Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 6/15/06, Michael R. Irwin
..about 3600 words
I'm not going to respond to all of them, but can I just make a simple
point or two..
I don't envisage Wikiversity's content being moved to other wikis when
it gets to a standard worthy of another project (ie a book). Far from
it. This would be a terrible way of working. Rather, I see Wikiversity
developing learning materials which can be used for a number of
learning projects/activities - ie. a class/lesson plan with relevant
learning material (eg. images, book extracts, audio exercises etc),
which can be set out in any way that seems the best way to construct
this material into a learning process/course, whatever you want to
call it. Keep all this at Wikiversity - no question of moving it
anywhere. If people want to do further research or reading, they can
go to Wikibooks or Wikipedia (etc) - I don't see anything disastrous
about that. Furthermore, if their learning compels them to do so (or
if specified by their learning activity to do so), they can improve
those articles/books, in order to consolidate their learning. But they
will always come back to their learning materials on Wikiversity -
this is the basis of their learning - what they do with that learning
is anyone's guess.
Unfortunately this is not what the proposal soon to be submitted to
(according to the God-King) five supportive stacked Board members lines
out for their consideration. It really does not matter what you or I
or anyone in the Wikiversity project thinks when we are operational if
it has been hard coded that there shall be no significant overlap with
any other Wikimedia Foundation project. Wikitexts to Wikibooks.
Articles to Wikipedia. FDL'd components useful to two projects and/or
the public to Wikicommons, Indexes of linked lists to Wikiscope,
glossaries of technical terms to Wiktionary, etc.
If I understood Jimbo's explanation of where we are at the Board has
been waiting for six months for the people who wish to participate in
Wikiversity to tweak the proposal to resolve the concerns of a large
group in the overall Wikimedia community who oppose Wikiversity entirely.
Also, I don't see Wikiversity as being a junior
subproject for other
Wikimedia projects - on the contrary, I see it as a meta-project of
them all. I see Wikiversity occupying a space for people to learn
about how to contribute content to any project. I see a space for it
to gather content from all other projects to put them to practical
use. For example, Wikiversity and Wikibooks have been intertwined
since the name "Wikiversity" was first suggested - even though
Wikiversity was developed on Wikibooks, an early suggestion was to
have Wikibooks as the repository of content for Wikiversity. This is
far more the way I see their relationship, and applied to all other
projects too. Obviously, it will take time to get to that stage, but
that is my dream.
Again it does not matter what even the appointed chairman of the
activation committe thinks privately. If the Board of Directors
approves the existing proposal as written there will be an immense
amount of strife between the large numbers of opponents that Jimbo has
indicated are prevalent in the overall Wikimedia community as well as
newcomers to all projects.
In medium sized or large organizations approved policies and established
guidelines must be followed and the resulting messes cleaned up on an ad
hoc basis or after the policies can be revised to something more
appropriate and workable.
Finally, I admit that the process of getting this
hasn't been as quick or even as ideal as I would have liked it to be.
However, this is now the final stage, and I personally expect
Wikiversity to be up and running by Wikimania, hopefully sooner.
Alright, since you have begged the question I will ask it.
What exactly is the delay in submittal since there has been no
significant public comments (public --> not appointed to the activation
committee) for months and the only tweaks by members of the activation
committee is creep towards top and external regulation of the learning
Is the activation committee conflicted somehow regarding basic initial
mission or policy guidelines?
Is there a project opponent such as Jimbo alleges are present in the
existing Wikimedia community whose concerns must be addressed at the
moment no matter how potentially detrimental they look to day to day
internal organization and management by the Wikiversity participants
localized or singular learning/study activities?
Are you busy preparing an overwhelming bullet chart presentation so you
can fly into the next Board meeting in a 3 piece suit and wow them with
Wikiversity's polished organizational skills?
Are members of the committee saturated and working as hard as possible
to pre coordinate issues with the supervisory committee or the Board?
Are we timing activation to cooincide with Wikimania? If so I will
point out that there are a substantial number of people (potential
particpant) that are web accessible but who do not have the cash, time,
or inclination to participate in a Wikimania. Further, it would be
better to have clear progress in place and the site looking active
before a grand announcement at a Wikimania so any curious people who
checked us out might be interested in sticking around and helping grow
Jimbo says the hold up for the last six months has been no submittal or
contact from the project. Despite overwhelming support from the Board
for Wikiversity the Board has chosen to refrain from micromanagement and
are awaiting only submittal regarding minor comments made to the orginal
proposal to act swiftly and decisively to authorize or provide further
What precisely besides an introductory letter or paragraph providing the
URL of the revised proposal remains to be done that justifies several
weeks delay? Sorry I do not know when Wikimania is ...... is that
several months delay?