Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 11/1/05, Robert Scott Horning
<robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
This is a reminder/formal notice that the voting
period for the creation
of Wikiversity is now over, and that the proposal to create Wikiversity
as a new Wikimedia sister project is now being submitted to the
Wikimedia Foundation board for a formal review..[snip]
It is clear that many people are afraid that the idea is too
half-baked or not ready enough to be started. This is currently true -
Wikiversity exists as many different ideas in many people's heads,
with plenty of enthusiasm but not much to actually to show for it. But
my counter argument to this is: *every* wiki project has developed
from a similar position. Every wiki is an idea which is generated and
created through the combined energy of its participants - you only
have to look at the various listings of people at the vote or on the
proposed projects page or on the meta Wikiversity talk page amongst
others, to see that there is so much energy there waiting to be
tapped, and rearing to go. That, surely, is the main thing. I think
the crucial point is that Wikiversity, if created now, will not (in
the main) be ready to actually go live as a learning centre *just
yet*. It needs to have a creation period, it needs to be widely known
about to generate a learner base - and *then* it can flourish. Just
don't expect results yet (though some courses could be created quite
quickly - and who's to say that we need to constuct whole courses in
the first place? What about single lesson plans? What about
collections of flash cards? etc.)
When I first suggested the name Wikiversity in an exchange with Mav it
was only semi-serious. While I sincerely believe in the idea, I also
see that no-one has yet appeared with the vision needed to really take
this idea forward. The vision that Jimbo provided to the development of
Wikipedia is simply not there for Wikiversity. The "Vision" section of
the proposal starts with "Wikiversity could ...". Great visions do not
start with a conditional verb.
The vision must go further than a mere listing of proposed courses or
textbooks. Relying too much on our experiences with established
universitie (or our rebellion against them) is nothing more than a
recipe for "same old, same old". If a Wikiversity is to really succeed
it must offer something different. An electronic version of traditional
techniques is not different enough. Nothing in what I have read in
these discussions shows that anybody has any idea about the nature of
education and how people learn. Has anyone considered why it is that
critical thinking can only start when the prejudiced logic of earlier
education has been unlearned? How does Wikiversity adapt to NPOV?
Another major concern is resources - both human and
electronic (ie.
financial). ... I have a hunch that not only could
we get a whole lot more poeple involved in setting up this project,
but we could also get some major funding. UNESCO's ecucation for all
campaign comes to mind - and I'd appreciate any other suggestions.
With a clear sense of vision and purpose I don't see these as a big
problem.
Ec