Anthere:
Example : I do not understand well why we should be confusing education and research. While these two are often done by the same people (my husband for example is both a researcher and a teacher), these two fields not only are different but SHOULD be different.
I actually think it is a mistake that these two are done so much by the same people, because it results in researchers focusing a lot on ... research... or academic stuff while teaching. This result is teaching most students things they will never use in everyday life. It might expand their horizon, but teaching is not only about learning how nuclear desintegration occur, but also a lot about practical things such wiring a building, making a metal piece or how much fertilizer should be applied on a field. As long as we confuse teaching and researching, we will get students taught to be researchers, instead of being taught a JOB. I wish that we do not fall in this trap ourselves.
This is a fair point, but I see no reason why the two should be confused, even if they happen within the same framework. As in real life, Wikilearners should be given the opportunity to choose a career path, whether it's theoretical or practical knowledge. I want to give people a choice: Whether a 15-year-old wikilearner participates in research on quantum computing or decides to pursue a career as a carpenter should be up to them, and a framework which allows both has an amazing potential. I don't think we need to set priorities for people, they will do so themselves based on their living conditions, needs and interests.
I am not certain I see very well how it places itself with wikibooks either....
Good question. I believe that Wikibooks will be one of many resources utilized by Wikisophia.
I am not sure it is a good idea at all. For all I can see, setting up wikinews with rather little defined guidelines was possibly not such a good idea.
Little defined? Excuse me? Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource and Wikibooks were set up basically ad hoc by a developer when they felt like there was enough interest. Wikimedia Commons was the first project with a proper project plan, and Wikinews was the only project ever launched by Wikimedia which went through fully developed discussion, definition and decision-making phases.
There was a mailing list proposal, a refinement process you participated in, an FAQ, a mission statement, a policy thinktank page, a long discussion, and a demo site, before the project was finally set up. If this is "little defined", what is Wikispecies? If this is little defined, then why did you complain at the time that the project was defined *too much* in advance, and that guidelines should be removed from the proposal?
I think Wikinews is the model Wikisophia should follow, with perhaps more time given to the technical needs evaluation.
Last, I rejoin notafish question : why the hurry ?
You are confusing a goal-oriented approach with hurry. There is no hurry. There is, however, a grants proposal to the World Bank in the works, and before we start seriously working on that, I'd like some basics to be settled.
Erik