Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 6/15/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@verizon.net wrote..: ..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 proposal realised 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 groups materials?
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 the project.
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 feedback.
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?
regards, lazyquasar