Robert Scott Horning wrote:
John Pozniak wrote:
I have for a long time espoused the idea that once
a book reaches a certain size, it should be given more and more autonomy. This includes
creating its own policies, its own manual of style, its own naming conventions, and even
overall control on its own content.
I generally agree with this sentiment, and have been particularly
annoyed when a VfD was posted about a particular module, such as recipes
from the Cookbook or the "What is gravity" module of Wikijunior Solar
System. I have never seen these modules properly resolved in the VfD
forum, and instead is mainly is a place to roll the fight out and aire
dirty laundry. More akin to a barroom brawl that runs onto the street
and into neighboring businesses. It is never pretty, and the feelings
are usually so charged and divided by the time it gets to the VfD page
that the issue doesn't really get resolved. A plea for a neutral
moderator to come into the discussion might be in order from time to
time, but in that case a direct plea to an admin would be more
reasonable, or a quick note on the Staff Lounge.
As an outsider with a limited exposure and understanding of the
community and what it needs to successfully create numerous (every
subject known to man) and high quality (best presentation possible in
all of the myriad layouts and forms such that a parallel information
economy is trending towards superior not inferior to previous methods of
production such as socialism, communism, capitalism, divine inspiration,
cave painting, etc.) this reminds me of the early debate at Wikipedia
over dribbles of information and excellent articles only.
The excellent articles only crowd viewed a good inspiring public
presentation as the only possible way to gain adequate participation to
succeed with continued high quality generation of articles.
The stubs are valuable framework and encourage people to start
participating by leaving a tiny improvements or questions on the
discussion page of some kind crowd insisted that these dribbles and
stubs not be routinely and automatically reverted by roving bands of
vandalism fighters or automated reversion tools.
Personally I see Wikiversity as a valuable workspace for all the other
projects where sloppy messy creative unfinished stuff can be stashed and
the tweakers can be encouraged to polish their skills or information
content. When lightening strikes; a group product or a group is ready
for the bigtime; it can be relocated or merged with great fanfare and
celebration over to the other projects which have shifted slightly in
focus; a little more towards stewardship of excellent product and higher
level producers of excellent product; a little less required attention
towards upgrading or integrating dribbles of less than perfect
information product created by beginners.
Notice that I do not advocate any project (that wishes to survive
longterm) screaming at its neophytes and customers that this place is
for high quality producers only, go get some useful skills at
Wikiversity before wasting our time at WikiX.
Also, I do not agree with any project being able to inform Wikiversity
student groups or organizations enough is enough you are killing us with
these superior products that belong on WikiX. I think an effective
project leadership or participant should be able to show our successful
Wikiversity producers (any who wish to continue thriving inside the
effective zones carved out in the midst of the hordes of undisciplined
free participants rather than relocate to a outside project percieved as
hostile and a failure prone place of over zealous disciplinarians) how
they can derive benefits to their microproject or task from the proposed
new location with just adequate conformance with necessary project X
policy and procedures.
If nobody can agree then the materials can be forked and the random
chaotic Wikiversity people can continue to apple polish while helping
newcomer's study; while the better focused more mature projects can
support serving to the huge internet accessible (and possible published
CD) crowds looking for specific high quality work. Periodic cross
integration of tiny evolving improvements can be an excellent beginner's
task for both environments.
We really should not be attempting to avoid duplication of effort,
rather encouraging sufficient participation that the production of free
knowledge is percieved by our entire species as a useful beneficial
thing to do for individuals and for all of posterity.