On 16-Aug-06, at 12:00 PM, Cormac Lawler wrote:
So, if there's a conclusion to this mail, it would
be: I'm not arguing
for a simple dismissal about all we know and have learned about NPOV.
I'm simply saying that it will not _always_ be a useful policy to
impose throughout the process of learning. I'm yearning for a better
concept - or perhaps we simply have to invest NPOV with new meaning in
order to tailor it to Wikiversity's particular identity.
As you're aware, I'm extremely bothered by this approach to defining
Wikiversity. It seems to me to say "let's not put any strictures on
Wikiversity, no requirements or expectations, but let it grow
organically." This sound nifty in theory, but results in nothing
because there are no expectations, no hurdles, nothing to accomplish.
You can't even measure if it has accomplished this nothingness.
Wikversity should have goals. They should be measurable. The project
needs to meet the minimum standards of the Wikimedia Foundation;
fundamental in this is a commitment to avoiding support of any one
POV, to be verifiable (where this is an option) and to be free.
Throwing crap at a wall until some of it sticks means you deal with a
lot of crap. Let's be a bit more discerning than that, please.