Wikiversity:Scope of research
Scope of researchEdit
from English-language participants
Distinction between "primary" and "secondary" researchEdit
from German-language participants
"First a general observation: the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" research is unknown in German cultural practice. Thus, the only relevant term here is"research" and, as such, this term implies a set of critical methodologies. that transcend the merely literary.
- The discussion should begin with a definition of the term "research". Subsequently, we would like to suggest the following formulation, which is common to German-language science enterprises: "research is the methodical search for knowledge".
- From our point of view the definition of "research" per se, is to a considerable degree, discipline dependent. Hence it follows that the area specialists of each area should decide for themselves, what is meant by research and what kind of research it should be permitted to do. A universally binding rule for all specialist areas in Wikiversity appears to us problematic.
- Thus far the individual language versions of the different Wikimedia projects have independently determined their own content and direction, as well as their internal operational procedures (for example, both both the German-language Wikpedia and the German-language Wikisource project differ substantially from their respective counterparts in the English language). This state of affairs is positive in that it contributes to intellectual diversity, and this principle should apply to Wikiversity as well. Therefore we would suggest that, the decision, as to what kinds of research should be permitted, should be left to the inivdidual specialist areas as well as the individual language versions." (translation source)
from English-language participants
This page: Wikiversity:Research needs to be translated into German. It includes the instructions from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees about how the entire Wikiversity community needs to develop ONE policy for research that will apply to the entire Wikiversity project.
Even if the term "original research" is not well-known to Germans it is of great concern to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The term "original research" is mentioned at Wikipedia:Theoriefindung. The distinction to be made is between:
1) forms of "secondary research" (literature review) as practiced at Wikipedia under the policy of No Original Research
2) other forms of research that would not be possible if Wikiversity also adopts the No Original Research policy.
If Wikiversity is going to have forms of research activity that are not restrained by the No Original Research policy, then Wikiversity needs to establish policies for how such research will be conducted in ALL languages.
[Note: Much to my regret your answer shows me that the improper Babelfish-translation lead to misunderstandings. Is there any possibility to handle this in a different way? --Frank Schulenburg 08:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)]
"improper Babelfish-translation" <-- the translation of [#2] was later modified, see: Wikiversity translations/De to En archive
- (Machine translated,then further edits by smithgrrl see translations page)
After some thought, we on IRC #wikiversity-en came to the conclusion that probably the best translation is to divide the categories into "comparative research and further (single-focus?) research". Another translation does not appear to have much meaning. Likewise the additional phrase "active research" is rather odd and is used in a different context. Aschoeke
Goal and functionEdit
I see part of the distinction "original research"/"secondary research" covered by the German terms: „empirische Forschung“/„Literaturstudium und Dokumentation“ (i.e. "empirical Research"/"Literature study and Documentation"). --Purodha 00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If the committee regulation means to implement the Wikipedia rule "No original research" here, then we should imho rename the project to "Wiki-College". --Purodha 00:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[Translated from German with Google translation] I agree with Purodha and would like to state, in general, crucially, that: each piece empirical research should contain not only the result, but also the precise documentation of execution and/or the origin of the research, so as to allow others to reproduce the results. Turned around: An attempt, which cannot be reproduced due to inaccurate description, falsifises the result, in the same way as result deviations under a more precise attempt. --Dietrich 18:09, 12 November 2006 (CEST)
- Is it possible or not to operate in the context of the Wikiversity original research rubric?
- how the actual goal and function of the Wikiversity should be thought out?
How to assure high-quality research?Edit
- How does the Wikiversity community assure high-quality research?
- how do we prevent cranks from adding bogus research to Wikiversity?
- Does Wikiversity need a formal peer review system for original research?
- what is bogus research? Who decides?
- Research versus publishing
- Wiki-journals (http://academia.wikia.org)
Particular dangers, human subjects, reviewing the reviewers, wiki-publishingEdit
- We need to define what particular dangers there are in allowing research to become a part of Wikiversity, and to draw up a framework for accepting and dealing with the various aspects of research.
- On researches with human subjects; on the question: "Who reviews the reviewers?"
- What is wiki-publishing?
Types of researchEdit
- Back the Scope
- Create a list types of research activities and rank the types according to how easy it would be to carry out that type of research within Wikiversity?
- Question (from a discussion in Spanish Wikiversity): What do we do with original research (including thesis works) that was done externally, and afterwards licensed under the GFDL? Does it belong in wikisource? Does it belong to wikiversity?
Reinventing the wheel?Edit
Wikiversity as reference for Wikipedia?Edit
Question: Wikiversity as reference for Wikipedia?
Topics not traditionally well-fundedEdit
Should there be a special emphasis on research topics that are not traditionally well-funded?