OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Open Source Degree Confirmation
## Reasoning

Since Wikiversity does not grant degrees, one way the computer science student can develop a strong resume is to work on real life projects in the Open Source community. There are many open source projects that have a limited and more simplistic scope for beginners. Most open source projects provide a very welcoming environment to help you get on board and you can start by getting involved in many aspects of the project. Programming and mathematics must be mastered first and foremost. This generally can take 5-10 years of programming experience. Yet in the 1980's many witnessed high school students creating video games for the Apple II, TRS-80, and other microcomputers by their own efforts. So this premise is not at all impossible, and is surely plausible. For computer science (see: School:Computer Science ) this is easy. For other schools, similar methods can be used.

## Demand

Employers want programmers and computer professionals who have danced the dance, that is, worked on "real" software and contributed for several years. In the 1980's students were being hired right out of high school due to their computer and programming expertise. These days, documented education and/or certification are necessary.

## Resume and Achievements

The resume of a student can include a growing and growing list of verifiable Open Source contributions. While not accredited, with open source development sites such as http://sourceforge.net and www.apache.org will show the exact contributions of participants.

## Linux Professional Institute

The Linux Professional Institute is an institute which is committed to the development of a global standard in Linux certification. Individuals and organizations wishing to be certified in the use of Linux systems can enroll in courses which meet the requirements of both IT professionals and the organizations that seek to employ people with skills and experience in using, administering and programming on open source distributions. The LPI seeks to be distribution neutral and aims to provide the highest quality resources in order to educate and certify people in the use of Linux distributions.
The LPI provides 3 levels of certification:
* LPIC-1
* LPIC-2
* LPIC-3
Along with the above 3 levels of certification the LPI also provides a certification in partnership with NOVELL: Novell Certificate of Linux Administration
# Menomonie, Wisconsin History/slamer165

Introduction
Needs reference
# Menomonie, Wisconsin History/papermate0.7
## Whatever I Want!
### qwert
#### qwert

words
other words

## External Links

Google
# Menomonie, Wisconsin History/uw stout history/kulvich

Under construction. The University of Wisconsin Stout is a historical figure of Menomonie and brought a great deal of change to the community.
# Menomonie, Wisconsin History/uw stout history

Intro will be migrated here when complete.

## UW-Stout School History: Individual Projects

Mortikaii
Dominick's Page on the Evolution of the Menomonie Area
Bennetts page on the history of UW-Stouts sports teams
Kulvich
ortbergj3100
# Open Science/Week 13: International Cooperation in Open Science
### Learning Outcomes

* Identify open science issues related to international cooperation.
* Describe contextual factors relevant to equitable international collaboration.

### Readings

“Framing a Situated and Inclusive Open Science: Emerging Lessons from the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network” by Hillyer, R., Posada, A., Albornoz, D., Chan, L., & Okune, A. in Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices, 18, 2017, CC BY-NC. 16 pages.
“Developing Open Science in Africa: Barriers, Solutions and Opportunities” by Mwelwa, J., Boulton, G., Wafula, J. M., & Loucoubar, C. in Data Science Journal, 19: 31, (2020), Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 18 pages.
In addition and based on student interest, assign one or more of these specific applications:
“Developing International Open Science Collaborations: Funder Reflections on the Open Science Prize” by Kittrie E, Atienza AA, Kiley R, Carr D, MacFarlane A, Pai V, et al. in PLoS Biol 15(8): e2002617, 2017, CC 0 1.0. 8 pages.
“Open Science Approaches to COVID-19” by Edwin, G. T., Klug, D. M., & Todd, M. H. in F1000Research, 9, 2020, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 11 pages.

### Discussion Question

Briefly summarize a study in your field that involved international cooperation. Highlight the extent to which the study incorporated open science practices. Comment on the factors in the study context that are relevant to equitable collaboration. Conclude your post with a question inviting further discussion.

### Self-check Questions

* ↑ Hillyer, Rebecca; Posada, Alejandro; Albornoz, Denisse; Chan, Leslie; Okune, Angela (2017). "Framing a Situated and Inclusive Open Science: Emerging Lessons from the Open and Collaborative Science in Development Network". Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices: 18–33. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-769-6-18. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/doi/10.3233/978-1-61499-769-6-18.
* ↑ Mwelwa, Joseph; Boulton, Geoffrey; Wafula, Joseph Muliaro; Loucoubar, Cheikh (2020-08-05). "Developing Open Science in Africa: Barriers, Solutions and Opportunities". Data Science Journal 19 (1): 31. doi:10.5334/dsj-2020-031. ISSN 1683-1470. http://datascience.codata.org/article/10.5334/dsj-2020-031/.
* ↑ Kittrie, Elizabeth; Atienza, Audie A.; Kiley, Robert; Carr, David; MacFarlane, Aki; Pai, Vinay; Couch, Jennifer; Bajkowski, Jared et al. (2017-08-01). "Developing international open science collaborations: Funder reflections on the Open Science Prize". PLOS Biology 15 (8): e2002617. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2002617. ISSN 1545-7885. PMID 28763440. PMC PMC5538631. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002617.
* ↑ Tse, Edwin G.; Klug, Dana M.; Todd, Matthew H. (2020). "Open science approaches to COVID-19". F1000Research 9: 1043. doi:10.12688/f1000research.26084.1. ISSN 2046-1402. PMID 33145011. PMC 7590891. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33145011/.
# Open Science/Week 3: Science in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
### Learning Outcomes

* List the dimensions of sustainable development.
* Identify Sustainable Development Goal targets relevant to open science.
* Explain the relationship between human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals.

### Readings

Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 25 September 2015, Copyright © United Nations. 35 pages.
Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, © OHCHR 1996-2021.
Transforming Our World: Human Rights in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, © OHCHR 1996-2021. 2 pages.
SDG_HR_Table, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, © OHCHR 1996-2021. 7 slides.

### Discussion Question

Consult the Sustainable Development Goals Human Rights table. The table shows how each Sustainable Development Goal (Goal) is related to specific human rights protections. The human right to science (Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] Article 27) relates to several Goals. Three of these relationships address specific applications of science and technology to meeting individual Goals. For example, Goal 3, Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages, is related to UDHR Article 27. In contrast, Goal 17 (Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development) takes a broader institutional perspective on the role of science in meeting the goals.
Which of these four connections between a Goal and the human right to science seems most relevant to you on a personal, professional level? Conclude your post with a question that could be answered by others in the class.

### Self-check Questions

* ↑ "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development | Department of Economic and Social Affairs". sdgs.un.org. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
* ↑ "OHCHR | Sustainable Development Goals and Human Rights". www.ohchr.org. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
* ↑ "OHCHR | Transforming Our World: Human Rights in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development". https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/MDGs/Post2015/TransformingOurWorld.pdf. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
* ↑ "SDG_HR_Table" United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
# Open Science/Week 10: Open Science Infrastructures
### Learning Outcomes

* Explain the role of infrastructure in making open science possible
* Describe gaps in the current infrastructure of open science
* Describe challenges in making open science infrastructure, inclusive, collaborative, and sustainable.

### Readings

“Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge Infrastructures in Open Science” by Angela Okune, Rebecca Hillyer, Denisse Albornoz, Alejandro Posada, Leslie Chan in ELPUB, Toronto, Canada; 2018, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 20 pages.
“Open is Not Forever: A Study of Vanished Open Access Journals” by Laakso, M., Matthias, L., & Jahn, N in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2021. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 14 pages.

### Discussion Question

Identify an example of infrastructure relevant to your research context. Describe one strength and one weakness of this infrastructure. Focus on the extent to which your example is inclusive, collaborative, and/ or sustainable. Conclude your post with a question for others in the class.
Alternative discussion question: If you (as discussion leader) can identify one or two examples of open infrastructure familiar to your class and relevant to their research context, have the class apply concepts from the reading to evaluate the specific example(s) on dimensions of inclusivity, collaboration, and sustainability.
This week also offers the opportunity for an open data activity using this dataset on open access journals: Vanished Open Access Journals (Version 3) by Laakso, M., Matthias, L., & Jahn, N. available on Zenodo, Meyrin, Switzerland: CERN, 2020.

### Self-check Questions

* ↑ Chan, Leslie; Posada, Alejandro; Albornoz, Denisse; Hillyer, Rebecca; Okune, Angela (2018-06-20). "Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge Infrastructures in Open Science". ELectronic PUBlishing Connecting the Knowledge Commons: From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure. doi:10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.31. https://elpub.episciences.org/4619/pdf.
* ↑ Laakso, Mikael; Matthias, Lisa; Jahn, Najko (2021). "Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 72 (9): 1099–1112. doi:10.1002/asi.24460. ISSN 2330-1643. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.24460.
# Open Science/Week 11: Incentives for Open Science
### Learning Outcomes

* Describe barriers that discourage researchers from adopting open science practices.
* List examples of how open science practices benefit researchers.
* Compare incentives to other approaches used to encourage open science, such as mandates and requirements.

### Readings

“Point of View: Motivating Participation in Open Science by Examining Researcher Incentives” by Ali-Khan, S. E., Harris, L. W., & Gold, E. R. in eLife, 6.e29319, 2016, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 12 pages.
“Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed” by McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., et al. in eLife, 5, e16800, 2016, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 19 pages.
“Sticks and Carrots: Encouraging Open Science at its Source” by Leonelli, S., Spichtinger, D.; & Prainsack, B in Geo: Geography and Environment, 2(1), 2015, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 5 pages.

### Discussion Question

What role should incentives play in encouraging researchers to adopt open science practices? Are they necessary? Why or why not?
Conclude your post with a question for others to answer.

### Self-check Questions

* ↑ Ali-Khan, Sarah E; Harris, Liam W; Gold, E Richard. "Motivating participation in open science by examining researcher incentives". eLife 6: e29319. doi:10.7554/eLife.29319. ISSN 2050-084X. PMID 29082866. PMC 5662284. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662284/.
* ↑ McKiernan, Erin C; Bourne, Philip E; Brown, C Titus; Buck, Stuart; Kenall, Amye; Lin, Jennifer; McDougall, Damon; Nosek, Brian A et al. (2016-07-07). Rodgers, Peter. ed. "How open science helps researchers succeed". eLife 5: e16800. doi:10.7554/eLife.16800. ISSN 2050-084X. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800.
* ↑ Leonelli, Sabina; Spichtinger, Daniel; Prainsack, Barbara (2015). "Sticks and carrots: encouraging open science at its source". Geo 2 (1): 12–16. doi:10.1002/geo2.2. ISSN 2054-4049. PMID 26435842. PMC 4591465. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4591465/.
# Open Science/Week 12: Scientific Culture for Quality, Integrity, and Open Science
### Learning Outcomes

* Define the term social dilemma.
* Identify social dilemmas in the context of open science and propose solutions.
* Compare the role culture plays in open science and in reproducibility.

### Readings

“Putting Open Science into Practice: A Social Dilemma?” by Scheliga, K., & Friesike, S. in First Monday, 19(9), 2014, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 International License.
“Open Science, Communal Culture, and Women’s Participation in the Movement to Improve Science” by Mary C. Murphy, Amanda F. Mejia, Jorge Mejia, Xiaoran Yan, Sapna Cheryan, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Mesmin Destin, Stephanie A. Fryberg, Julie A. Garcia, Elizabeth L. Haines, Judith M. Harackiewicz, Alison Ledgerwood, Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, Lora E. Park, Sylvia P. Perry, Kate A. Ratliff, Aneeta Rattan, Diana T. Sanchez, Krishna Savani, Denise Sekaquaptewa, Jessi L. Smith, Valerie Jones Taylor, Dustin B. Thoman, Daryl A. Wout, Patricia L. Mabry, Susanne Ressl, Amanda B. Diekman, and Franco Pestilli in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (39) 24154-24164, September 2020, CC BY-NC-ND. 11 pages.
Optional additional reading for those in the US:
“Accelerating Progress to Open Science by Design” in Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2018, Copyright National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). See especially pp. 151-153.

### Discussion Question

Describe an example of a social dilemma in the context of open science. To the extent possible, ground the example in your personal experience. Explain the individual and collective aspects of the dilemma. Offer a proposed solution. Conclude your post by posing a question for further discussion of your example.

### Self-check Questions

* ↑ Scheliga, Kaja; Friesike, Sascha (2014-08-24). "Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma?". First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v19i9.5381. ISSN 1396-0466. https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5381.
* ↑ Murphy, Mary C.; Mejia, Amanda F.; Mejia, Jorge; Yan, Xiaoran; Cheryan, Sapna; Dasgupta, Nilanjana; Destin, Mesmin; Fryberg, Stephanie A. et al. (2020-09-29). "Open science, communal culture, and women’s participation in the movement to improve science". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (39): 24154–24164. doi:10.1073/pnas.1921320117. ISSN 0027-8424. PMID 32929006. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/39/24154.
* ↑ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research (in English). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25116. ISBN 978-0-309-47624-9.
# Open Science/Week 15: Application, Feedback and Final Project
### Learning Outcomes

* Apply knowledge of open science to develop a renewable assignment.

### Readings

If possible, include readings discussing the reception of the UNESCO Recommendation.

### Discussion Question

Describe your journey from Week 1 to Week 15. How has your understanding of open science changed since you started the course? What is something that surprised you about open science? Make reference to the course learning outcomes. Conclude your response with a question for further discussion.

### Self-check Questions

No self-check questions for Week 15.
* ↑ UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 2021-12-15
# Open Science/Week 2: Science in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
### Learning Outcomes

* Describe the role of human rights in scientific education.
* Explain the two main parts of the “human right to science” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

### Readings

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, 10 December 1948, Copyright © United Nations.
General Comment No. 25 on Science and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/25, United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), 30 April 2020, Copyright © United Nations. 19 pages.
Optional: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United United Nations General Assembly, 16 December 1966, Copyright © United Nations. 8 pages. See especially Preamble (for context) and Article 15.

### Discussion Question

Have you learned about human rights in your scientific education before now? If so, describe your experience. If not, describe how the topic of human rights could have been introduced into your scientific education. Conclude your post with a question that could be answered by others in the class.

### Self-check Questions

* ↑ United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". United Nations. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
* ↑ United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 25 (2020) on Science and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/25, 30 April 2020
* ↑ United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series.
# Open Science/Week 4: UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science
### Learning Outcomes

* Describe key elements of the policy process, including stakeholder engagement, relevant to the creation and implementation of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.
* Identify the frameworks presented in the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.

### Readings

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), November 23, 2021, CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO. 34 pages.
Consolidated Roadmap for a Possible UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, UNESCO Executive Board, August 7, 2019, Copyright © United Nations. 5 pages.
One or more inputs to the recommendation or comments on the draft:
“Comments on the First Draft of the Recommendation on Open Science,” Open Science, UNESCO. Copyright © United Nations.
For example, you might read comments from a member state, such as Norway, or from an organization, such as cOAlition S.
The United States Withdraws from UNESCO, Heather Nauert, State Department Spokesperson, October 12, 2017, Public Domain.

### Discussion Question

Read the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and (at least) one of the responses provided to the Draft Recommendation. Do some research to understand the organization that provided the feedback you read. For example, read the About section on its website and/ or its Wikipedia page, if it has one. Include the following elements in your discussion post:
* A description of the organization that provided the feedback you read.
* A summary of the main elements of the feedback provided.
* Your assessment of whether or not the feedback is reflected in the Recommendation.
Conclude your post with a question for others in the class.

### Self-check Questions

* ↑ UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
* ↑ Consolidated Roadmap for a Possible UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
* ↑ "Open Science". UNESCO. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
* ↑ Heather Nauert, US Department of State, "The United States Withdraws from UNESCO," Retrieved 2021-12-15.
# Open Science/Week 14: Synthesis
### Learning Outcomes

* List expected positive outcomes of open science.
* List potential barriers to open science.
* Describe arguments against open science.
* Integrate multiple perspectives on the future of open science.

### Readings

“Defining Success in Open Science” by Ali-Khan, S. E., Jean, A., MacDonald, E., & Gold, E. R. in MNI Open Research, 2, 2018, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 10 pages.
“Open Science and Its Enemies: Challenges for a Sustainable Science–Society Social Contract” by Krishna, V. V. in Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 61, 2020, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 15 pages.
“The Future(s) of Open Science” by Mirowski, P. in Social Studies of Science, 48(2), 2018, Open Access via Sage. 32 pages.

### Discussion Question

Which of the following statements best matches your belief about the future of open science?
* Open science is likely to lead to positive outcomes.
* Open science would create positive outcomes, but it faces strong barriers to adoption.
* Open science is likely to lead to negative outcomes.
Support your answer with examples. You may address the question broadly or within your specific context. Conclude your response with a question for further discussion.
Instructor note: The reading "Defining Success in Open Science" also provides an opportunity to discuss open peer review.

### Self-check Questions

* ↑ Ali-Khan, Sarah E.; Jean, Antoine; MacDonald, Emily; Gold, E. Richard (2018-03-20). "Defining Success in Open Science". MNI Open Research 2: 2. doi:10.12688/mniopenres.12780.2. ISSN 2515-5059. https://mniopenresearch.org/articles/2-2/v2.
* ↑ Krishna, Venni V. (2020-09). "Open Science and Its Enemies: Challenges for a Sustainable Science–Society Social Contract". Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6 (3): 61. doi:10.3390/joitmc6030061. https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/6/3/61.
* ↑ Mirowski, Philip (2018-04-01). "The future(s) of open science". Social Studies of Science 48 (2): 171–203. doi:10.1177/0306312718772086. ISSN 0306-3127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086.
# Open Science/Week 1: Introduction
### Learning Outcomes

* Define human rights.
* State key events leading to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
* Interpret and apply the syllabus to develop a personal plan for learning and engagement with the course.

### Readings

Syllabus
Recommended background reading for those seeking an introduction to human rights:
“Part 1: Human Rights Fundamentals,” Human Rights Here & Now: Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, edited by Nancy Flowers, 1998, Copyright. Free to reproduce for educational use.
* ↑ Human Rights Educators' Network of Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Resource Center, and The Stanley Foundation (1998). Flowers, Nancy (ed.). "Human Rights Here and Now: Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Minneapolis, MN: Human Rights Resource Center. Retrieved 2021-12-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)