维基学院:研究范围

来自维基学院
跳到导航 跳到搜索

1[编辑源代码]

來自英語參與者

研究範圍討論頁討論維基學院之內可能允許之創新/原始研究活動.

  1. 產生新知識的文獻回顧。
  2. 維基學院內, 使用文獻回顧外之研究方法 之研究計劃().
  3. 涉及維基學院外之學院研究員之合作研究計劃 ().

2[编辑源代码]

來自德語參與者

首先一一般觀察: 在德國文化實踐中無"原始"和"次生"研究之別. 因此, 這裡唯一有相干的詞語是 "研究", 因而 此詞語 涵蘊 一套超越唯文獻(en: merely literary) 的 重要(en: critical) 方法學.

1. 此討論 應該從 "研究"一詞的定義開始。 以後,我們謹提出(這是德語科學社群公認的): 研究是有條不紊地尋求知識的過程(en:research is the methodical search for knowledge).

2. 從我們的觀點, "研究"本身 的定義 或多或少 因學科而異. 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.

3.至今, 各維基媒體項目的各語言版本 各自獨立地釐定 其內容和方向, 亦各自獨立地釐定 其內部運作程序 (例如, 德文Wikpedia 和德文Wikisource 計劃與其相應英文計劃明顯不同)。 這情況有利思想多元化 。 因此這項原則亦應該適用於維基學院。 所以我們建議, 容許何種研究, 應由各專業人員及各語言版本自行決定。 (源文)

3[编辑源代码]

來自英語參與者

此頁:Wikiversity:Research/En 需要被翻譯. 它包括維基媒體基金理事會 關於 整個Wikiversity 社區怎樣開發 將適用於整個Wikiversity 項目的研究政策 的指示.

即使德語人不熟悉, 維基媒體基金理事會極關注"原始研究". "原始研究"一詞曾出現於 Wikipedia:Theoriefindung. The distinction to be made is between:
1) 現今No Original Research 政策之下在wikipedia 中的次生研究 (文獻回顧(en: literature review))
and
2)NOR 政策不容許的其它研究

若維基學院要主持不被NOR政策限制的研究活動, 則維基學院需要建立同時適用於途所有語言的研究政策.


[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

4[编辑源代码]

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

5[编辑源代码]

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)

6[编辑源代码]

I think, one should let both forms appear and indicate by some kind of diacritical mark, whether the particular project is referring to a primary scientific or secondary scientific source. It occurs to me that we might do something similar to the "this is a Stub"reference in the English Wikipedia. Perhaps some kind of similar hypertext can be furnished so as to give a description of the project next to the actual project text, and that way the project can be described in detail (similarly to the way the User pages work). Joergel 11:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask a) Is it possible or not to operate in the context of the Wikiversity original research rubric? b) In the meantime there is speculation from different sides, as to how the actual goal and function of the Wikiversity should be thought out. Wouldn't it be possible to set up a single space for this [discussion] with Frank Schulenberg as moderator (since he's the person who brought wikiversity to life in the first place)?

  • [En: Cormaggio]: 我們需要清楚地認出在維基學府允許研究有什麼潛在危險, 並且為接受和應付研究的各方面勾畫一架構。
  • [En: JWSchmidt]以人為對象的研究
    • 誰評論研究的評論者?

Next[编辑源代码]