User talk:Aldenis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Aldenis! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Teaching on Wikipedia

I posted this proposal on July 17, 2006, in a blog hosted by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Since then I have received some interesting feedback, and the idea is developing rather fast.

From Conventional Classrooms to Online Workshops

My name is Adrian Lopez Denis and I am a PhD candidate in Latin American history at UCLA. In the last two years I have been looking for ways to incorporate the open source model to collective forms of historical production. From the beginning, encouraging professional historians to contribute to the development of the wikipedia project emerged as the most obvious approach. Most professional historians are both researchers and educators. Besides conducting their own specialized studies, they are often expected to provide hundreds of undergraduate students with a relatively wider understanding of the past. Completing a history course usually requires writing research papers, journal entries, annotated bibliographies, or book reviews. Students are expected to produce a certain amount of pages that educators are supposed to read and grade. There is a great deal of redundancy and waste involved in this practice. Usually several students answer the same questions or write separately on the same topic, and the valuable time of the professionals that read these essays is wasted on a rather repetitive task.

In the process of essay writing, students use an array of resources, from the overpriced textbooks and readers they are expected to purchase to more readily available online tools like wikipedia. Some of us would perhaps push for deeper levels of inquiry involving books on reserve, open library searches, or even the occasional dive into local repositories of primary sources. In most cases, however, the entire process will be a mockery of actual research. As long as essay writing remains purely an academic exercise, or an evaluation tool, students would be learning a deep lesson in intellectual futility along with whatever other information the course itself is trying to convey. Assuming that each student is writing 10 pages for a given class, and each class has an average of 50 students, every course is in fact generating 500 pages of written material that would eventually find its way to the campus trashcans. In the meantime, the price of college textbooks is raising four times faster that the general inflation rate.

The solution to this conundrum is rather simple. Small teams of students should be the main producers of course material and every class should operate as a workshop for the collective assemblage of copyright-free instructional tools. Because each team would be working on a different problem, single copies of library materials placed on reserve could become the main source of raw information. Each assignment would generate a handful of multimedia modular units that could be used as building blocks to assemble larger teaching resources. Under this principle, each cohort of students would inherit some course material from their predecessors and contribute to it by adding new units or perfecting what is already there. Courses could evolve, expand, or even branch out. Although centered on the modular production of textbooks and anthologies, this concept could be extended to the creation of syllabi, handouts, slideshows, quizzes, webcasts, and much more. Educators would be involved in helping students to improve their writing rather than simply using the essays to gauge their individual performance. Students would be encouraged to collaborate rather than to compete, and could learn valuable lessons regarding the real nature and ultimate purpose of academic writing and scholarly research.

Online collaboration and electronic publishing of course materials would multiply the potential impact of this approach. Users outside the class, the country, or the continent could benefit from the work of the students. Course projects could be run on relatively closed websites associated to traditional scholarly institutions. The output from these sites could be periodically uploaded into larger repositories based on a more open model of intellectual collaboration along the lines of the wikipedia project. An even bolder move would be to base entire courses on the creation of actual wikipedia entries. Under this principle, the interaction between classmates and larger online communities could be immediate and continuous. Students could run a wikiportal, write a wikibook, or even be fully integrated in an electronic course within the wikiversity. Discussing the advantages, disadvantages, and larger implications of the wikimedia model of collective intellectual production could be a valuable educational experience in and on itself.

Changing our approach to in-class writing assignments could be rather significant. We could produce a huge repertoire of dynamically evolving instructional materials, created by students and for students, professionally edited and collectively reviewed, free and copylefted. It could be very difficult to convince many of our colleagues about the practicality of dumping the results of their promotion-giving, sabbatical-swallowing, and ultimately unwelcome original research into such an anarchic pool of information as wikipedia is today. It would be easier to alter our current approach to essay writing in the history class, recycling an otherwise dull operation into a socially productive and intellectually stimulating practice.Aldenis 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to work with you to develop this further. I am currently most familiar with WP:SUP. What you describe goes beyond this and is likely related to Wikibooks and Wikiversity - I'd assume you are familiar with those projects?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:AldenisWikiversityLogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AldenisWikiversityLogo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Explosion in a cathedral

A tag has been placed on Explosion in a cathedral requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. CobaltBlueTony 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)