the end of the year and they must learn their subject

matter from this textbook.

Here is an example TBCL on plate tectonics.

Advantages and Disadvantages

 * Back
 * Next

Back to Topic: Instructional Design


text:
User:Kaihsu/EUlawB5

Constitutional and institutional law of the European Union.

Section B: Sources of European Union law.

Chapter 5: Agreement with third countries.

Notes by Kaihsu Tai, 2010-04-13.

International agreements as a source of EU law
‘Agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States’: Article 216(2) TFEU. An act by an association council established by an association agreement with third countries constitute ‘an integral part of the Community legal system’: Greece v Commission 30/88.

‘A provision in an agreement concluded by the EU with non-member countries must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and the purpose and nature of the agreement itself, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure’: Demirel 12/86. It is immaterial whether the agreement has direct effect in the non-Member State: Kupferberg 104/81.

Provisions in mixed agreements, where EU and the Member States act together, are likewise directly applicable: Bresciani 87/75. However, provisions falling within the exclusive compentence of the Member States (for example, in a field in respect of which the Community has not yet legislated) do not form part of the EU legal system; direct effect is then a matter of national law: Dior v Tuk Consultancy 300/98.

EU is obliged not to impede the fulfilment of by a Member State under an agreement entered into before the Member State’s accession to the EU; but such an agreement does not bind the EU: Article 351 TFEU; Attorney General v Burgoa 812/79.

‘[T]he review of lawfulness [...] to be ensured by the Community judicature applies to the Community act intended to give effect to the international agreement at issue, and not to the latter as such’: Kadi v Council and Commission C-402/05 P para 286.

WTO (ex GATT) agreements
GATT provisions bind the EU: International Fruit Company 21/72. However, an EU measure may be challenged on this ground in a national court only if the international agreement is directly effective (which is not the case for GATT/WTO agreements) or when the measure is meant to implement the agreement: Van Parys C-377/02. This limitation also applies to challenges in the ECJ: Germany v Council (Bananas) C-280/93. Details in the paragraph below.

The flexibility of GATT provisions ‘show that the GATT rules are not unconditional and that an obligation to recognize them as rules of international law which are directly applicable in the domestic legal systems of the contracting parties cannot be based on the spirit, general scheme or terms of GATT. In the absence of such an obligation following from GATT itself, it is only if the Community intended to implement a particular obligation entered into within the framework of GATT, or if the Community act expressly refers to specific provisions of GATT, that the Court can review the lawfulness of the Community act in question from the point of view of the GATT rules’: Germany v Council (Bananas) C-280/93. This also applies to the WTO agreements, as ‘To accept that the role of ensuring that Community law complies with those rules devolves directly on the Community judicature would deprive the legislative or executive organs of the Community of the scope for manoeuvre enjoyed by their counterparts in the Community’s trading partners’: Portugal v Council C-149/96.

The EU has ‘replaced the Member States’ in GATT commitments: Nederlandse Spoorwegen 38/75. The EU has exclusive competence to conclude WTO agreements affecting trade in goods, but competence is shared by EU and the Member States when the agreements affect trades in services and intellectual property: Opinion 1/94 Competence of the Community to conclude international agreements concerning services and the protection of intellectual property. Such exclusive competence to conclude external agreements in the EU (in contradistinction to the Member States) does not extend by analogy to the allocation of powers between EU institutions; the Commission negotiates, but the Council concludes any agreement: France v Commission C-327/91.

title: User:Kaihsu/EUlawB5


text:
User talk:Jessladams07

 Hello Jessladams07, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --AFriedman (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 Hello , we are the Baah and Bahh twins and we'd both like to welcome you to Wikiversity. While you sit back and explore Wikiversity, enjoy some of our fresh goat milk. You can help us learn by creating new learning resources or help us by improving the guided tours and other exploration tools. We look forward to seeing you around. Baaaahbye for now.

title: User talk:Jessladams07


text:
Template talk:Policy planning

Is there a policy about making policy?
I guess that would some WMF policy? I noted this template indicates that "actual policy discussions will take place at the Wikiversity beta multi-lingual website", but really not sure about the linking to http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En ? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would there be a policy about making policies? Sounds a bit silly if you ask me. I don't think there is any such policy. If there is such a policy, the policy is probably that policy must reflect community consensus. As I understand things, Beta Wikiversity is intended to be the place to develop policies that should effect all Wikiversity projects. This may have come about due to some unique differences Wikiversity introduced that people felt needed to be consistent across all Wikiversity project. I don't really know the history on that just what I take to be how things were setup when Wikiversity started. I also have no idea what policies should be developed at Beta and what ones should be developed here. I'm just inclined to say if Beta has a policy it probably applies here already, so why develop one here? -- dark lama  03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Policy planning


text:
UCNISS

ABOUT UCNISS

Note: UCRISE replaced UCNISS as the University of Canberra's research institute for sport and exercise in 2013.

The University of Canberra National Institute of Sport Studies (UCNISS) provided programs of study, conducted research projects and implemented community engagement activities in areas of sport coaching and exercise science as well as sport management and sport media between 2009 and 2013. UCNISS grew out of the Centre of Sports Studies at the University of Canberra. The Centre was established in 1981, to coincide with the development of the Australian Institute of Sport.

Some curated items of UCNISS's work can be found at:

 * UCNISS on Youtube
 * UCNISS group on Slideshare

Keith Lyons was the Founding Director of UCNISS.

title: UCNISS


text:
User talk:Wiki smart 1

 Hello Wiki smart 1, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wiki smart 1


text:
User talk:Septagram

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Septagram


text:
User talk:Merve

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Mu301Bot 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need help. --mikeu talk 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Merve


text:
User talk:Benrattray

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

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

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

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. Jtneill - Talk - c 12:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Hi , I am Percy. Nice to meet you. I love the beach, swimming, fishing, and I am currently doing some research at Wikiversity on oceanography. I am also learning to play piano. What do you like? Can I be your mascot?

Recent Changes Camp Canberra Aug 11, 2010
I saw your profile on the Wikiversity page for University of Canberra staff, and thought, by chance, you might like to come to this: RecentChangesCamp, Canberra is being held at the University of Canberra, Building 7, Room 7XC37 on 11 August 2010. ABOUT | REGISTRATION | SCHEDULE

Hope we'll see you and friends there. Leighblackall 00:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Images
Just to know how to add in an image. Only images from Wikimedia Commons and from English Wikiversity could be deployed here. In other cases, I recomend to upload them on Wikimedia Commons. There you can search via search box or categories, here you can search here: special:listfiles.--Juan de Vojníkov 12:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Research
Would you be interested in contributing to Research process? While keeping an eye out for people that might be interested in contributing to the topic, someone I tried to invite suggested you might be interested. I noticed you have been working on Sport research. I think research in general may share some common elements with what you have been exploring with sports research, and I believe Research process could benefit from your insights. -- dark lama  07:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OCAD
You might be interested. What do you use to draw maps? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You got useful info
Hello Ben, I found a lot of information on this page of yours quite useful to me in my activities as part of the development for School:Wikihigh, a GED program for Wikiversity. Thank you, Tony Planotse (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Using Google Scholar
Thanks for meeting me online yesterday Ben. Here's the recording Leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 03:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

ActiveBrainUC
Hi Benrattray!

Your research group ActiveBrainUC appears well-described and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marshallsumter, I guess so, is that appopriate? What is involved? --Ben Rattray (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Benrattray


text:
Wikiversity talk:Original research/Archives/2009

Original research
In the current version of the Wikiversity proposal, "conducting research and publishing results" remains as part of the stated mission of Wikiversity. I think the clear intention of the proposal is that Wikiversity support and fosters scholarly “secondary research” (literature reviews). However, the current proposal also says, "Whether or not Wikiversity will host original research or secondary research is still the subject of debate." If Wikiversity allows original research then special effort will have to be made to deal with crank theories and the problem of "original research spam". I think it is safe to say that original research will only exist within Wikiversity if a policy framework can be developed by the community to deal with the potential problems of original research. In Faculty club Review board and Primary research I have tried to sketch a system by which Wikiversity might be able to adopt a "some original research" policy. In my view, the goal would not be to make original research a priority within Wikiversity, but it would be useful for the educational mission of Wikiversity if there were a system that allowed some original research, particularly in special subject areas such as the study of how wiki communities function. --JWSurf 03:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some nice preliminary work here JW, I look forward to reviewing some of the other files when they arrive. Mirwin 11:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your writeup of the "Faculty Club" looked very good to me. I took the liberty of putting a key point that we cannot overlook if we want the wiki to prosper.  "Wikiversity faculty members have the special obligation of recognizing spoofs and frauds and explaining to non-experts how to understand that specific Wikiversity content is bogus."  For a while early at Wikipedia appeal to authority was on the rise.  Experts are busy people with no time to explain.  You know the drill.  The NOR as currently written to focus on reputable third party verifiability and the campaign to cite sources nipped that pretty effectively in the bud.  The whole point of Wikiversity is to capture the explanations and make use of them.  That is not to say the "expert" or "authority" must satisfy each newcomers.  That, in my view, is the job of the material captured and the current study team.  Feel free to remove the bolding.  No doubt others will spot different key points near to their heart.  It looks like an excellent starting point to me.  Mirwin 12:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I changed "Faculty club" to "Review board" because the key issue for support of primary research is peer review. I'm floating the idea of a special Wikiversity "functionary" called the "referee" that would function to guide the Wikiversity community towards scholarly peer review of original research conducted at Wikiversity. A scholarly approach to discussion of research does not involve "appeal to authority". In an open wiki community experts must explain their expert knowledge to non-experts so that the entire community can be guided to wise choices. This is fundamentally in line with the Wikiversity educational mission. --JWSchmidt 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, My thoughts are as follows:
 * Academia is self-perpetuating;
 * One becomes a scholar under the supervision of another scholar;
 * One establish credibility by publishing in recognised journals; Then he becomes an editor an reviews others' works;
 * It is difficult to start coordinating research and be the referee at the same time;
 * If wikiversity can start producing results quickly, and publishing them somewhere, even as electronic preprint, it is already doing well;
 * Therefore, I think the research department of wikiversity should start by concentrating as a meeting place for scholars, especially established ones.
 * The only problem is, of course, established scholars already have their ways of working and co-laborating.Hillgentleman 07:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Primary research should be encouraged and planned for in wikiversity. A simple system to let users discuss a topic until they have framed a hypothesis, then created an experiment to test the hypothesis, and a system to log results from users that conducted the experiment and their conclusions could be easily integrated into the framework of the wiki, and kept separate from the established body of knowledge. The results could be open to review from all. Those kinds of experiments don't have to be new and exciting- they could just be basic chemistry labs or physics projects with all the information and software needed to conduct it in any setting, and a base of data to compare to. But, it could also be unique research that people haven't looked into, and if it is exciting, it would grow on its own with the users' work. The users would have an exciting, educational way to find experiments. -Evan Bacon, Cal State BakersfieldEcbacon 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need a simple introductory page with suggestions for how to include research activities in Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 09:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. The model he suggests works only in Science, however.  Research papers in History work very differently, and in order to publish in a big journal, would have to not be published on Wikiversity first.  The Jade Knight 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Some thoughts on the "appeal to authority" approach to verify OR:

 * 1) How do we know who really is an authority and who simply claims to be one ?

 * 2) Over-reliance on authority can, and has, led to the rejection of any sufficiently new model, approach, or theory. We need to keep this in mind and not end up simply rejecting OR that isn't a clone of existing  models, approaches, or theories.  For some examples of this, Einstein was never comfortable with quantum mechanics, as in his famous "I can't believe that God plays dice with the universe" quote, and Edison fought (dirty) against AC power. StuRat 14:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Quote"
Um, guys, we have a Wikiquote so that we can make sure that the things we are quoting are really coming from that person. Yes, I know this quote is attributed to Ben Franklin all over the web. I'd like chapter and verse on that, please. I find it quoted as a Chinese proverb at http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/quotes.htm (which is much more likely). If this is a University, we need some sources here. --WiseWoman 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The quote at the beginning is nice, but somehow not connected to (original) research. I suggest to remove it, or substitute with a more suitable (no exact idea now). Also see the note from WiseWoman above. --Gbaor 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Here's the quote:

"Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn" -Benjamin Franklin

 * The "involve me and I learn" part could relate to OR, if it's taken to mean "involve me in the research". StuRat 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the quote is not really research-oriented. I found a good spot for this here (even more). For example:

or something like this... --Gbaor 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought."
 * "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."


text:
Wikiversity talk:Original research/Archives/2010/February

Essays/articles about research
We can find some answers by doing what we're doing--writing essays that are not official policy, and giving our individual ideas about what is research and what research should and shouldn't be. Wikipedia has a number of these, and a relatively small number of official policies. Just to understand where you're coming from, what do you hope this page will accomplish? --AFriedman (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this idea - and it should fit with our style. These essays/articles if mature enough and/or collaboratively authored could also be in the mainspace (this could be a slight difference in the style of Wikipedia/Wikiversity. Particular good ideas might then be incorporated into this policy. I must say, I am much more reluctant to edit policies/policy proposal than I am other pages, but happy to contribute ideas. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 * So, the de facto official policy becomes that there is no official policy for the time being, just explorative essays. This is not polemic on my part. I am seeking enlightenment.

 * I am hoping for more clarity from this page. I have no axe to grind, no current personal involvement in original research. However, I think it should be made "official policy" that Wikiversity subscribes to the accepted academic convention that research should be ethical. Research_process

 * PS Thanks to all for a healthy discussion.Harkey 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Having given this matter some deep thought - and in with the spirit of Wikiversity, I would like make the serious suggestion that we retire to the School of Philosophy, probably Ethics Department and pursue the matter there. This is real world stuff. Applied "global ethics"? It would make a wonderful case study for someone!!Harkey 10:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not from the philosophy "field" so can't really help out. But it would be certainly useful if you include a link here, if somebody else is interested. By "wonderful case study for someone" you meant a real world thesis or paper? --Gbaor 14:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Looking at the many Wiki projects, there is an international dimension, even within the English language versions. Most western nations would probably subscribe to a similar ethical code, but would this western code be acceptable or applicable to students or users in parts of the world which have different political, historical and religious backgrounds? In other words, is there an ethical stance which is accepted as global? Some code which is fundamentally human and which cannot be breached?
 * Yes, a real world thesis on the evolution of a global ethical policy for Wikiversity might make an excellent study. The source material is readily available right here!! I for one would be fascinated to read it:-)--Harkey 15:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, shhh! don't tell anyone or we might get the Hawthorne effect :-)--Harkey 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to begin an original research project
My research would be reviewing all the lessons plans I used last semester, how they evolved, and what I learned along the way. I started this process on my own web site [as you can see here] but decided it would be better to do it in wiki format, than html. I was going to publish it on my private wiki, but now that I have found this discussion I feel it might be appropriate.

What do you think?

Also, I realize this does not exactly pertain to the "Original research policy" nature of this discussion directly. Perhaps I could be a lab rat to see what happens, and if I reveal myself to be a crank then you can show what happens to cranks. If I share something useful then OK, and if I can get feedback I'm better off doing it here than on my own wiki.

--Charles Jeffrey Danoff 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I always did like lab rats!! It would be interesting to have more Research_process as part of the process. I look forward to reading it.--Harkey 14:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * It would be a great to read it! Go on! --Gbaor 17:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks Harkey and Gabor. Go on, I shall. The link I meant to include above was for my partially completed lesson one page in html. Going forward, is this a good place to ask questions? Or is there some other spot for questions related to those doing original research as opposed to those exploring the how-to/why/policy of original research? --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * For now, it is ok to have it here. When you create the page, the discussion about the resource should be on its talk page. In the future it would be good to centralize the general discussion about research or research oriented topics somewhere. But currently (because of the ongoing policy discussion) this is the best place . --Gbaor 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The discussion page for Research might be a good place to begin having such discussions, though the research page still focuses on the how right now. -- dark lama  13:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks everyone for all of their help and support. I created and started the index page Reviewing My Semester with the FUN WITH ENGLISH 7A & 8A Textbooks. It's a little wordy, I know. Any suggestions for re-wording would be welcome. Additionally, what categories should I place it in? I've put it under original research and research for now. Now, I just need to start doing my work. --Charles Jeffrey Danoff 13:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

General dissent
There is no point in calling my criticism anything else, as I may be alone in feeling that these OR policies are regressive, and will ultimately prevent wv from fully manifesting.

In the full scope of the Information Society (which Lewis Mumford dates back the Egyptian edifice building system), the work we are doing here exceedingly new. I feel it is being approached from an antiquated perspective; what I see here is an exact rehash of the hypothesis-to-theory scientific method, that, in my opinion, has landed humanity in its present "Science gone mad" dilemma. Two examples are mutually assured nuclear destruction and technology baking the atmosphere. No amount of hypothesizing and proving is going to reverse these problems, even if this method produces usable information.

With the turn of the millennium, neurological research showed that the power of human conception is based on specific neurons that, in Darwin's scope, define evolution's goal, as it were, in terms of two neurons that apparently allow interrelating of emotion and analytic thoughts, and the communication of those thoughts emotionally (de Waal and others).

In my opinion, anything that does not leverage this is backwards, and will lead to the coagulation of the types of bad information that have landed humanity in continual crisis. (Ironically primates, whales, and elephants have these neurons, yet their crisis is our crisis, not theirs.)

Having said this, it should be easy to see why I think this document should be replaced with one that specifically looks at the kinds of research contributions people can use the wv to make, architects ways to promote these contributions, and then creates teaching vehicles to disseminate them. These documents should facilitate supports that are positive, rather than creating filters that have a negative approach,

My vision for these policy documents is to create an environment that allows for development of ideas (including wv policies) that can be directly implemented to produce tangible results in everyday society to prove their efficacy, rather than relying on the hypothesis/theory peer-review system, which I believe I can easily show to be problematic.

(My initial background is in craft trades such as art and ship restoration, and then I joined the computer communications revolution for its famous decade. After the American tech collapse, I started learning research as independent studies primarily in the action research environment of the Care2.com web community, which has since deprecated into your typical troll-bashing website.  I got credit for the computer work and humanistic research from Empire State College in New York City.)

Firstly I think we need to define wv as it is; how it has so-far evolved.

Secondly I think we need to see what the wv position in the World is in a practical sense.

Thirdly, and most important, understand the wiki media itself (to borrow from the parent organization), to attempt to assure that whatever it is that makes wikis so potentially powerful is not limited by the kinds of limitations that we chafe under in normal society, or on WP.

I think we all know what the wv is. So moving on to the second point, our position is presently as a smaller, yet freer subset of WP, (with a small number of unrelated projects such as the British law-reduction page, which is really more of a forum). With respect to WP, I think a really good goal would be focusing finding ways to promote research to create the kinds of documents that are used in WP.

This policy document attempts to create the criteria necessary for scholarly research, and hence, acceptance by WP, but criterion are generally filtering systems, and do not themselves promote work. What I see, as a first step, is the development of an actual (and officially accepted) interface to WP, where, for instance, perfectly good material that is banned from WP solely because it is OR can find a home on wv, and be developed to return to WP. Perhaps WP editors can raise questions themselves as part of the acceptance process, as differing from the presently proposed peer-review system.

(Having used the word "acceptance," I should point out that acceptance is a key technology development concept, and that nearly all the technology development strategies, such as the use of milestones, are directly applicable to both education and research, and should be leveraged as part of wv policy. Even technology's "programming to the test" is in ways that "teaching to the test" is not!)

The third is many factors more important than anything else here in my opinion. There is stuff going on in WP discussions, which is technically illegal, that is on the grand scale of Clarke's 2001 and 2010 (dates probably coincidental). What we are seeing, I believe, are implementations of the constructivist ideas of knowledge construction that only slightly predate the neurological discoveries my argument hinges on. The society that is forming around the mass of information is traditional in that it models the path that evolution has apparently created for us, yet advanced in that they rely on very synthetic digital technology.

Having said all that, I should mention arrive here with certain amount of paranoia. So I spent the past week reducing my defense to these points, which I will flesh out with supporting material was I have the time.--JohnBessatalk 19:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Do you mean the approach used by this proposal is backwards? I agree there. About Wikiversity being a free subset of WP, I disagree and I think you got that part backwards. Universities usually have libraries with encyclopedias. I think Wikiversity has the potential to be much larger than Wikipedia. Wikipedia consists only of a subset of that which can go on at Wikiversity. -- dark lama  20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * There is nothing in the present proposals that inhibits free creative thinking and the expression of original ideas. However, there is also still the very difficult task, of formulating a positive framework to support and encourage the expression of original thought, which has to be tackled.--Harkey 22:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I think the protecting page bit is inhibiting, other than that sure there is nothing that inhibits creating thinking and the expression of original ideas. There is nothing that encourages creative thinking and the expression of original ideas either which is what I think the problem is. This whole proposal could be simplified down to "Wikiversity allows research both original and secondary, whereas Wikipedia doesn't. Research should be labeled as such. Research must be peer reviewed." -- dark lama  13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I think with practice that you will find the "enabling" approach easier--pretty much everywhere. Just as an example: I just spent a couple weeks in New Brunswick and Quebec; amazingly, French I learned prior to first grade came back to me, and I could read the road signs.  As a former trucker, I instinctively translated the French road signs (kudos to Chomsky).  Instead of reading "Town Ordinance: No Engine Brakes," the French signs read "Thank you for not using engine brakes."  Small example, but it makes my point.--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 13:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Are you saying that WP is a subset of wv? Don't you think that is a little grandiose?--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I think thinking of the projects in terms of one being subset of another is a mistake. If you are to going to do that though than yes WP is a subset of WV. No I don't think that is a little grandiose. The extent and scope of Wikiversity is broader then Wikipedia. Wikipedia is limited in extent and scope to writing articles encyclopedic in nature and can be seen as a single work or collection. Wikipedia could amount to either a single book or a volume of books that sit on a bookshelf if it were in a library. This is true of Wiktionary, Wikiquotes, and Wikispecies as well. In ascents Wikibooks extends that practice from one book to many. If Wikibooks had existed first I don't think people would of seen a need to have separate projects for an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a quotes book, and a species book, because they are all books. If Wikiversity had existed first writing books could of happened on Wikiversity with a similar outcome. The same cannot be said for the reverse. I wouldn't expect to find lessons in an encyclopedia, or mathematic books, science books, etc. incorporated inside an encyclopedia. I would expect to find all those at a University though. I see nothing grandiose about that. -- dark lama  14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * "No I don't think that is a little grandiose. The extent and scope of Wikiversity is broader then Wikipedia." If "Darklama" said this to me in person, I would tell him in such a way that he has no bearing on reality that he would get the message.  At very least he alter this strategy, but the look on my face would probably convince him to forever stop bothering other people. Unfortunately, as we have learned in the last decade, the Internet, as a purely digital media, fails to transport the nuances from which push leads to shove.  If the wv wants to be a mental hospital or an asylum for defectives, fine, but it will have to be so without me.  Http://johnbessa.com gets a lot of hits and needs work.  Working there will directly benefit me, but the idea that may be benefits from dealing with the narcissistic ramblings of the pathologically paranoid is a misconception that has basically proved to be a huge waste of time.--John[[Image:bessa66.png|12px]]Bessatalk 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, my experiences ranging from (so-called) Open Source to doctor visits tell me that peer-review is inherently flawed, and certification by test is even worse. My writing for wv strategies (which is voluminous) shows a model where disagreements fork into different parallel threads. Peer-review suggests a model where one person knows more than the other person, which is dominance. I doubt you can show me a single example where dominance doesn't directly result in conflict; conflict plagues the WP just as it does the World; what we need to avoid is the type of vortex that is continually sucking down the World.

On the topic of dominance, I think I can pretty easily show that it is defective thinking. In law, law enforcement and medicine, peer arrangements can be shown to resemble the mutual protection arrangement of organized crime through news articles. I use the term "organized" loosely, as it means predatory cooperation here, such as recently demonstrated in the Olympics by some South Korean speed skaters. I put a lot of thought into the above writing and I want to provide supporting material, but I don't think I have the time resources for debate, even "healthy debate," (as I need to prepare a show and satisfy some photo costumers).--JohnBessatalk 14:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I was about to reply to your thoughts John, but after reading the discussion, Darklama said all I wanted. This "policy" is not to say, that something is restricted, but rather to officaily say that (original) research is allowed.
 * What disturbs me longer time now, is the review process. I remembered it now, reading Johns comments. According to me, there is no way that the research articles or projects could be reviewed in the usual sense. For this we would need a lot of people, experts in the fields who are willing to disclose their identity - officially, and also have the time capacity to do the review. So the question is: Can we find at least several scientists for each sub-field of science? I very much doubt it. Also, if we have a page reviewed, shall we protect it forever? What if somebody comes, saying that s/he is an expert in the field (or even it is an IP) and rewrites or adds something?
 * One possibility could be an "open, ongoing review system", similar what we have now. Similar system they have at BioMed Central, althoug there is a tough conventional review before. To gain credibility we need to gain participants and contributors.
 * And btw. I don't think it should be our primary goal to get recognition from the Big Brother. We should go our own way, and see where it takes us. --Gbaor 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks for reading through my writing. Just to confirm; I think wv should be independent in more ways than you can imagine, but we are a replica of WP in more ways than I can count.  Besides our appearance, software, policy documents and "enforcement," we even use the same language, such as in this discussion: I never heard of research being described as "original" before!  Or "instruction creep," for instance.  We are in the wikimedia world, where the wikimedia is simply the "main offices" for the exceedingly powerful WP, which is the #1 non-commercial web entity, making it (to me) the biggest single component of the present-day Information Society.  But unlike the WP, we don't have phantom admins terrorizing editors! (I will fill you in if your curious.)

Different types of OR, and therefore different approaches to the issue
Rather than re-work what I wrote above, I want to introduce a different approach that encourage people to work here. I just confirmed some solo-thinking by reading through the discussion; much of the awkwardness comes from an attempt to generalize a "integrity criteria" because the various disciplines are so different. For instance, a comparison of straight Science with history; my comparison would be physics or chemistry with social science. And then to further complicate the issue, I would compare scientific modeling with the hypothesis-to-theory process. And yet to complicate it further, I would ask you what you think "integrity in art" is, in terms of social science, because art is a valid wv topic of discussion!

 * Hypothesis: Physics and chemistry, while being complicated, are simple for us; we just take a look at the data, see what we think looks "sketchy," ask about it, and then repeat the experiment. Simple hypothesis/proof.

 * Scientific model: When I was doing my middle school education page, I attempted to create a singly simple approach to wave physics, and found that there seem to be two different types of wave mechanics on WP: one for sound, and one for the rest, as if there are two different natural laws of physics. (As I have given up on science teaching as a potential career, I let go of the quandary.)  This would be likewise simple for us to deal with as we could research the underlying math, and see where the errant short-cut was taken by the editors at WP, if that was the problem.

 * Integrity in Art: this may seem complicated, but it is not. By reaffirming what art is to you, you can confirm that art is valid.  The picture, music, writing or other media, if successful, grounds in you a concept that is feelings-based; it communicates emotional content that, when it is successful, strikes a significant chord that may be reassuring, or may be disturbing.  Art may make you feel good, or may make you feel hungry, or may otherwise influence your senses without being valid art, as art must "solidly ground you in an emotional understanding" (my words).  Valid art must resonate internally.

So far, so good. But now,

Social sciences and psychology:

No one can deny that there are continually battling schools of thought in these disciplines; a good example is the famous debate between BF Skinner (of behavioral fame) and Carl Rogers (a father of self-actualization), which has never been resolved. There is no solution to this kind of conflict here on wv, or anywhere else. I believe the problem resides in the fact that there are differing kinds of people; one kind, like Skinner, will respond well to behavioral therapy or re-education such as in cognitive therapy, and another is like Rogers, who will respond well to a reconstructive approach that attempts to realign the mind based on experiences. The only solution to the conflict caused by the polarized differences in thought is to allow for different article threads to accommodate different types of thought. (I believe that the latter type is in the much greater majority, even among patients, but that disproportion isn't necessarily relevant.)

This is not a small issue; Rogers is credited with bringing the US and USSR to the conference table ending the Cold War; his sociology is more powerful, in my opinion, than his psychology, which is significant. BF Skinner.. well there nothing nice I can say about Skinner, so I will defer to a behaviorist.

The idea of different threads implies discussion. If editors, or contributors as in our case, are violently in opposition, there will very likely be the kind of pointless argument that plagues WP. But if editors are in general agreement, then argument will probably be over finer points, which will help support a concept rather than destroy its efficacy. This type of discussion (an example is this discussion) is, I think, what many here may think of as peer review. As we go out to the rest of the Information Society to attempt get supporting information for our approaches, we become experts, satisfying the need that Gbaor mentions; in constructivist terms, we, ourselves, go from form novice to expert, a journey that, if situated in context, can be very quick.

There may be cases were opposing editors get along well enough to show what they believe to be weaknesses in others' arguments as a critical contribution, but that will be rare. More likely, I believe we will see editors blanking out others' material without consensus as results of their violently opposing opinions. Blanking information conflictingly or surreptitiously should become highly illegal here, as it is fascistic. I have seen this happen here on wv (but I will resist mentioning names).

So perhaps we need a refereeing system such was we see in sports (back to your corners!) rather than peer-review in its traditional definition. As the Offspring song goes "got to keep them separated."

There are a few more topics I want to touch on:

When I mention the WP casting its shadow over us, I try to do so in a way that is beneficial. As an "OR positive" environment, I think that we should field the types of discussion that are condemned (wrongfully so, I believe) on WP. The conflicting editors should bring their discussions here to mirror pages, hash out the issues, be they with supporting material, or completely new material, and then use the mirror pages here to, either compose WP material, or as a reference link to their WP material. If we do this, then WP editors and admins will probably want to add criteria to the integrity process.

In fact, I wonder why information should even be here if it is not OR; it should be on WP. Unless it got rejected from WP because of a bias there against either basis of thought, or perhaps a more traditional bias such as a cultural conflict. I usually think of OR on WP as "new information," rather than personally conducted research, which is the official definition. New information is information that supersedes old material because of overriding recent research. It gets branded OR only because controlling editors don't want to see new information attacking there accepted ideas; they don't want to, or perhaps are unable to, wrap their minds around new research. I primarily write about empathy as emotional communication; there is absolutely no way that I will touch the WP empathy page, as the editors there are obviously themselves devoid of the underlying neurology necessary for empathy. Same with eudaimonia--I just won't go there. These two topics are addressed on WP as intellectual exercises, when in fact they are feelings-based. Editors there cannot conceive of these topics in the ways they where initially defined, as they cannot. That simple; trying to elucidate them is a waste of time.

Finally I want to mention what I think of as "condemned" research; not condemned by WP--but society itself.

I believe that this an excellent place to teach veterinary science. Veterinary science, along with human medicine, have become such cash cows that their respective professional organizations, and respective educational institutions have become like organized crime. (When Obama attempts to solve American medical issues through insurance control, I believe he is being foolish. The problem is what it sounds like: medicine and its underlying educational system: human capital.)  While treating humans w/o official certification is illegal, even if the human may die for want of care, treating animals is not, and humans and animals are not as different as these industries would have you believe, as I learned while treating my dying cat, Krishna. If we want to be independent, this, I believe, would be a great place to start. Telling someone to "get medial advice" is not Science, it is political correctness on behalf of bureaucracy, which has become a component of capital control. That kind of thinking, in my opinion, belongs in the trash. I, like much of society, am tired of being treated by obvious mental defectives who are validated by educational capital simply because they have high IQ and can easily pass tests, but lack the neurons necessary to be moral humans. Even worse are dentists; nearly everyone has a corrupt dentist experience. --JohnBessatalk 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)