Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 12 March 2018 (→Troubled). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

January 2015 - April 2015 May 2015 - August 2015 January 2016 - December 2016 January 2017 - December 2017

Scaffold

Is scaffold a term you use in your courses? If so, what does it mean? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: You mean in Wiki Ed materials/course pages? Not quite sure, offhand. What's the context for this question? Any time I've used it in the context of Misplaced Pages in the past, it's been to talk about a basic outline/structure of an article, of the sort that the manual of style might recommend. For example, to start drafting an article in one's sandbox by creating some typical section headings, maybe with a short summary or some sources under each one. Again, this is all how I'd use it personally, not a specific example of something we tell students. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. An instructor had advised the student(s) to "scaffold" their articles--a term I had never heard before--and I wondered if this was a term used, even in passing, by Wiki Edu editors, and if so, what it meant. Thanks for helping me understand the term. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Ian (Wiki Ed) had the most relevant answer. It's not jargon, though, if that's what you're asking (i.e. not used in a sense particular to Misplaced Pages or Wiki Ed) -- or, at least, not to my knowledge. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Presumably adapted from the jargon of construction trades. Falsework more precisely corresponds, but would invite misunderstanding if used in an educational context. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard‎

		The Instructor's Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors.

I hope your efforts pay off with lots of well designed class projects! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks! The timeline is the latest version of something that's been continuously developed and improved in collaboration with the community over the last few years. Sage (Wiki Ed) probably deserves the lion's share of this barnstar on our end, though, as he has lead the development of the Dashboard (not to mention many of its predecessors like WP:TRAINING). Let us know if you notice ways it could be improved in the future. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Take a second bow for passing along credit! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

International Human Rights Law

Hi Ryan. I can see that you have listed yourself as a student in my International Human Rights Law course. I was hoping to just keep students enrolled in my course in that list. Would it make more sense for you to be an online volunteer? Or, are you listing yourself as a student to monitor the course? Thanks. Humanrights4nz (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Humanrights4nz: Ah! Sorry about that. When I saw your question on the noticeboard I did some tests to remind myself under what conditions instructors can be added. I must've had the wrong tab open and accidentally enrolled in the course myself. Fixed now! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Greetings

I have uploaded a grant proposal today and would like to know if I submitted it correctly. It is here: Grants:Project/Engaging Academic Archivists, Librarians and Students to Address the Historical Gender and Racial Gap of Western Pennsylvania through the University of Pittsburgh Library System. If not please send me instructions on how to submit correctly. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barbara (WVS). This is great that you've put together this grant. I've never been involved with submitting grants to WMF, so am not a good person to ask about submission processes. Maybe the IdeaLab would be a good place to ask, but that may be better suited for grants that are less well developed than yours. Pinging I JethroBT (WMF), who may be able to help. If there are parts of it that you want feedback on, I'd be happy to do that, and will also be happy to endorse (I've only started to look at the proposal so far, but if it's along the lines of what we've talked about before, then it would be great).

BTW I hope you don't mind I moved this message from User talk:Ryan McGrady. That's an account I used when I was teaching with Misplaced Pages and is more or less inactive now (until I teach again or have some research I'm doing outside of Wiki Education). This page is best for anything Wiki Education/Visiting Scholars-related, or User talk:Rhododendrites for anything else (volunteer account).

Thanks --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Update-The reviewers of my grant proposal have characterized my work as a WVS as unsuccessful. I believe that they have WVS mixed up with WiR and are looking for the non-existent metrics describing the training and contributions of my trainees. They want to know why the content coming from this area/region is so poor and claim that only 120 articles have been created in two years. I don't know where they got the numbers for their comments, but it's not justified to compare the success of a WVS with the success of a WiR. Ed tried to clear that up in response to the comments of the reviewers but I'm still not sure it has been made clear to them.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Hmmm. Is this the comment you're referring to:

"WiR is a well-known solution, although this project seems to be a bit more risky than average: there is already an ongoing collaboration which was not that successful (122 articles and no trainings in two years)"

I'm not sure, but I understand that are talking about another Wikipedian-in-Residence somewhere, as an example of why the WiR model can be "risky" investments. Not quite sure, though. Is there another comment in there that suggests they're confused? I admit I don't have much experience with the grant process and the format of the page is a little daunting for a third party commenter. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the comments. Another calls the project 'iterative' meaning that I'm doing the same thing that was done before. I'm being mistaken for the WVU WiR or as an unsucessful WiR. As a little background-About four edit-a-thons have been conducted in Pittsburgh during the past two and a half years. I attended, I trained and I created articles. I was never the organizer. I wan't even invited to a few of them. I didn't give any kind of talk but instead helped individual contributors as needed. Two of them were organized by Art and Feminism groups, one by the Carnegie Museum of Art, two edit-athons were organized by the YWCA in Pittsburgh. The most recent event was conducted by the WVU WiR at Duquesne University here in Pittsburgh about three weeks ago. I wasn't able to attend. This event resulted in the creation of three new articles. Ironically, I offered to provide follow up and additional training for some of these but was told that wasn't part of the event. I shrugged it off and thought an opportunity was being missed, but that it was out of my control.

I guess what I trying to say is that there really is no way to characterize my work as a WVS as unsuccessful. It is not possible that only 120 articles have been created since I created more than that. The dashboard states 122 and my article counter states 136. I'm not asking for another endorsement. I only believe it erroneous to say that my actual role as a WVS was (at least) successful and the only reason for saying that has to be some confusion about who-is-who and what a WVS is. I tried to answer this mistake and so did Ed. But is our response considered as valid as the reviewer's? I don't know the answer to that either.

You are right, I have found the discussion and attempts to answer the reviewers concerns very daunting. The reviewers seemed to be impressed with your comments on the proposal page. If you want to draft a response, you can send it to me and I will post it for you. I had to do that for the head of the Library at Pitt also. If not, that is okay. I'm only looking for a definition of the role of a WVS. I don't think some of the reviewers know what it means. If you are not comfortable responding, I understand-this is not your problem.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Just responded by email. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

UWI et al.

In regard to your questions , yes, if there are US or Canadian universities with strong Caribbean departments I'd be interested. Of course the big problem is that I am in Mexico, which seems to make for some issues with memberships to certain subscribers. I know that the University of Florida/University of the Virgin Islands, have a collection of newspapers and other documents from the Caribbean . It's difficult to search and not very user friendly. Then there is the Association of Caribbean University, Research and Institutional Libraries in Puerto Rico and the University of Texas at Austin also has connections. If there are other institutions, that'd be fabulous. As with all small countries with limited resources, there are typically only limited runs of any publications and then they are rarely republished or go into multiple editions. The biggest problem is that the Caribbean gets lost either in North America or Latin America and often sources which cover broad areas end up being about the bigger places in the geographic coupling rather than the islands. Often I find references to sources, but can not find any way to access them, as few seem to be available on line. SusunW (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW: Thanks for following up. I've not heard of issues with granting access to people in Mexico in the past. Interesting. Regardless, I'd be happy to set up an outreach campaign to try to make it happen with an institution that has relevant collections. If it's something you'd like to pursue, could you just fill out this form? Next step would be for us to compile a list of relevant institutions. I can share that with you before reaching out if you like. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I filled out the form and sent my CV directly to you. Thank you so much for your help. It really is quite frustrating to access materials on the Caribbean. For example, though I have a subscription through Misplaced Pages for EBSCO, I cannot access this source. I contacted Sue Barnam, who is an admin on WP and a reference librarian for help. She cannot access it either through EBSCO or through UTEP at her library. I run into this a lot. Sources are there, I can find them, but I can find no way to access them. We have no lending libraries here, inter-library loan is non-existent. Copyright variances often do not allow me to access sources given my location that other researchers can access in different locations. Any help to make access easier and to quality resources would be greatly appreciated. SusunW (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: southwestern Ontario regional history

I am sorry, I don't think I know anyone who writes southwestern Ontario-related articles. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ontario appears to be too stale to ask. I think there's definitely some history topics that can be written about this area. Ideas that immediately came to me includes First Nations (especially before European settlement), transportation (many intercity bus routes were lost in the region, see ), and economy/industry (automotive sector, agriculture). OhanaUnited 15:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, you may want to reach out to @Magnolia677:, who have created and expanded dozens of southern and southwestern Ontario towns. OhanaUnited 16:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Thanks. I found a couple other people active in those articles, but will reach out to Magnolia677, too. This is helpful, thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Naegleria fowleri

HI Ryan, thanks for reaching out. :@Kingofaces43: Each year I plan on doing this through you Wiki Ed folks, and every year it just passes me by - I only teach this course in the Fall - I'll make a note to sort this out this coming summer so that we are all onboard when the fall semester 2018 starts. On the Naegleria fowleri page, the biggest problem is the overall lack of available reference material - which seems to be resulting in some circular referencing. I'll see what I can do about it. Thanks. Susan

A goat for you!

Thanks!

Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Courses Modules are being deprecated

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Troubled

From the Vagina talk page:

"My opinion has been echoed by others when it comes to challenging your idea of higher quality sources. You have an odd idea of higher quality sources that does not align with what WP:MEDRS states. How are your above sources higher quality when you also mainly used book sources, including older book sources, and linked to worldcat.org? How is linking to worldcat.org of higher quality than linking to Google Books? And how are your sources supposed to "bring more balance and more accurately reflect the literature that is available on a topic"? Misplaced Pages sourcing is not based on what the WP:Visiting Scholar program recommends (if what you state about that is true). Do stop putting your Visiting Scholar program work ahead of how Misplaced Pages works. And when it comes to Pitt, you have been repeatedly seen as having a WP:Conflict of interest, although you have stated that you don't have one. Either way, your focus on using Pitt sources is absurd and tiresome. As for me approving content behind a paywall, considering that there were paywall sources in this article (some added by me) before you even began editing it and considering that I have approved of some of your proposed content that has been behind a paywall, your "I haven't approved of any" claim is false. Furthermore, I cited a journal source above that is not easily accessible. Your "behind a paywall makes a better source" viewpoint is one of the oddest viewpoints I have ever seen on this site. Those types of sources have caused more trouble than anything since they are not accessible unless one pays or asks someone else for access to the reference. It's why WP:PAYWALL has to advise people to not shun paywall sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. We should be using high quality sources, and this decision should not be guided by if they are behind a paywall or not. If readers want to learn more (even if an article is comprehensive and thorough), they can use google, our see also or our external link sections to find other sources. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)"

Barbara ✐  ✉ 13:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): I'm not sure I understand, and I apologize if there's been some miscommunication between us at some point. The main idea of the Visiting Scholars program is to connect a Wikipedian and an educational institution based on shared interests. The Scholar gets access to the institution's library resources and agrees to use them to improve articles in that topic area of mutual interest. That said, there's no requirement (or even preference) for using particular kinds of links or prioritizing some resources over others. If an open access resource is just as high quality as a paywalled journal, by all means use that. If the article is better for using one link over another, go with that one.

From my perspective, the Visiting Scholars program is about removing constraints on sources (i.e. giving you more options than you would have otherwise); if it feels like you regularly have to prioritize one source over one you would rather use, something is amiss. Again, I'm sorry if I somehow communicated otherwise. If this is based on expectations from Pitt, please let me know and I will reach out to them ASAP to straighten it out.

In short, make the best article you can with the best sources you can; if something about the Visiting Scholars relationship is doing anything other than helping you with that, we should talk about how to fix it. That wouldn't be fair to expect of you, and wouldn't be in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Let me know if you want to chat on the phone sometime tomorrow/the next day. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand either. I thought you might be interested in the discussion and so I brought some of it here. I don't expect you to do anything except to know that not all editors are excited about the Visiting Scholars prgram as others might be. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): I appreciate that. All the program should really do is give you access to sources. It shouldn't affect which sources you use -- just give you access to more of them, so that you can use the ones you want to use without running into paywalls. No need to prioritize Pitt sources over others, though (it sounds like that's what this is about, if I'm reading it correctly). In general, if it seems like either Wiki Education or Pitt is asking you to do something that (a) makes your editing more difficult, or (b) conflicts with Misplaced Pages best practices, the just ignore it. :) If there's ever something you would like me to talk to Ed about, let me know. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ryan (Wiki Ed), thank you for explaining. If Barbara (WVS) wants to continue this discussion at the article's talk page to challenge what Tom (LT), Rivertorch, Axl and myself have stated, and it appears that she does, we can. But WP:MEDRS (which is a guideline, not a policy) does not support her viewpoint. Neither does any other guideline or policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)