Wikiversity talk:Adding content

Wikiversity needs an introduction similar to Wikipedia's introduction. --JWSchmidt 21:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Any ideas for a name. Should we stick with "Introduction"? I was thinking "Pre-school", or "Your first lesson". How about the page format. I could copy over the same style as wikipedias and maybe change the colors, but we probably want to form our own identity here. - Trevor MacInnis 21:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

With a total lack of originality Wikiversity now has Wikiversity:Introduction. Feel free to edit so as to "form our own identity here". --JWSchmidt 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Should you add it here, or on another Wikimedia project?

I added some text to try and clear things up, and now conflicting comments have been added. It would be good to resolve this... Personally I lean toward demarcating things as clearly as possible, but the important thing is that Wikiversity policy is made clear.

See:

• Wikiversity:Wikiversity project proposal#Scope of Wikiversity - There may be some overlapping, but each project will maintain its own focus.

and also the discussions at:

• Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/August 2006#Demarcating Wikibooks & Wikiversity
• Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/August 2006#Another question

--Singkong2005 08:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

research and intellectual property

I've just found wikiversity, having been a contributor to wikipedia for the last 9 months or so. It interests me that this might be considered an appropriate forum for publication of original research, as alluded to elsewhere in wikiversity. While it makes sense to have a place to post original research (as wikibooks and wikipedia are inappropriate fora for this), I'm wondering how the processes of peer review and intellectual property would work when most contributors are at least semi-anonymous. Any comments? Mattopaedia 10:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The plan is for there to be community discussion of these issues at the multilingual Wikiversity hub. I think that the main issue for peer review of original research at Wikiversity is if we need to create a new formal peer review system or if we can rely on "traditional" informal wiki-style peer review. There are some initial ideas for formal peer review at Wikiversity:Review board. As for "intellectual property", under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) it is possible to trace content back to the content creators. If Wikiversity adopted a system for protecting pages then it would be simple for authors to document the fact that they produced an idea. Anyone wishing to link an idea published at Wikiversity to their "real world identitity" will be able to do so if they have a confirmed email address associated with their Wikiversity user page. --JWSchmidt 15:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further note on adding content here or on other wikimedia projects

This was moved from the content page - I attempted to paraphrase it there but am copying it here for reference Cormaggio 09:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity does not duplicate other Wikimedia projects. If you wish to add material that's suitable for a textbook, it's best to add it at Wikibooks; if it's suitable for an encyclopedia, it's best to add it at Wikipedia. This avoids duplication of effort.

Editor's note: The above is possibly incorrect. Material added at other Wikimedia Projects are subject to easy deletion by the communities there if they find the material substandard for their project's purpose. If you have any doubt that the material is suitable for other projects it is best to add it here. That way if someone chooses to move it elsewhere, and the receiving community deletes it, there is a local record to make it easy to recover. It is possible that materials that are useful in both places will be optimized or specialized for those specific projects. In which case we want your lesson plans to be pointing at useful learning materials here rather than possibly inappropriate specialized materials on another project site. Mirwin 04:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki editing tutorial

I'm getting a "404 Not Found" for: [http://tawker.com/tutorials/ Wiki editing tutorial] (page bottom). Might be me, I've had connection trouble but not usually showing a 404. TheresaWilson 12:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't access it either, and get a 404 when I try the url with a www. I've left a note on Tawker's Wikipedia usertalk page. Cormaggio ^talk 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you need the content urgently here you can access some old pages. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, didn't need it, just reporting a broken link. :-) TheresaWilson 17:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Let's see after the reply above if we need to substitute it or just remove it. See you around, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes the point in the previous thread though. What a coincidence over two years. TheresaWilson 19:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Difficulty understanding when/how to add new course

I'm working on a course "Research Methods" for Master students. My plan is to complete this in spring 2015. It'll be run (as a beta test) Feb-Apr 2015 for the first time and then officially between May and September 2015. At the end of that term I'd like to move the course to an official Wikiversity location if that is wanted. Currently it is in my personal space. I have no problem leaving it there either but I thought it would look better elsewhere. There is substantial YouTube, animation and lecture content available off-site so not all the resources are housed within Wiki(s). Is that a problem? Cheers from Berlin & thanks.--Birkenkrahe (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

something like |Wikipedia:Large language models| for this wiki?

Does or will this wiki have policy/guidelines covering these sorts of ideas: w:Wikipedia:Large language models ? Does the same Wikipedia:Large language models effectively apply here? Is it good enough? either way, bless up. Michael Ten (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I presume you are asking about Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Large language models. Yes, there seems to be consensus that those guidelines apply here. I personally wouldn't call it LLM, however. AI-generated content or AI-assisted editing would seem to be more common terminology among those who use these tools. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)