维基学院:研究范围

1

来自英语参与者

研究范围讨论页讨论维基学院之内可能允许之创新/原始研究活动.

1. 产生新知识的文献回顾。
2. 维基学院内, 使用文献回顾外之研究方法 之研究计划(例).
3. 涉及维基学院外之学院研究员之合作研究计划 (例).

2

来自德语参与者

首先一一般观察: 在德国文化实践中无"原始"和"次生"研究之别. 因此, 这里唯一有相干的词语是 "研究", 因而 此词语 涵蕴 一套超越唯文献(en: merely literary) 的 重要(en: critical) 方法学.

1. 此讨论 应该从 "研究"一词的定义开始。 以后,我们谨提出(这是德语科学社群公认的): 研究是有条不紊地寻求知识的过程(en:research is the methodical search for knowledge).

2. 从我们的观点, "研究"本身 的定义 或多或少 因学科而异. 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, 各维基媒体项目的各语言版本 各自独立地釐定 其内容和方向, 亦各自独立地釐定 其内部运作程序 (例如, 德文Wikpedia 和德文Wikisource 计划与其相应英文计划明显不同)。 这情况有利思想多元化 。 因此这项原则亦应该适用于维基学院。 所以我们建议, 容许何种研究, 应由各专业人员及各语言版本自行决定。 (源文)

3

来自英语参与者

此页:Wikiversity:Research/En 需要被翻译. 它包括维基媒体基金理事会 关于 整个Wikiversity 社区怎样开发 将适用于整个Wikiversity 项目的研究政策 的指示.

即使德语人不熟悉, 维基媒体基金理事会极关注"原始研究". "原始研究"一词曾出现于 Wikipedia:Theoriefindung. The distinction to be made is between:
1) 现今No Original Research 政策之下在wikipedia 中的次生研究 (文献回顾(en: literature review))
and
2)NOR 政策不容许的其它研究

若维基学院要主持不被NOR政策限制的研究活动, 则维基学院需要建立同时适用于途所有语言的研究政策.

---

[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

• (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

5

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

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]: 我们需要清楚地认出在维基学府允许研究有什么潜在危险, 并且为接受和应付研究的各方面勾画一架构。
• [En: JWSchmidt]以人为对象的研究
  • 谁评论研究的评论者?