On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Very important ideas for humanity may be patented, too; so this is not just about commercial ideas. But, I think that this is a part of one wider issue needed to complement other Wikimedia projects: We need a place where original research is possible. However, the concept of such idea has to be carefully built and a lot of organizational infrastructure is necessary for that. I think that WMF is not ready for that, still. But, I think that it will be ready in the next couple of years (if everything would be going regularly).

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de> wrote: The main schism of Wikiversity is not about OR, but about NPOV. Unlike an encyclopedia, it is not so possible to build a university based on one ideology (or "point of view" even authors of that particular POV claim that it is "neutral"). While it is true that Wikiversity has to incorporate some OR, it is at the much lower scale than Wiktionary incorporates OR. (Every word definition is OR if it is not copied from some dictionary.) At Wikiversity participants may teach each other how to do original research, but it still doesn't need to be original research per se. But, I think that the main initiative for the project which would deal exclusively with OR will come from Wikiversity. OR project should gather ideas and (non-encyclopedic) scientific production, and Wikiversity's primary goal is not that, but to be a platform for self-education (as far as I understand it). As far as I know (but, let's say Mike Godwin may correct me), if something is published prior to submitting a patent, it is, at least, an easy case on the court; which wouldn't be our matter until someone tries to sue us because of patent infringement (which would be, btw, very stupid). However, it is true that before we make such project we have to have well developed Wikiversity because such places, where original research is possible, tend to become a place for pseudoscience and bad science. We have to have at least a clear picture about that segment of "intellectual property" laws (like we have in the case of copyright law), too.