On 11/9/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
As far as admins from one project fighting vandalism on another project,
my experience is that admins from Wikipedia (just as an example)
generally don't understand the philosophies and policies on the other
projects very well unless they have been active participants and gone
through the process of learning just like they had to do on Wikipedia in
the first place.
Well, that's kind of my point. I see that as a bad thing.
As far as the people who donated to Wikimedia hoping that it would be
used only for Wikipedia, I think that is both
shortsighted on your part
with regards to the donors as well as something the donors should be in
general better informed about when they give money to the Foundation.
You misquoted me. I never said donations should only be used for Wikipedia.
But instead of repeating myself I'll be precise: "The specific purpose for
which [Wikimedia] is organized is: to create and freely distribute freely
licensed encyclopedias, textbooks, reference works, and other literary,
scientific, and educational information in all languages of the world."
That's straight from the amended articles of incorporation. To spend any
significant portion of donations on anything else is at best unethical.
Most of what Wikiversity is going to be doing on the
website anyway is
writing curriculum standards, course syllibi, instructional examples,
and testing materials. How is that any different from writing books or
encyclopedia articles. Besides, all of these tasks have been happening
on Wikibooks anyway. The only real debate is if these tasks should
happen as a seperate project or if it is something that belongs within
Wikibooks.
I already said I have no problem as long as the purpose of Wikiversity is
limited to creating and distributing learning materials, and doesn't include
actually using those materials to teach.
In any case, I think the project should stay within Wikibooks. Further
fragmenting the community is not useful, and where would the line be drawn
between what goes on Wikibooks and what goes in Wikiversity? I don't see it.
But if the Wikibooks community really doesn't want the project, then fine,
start Wikiversity. Of course the likely outcome of that is that if
Wikiversity ever becomes successful it will probably make Wikibooks
obsolete. I can't think of anything that should go in Wikibooks that
shouldn't go in a repository of teaching resources.
In addition, this whole discussion wouldn't be happening at all if it
weren't for the fact that the German Wikiversity,
http://de.wikiversity.org/ hadn't been started already without going
through the new project discussions and procedures. The VfD discussion
on Wikibooks was in part triggered by a move on the part of a Wikibooks
admin who requested that en.wikiversity be started as well. I hope that
no new projects get started on the fly like the German Wikiversity, and
my forcing a vote on the issue was only to try and get Wikiversity
started the way it should have in the first place rather than as a
"stealth" project with no discussion. I've shot down Wikijunior as a
seperate project for the same reason, strongly suggesting that if the
one user trying to push for Wikijunior to be a seperate Wiki domain
wants that accomplished, that he needs to go through the established new
project procedure instead. That seems to be too much work and he wants
to short-circuit the whole process.
--
Robert Scott Horning