Wikiversity:IRC meeting about research/log

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

* MLoggerBot_83Nnc has joined #wikiversity
<cormaggio> thanks Mike42
<Mike42> ok, everyone clear that the channel is being logged? :)
<cormaggio> ward_: welcome
<gboyers> what? logged? how dare you
* gboyers leaves
<Mike42> If at any time you want the logs posted, !log should work. For the plaintext one, use !logplain. When the meeting starts, use !logcls to clear its memory :)
* cormaggio hopes somebody else understands that :-)
<Mike42> cormaggio: I'll demonstrate :)
<wikiversilinky> Mike42: i don't understand that
<Mike42> http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:IRC_meeting_about_research/log
<Rayc> Hey, we've got two bots attending the meeting
<WiseWoman> At least two bots, let's be precise.
* Rayc thinks they might be over represented
<Mike42> !time
<wikiversilinky> Mike42: Los Angeles 02:00PM | Denver 03:00PM | Chicago 04:00PM | New York 05:00PM | London 10:00PM | Berlin 11:00PM || Tokyo 07:00AM | Sydney 09:00AM
<mikeu> the log url in the topic does not point to beta
<Mike42> ok, from the time there, I think we should start?
<WiseWoman> Who is moderating?
<Mike42> good question :s
<Mike42> cormaggio? :)
<WiseWoman> I second the motion!
<cormaggio> back with tea
<cormaggio> ok - shucks :-)
<WiseWoman> Shall we have a short round of intros?
<gboyers> go for it
<cormaggio> there are still a few people i thought were going to be here - should we wait a few mins?
<Mike42> ok
<WiseWoman> That's why I'm suggesting intros - takes a few minutes!
<cormaggio> oh ok :-)
<cormaggio> go for it..
<WiseWoman> WiseWoman, professor for Media and Computing in Berlin, jack-of-all-trades, American by birth, more or less disillusioned by Wikiversity at the moment, still playing with diverse Wiki-ideas.
<Mike42> Mike42, Australian Wikiversity custodian, general wiki-enthusiast, and programmer. Writes bots, and uses IRC a lot :)
* Differ has joined #wikiversity
<Differ> hi
<Differ> don't spam in #wikimedia.
<cormaggio> hi Duffer
<Differ> nobody there.
<Differ> spam in #wikipedia
<mikeu> mu301: astronomer at Ladd Observatory, Providence RI. inerested in informal education
<cormaggio> Differ - that wasn't spam
<Differ> well
<Differ> advertising, then
<Differ> or information-spreading.
<cormaggio> ok, thanks
<ward_> author of first wiki, now building model of wiki community behavior, and therefore paying attention to other research in the area.
* Haikon has joined #wikiversity
<gboyers> GBoyers (Xenon) - computing student in the UK, research enthusiast and policy-junkie
<cormaggio> aha, so you *are8 Ward :-)
<cormaggio> thanks for joining :-)
<ward_> glad to be here.
<Rayc> Rayc, American Wikiversity custodian, master's student, with wiki-Test and Quiz interests
<JWSchmidt> hi Haikon, we are doing introductions
* Strangerer has joined #wikiversity
<Haikon> oh. good. I need those :)
<mind|distracted> Kat (mindspillage): Wikimedia board member, JD student, would like to never leave university. :-)
<JCarro> Javier Carro, spaniard living in Zurich, I just begin my doctor on applied linguistics. I'd like to research on wiki-based language learning. But I still need to clarify concepts, steps to give forward,...
<cormaggio> I'm Cormac Lawler ("cormaggio"), researcher at University of Manchester (school of education) - researching the progress of Wikiversity as an educational community/resource/...
* jtico has joined #wikiversity
<JWSchmidt> John Schmidt, biologists, exploring the power of wiki
<Haikon> Haikon, living in US, no higher education, interests in facilitation those with higher education
<JWSchmidt> hi jtico, we are doing introductions
* dungodung has joined #wikiversity
<cormaggio> greetings Haikon, Strangerer, jtico, dungodung
<jtico> Hi everybody
<dungodung> w00t D:
* AngryParsley has joined #wikiversity
<dungodung> hello, crowd
<gmaxwell> I'm Greg Maxwell (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell), Chief Research Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation. (research is primarily referring to research about Wikimedia projects, not projects performing research). I'm here just to keep updated on Wikiversity and to keep an eye out for people I can help.
<cormaggio> keep the introductions coming..
<yeoman> User:CQ, electrician/musician novice programmer from Kentucky USA (now in Illinois).. interests: community-building, sustainabilty, ecovillages, web radio... Enthused with Wikiversity :)
<wikiversilinky> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:CQ
<JWSchmidt> hi AngryParsley, we are doing introductions
<Strangerer> hello, cormaggio
<AngryParsley> yo
<jtico> I'm an es-wiki editor and Professor at the Universidad Simón Bolívar http://cronos.ma.usb.ve
<Differ> ok, what's this project about?
<Strangerer> Ah, I see. I'm just an undergraduate, a senior in mathematics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a concentration in Aerospace Engineering
<cormaggio> ok, so is that more or less it?
<JWSchmidt> http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:IRC_meeting_about_research#Agenda
<Strangerer> I came in for more information on the project as well :)
<WiseWoman> Sounds like it.
<cormaggio> Differ - http:www.wikiversity.org
<WiseWoman> I want to give one short report - I have a thesis which has been handed in and will be defended in 2 weeks on metadata for the Wikiversity.
<Rayc> cool.
* HistoryOnTheRoad has joined #wikiversity
<cormaggio> ah yes, i wanted to ask about that WiseWoman - can we save that for a bit?
<WiseWoman> Ulrike König has defined a relevant subset of the Dublin Core *and* has bolted a Metadata-tab onto Mediawiki, it actually works!
<Rayc> Hist, we are doing intros
<AngryParsley> User:AngryParsley I'm a software engineer with interests in pretty much anything computer-related
<wikiversilinky> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:AngryParsley
<WiseWoman> Sure.
<AngryParsley> wrong wiki :/
<JWSchmidt> w:User:AngryParsley
<wikiversilinky> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AngryParsley
<Differ> wheee
<AngryParsley> there you go
<cormaggio> please all - see: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:IRC_meeting_about_research for details of this meeting and links in channel title to see the proposed policy documents
<cormaggio> agenda is on that page
<HistoryOnTheRoad> I'm HistoryBuff en:User:HistoryBuff. Like history, but computer stuff is my profession.
<wikiversilinky> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:HistoryBuff
<cormaggio> so - the main reason we're here is because Wikiversity was set up as a "beta" project - one of the big question marks was about research
<cormaggio> specifically, what kind of research will eb allowed and how will it be managed?
<WiseWoman> i.e how to define the crackpots and keep them out?
<cormaggio> will this be the same on all projects, or will each project be able to decide for or against research or aspects of research?
* Lugusto|away has joined #wikiversity
<cormaggio> WiseWoman- that's one of the concerns, yes :-)
<cormaggio> oh, can i firstly say: Welcome to all :-)
<cormaggio> sorry
<Rayc> Do you pose a question then we discuss?
<cormaggio> we have a proposed scope for research on: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Scope_of_research/Policy/En - maybe we should start there?
<WiseWoman> Ok.
<cormaggio> these will be the policy documents that board will be considering next week
<_sj_> re
<cormaggio> there seemed to be confusion between primary and secondary research - is this something that we need to worry about?
<cormaggio> hi sj :-)
<Rayc> What is the boundaries between primary and secondary?
<WiseWoman> Cormac, the difference may not be that clear in all disciplines.
<_sj_> hiya (: are there people active on de.wikiversity here?
<cormaggio> that was simply one point that was raised between individual projects - remember we are trying to find policies that are sustainable across all wikiversities
<gboyers> Primary research involves the collection of new data, secondary research involves new ideas, concepts and analyses of existing data?
<WiseWoman> This is one of my concerns - there are different cultures in different fields. So what one group finds "well-documented and cited" is considered to be "non-verified" in another.
<cormaggio> WiseWoman is from :de
<WiseWoman> Hi Sammy! (wave)
<HistoryOnTheRoad> cormaggio: I think that is something we should put forward here ... I think a uniform policy would be best, if all the language WV's can agree to it.
<_sj_> (or formerly active) ah, of course. hello!
<Rayc> Well, uniform policies don't seem to have taken hold in wikipedia. What is the benfit?
<cormaggio> "cultures' is an interesting word - I think this exists between countries to a certain extent, but also between disciplines and even epistemologies etc
<WiseWoman> I am extremely cynical about uniform anything, especially having to do with research. It is a constitutional right in Germany to be able to research anything one wants in anyway necessary, so it is always difficult to put up boundaries.
<cormaggio> Rayc = well, Wikipedia has a core set of policies - this will be one of wikiversity's core policies, I would imagine
<WiseWoman> I would want to have as *few* policies as possible, and as short as possible. Sort of: Tell the truth. Don't make up things. Help each other.
<mikeu> do policies differ between language versions of wikipedia?
<Mike42> mikeu: Yes, they do
<HistoryOnTheRoad> WiseWoman: I'm thinking more about guidelines here, rather then what research is undertaken.
<gmaxwell> WiseWoman: I would fully expect that the german right you speak of is completely irrelvent to us. Surely no one has the right to demand that we publish their work.
<cormaggio> I'm also sceptical of being able to have a completely uniform one-size-fits-all policy - but we do need general points of agreement on how research will be managed (in principle at least)
<HistoryOnTheRoad> WiseWoman: A uniform approach will cut down on "forum shopping" that an extreme group does to try to find a WV that will accept it's screwball theory
* cormaggio likes WiseWoman's succinctness :-)
<WiseWoman> gmaxwell - but are we "publishing"? This is to be research-in-progress
<gboyers> hence why anybody can edit it
<Rayc> I wanted to propose that only things that will eventually be published be considered research. everything else would be a learning project.
<cormaggio> "publishing" is another interesting word - will research on Wikiversity be able to be used as a reference in, say, Wikipedia? what about another perr-reviewed journal?
<cormaggio> perr>>peer
<WiseWoman> HistoryOnTheRoad - but you are welcome to set up another page explaining why this is screwball. There are often (violently) opposing opinions in certain areas which cannot (yet) be verified experimentally.
<gmaxwell> WiseWoman: Still, if german law would require us to allow others to use our facilities to perform whatever research we like, it would be my view that we would wish to take maximum effort to avoid being subject to such laws.
* HistoryOnTheRoad is stepping out briefly. I hope to be back shortly
<WiseWoman> Rayc, and how do you know what will "eventually be published"? Like Ward setting up this fun little toy called a wiki, who would have thought about publishing about it back then. Now, everyone is scrambling to have a Wiki-something in their CV....
<Rayc> gmaxwell- but our server is in florida, hence U.S. law applies.
<cormaggio> ok HistoryOnTheRoad
<Mike42> Rayc: We have servers in Florida, France, Holland and (formerly) Korea I think
<Rayc> Wisewoman- well, don't people need to declair such stuff before starting research?
<gboyers> the ethical guidelines would obviously be the strictest
<Rayc> Mike42- hmm, then what laws apply?
<WiseWoman> Rayc, um, we've been buying servers in Europe for the WP :) And I don't know if a German judge would understand/accept that.
<cormaggio> I don't understand the German law - Wikiversity is a place where people can do research and publish research - but it won't be required by law to accept *anything*, surely?
<Mike42> Rayc: It is generally accepted that you apply the law of the country you are in, and the law of the US, on Wikipedia at least
<gmaxwell> Rayc: I wish jurisdictional issues were that simple. :) In any case, I am somewhat concerned that WiseWoman is concerned that our policies would be impacted by some form of constutional research right anywhere.
<_sj_> was the initial idea of "research" something related to educational resources and learning, the one-sentence goal of wikiversity? or research in general, about anything?
<_sj_> perhaps we can take a step back and consider what a great outcome would be.
<Mike42> Rayc: That came in before it went so global however, but is still followed :)
<gmaxwell> _sj_: I have the same question, thank you.
<WiseWoman> Rayc, what is research, really? Sometimes I just have a screwball idea. I give it to a student, they go play with it, it takes form and preso, we have something great and write a paper about it. Other stuff fizzles out, but both are research.
<WiseWoman> Cormac: in the German constitution it says: "Forschung und Lehre sind frei", research and teaching are unrestricted. The reason is that the Nazis restricted the Jewish professors from doing research during the Third Reich.
<cormaggio> sj, gmaxwell, the idea was to allow research communities form - the scope of this isn't limited by topic - but accepting research might be subject to there being a community who can adequately peer review the research
<yeoman> I think a general policy should be somewhat uniform but leanient.. the nature of wikis being what it is. And various Schools and disciplines should develope their own specific policies.
<WiseWoman> SJ, I am currently doing an experiment on Wiki-based research (but off of Wikiversity, on my own little MediaWiki). It is a rather hard sell to fellow researchers (http://weblab.uni-lueneburg.de/socialsoftware/transparenz/index.php/Hauptseite, in German)
<cormaggio> WiseWoman - yes, but this doesn't mean that Wikiversity will have to accept anything, surely..?
<cormaggio> of course learning and research should be free - that is a major objective of Wikiversity :-)
<Rayc> Cormaggio, or, what is delete on sight?
<WiseWoman> Cormac, who is "Wikiversity" to "accept"? Let's tak SJ's step back - what is our most desirable outcome?
<WiseWoman> That research facilitated by WV end up in the journals of record?
<WiseWoman> Or that corners of WV *become* journals of record?
<JWSchmidt> that might be a long-term goal
<cormaggio> desirable outcome - for me - would be a research community to parallel an academic department or journal - but even more desirable for me, would be a place where people can learn about the practice of doing good research
<Rayc> The former. I said on wiki that there were already too many journals out their and too little content.
<gmaxwell> Allow me to ask in a different way, Are we discussing wikiversity accepting research outside of the scope of wikiversities mission (http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Mission/En) ? If not then wouldn't the mission solve most of our questions about what to permit?
<_sj_> cormaggio -- because there is no broad wiki-community for "academic research" and also no wiki-community for "learning/teaching/educational resources". I can see these two being combined, as they are at modern universities, but then we should find a concise way to describe that.
<_sj_> thinktanks do research and not teaching. a wiki could be a good format for a teaching institition -- lots of room for collaboration, and tracking the results thereof
<cormaggio> gmaxwell, i think the mission is not enough to keep out lunatic research, for example
<_sj_> it's less clear to me that it is a good format for a research institution. On the other hand, higher-ed (and a few secondary) teaching institutions do research related to what they teach
<yeoman> I have a question: Will Wikiversity be seen as or become the "research arm" of the Wikimedia Foundation and an "extention" of Wikipedia?
<_sj_> gmaxwell: well put.
<WiseWoman> gmaxwell, I agree with cormac - the mission is very soft. Cormas's policy tries to be specific, but when you start trying to define what "illegal" or "unethical" research is, you end up reaching into a can of worms.
<Rayc> yeoman- Isn't there already a research arm of wikimedia, dedicated to doing research on wikis?
<Mike42> yeoman: it is a "project" of the WIkimedia foundation, and a "sister project" of Wikipedia. In all other ways they are separate however, as far as I know
<WiseWoman> Rayc, I think that is more or less just a collection of people doing "wiki-stuff".
<_sj_> "that support these materials" in point two of the mission is useful clarificatoin.
<cormaggio> sj: there are *plenty* of research institutions using wikis - if that is your concern
<Rayc> Should we tackle each section of this proposed guideline one at a time?
* GR has joined #wikiversity
<WiseWoman> Sj, but point 1 is just "anything", if I translate that right :) It is like "learning objects" - practically everything is a learning object.
<gmaxwell> WiseWoman: Lets wind back for a moment and clear something up: "into a can of worms". Do you agree that if we wanted to we could define a policy that said "we will reject whatever our community dislikes"
<gmaxwell> ?
<mikeu> rayc I like that approach
<Rayc> Seems like we are on the "Unwelcome research" section
<cormaggio> personally, i think that applying the caveat "that support these materials" to research is perhaps itself too restrictive - research is about pushing academic freedom
<cormaggio> Rayc - inevitably :-)
<WiseWoman> gmaxwell - if we are having closed wiki areas (which we once proposed, I think) and write-permission to the closed areas is guarded by an Institutional Review board, then yes, we can define a policy to keep some folks out.
<gmaxwell> WiseWoman: Why can we not kick out whatever we "don't like" from a public wiki. Not that I think such a proposal would be good, I just want to get this point clear before we go on to actually good proposals. :)
<Rayc> wisewoman- these closed areas, could they have different copyright status? Peer review journals like to hold the copyright of the material. If it was put together on wiki, it would fall under GDFL.
<WiseWoman> gmaxwell - but who elects "we"? I guess I get really pissed at the admins on WP:DE so often and quit in disgust.
<WiseWoman> Rayc, that is an extremely good point.
<Mike42> WiseWoman: If "we" is an elected group, them people will see them as above the rules, and able to make decisions on content, much like how some people see sysops on many wikis
<Rayc> "marketing" research that promotes a specific commercial product or political candidate or any other kind of research that has as its goal something outside of the educational mission of Wikiversity" --> could this just be NPOV, or educational POV?
<Mike42> WiseWoman: Which leads to... accusations of cabalism, which are counter-productive IMO :)
<yeoman> I wish this statement was actually true "Secondary research is a fundamental skill for Wikiversity editors."
<cormaggio> gmaxwell - i don't like the notion of some (royal) "we" who decide what we don't like etc - this has to be set within parameters like rigour, ethics etc and be open to critical discussion - otherwise there could quite easily form communities that exclude all others and do what they want - not a good situation
<jtico> That could be a problem. If you make a valuable research work in a wikiversity, will you be able to publish that work in a Journal?
<gmaxwell> WiseWoman: As I said, I'm not proposing it as a good policy. For discussion lets say that we select you to be supreme ruler of wikiversity. Do you see any "can of worms" with you throwing out what you dislike, beyond that fact that your decisions may not always be good.
<gmaxwell> cormaggio: *sigh* I don't like it either, I tried to make this clear. I'm concerned what WiseWoman believes their is some legal prohibition that prevents us from rejecting research and I want to clear that up.
<Mike42> jtico: Not without appending the whole GFDL to it..
<cormaggio> no i know that gmaxwell :-)
<jtico> Mike42: I think no journal would accept that :(
<Rayc> Mike42- if we set up an off wiki wiki, http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, could we then host a talk page here and have it clear with GDFL?
<JWSchmidt> "At times, it may be useful to amend the Wikiversity research guidelines so as to explicitly exclude some types of fringe research if they disrupt Wikiversity or distract the community from its educational mission."
<WiseWoman> gmaxwell, if you elect me queen, I will tend to let people do what they want, and that will irritate people who think that we need to have the ONE TRUE WAY of doing this research or the other, just like we suddenly have the ONE TRUE WAY of teaching programming in the WV
<cormaggio> so one of the things that has been proposed is a review board: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Review_board/En
<JWSchmidt> http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En#Fringe_research
<Mike42> Rayc: Alternatively, you could ask all contributors to the page to dual-license to soemthing more journal-frinedly
<Rayc> ah, the "we" is the review board.
<cormaggio> the common principles for doing good research are in draft form at: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En
<Mike42> Like creative commons no derivs? or a 'use however you like with attrubution'
<Rayc> Mike42, would the dual license statisfy a journal?
<Mike42> Rayc: You'd hope so :)
<gboyers> the review board would filter out research methods, not content
<Mike42> Rayc: If not, there's always public domain, which would let them refactor it, not have to append any copyright stuff, etc
<Rayc> I guess someone needs to put together a paper and see if it's accepted.
<wikiversilinky> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Category:Papers
<Mike42> Rayc: remembering, that the Journals have to pay for printing space :)
<mikeu> rayc that cat does exist
<Rayc> Mikeu, yes, I created it.
<WiseWoman> One possibility would be to set up our own journals that respect the copyright.
<cormaggio> will we start with the review board - since that relates to the points gmaxwell and WiseWoman raising?
<yeoman> how ill this board be staffed?
<WiseWoman> That is one of the things we are experimenting with in our Transparenz-Conference-Wiki: we are using books-on-demand to print our conference proceedings *after* the conference.
<gboyers> the plan was to have a community-elected set of knowledgeable persons
<WiseWoman> Okay, lets have a look at that.
<Rayc> Link?
<gboyers> they would read through every submitted research project and remove the ones that are unacceptable or unethical
<cormaggio> I think journals and copyright are interesting ideas - but they are probably outside the scope of this discussion - this is to determine a workable framework
<JWSchmidt> http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Review_board/En#Selection_of_referees
<Rayc> thks
<WiseWoman> "The Review Board helps the community distinguish between valid research methods and bogus research methods." - how can a review board know what is valid in all disciplines?
<gmaxwell> Just to be clear, I just wanted to clear up confusion about potential obligations under the law. My personal view is that it's usually best to wait until there is a problem before deciding on a policy to avoid problems, rather than trying to pre-solve issues which may never arise and working with conjecture rather than fact I don't expect anyone else to adopt my position. :)
<cormaggio> :-)
<gboyers> the RB (review board) are not expected to know about the specific content of the research, just to analyse what is submitted in front of them
<Rayc> So, no review board until we get "Valuation of Renminbi options on wheels" published.
<cormaggio> hehe :-)
<Mike42> WiseWoman: '... who have demonstrated expertise in particular subject areas ...' - The idea being, that the experts in a particular area can take care of it, I assume
<gboyers> for example, removing research that breaks the (proposed) ethical guidelines, or has a method flawed beyond repair
<WiseWoman> gboyers, I do a lot of review of project proposals for various money-dispensing organizations. Even if they are in my field, it takes me quite a lot of time (for which I am normally paid by the MDO) to understand the proposals and then to formulate my problems.
<gboyers> but does that mean we need a computing referee, and a biology referee, and a history referee etc? we can't expect to have experts on all the subject areas that this research will involve
<yeoman> research methodology should be a learning project in itself...
<Rayc> what if we view ourselfs as aids to publish and not the publisher themselves.... If someone wants to publish something, collaberates on wiki with other people, who are we to tell them they can't submit something because it will look bad on wikiversity?
<gboyers> what about approving proposals for research, rather than the drafted projects themselves?
<WiseWoman> Mike42 - but what makes someone an expert??? That is a problem. I am an "expert" on plagiarism because the German media says so. I could also just say that I am an expert on building windmills (or a professor of theology, see the Essjay discussion), how do you know?
<cormaggio> yeoman - absolutely - it's what researchers come to blows over :-)
<Rayc> gboyers- if we set up a deletion guideline, we can just delete anything that falls outside of our scope, and let everything else continue on.
<Mike42> WiseWoman: Jimbo sent me an e-mail a few days ago, it had a link that I think you should read :)
* Mike42 opens inbox
<gboyers> rayc - thats the first idea of the Review Board
<JWSchmidt> "Referees are selected because of their past history of Wikiversity editing. "
<gboyers> WW - we can't tell experts from expert-googlers, which is why we rely on wiki input and community-perceived excellence in research in general, rather than academic achievement
<Mike42> WiseWoman: I think that something like this is even more important for a project as academic-related as Wikiversity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Credential_Verification
<cormaggio> but, yes, the big question around the review board is: "who decides who "we" are?"
<Rayc> gboyers- it looks more like a system of approval than a system of dissaproval.
* HistoryOnTheRoad peeks back in
<cormaggio> wb HOTR
<yeoman> i think we should come up with classifications or ratings for research intensity... for instance "formal methods" for academically peer-reviewed projects at one end...
<HistoryOnTheRoad> review board <- is this the WV research review board?
<gboyers> yes, as opposed to an IRB
<yeoman> but allowing "informal or casual" research for the rest of us.
<cormaggio> yes HistoryOnTheRoad: http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Review_board/En
<HistoryOnTheRoad> ok, reading
<Rayc> yeoman - "casual research" I would define as something that is not going to be published. If it is going to be published, the review board should be on the journal.
<gboyers> we can't forget that these projects will not be complete from day 1 - they will most likely be proposed then updated with the results and lots of editors pitching in their different analysis of the results
<yeoman> example the en:Bloom Clock Project seems informal/casual
<wikiversilinky> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Bloom_Clock_Project
<HistoryOnTheRoad> that could eventually be a journal published thing, too
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Are there different checkpoints in the process?
<_sj_> why do we need to care about publication in these discussions?
<gboyers> for the review board, the flawed methods that would be worthy of removal would be where one person guessed the data in totally unscientific conditions, with no validation whatsoever, and no hope of it being analysed into anything useful
<_sj_> there are publication standards for journals.
<HistoryOnTheRoad> (Sorry if I'm asking questions already answered)
<_sj_> wikiversity is not proposed as a journal of record.
<_sj_> surely each journal's publication standard still appyl, whatever wikiversity decides on-site.
<_sj_> all else being equal, having fewer bureaucratic hoops to jump through to contribute to a discussion is better...
<Rayc> sj- right, let the journal be the review board.
<WiseWoman> gboyers, assuming there are such "methods". I am a computer scientist, various sub-disciplines have differents kinds of methods, not all of which are rigorous.
<_sj_> appeals to credentials should be avoided on wikiversity as on wikipedia
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc, _sj_, does that mean WV research needs _no_ formal review process?
<_sj_> credentials should not be privileged in discussions of who has contributed to an on-wiki discussion.
<WiseWoman> No "proof by intimidation"!
<cormaggio> sj makes excellent points
<_sj_> if you really insist on a credential war, limit that to referring to published materials in existing journals
<Mike42> _sj_: I agree with you completely there
<Rayc> History- we don't have one yet, but if someone else wants to do it for us, I say let them.
<gboyers> thats why we have to have the guidelines laid down.. to say the research must be objective (or statistical? reliable? valid? verified?) and the Review Board would be the ones making the decision
<HistoryOnTheRoad> "credential war" <- I think we want to avoid that actually.
<_sj_> so I couldn't care less what people on-wiki say about their credentials, or about a half-hearted attempt to prove/verify the same... it should not be relevant.
<cormaggio> I think the review board is primarily a mechanism bu which we can say that something is "unfit" for Wikiversity - that's about it
<_sj_> HistoryOnTheRoad: not a 'review process' as such --
<_sj_> but of course a community process for deciding what is and is not appropriate
<_sj_> for the community or medium
<Rayc> cormaggio, so what will be the definion of unfit?
<cormaggio> Rayc - that's up to the review board :-)
<Mike42> HistoryOnTheRoad: Yes, we generally need to avoid wars of all sorts: int main() { avoid("*war*"); return 0; }
<_sj_> cormac: why a review board with specific pepole, rather than a review process such as, eh, VfD?
<yeoman> wikiversity is a learning community.. open to all.. Our consensus model has not yet formed
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc: Then, whould WV support a project with a thesis of "proving the earth flat"? I think this is the kind of project we want to have the research "board" (or whatever) review
<_sj_> with specific procedures but not specific people?
<JWSchmidt> "what will be the definion of unfit?" <-- the research guidelines
<cormaggio> the review board is a community-monitored-and-approved body
<_sj_> HistoryOnTheRoad: why would a research project on the flatness of the earth be appropriate for wikiversity at all?
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Mike42: :)
<gboyers> research is a tricky subject, we could sit here all day and discuss the finer points, and a lot of it is hard to understand
* Javier has joined #wikiversity
<cormaggio> sj - that's a good point - it may well be better as a VfD process..
<_sj_> wb Javier
<Rayc> History- if someone could prove than, wikiversity would be famous :P
<gboyers> however vandalism is relatively simple... understood and implemented by anybody
<Javier> hi
<WiseWoman> The easier things are, the better. I want permit myself to digress and explain about our concrete project trying to actually *do* research with a wiki. People are *extremely* shy of putting their stuff online. I had one woman send me her stuff by E-Mail to ask if it was "okay" to put it online. Many are concerned about putting stuff here and not getting "credit", i.e. publications. Others...
<WiseWoman> ...are concerned that "their" words will be changed, or that nothing will come of it. So even if we can agree on topics/projects, how do we get real researchers to participate and not just the trolls?
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc: Well, if we allow people to peg stuff like that on WV, we could become crackpot central, too :)
<Rayc> How about instead of a "board" we have a research for deletion (RfD) and trusted users who could close the debates?
<_sj_> if I want to research new semiconductor techniques, wikiversity isn't the place to store my graph paper and laboratory notes.
<cormaggio> WiseWoman - we need mechanisms of trust aimed at academia - like stable versioning, for example
<HistoryOnTheRoad> WiseWoman makes a good point. We want to enable good and bonafide research, and discourage trolls.
<_sj_> nor my notes on the circumference/flatness of the earth.
<_sj_> that's not related to the mission, however 'soft' or broad it is at the moment.
<Mike42> WiseWoman: To me, it seems logical to turn out existing populace into what we want (so trolls into researchers) - but that's simply not possible :)
<cormaggio> sj - i'm not sure I'm getting you there..
<gmaxwell> HistoryOnTheRoad: determining "good and bonafide research" is a very hard problem, and a core driver for the existance of NPOV on other projects.
<JWSchmidt> Rayc: the point of the "board" is to have a mechanism to get the most out of experts who are wiki participants
<gboyers> so let Wikiversity make the mistakes - let WV be the place that has POV and discussion - let WP keep the verified facts
<Rayc> JWSchmidt, well, if the board is to be made of experts, then we have the whole expert verification problem again.
<JWSchmidt> why?
<_sj_> if I'm doing research related to *learning about* these techniques, or teaching them, that is another thing.
<cormaggio> NPOV - yes, again Wikiversity has taken a more permissive stance than WP - but there are other standards of rigour that are reasonably objective wrt research
<WiseWoman> gmaxwell - exactly. I have a letter from a money-dispensing organization telling me I have naive ideas about how to go about the proposed "research" - which I am currently doing with funds scraped together elsewhere and the masses are screaming for my results :) So am I a crackpot or not?
<HistoryOnTheRoad> gmaxwell: Yes. That is the easy way to do it ... and that is why this is a difficult problem, for sure.
<mikeu> don't we seek experts for their ability to explain research methods (and not for creds) ?
<yeoman> I'm hoping our context will remain inclusive... I have no formal education, but have some actual research I'd like to do. I would just like the tools to "do it right". But how will I know?
<Mike42> JWSchmidt: If I claimed to be a professor to get on the board, and wasn't, then we'd have a problem (and I'm not a professor btw)
<JWSchmidt> "claimed to be a professor to get on the board" <-- that is not how the board members are selected
<Rayc> JWSchmidt, then how do we choose experts?
<_sj_> cormac: why are we talking about research in the abstract, rather than reearch related to learning and teaching?
<JWSchmidt> http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Review_board/En#Selection_of_referees
<cormaggio> sj: I have never interpreted Wikiversity's scope of research as confined to educational material..
<gboyers> thats where my deleted page would have come in handy, no?
<Rayc> JWSchmidt, dho, what I was proposing was already on the page (should read the whole page)
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Something to remember is that casual researchers may make silly mistakes and procedural errors in their research.
<_sj_> cormac: but it's laid out in the mission: learning materials/resources ... and scholarly/learning projects and communities that support these materials
<_sj_> please contrast this with "research [related to] educational material"
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Review should help point out those problems, whatever the formal process.
<cormaggio> sj - right - but point three was always about "research" (which was not tied to educational research)
<WiseWoman> SJ - because I don't see the WV as being just a place to do research about teaching and learning.
<Mike42> JWSchmidt: Can we perhaps change '... who have demonstrated expertise in particular subject areas ...' a bit then, it makes it look like the board if for 'experts', and credentials = experts, for many people
<HistoryOnTheRoad> What we have to be careful about is researchers that are manipulating the process or bending the results to produce a result of "the earth is flat" in WV's name.
<_sj_> ahh
<Rayc> Why is it in our name?
<JWSchmidt> Mike42: you have a problem with saying people's expertise is limited to particular topics?
<Rayc> If journal X accepts "world is flat" then it's not WV's fault.
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc: If it's done in conjunction with WV, then a researcher can claim affiliation of some sort.
<WiseWoman> History, I have a problem with affiliation - I don't think we can have that.
<WiseWoman> I can't say: I am a professor/researcher/grasscutter at the Wikiversity.
<_sj_> cormac, wisewoman: these seem to be very different projects
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc: True. But no accredited Journal will accept that. But Bozo's Journal of Flat Earthness might. Do we then rank which Journal's are acceptable?
<_sj_> learning and education, on the one hand... and all that entails (developing texts, curricula, learning groups around a course)
<cormaggio> hmm, Sj, looking at the documentation, it neither specifies nor procludes educational research..
<_sj_> and, on the other, research about anything; especially to copmlement and develop other wikimedia projects
<cormaggio> this is what we approved: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
<Mike42> JWSchmidt: No, more a problem with it saying that one of the criteria is to have demonstrated expertise in an area, and with claims of credentials (or impersonation even), a user could easily give the impression that they are an expert in their field, even if they aren't :s
<JWSchmidt> expertise is demonstrated through wiki editing
<Rayc> Well, if research into whether the world is flat teaches people how to do research, then it fits under wikiversity's goals. (Actually would be a good project, sort of like how a "modist proposal" was writen)
<WiseWoman> There should, perhaps, be a footnote requested for all publications: This work was partially produced with resources of the Wikiversity. It should not be construed that the Wikiversity condones this research, only that it provided a platform. - or something like this.
<_sj_> perhaps I'm just confused about the purpose of today's discussion.
<gboyers> agreed
<_sj_> why are we spending the entire time talking about research?
<gboyers> this is a research meeting
<cormaggio> sj: that's what we're here to discuss!
<_sj_> ok :)
<gboyers> well at least we got one straight answer :)
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc: For a learning project, it would be great. But you are assuming there isn't an agenda in there ... like the researcher wants to prove the earth is flat.
<Rayc> sj, stick around later if you want to learn more about the part of WV we've actually be able to figure out.
<Mike42> JWSchmidt: Yes, I agree there :)
<yeoman> what needs to be decided for next week's board vote, exactly?
<HistoryOnTheRoad> I think it's the parameters on research
<cormaggio> yeoman - the guidelines for research need to be clearly mapped out for the project as a whole and it needs to be clear how individual projects will apply these guidelines
<HistoryOnTheRoad> "How can WV do OR" ... what will be the process.
<Mike42> HistoryOnTheRoad: one would assume we could pick up on crackpots fairly easily, both with and without a review board?
<Rayc> What is the first step in starting research on WV?
<cormaggio> what do you mean, Rayc?
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Mike42: I dunno. I can watch RC right now, but as WV grows, how long will it be before 500 changes happen in an hour?
<Rayc> History wanted to the the process. What is the first step?
<gboyers> we have to have the boundaries and limits imposed before we can allow research to proceed - even if they're just ethical guidelines?
<HistoryOnTheRoad> We talked about a template that would go on research pages.
<WiseWoman> Deciding you want to do your research wiki-based.
<Mike42> HistoryOnTheRoad: Unfortunately, if you take a look at the graphs, wikiversity is becoming *less* active :/
<yeoman> the agenda asks "- are they good enough?" ... I think yes. After all, we're placing them in a wiki... not carving them into stone. ;)
<WiseWoman> Second step - convincing your collaborators that a wiki would be great (unless you are a ResearchGod and can force people to use your method of choice)
<Rayc> Just tell all the WP people that if they want to do OR, they can come to us first. Then we get a user base.
<mikeu> taking the guidlines for a test drive might help improve them
<cormaggio> Mike42 - it depends how you look at the stats..
<Mike42> HistoryOnTheRoad: And one would assume that for every crackpot that shows up, we will have many more real users around also, so it's only a mater of time beofre somebody spots it
<Mike42> cormaggio: True, which stats are you looking at? :)
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc: But we might end up with the most volatile and compative WP elements then ... doing opposing "OR". :)
<Rayc> History- so? At least they aren't vandals.
<cormaggio> Mike42 - some of these: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/EN/Sitemap.htm
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Mike42: You know what they say ... there are lies, damned lies ... and then there are statistics :P
<WiseWoman> Third step - find a warm corner of the WV to start your pages (or should we request that people start research topics on their User: pages? And have the RB determine when the pages can be moved?)
<Rayc> Wisewoman, at what point does the review board get involved?
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc: Vandals ... people pushing an extreme POV ... and this is promoting learning how? :)
<cormaggio> research being confined to userspace is probably unnecessary
<WiseWoman> Fourth step - someone feels you are a crackpot and registers your pages with "Questionable Research".
<gboyers> the review board should get involved from the start.. when its just a proposal
<JWSchmidt> gboyers: its a wiki
<Mike42> cormaggio: I'm thinking http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
<WiseWoman> Rayc - I really don't want a RB (or maybe I just don't see people having the time to do this, but maybe I'm wrong).
<Rayc> History- if it's too extreme, they won't get collaberators.
<HistoryOnTheRoad> cormaggio: Maybe that is it ....
<cormaggio> I quite like sj's proposal that this correspond to the VfD process - it's more about flagging unethical etc research than having to review everything
<yeoman> i agree... who would have the time?
<Mike42> cormaggio: Second chart, "new contributors"
<HistoryOnTheRoad> cormaggio: Maybe we need a "questionable research" template, which would go before the review board?
<Mike42> HistoryOnTheRoad: that sounds like a good idea
<cormaggio> HistoryOnTheRoad - yes, that template will be an essential tool :-)
<gboyers> so the community would flag projects up as questionably, and the Review Board would then make the decisions?
<JWSchmidt> there are some problems with research that need experts to pitch in and fix
<HistoryOnTheRoad> Rayc: Do people need collaborators to do research?
<yeoman> that would carry a perhaps unfair stigma, HistoryOnTheRoad
<gboyers> rather than deciding on every project?
<cormaggio> gboyers - I'm tending towards this view..
<HistoryOnTheRoad> JWSchmidt: pitch in and fix <-- like what?
<Rayc> history- if the one person could do it all on their own, why even put it on wiki?
<JWSchmidt> like bogus research that non-experts cannot recognize as being bogus
<HistoryOnTheRoad> yeoman: What would carry a stigma? Questionable research?
<cormaggio> but we just need something in place that will work to control the floodgates - if/when they get flooded
<yeoman> I suppose it could...
<Rayc> cormaggio, trust me, if there is a flood, it's agood thing.
<cormaggio> QUESTION - how will smaller, less-active projects deal with floods of research - this was one of the main points in the SPC's original discussions around Wikiversity
<yeoman> maybe if it was worded something like "needs work" or something
<cormaggio> floods aren't always good - think "crackpots"
<cormaggio> Nazis etc
<yeoman> GNWA comes to mind
<cormaggio> people who can't get published elsewhere for good reason
<cormaggio> morning Angela
<Rayc> Well, who determine the crackpot threshold?
<cormaggio> I think the main question is not "who?", but "by what rationale?"
<JWSchmidt> "Referees help the community"
<Rayc> Ah, the referees. Ok.
<HistoryOnTheRoad> GNWA?
<WiseWoman> Maybe we should just let the WV research get started? We are worrying so much about crackpots, maybe this is a more-or-less non-issue?
<yeoman> don't ask
<yeoman> rhey're a bunch of malicious vandels
<gboyers> the review board isn't actually a board though is it? It's just a group of skilled members who look at questionable or unapproved research
<JWSchmidt> yes
<HistoryOnTheRoad> WiseWoman: We will have crackpots, if we get traction and start to get some good research attention.
<Rayc> We will research that bridge when we get to it.
<Mike42> HistoryOnTheRoad: If and when we get crackpots, we will cross that bridge, until then, I think we may be looking too far forward?
<JWSchmidt> gboyers: so far, the only need for pre-approval we have identified is for research that would need IRB approval
<cormaggio> WiseWoman - right - but what we just need to be sure of is whether the smaller projects that already exist, or that are set up from now on, will be able to use these guidelines themselves
<cormaggio> Rayc - brilliant!
<yeoman> I agree with what gmaxwell said earlier... there are limits to what we can speculate at this juncture
<yeoman> we're still in infancy as a community
<cormaggio> this is true - but what do people think of one-sze-fits-all policies? Are they applicable?
<cormaggio> sze>>size
<Javier> I think as long a small project doesn't have "referees", they shouldn't accept research,
<gboyers> i agree
<gboyers> but then they dont have half of what wikiversity is about
<wikiversilinky> cormaggio: i don't understand that
<cormaggio> (just thought I'd log)
<Rayc> Well, it's been 6 months since we started, and we don't have a ref yet.
<yeoman> cormaggio: imo, yes ... the policies and guidelines are reasonable and clear from what I can tell.
<WiseWoman> referee or reference?
<Rayc> referee.
<gboyers> we have no referee because we have no questionable research
<gboyers> maybe we should get some then?
<WiseWoman> Have we needed a referee?
<Rayc> No, not really.
<cormaggio> I am absolutely prepared to be a referee
<gboyers> we have limited guidelines for the referees to impose
<JWSchmidt> so far, Wikiversity has only had one participant claiming to be a Nobel Prize winner
<cormaggio> this is what I do in my university - help others with research, discuss my own, etc. - and we have other expertise
<WiseWoman> I am hosting my project on another Wiki in part because I wanted it semi-closed: only those who register for the conference are permitted to write, all others can only read.
<WiseWoman> This was not possible on WV up until now.
<cormaggio> WiseWoman - perhaps we should be thinking of ways to attract academics?
<Rayc> Or users in general?
<WiseWoman> JWSchmidt, really? And in what field, Mathematics? :)
<JWSchmidt> physics
<JWSchmidt> 2010 Nobel Prize, no less
<Rayc> lol
<cormaggio> yes, time traveller
<JWSchmidt> that one was not hard to "spot"
<WiseWoman> Cormac, (German) academics are EXTREMELY shy of publishing anything not yet perfect and are also very conservative. But we do need to attract them.
<gboyers> would be great if it turned out to be true though
<Rayc> Well, we have 15 mintues, have we settled anything?
<WiseWoman> We agree to disagree :)
<yeoman> http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En#Fringe_research should be easy to spot
* cormaggio will be happy to be surprised about that one gboyers :-)
<cormaggio> for me - the major point of confusion is whether "research" is or isn't educational research
<cormaggio> I have to say, i was never under the impression that it was limited to educational research - anyone else?
<Rayc> cormaggio, teaching people how to reseach through letting them do research is educational research, no?
<cormaggio> Rayc - that would be partly my argument, yes
<JWSchmidt> Wikiversity has an educational mission and I think that will shape the type of research that is done
<yeoman> I don't think worry about a flood of crackpots is productive... exploring ways of attracting serious researchers is
<WiseWoman> yeoman - exactly.
<gboyers> yes
<cormaggio> JWSchmidt - yes, but the scope should be being worked out at this stage - we should be able to at least answer that question
<JWSchmidt> attracting serious researchers means creating the conditions for that
<yeoman> quality of content?
<WiseWoman> Creating conditions for them to be able to do research that they can't otherwise do.
<JWSchmidt> cormaggio: can you state the question as a question?
<yeoman> we have some nice structures in place... Schools, Portals, Departments etc.
<cormaggio> "Is research in Wikiversity limited to educational research?"
<WiseWoman> I'm a computer scientist, I can set up a wiki anytime I want to in order to foster collaboration. But not everyone knows what a wiki can offer, or is able to set up their own wiki. The WV should be offering them a plattform.
<Rayc> Robert elliot's travel learning concept got me thinking, we have our users as research subjects or willing research assistance.
<gboyers> how does wikiversity differ from brick-and-mortar institutions then?
<JWSchmidt> research in Wikiversity limited to research that is compatible with the educational mission of the project
* Remi__ has joined #wikiversity
<gboyers> if we are abiding by the same constrictions (in subject and scope) with difficult admission and approval procedures, there's no point
<gboyers> Wikiversity is different
<Rayc> "Want hundreads of unpaid people from around the world to look at your data for the chance of getting their name published? Come to wikiversity!"
<JWSchmidt> much research in an educational context is not about publication, it is about learning
<Rayc> "Looking for a good research project, look through wikiversity's proto-research for ideas!"
<gboyers> communal learning
<yeoman> I want to do some research for Community-supported agriculture. It involves a bias. Will that be ok?
<JWSchmidt> bias is fine
<Rayc> You want to see if the cuba- urban farming model would work in america?
<cormaggio> biases are implicit in all research - the important point is to declare them
<yeoman> that would be something to look at Rayc... but that's not "education research" per se
<cormaggio> I don't buy any of this "objectivity" stuff..
<JWSchmidt> objectivity is constructed by a community
<cormaggio> yes, that's a nice way of putting it, John
<Rayc> yeoman- but its teaching urban dwellers to farm their front lawns, the perfect learning activity to tech people about plants and farming.
<cormaggio> sorry, my words might seem unnecessarily harsh - i just think that notions of "truth" are more complex than many people seem to think about truth
<Rayc> If you look for truth too hard, you get called a crackpot. At one point, you have to stop and declair bias.
<cormaggio> ok, we seem to be drifting slightly
<gboyers> slightly?
<Rayc> lol, more like spinning.
<JWSchmidt> that's the truth
<Rayc> Is everyone ok with what is listen under "Unwelcome research"
<cormaggio> Is the Review Board something we want to maintain, discard, modify..?
<Rayc> oh, or what cormaggio siad.
<JWSchmidt> some people seem to deny the idea that experts can be useful
<Rayc> Selection of referees seems to be a problem...
<JWSchmidt> other people say we should get more experts to participate
* Jota_ has joined #wikiversity
<_sj_> cormac: I think it would help wikiversity to focus on educational research
<cormaggio> JWSchmidt - no, i don't think that's what was said - i think it was more like that we don't want to get into a headache of proving whether some people are who they say they are, or having someone with a PhD automatically have more weight than an undergrad
<_sj_> and I think the "review board" should be a process and perhaps a page, not a group of users
<gboyers> there are two main choices for the review board - either having a community-selected group of intelligent, reliable and reputable members to review research OR have an entirely community-led deletion process
<cormaggio> thanks sj
<Rayc> How about a referee sould be an expert on the resaerch guidelines at WV, and thouse partisipating is questionable research should be able to justify their research to them in simple language
<JWSchmidt> " proving whether some people are who they say they are, or having someone with a PhD automatically have more weight than an undergrad" <-- that's fine, who suggested that we do those things?
<_sj_> you send something to the 'review board' which is understood to comprise at any given momemtn the active, respected users who have time to review what is sent that. This is like what afd is, except with a focus on wikiversity's social tone and standards (so hopefully more friendly and effective :)
<gboyers> I think having members who are experts with WV Research policy and guidelines would be the best option
<Rayc> Experts on the guidelines, not the subject area.
<JWSchmidt> "having a community-selected group of intelligent, reliable and reputable members to review research OR have an entirely community-led deletion process" <-- why is that 2 things?
<gboyers> sorry
<cormaggio> sj - right - the whole point should be developing a model of critical debate and learning
<gboyers> the second option would be where any member can put something like a request for deletion message on a research project, and if there are no objections etc then a custodian removes it
<gboyers> the first option is actually a positive decision to remove it by a referee
<WiseWoman> Okay, guys, it is 1am German time. I'm going to be turning in. Need any more cynical comments from me?
<yeoman> in that sense, we (WV) have inherited WP's consensus model (without even trying)
<cormaggio> WiseWoman - thanks very much for coming :-)
<Rayc> Night WW!
<cormaggio> hope to see you again soon
<Mike42> WiseWoman: Night
<WiseWoman> Don't forget to post the log at the end so I can see what else you discuss!
<Mike42> WiseWoman: The bot will
<wikiversilinky> Mike42: i don't understand that
<Mike42> :)
<cormaggio> log didn't seem to work earlier
* yeoman nominates http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Scope_of_research/Policy/En and http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En as written... can we vote?
<JWSchmidt> gboyers, "the second option" <-- that always happens in a wiki, the question is, do we try to provide a way to make use of community members who have expertise?
<gboyers> i was referring to pages that are questionable research rather than vandalism, where members can put forward their objections to research, and essentially a vote takes place
<gboyers> but i prefer the other option
<Mike42> does one have to log in to edit beta:?
<yeoman> use /me command to vote if ya wanna
<Rayc> gboyers- and a refeere desided if something violates research guidelines?
<cormaggio> the process of deciding on questionable research should be open, and based on the common guidelines 9which reflect the community's developing understanding of what good research is)
<gboyers> rayc - thats kind of about right
<gboyers> members with expertise (or just detailed knowledge) in the research policy/guidlines would be best equipped to make informed decisions as to where the line should be drawn
<cormaggio> yeoman - i don't think we need to vote here
<yeoman> can someone secong that ;)
<Rayc> So a AfD process with refeeree choose through a request for refferee vote who can close the AfD debates.
<yeoman> second
<gboyers> experts in individual fields (eg biology) would be useful to provide assistance, advice and discussion to the referee dealing with the project
<cormaggio> I haven't perceived any heavy criticism of any individual proposal - other than the "educational research" question
<Rayc> No formal desision should be held here, only on wiki
<cormaggio> yup, second to rayc
<yeoman> 'k
<JWSchmidt> "Becoming a Referee means taking on extra duties and responsibilities in service of the Wikiversity community. In particular, Referees are expected to apply their expertise and experience to help guide the community in peer review of research methods and practices used in Wikiversity research projects"
<Rayc> cormaggio, Scope of research's Unwelcome research seems to be changed a bit from what we said, and the referee page needs a lot of changes.
<gboyers> but that doesn't mean that a biology project MUST be assessed by a biologist referee
<cormaggio> we haven't heard from gmaxwell for a while...
<gmaxwell> What is there for me to say? I'm not a part of the wikiversity community. I'm just listening.
<yeoman> yeah I'd like to here from the Advisory commitee folk and others
<cormaggio> yes, Rayc - we'll need to edit these pages after looking back over the log
<cormaggio> ok greg - just wondering what your opinion was.. :-)
<cormaggio> "opinion" - mainly, "review board", and "educational research"
<gmaxwell> Part of the reason I've been quiet is that SJ appeared to be mostly speaking my mind. :)
<cormaggio> also gmaxwell - maybe we should have another meeting (?) about actually doing research, i.e. what needs to be done, what would be good to do, what can individuals do, etc..
<cormaggio> right :-)
<cormaggio> yeoman - who do you mean by the "advisory committee"?
<gmaxwell> In my view, It's important Wikiversity stick to it's explicitly published mission. I'm not too interested in the nature of the review process on Wikiversity, so long as at the end of the day it is effective. I trust that the involved parties know what they are doing well enough to do an acceptable job.
<gboyers> can I ask... I haven't been around on WP long enough to see any significant policy changes... how long would you expect this sort of thing to take?
<cormaggio> ok gmaxwell, thanks
<yeoman> for example ward_ I don't know what others are here
<cormaggio> ah, ok yeoman
<gboyers> JWS knows i'm a little impatient due to my age...
<cormaggio> Angela is here too
<ward_> of course I am not an accademic
<yeoman> me neither
<JWSchmidt> cormaggio: was the special projects committee cut out of the review of Wikiversity?
<cormaggio> JWSchmidt - good question - I really don't know - SPC hasn't been very much together over the last few months
<Rayc> gboyers- this is basically the speed at which my research group discusses things. Then after the meeting gets done, things actually get done.
<cormaggio> gboyers - what policy changes are you referring to? our proposals here?
<gboyers> yes
<JWSchmidt> is there a published agenda for the March 16 Board meeting? rumor is that Wikiversity is on their agenda, but I have not seen a published agenda for their meeting
<gboyers> i know its all proposed
<gboyers> but how long until we start seriously looking for referees
<gboyers> etc
<yeoman> The general consensus i picked up from the SPC's talk page is that their involvement in WV policy/guideline discussions will be minimal..
<cormaggio> oh - well, the board meets next week (i think to decide on Wikiversity's "beta" status - which perhaps answers John's question). we need our guidelines in place ideally by then. As for activating them - it's a case of developing the community, an ongoing process..
<yeoman> ...and I think too heavy useage of "committee speak" might hinder the development of an open community spirit
<yeoman> just my opinion
<cormaggio> yeoman - the board and SPC are in effect interchangeable in this discussion - we're trying to make watertight our process for allowing research in Wikiversity which was the main question over wikiversity's setup
* Rayc_ has joined #wikiversity
* Sunir has joined #wikiversity
<cormaggio> Sunir :-)
<Sunir> hey folks
<Sunir> I just saw the email
<cormaggio> a bit late, but..
<cormaggio> we're still here
<yeoman> right cormaggio ... I would just be careful not to get overly pedantic with the wordings of things... WV should maintain its friendliness
<yeoman> (not that cormaggio is especially pedantic in his wording of things ;)
<gboyers> yeoman - so should this not be the time to start handing out the "power" down to the community
<gboyers> don't deny that it is the hands of the few at the moment
<yeoman> there is no cabal :P
<cormaggio> yeah - the point isn't the exactness of wording - but the communication of process (wait, that requires pedantry :-) )
<_sj_> rayc, I'd be interested to hear what you were going to say about the things wikiversity has figured out :)
<Rayc_> ... we figure out stuf?
<Rayc_> Oh, yes, right
<cormaggio> yes, i remember you saying that too Rayc :-)
<Rayc_> Well, we did get the main page and colloqium working right.
<JWSchmidt> "custodian" is a better name than "administrator"
<Rayc_> There are classes hidden in the wiki (the film school, hitlar's germany, learn spanish, etc...)
<cormaggio> Sunir - how are you on Derrida?
<Sunir> that's a random question
<Sunir> how do you mean?
<cormaggio> it is - but it has a focus
<Rayc_> The VoIP project is going well, and someday i'll get those quizes approved.
<Sunir> Derrida loves the sound of his own typewriter.
<cormaggio> I was wondering if you were interested in his ideas - if so, i could point you to a page that has made me think
<Sunir> his ideas are interesting.
<Rayc_> ?
<Sunir> what is the page?
<Rayc> is that what you wanted sj?
<cormaggio> Sunir - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_as_narrative - pardon the randomness
* Sunir reading
<cormaggio> sorry all - I should be more on-topic - I was thinking to what I've been learning about
<Rayc> Isn't the meeting over?
* Mike42 is just trying to get the bot to work, ignore it
<cormaggio> we haven't called the meeting to a close - perhaps we should and let people hang around and chat as they wish (?)
<Mike42> ok, good idea
<Rayc> It seems to be what people are doing anyways
<gboyers> we did that before the meeting started too
* Mike42 pokes the bot to work
<_sj_> rayc, that's helpful
<Rayc> gboyer- and during the meeting.. somewhat
<gboyers> hehe - true
<_sj_> it's hard to separate issues that raise the most questions from issues that are most important
<JWSchmidt> the log is 61 kilobytes
<Rayc> Is there any part of wikiversity you are interested in, sj?
<cormaggio> sj - i'd like to go into that further - it's difficult to quantify alot of this just yet
<_sj_> I'm interested in developing curricula and educational materials in pieces that can be reused in many different ways
<cormaggio> ok, well, thanks to all for coming - i now call this meeting to a close - but please feel free to stick around and talk about your CoolIdeasTM :-)