Archive:Expert commentaries: Difference between revisions
wikademia>McCormack |
wikademia>McCormack |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
#::<font color=008800>'''Expert commentaries:''' ''Wikiversity has expert commentaries on this topic or section.''</font> | #::<font color=008800>'''Expert commentaries:''' ''Wikiversity has expert commentaries on this topic or section.''</font> | ||
# An expert commentary should stay ''on topic'', the topic being the content of the equivalent Wikipedia article. If it strays off-topic, it could become a different kind of learning resource. Such an evolution might be welcome. | # An expert commentary should stay ''on topic'', the topic being the content of the equivalent Wikipedia article. If it strays off-topic, it could become a different kind of learning resource. Such an evolution might be welcome. | ||
# We need to think about how policies (such as NPOV and verifiability) attach to commentaries. We would be hosting them on Wikiversity precisely because they are out-of-scope on Wikipedia. But while we want to preserve valuable or "expert" commentaries, we don't want to encourage charlatanism. An expert may have a point-of-view, but the style should be academic/professional and the resource should be properly ''informed''. | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
Revision as of 10:29, 29 June 2008
This page describes a proposal for a new resource type on Wikiversity.
What is an expert commentary?
An expert commentary is a commentary on a Wikipedia article by an expert in the area.
The need for expert commentaries
Formal criteria for an expert commentary
- Title: the expert commentary has the same title (on WV) as the equivalent page on Wikipedia. In the case of pre-existing resources on WV with the same name, a kind of disambiguation list should be created. In the case where a WP page has more than one expert commentary, the main WV equivalent page should be a list of the commentaries, and the commentaries should be out into subpages.
- Interwiki links: the WV pages should link back to WP using the standard Template:Wikipedia box. The Wikipedia article should have a special inline reference - something like this (with hyperlinks added):
- Expert commentaries: Wikiversity has expert commentaries on this topic or section.
- An expert commentary should stay on topic, the topic being the content of the equivalent Wikipedia article. If it strays off-topic, it could become a different kind of learning resource. Such an evolution might be welcome.
- We need to think about how policies (such as NPOV and verifiability) attach to commentaries. We would be hosting them on Wikiversity precisely because they are out-of-scope on Wikipedia. But while we want to preserve valuable or "expert" commentaries, we don't want to encourage charlatanism. An expert may have a point-of-view, but the style should be academic/professional and the resource should be properly informed.