--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
I fear I must say the name wikiversity does speak much more to me, and wikisophia is confusing. I am not very keen on this name change.
OK - given that along with the other objections, I now withdraw my weak support for the name change. All we need to do is say, up front, that we will not limit Wikiversity to college level and above courses; that all levels of learning will be allowed.
We should also invest in getting those security concerns for WikiTeX addressed. Not to get a domain name, but because it makes sense to do so in light of the very strong desire in users to have this functionality.
-- mav
Hmmmm
Wikielearning might be a solution. E-learning has the benefit of being a rather framed word at least...
I must confess I did not give any feedback to Erik on the (short) naming discussion... essentially because it is unclear in my mind what the project is exactly about. And... I thought Erik was asking first our opinion on the matter, then the discussion would come on the list... and I would have the opportunity to better make up my mind... or not make it up depending on people reaction... :-)
This said, aside from any naming issue... *naming* should really be one of the *last* issue when thinking to create a project. Humm, with logo :-) Most projects-to-be have a little temp name for a while.
It seems that we could let the envelop issue for later and discuss the core of the fruit first. It does not matter right now if we keep the working name later or change it really. What is potentially problematic is that giving a name to a project tends to set a delineation of it. If the delineation is not agreed upon, this is calling for troubles.
So, what is very important is first to agree on the project itself... what this project is about... who will be the audience... what the goals are... the means required...
It seems not everyone is in agreement about what the project is about... I am not sure I understood well where the disagreement is and I would love to hear more about it. *Before* any vote of any sort. Vote should only be the last resort.
ant
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
Anthere:
Wikielearning might be a solution. E-learning has the benefit of being a rather framed word at least...
Wikimedia has a history of coming up with confusing names, I'd like one that will be correctly remembered and spelled for a change. Wikielearning? Wikelearning? Wikilearning?
*naming* should really be one of the *last* issue when thinking to create a project.
I see it more in the middle, which is where we are with Wikiversity. As you correctly say, the name can delineate what the project will be about, as can a temporary name.
The problem with this project is that it can consist of many individual components, but we cannot tell in advance which ones will be successful and which ones will fail. For example, we may want to *experiment* with the idea of using this framework to publish peer reviewed original research. However, if this fails entirely, we will want to remove this component and carry on regardless. It may very well turn out that we do the best possible job at primary education, and completely suck at tertiary learning -- again, we can choose to then narrow our focus. But imagine a "Wikiversity" which *only* does primary education!
The current proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity (which was originally just a big discussion page before I refactored it) is deliberately open about these goals. I'd like the process of precisely defining the scope to be developed in practice rather than in theory.
We are talking about an extremely ambitious project, and it is almost certain that it will not succeed in all its goals. If we call ourselves a "wiki university" already, then we set expectations, we limit the framework, and we make it impossible to backpedal if we disappoint the expectations set in the project, and its name.
That's why, to me, the time to choose the name has come. We need to spend some more time on the definition, certainly, but I see technical evaluation as the next priority.
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Anthere:
Wikielearning might be a solution.
E-learning has the benefit of being a rather framed word at least...
Wikimedia has a history of coming up with confusing names, I'd like one that will be correctly remembered and spelled for a change. Wikielearning? Wikelearning? Wikilearning?
Wikiedu
*naming* should really be one of the *last* issue when thinking
to create a project.
I see it more in the middle, which is where we are with Wikiversity. As you correctly say, the name can delineate what the project will be about, as can a temporary name.
The problem with this project is that it can consist of many individual components, but we cannot tell in advance which ones will be successful and which ones will fail. For example, we may want to *experiment* with the idea of using this framework to publish peer reviewed original research. However, if this fails entirely, we will want to remove this component and carry on regardless. It may very well turn out that we do the best possible job at primary education, and completely suck at tertiary learning -- again, we can choose to then narrow our focus. But imagine a "Wikiversity" which *only* does primary education!
First, thank you for the answer.
If it is a problem that the project is not well defined for now, let's try to define it better rather than choosing an undefined fit-it-all name.
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.
The current proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity (which was originally just a big discussion page before I refactored it) is deliberately open about these goals. I'd like the process of precisely defining the scope to be developed in practice rather than in theory.
We are talking about an extremely ambitious project, and it is almost certain that it will not succeed in all its goals. If we call ourselves a "wiki university" already, then we set expectations, we limit the framework, and we make it impossible to backpedal if we disappoint the expectations set in the project, and its name.
That's why, to me, the time to choose the name has come. We need to spend some more time on the definition, certainly, but I see technical evaluation as the next priority.
Erik
I still think defining the "scope" of a project is the first priority, then defining the technical needs the second priority, then giving a name (especially since it already has one) the third and last priority.
I am not certain I see very well how it places itself with wikibooks either....
I am embarassed to see you use the term "we" so much, as if your words defined the community, while the person you are interacting with is left outside of the circle.
Note that I do not claim to be part of those who worked on wikiversity since I never did :-) but I wish more of those currently working on the topic, such as the spanish (who are no where mentionned here) participate to the discussion as well.
But even though I never participated to it, I have both a teaching and a researching experience, not counting a child raising experience. And I am confused that we could set a project without more specifications.
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. Licence is still not decided. Policies on this are fluttery actually and all projects do not seem to follow the same license... I wish we try to be a little bit more consistent this time. At least, we need to know more about what those involved think on the topic...
Last, I rejoin notafish question : why the hurry ? What happened that requires that the project be renamed now ? What is the background of this hurry ? Explain please.
ant
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
Erik Moeller a écrit:
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.
Hummm, I fear you absolutely did not understand my point.
Researchers have a special frame of mind and research requests some abilities which are different from teaching. It is a different job. While the researcher is deeply involved in his research, he tends to see all things through this sort of filter, and lose the sense of reality and of what would really be helpful for students in their future professional life OUT of the research frame.
It may be that the french system relies more on academics than the german system for you not to see what I mean. Possibly. I remember the american system was much more practical
Or... I also realise this now, while I did not realise it when I just finished my studies. Many things are clearer after a couple of years working to earn one's bread. You get the sense of what was useful in your education and of what was possibly fun, but not very helpful.
As for letting people the choice and letting them define their priorities, if we get a big mix of research framework with education one, I think we might just as well have left news in the current event section of wikipedia.
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.
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.
Then why are both wikicommons and wikinews still envased in copyright issues ?
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?
Good point... I *complained* mostly that guidelines given were not community build I think... but good point.
I think Wikinews is the model Wikisophia should follow, with perhaps more time given to the technical needs evaluation.
Wikisophia ?
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
goal-oriented... indeed :-)
Bon, et ben on va attendre les commentaires depuis le pas de la porte.
Anthere:
Researchers have a special frame of mind and research requests some abilities which are different from teaching. It is a different job. While the researcher is deeply involved in his research, he tends to see all things through this sort of filter, and lose the sense of reality and of what would really be helpful for students in their future professional life OUT of the research frame.
I'm disinclined to agree with blanket statements like this, but the biggest problem I see with your logic is that you seem to assume that we have to model Wikisophia after traditional institutions if we combine research and teaching under "one roof", and that researchers also have to be teachers in such a framework.
This is exactly the problem with the name "Wikiversity", it limits our thinking to what is there, when we are trying to create something fundamentally new. This is why I refuse to even use this name when discussing the project. I am not talking about a "wiki-university" here.
In fact, what I would like to do is to really get to the bottom of these questions: What makes a good researcher? What makes a good teacher? How can we improve and assess people's ability to teach, or to research? How can we directly apply the latest results from didactical and pedagogical research to the teaching processes? How can we have meaningful feedback processes from learners to teachers to researches, and the other way?
Certainly, the process of communicating knowledge to a larger group of people, whether in person or electronically, is always one which can have creative and surprising outcomes. I want to build a model where students can easily share ideas with people who are at the forefront of research, while being taught by those who have a proven ability to do so. We have to separate the discussion about *role selection* from the discussion about what roles should be allowed within a single project.
Your analogy with "Current events" answers your own point: Research can begin as a section of Wikisophia, we can experiment with it, and we can assess how much sense it makes to develop this into its own separate project.
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.
Then why are both wikicommons and wikinews still envased in copyright issues ?
"Envased" is not an English word, if you mean that both projects have lacked planning and foresight when it comes to copyright issues, then I would argue that the exact opposite is the case: * Wikipedia violates its own license daily when content is copied from page to page or from wiki to wiki, and much of our use of the GFDL rests on often dubious interpretations * Wikiquote's entire body of work consists of other people's words offered as "free content" * Wikisource offers public domain content under the GFDL * Wiktionary and Wikispecies deal with short pieces of data, yet have an overly complex license (which needs to be fully reproduced with each copy), covering content whose copyrightability itself is open to debate.
In the case of Wikinews, we had the foresight to know that neither the copyleft principle nor the complicated GFDL would necessarily be desirable, so we chose to put the content in the public domain, allowing us to easily make a decision about the license in the course of the project. After a careful deliberation process, we now know that the license we need (CC-WIKI-BY) doesn't even *exist* yet, so could not have been chosen at the time the project was started.
The Wikimedia Commons was defined by me initially as a repository of *free* content, with no exceptions for fair use or non-commercial use content, and this decision, too, has proven to be very beneficial to the project.
The community that has arisen on the Commons is probably more aware of copyright issues than any other, systematic tagging of all content has always been part of its policies, and in individual cases where the situation is unclear (e.g. the Stock.xchng photos), legally qualified people have guided the decision making process. People like Arnomane and Duesentrieb have done a tremendous job to add as much metadata to images as possible and to sort out copyvios.
That is not to say that everything is peachy -- the attribution from the Commons to projects using its media, a complex technical issue, needs to be resolved, as does the fair use issue on Wikinews. But generally, I would say that both projects have led the debate about copyright and licensing, informed by the experiences of the past.
Just because copyright on these two projects is talked about a lot doesn't mean that they have a lot of problems; in fact, it means that they have been the busiest *solving* problems, while there's been virtually no progress on the issues with our existing projects listed above.
All best,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
This is exactly the problem with the name "Wikiversity", it limits our thinking to what is there, when we are trying to create something fundamentally new. This is why I refuse to even use this name when discussing the project. I am not talking about a "wiki-university" here.
In fact, what I would like to do is to really get to the bottom of these questions: What makes a good researcher? What makes a good teacher? How can we improve and assess people's ability to teach, or to research? How can we directly apply the latest results from didactical and pedagogical research to the teaching processes? How can we have meaningful feedback processes from learners to teachers to researches, and the other way?
I'd add one more: To what extent are wikis well suited to any of these endeavors?
-Mark
Delirium:
To what extent are wikis well suited to any of these endeavors?
A very reasonable question. When all you have is a hammer ...
MediaWiki is great for textual content, decent for images, usable for other files. It is also getting good at structuring content in various ways (categories, RSS extension). Wikis in general are a powerful tool to develop simple workflows without having to write applications, e.g., I can create something like "Featured article candidates" or "Votes for deletion" from scratch without being a coder.
This covers much of the content and the process side of Wikisophia, e.g. I can see how a certification model might be implemented using basic wiki pages. It does not cover some of the needs for publication (i.e. peer review), but this is something we're actively pursuing for Wikipedia already, and my intuition is that the solution (stable revision flagging) will very likely be similar.
What MediaWiki does not cover is the very large and crucial area of systematic learning and assessment. Its interaction capabilities are also somewhat limited, though probably sufficient in the early stages of the project. This is an area that is currently staked out by modular learning management systems like [[Moodle]], which allow you to use many different pedagogical tools for any particular course.
Consequently, we also lack support for standards in the eLearning field, most importantly probably [[SCORM]], which are currently used to exchange instruction files in the eLearning community. Obviously, this makes it very difficult to get people from that community involved.
I am just at the beginning of the technical needs evaluation for Wikisophia, which will take several months at least. But my current belief is that we either need to interface with existing eLearning systems or, an approach which I generally prefer, add some of the desired functionality to MediaWiki (possibly as extensions) and turn it into a serious competitor for Moodle.
I am strongly opposed to launching Wikisophia before its technical needs are fully evaluated and, to the extent which is necessary for the basic operation of the project, met.
Erik
I'm disinclined to agree with blanket statements like this, but the biggest problem I see with your logic is that you seem to assume that we have to model Wikisophia after traditional institutions if we combine research and teaching under "one roof", and that researchers also have to be teachers in such a framework.
This is exactly the problem with the name "Wikiversity", it limits our thinking to what is there, when we are trying to create something fundamentally new. This is why I refuse to even use this name when discussing the project. I am not talking about a "wiki-university" here.
Well then, could you better describe this new thing that is not a university nor a research lab...
is it a café ? :)
wikicafé ? :D
In fact, what I would like to do is to really get to the bottom of these questions: What makes a good researcher? What makes a good teacher? How can we improve and assess people's ability to teach, or to research? How can we directly apply the latest results from didactical and pedagogical research to the teaching processes? How can we have meaningful feedback processes from learners to teachers to researches, and the other way? Certainly, the process of communicating knowledge to a larger group of people, whether in person or electronically, is always one which can have creative and surprising outcomes. I want to build a model where students can easily share ideas with people who are at the forefront of research,
I told you, it's a café !!!! :D
wikicafé :)
while being taught by those who have a proven ability to do so. We have to separate the discussion about *role selection* from the discussion about what roles should be allowed within a single project. Your analogy with "Current events" answers your own point: Research can begin as a section of Wikisophia, we can experiment with it, and we can assess how much sense it makes to develop this into its own separate project.
Well the thing is that teachers won't really participate to such a project on the basis you suggest. Michel Foucault explained quite well that the only difference between a teacher and his students is that the students are evaluated by the teachers and nothing else, the only difference is that information is not share equally among them.
And the further you go in your studies, the more true it is. Max Weber wrote a whole book describing about the situation of PhD students in front of their teachers.
Is it a good or a bad thing ?
I don't know but trying to help students to better share ideas with teachers is nothing new. There has been plenty of experimentation about this in France...
But what you describe could be interesting amongst people who are already equals: researchers. So is it for researchers or for teachers, or for both ? What would it look like ?
- Wikiquote's entire body of work consists of other people's words
offered as "free content"
"free content" is in no way a legal definition :)
- Wikisource offers public domain content under the GFDL
you can't offer PD work under GFDL since GFDL is based on copyright...
In the case of Wikinews, we had the foresight to know that neither the copyleft principle nor the complicated GFDL would necessarily be desirable, so we chose to put the content in the public domain,
which is not possible under many legislations in the world...
The Wikimedia Commons was defined by me initially as a repository of *free* content, with no exceptions for fair use or non-commercial use content, and this decision, too, has proven to be very beneficial to the project.
Still there are many legal issues with commons.
I know it since I deal with them every day on IRC... can I use this on commons ? could we put this ?
The community that has arisen on the Commons is probably more aware of copyright issues than any other, systematic tagging of all content has always been part of its policies,
which is a VERY good thing !
Just because copyright on these two projects is talked about a lot doesn't mean that they have a lot of problems; in fact, it means that they have been the busiest *solving* problems, while there's been virtually no progress on the issues with our existing projects listed above.
Well this is not an argument. There are copyright problems on each projects, solved by none of them. Commons is no better (and no worse) but it solved nothing and I don't see a lot of progress in it (except systematic tagging).
Erik Moeller wrote:
Anthere:
Then why are both wikicommons and wikinews still envased in copyright issues ?
"Envased" is not an English word, if you mean that both projects have lacked planning and foresight when it comes to copyright issues, then I would argue that the exact opposite is the case:
You're right of course, and sometimes it would be quite understandable if it meant that Anthere wanted to see you stuffed in a vase. :-)
Literally, the reference is to the feminine form of "vase", which is the sediment that builds up in a stagnant body of water. It becomes "enveser" or silted over. Figuratively, it becomes "stuck in the mud", or "mired". An interesting word!
Ec
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Anthere:
Then why are both wikicommons and wikinews still envased in copyright issues ?
"Envased" is not an English word, if you mean that both projects have lacked planning and foresight when it comes to copyright issues, then I would argue that the exact opposite is the case:
You're right of course, and sometimes it would be quite understandable if it meant that Anthere wanted to see you stuffed in a vase. :-)
Interesting thought...
Literally, the reference is to the feminine form of "vase", which is the sediment that builds up in a stagnant body of water. It becomes "enveser" or silted over. Figuratively, it becomes "stuck in the mud", or "mired". An interesting word!
Ec
Grumble... Thanks Ec
Erik Moeller wrote:
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.
Addressing the list in general:
Wikiversity is a vastly larger and more ambitious project than anything launched before by Wikimedia. You have no incentive scheme for teachers besides monetary. You're a bunch of 20-something year old dreamers who happened to be in the right place at the right time, and you expect large organisations to give you grants? Perhaps we have an advantage in that the rest of the world hasn't yet cottoned on to the fact that the people running Wikipedia were just lucky to discover a good idea early and enthusiastically jump on the bandwagon, and that the whole thing has been pulled off with near-zero managerial expertise or effort. They will cotton on, possibly after a failure or two.
No-one here has experience with running a university. As far as I know, none of the people involved in this project have even taught at the tertiary level.
It would be alright if this were a project like Wikipedia, where all we needed to do is write 2000 lines of code, strike a spark, and watch the whole thing roar into flame. But it's not. Wikipedia is mostly written by the huge pool of bored students with plenty of time on their hands. The vast bulk of them don't have the skills to teach at the tertiary level, and those that do are already paid for their time at an existing university.
Of course there are people willing to teach for free, but they are greatly outnumbered by the people who want to learn for free. In short, there's no way to obtain an acceptable student-teacher ratio without paying teachers, and to pay teachers you need an administrative structure and managerial expertise.
Sorry to be harsh, but it had to be said. I count myself in all statements about lack of collective skills.
-- Tim Starling
Tim-
Wikiversity is a vastly larger and more ambitious project than anything launched before by Wikimedia.
I considered writing a similar statement earlier in the thread, but then I reflected upon it and was no longer sure it's true. Wikinews in particular is probably similarly ambitious if you consider the stated long term goal to become an alternative to established news agencies and to build a global network of citizen journalists. However, Wikisophia can certainly be defined in a way to match or exceed Wikinews in its ambitions.
You have no incentive scheme for teachers besides monetary. You're a bunch of 20-something year old dreamers who happened to be in the right place at the right time, and you expect large organisations to give you grants?
The World Bank grant application is something tangible for which we are partnering with other eLearning projects. The key question here is how the project is going to be framed. Again, the name "Wikiversity" hurts more than it helps. If you are going to a large international institution, and you point them to Wikipedia and say you'd like to build an eLearning project using similar principles, your chances are not too bad that they will listen. If you say that you want to create a "wiki university", your chances are not too bad that they will laugh at you.
Perhaps we have an advantage in that the rest of the world hasn't yet cottoned on to the fact that the people running Wikipedia were just lucky to discover a good idea early and enthusiastically jump on the bandwagon, and that the whole thing has been pulled off with near-zero managerial expertise or effort. They will cotton on, possibly after a failure or two.
Jimbo often insists that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a community, but sometimes it is important to remember that it is both. We are talking about thousands of volunteers motivated by a desire to share knowledge, innovating every single day in the ways this knowledge is structured, presented and distributed. This community, if it could be bought, would be worth billions of dollars. And it is growing every day.
"They" don't have this community, and they will have difficulties building it. "They", if we're talking about companies, are strictly hierarchically organized, proprietary to the extreme, and driven purely by profit. No, with very few exceptions, I'm not worried about the establishment catching up with us. I predict that the strongest competitors we will face in the coming years and decades will come from our own ranks and from the open source community.
No-one here has experience with running a university. As far as I know, none of the people involved in this project have even taught at the tertiary level.
Careful, the Wikimedia community is a more colorful bunch than you may realize :-). I have personally been an outside lecturer on sexology at a German university.
Of course there are people willing to teach for free, but they are greatly outnumbered by the people who want to learn for free.
Probably, but you are missing one of the key points of eLearning, which is to greatly reduce the time investment required by the teacher. Jimbo is currently learning German using various resources, such as flash cards and audio records. Wikisophia could provide similar resources and online courses which require no continued teacher participation. Some of this material would be appropriate on Wikibooks, some would not; importantly, Wikisophia would also index resources outside our current projects.
As for the teaching time, we can prioritize: People in developing countries, for example, could receive preferential treatment for distance teaching.
Again, if we use a name like Wikiversity, we set an expectation that there will be "professors" lecturing eloquently about certain subjects, which is of course not very feasible for the reasons you cite.
In short, there's no way to obtain an acceptable student-teacher ratio without paying teachers, and to pay teachers you need an administrative structure and managerial expertise.
I'm all for it, but these are long term goals. In the short term, Wikisophia can be useful as a repository and index of educational resources, with some careful dabbling in teacher/student interaction, certification and original research.
Erik
On 5/11/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I considered writing a similar statement earlier in the thread, but then I reflected upon it and was no longer sure it's true. Wikinews in particular is probably similarly ambitious if you consider the stated long term goal to become an alternative to established news agencies and to build a global network of citizen journalists. However, Wikisophia can certainly be defined in a way to match or exceed Wikinews in its ambitions.
Wikiversity can, yes. That's what we've been saying all along.
Probably, but you are missing one of the key points of eLearning, which is to greatly reduce the time investment required by the teacher. Jimbo is currently learning German using various resources, such as flash cards and audio records. Wikisophia could provide similar resources and online courses which require no continued teacher participation. Some of this material would be appropriate on Wikibooks, some would not; importantly, Wikisophia would also index resources outside our current projects.
This is one area in which you're dead right. Think outside the box, people. There may be plenty of courses in which a facilitator plays a continual role, but there may not be in others. In any case, such a facilitator is going to play a very different role to that of my lecturer at university in the real world.
Again, if we use a name like Wikiversity, we set an expectation that there will be "professors" lecturing eloquently about certain subjects, which is of course not very feasible for the reasons you cite.
The same argument could have been used when we set up Wikipedia - after all, the expectation then was that you needed each article in an encyclopedia to be written by academics and peer reviewed. They may indeed have that expectation, but that's where we need to show them that that expectation is wrong.
I'm all for it, but these are long term goals. In the short term, Wikisophia can be useful as a repository and index of educational resources, with some careful dabbling in teacher/student interaction, certification and original research.
A respository and idex of educational resources is Wikibooks. Careful dabbling in teacher/student interaction, actual courses, and potentially certification and original research is Wikiversity. This is why we define our projects before creating them, instead of creating great white elephants.
-- ambi
Erik Moeller wrote:
However, Wikisophia can certainly be defined in a way to match or exceed Wikinews in its ambitions.
Ambitions are easy to exceed. Results are more difficult to achieve.
So far, we have one rather successful encylopedia, a media repository which could use better organization, a dictionary which is in desperate need of software modifications, a quote collection with unsolved legal problems, a biology wiki which is boycotted by all wikipedian biologists I know, a news site whose participants are in the process of learning journalism (with very varying success if I look at the latest headlines of german wikinews), a dead memorial wiki for sep 11, a wiki for developing teaching resources where I'm always disappointed when I look into, and a source repository which duplicates the efforts of project gutenberg.
Isn't this enough to work on?
Jimbo often insists that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a community, but sometimes it is important to remember that it is both. We are talking about thousands of volunteers motivated by a desire to share knowledge, innovating every single day in the ways this knowledge is structured, presented and distributed. This community, if it could be bought, would be worth billions of dollars. And it is growing every day.
Growing, yes. Each day new people arrive whom we have to teach our values and processes. More and more conflicts have to be resolved, new articles and changes have to be checked and fixed. "The community", defined as the dedicated group of people, knowing the way of the wiki and having expertise in an area, shouldn't be stretched to its limits.
The people who want a wikiversity have already a playground to develop concepts and produce something. So far, I haven't seen any results. If they develop something useful, fine, let's have a wikiversity. But until then I see no sense in this discussion.
Founding new projects can be a nice hobby, but I prefer working at and improving our existing ones.
greetings, elian
The people who want a wikiversity have already a playground to develop concepts and produce something. So far, I haven't seen any results. If they develop something useful, fine, let's have a wikiversity. But until then I see no sense in this discussion.
Founding new projects can be a nice hobby, but I prefer working at and improving our existing ones.
Although I skipped everything she wrote above, I conquer with Elian on all the points she made. Why spread ourselves even thinner?
Walter/Waerth
Because the proposed project serves the people. Check out the book Going Broke by Degree. There is a major societal project to construct a workaround of the blockage which has resulted from persistent rent-seeking by traditional educational institutions. We may not be the solution, but the problem is there to be tackled.
Fred
From: Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:57:53 +0700 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikiversity
The people who want a wikiversity have already a playground to develop concepts and produce something. So far, I haven't seen any results. If they develop something useful, fine, let's have a wikiversity. But until then I see no sense in this discussion.
Founding new projects can be a nice hobby, but I prefer working at and improving our existing ones.
Although I skipped everything she wrote above, I conquer with Elian on all the points she made. Why spread ourselves even thinner?
Walter/Waerth _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Elisabeth Bauer:
So far, we have one rather successful encylopedia, a media repository which could use better organization,
Kennisnet may be interested in helping with that, I am in talks with the relevant people.
a dictionary which is in desperate need of software modifications,
I'm working on that.
a quote collection with unsolved legal problems,
Headache. Personally, I never wanted Wikiquote to be a Wikimedia project.
a biology wiki which is boycotted by all wikipedian biologists I know,
:-) Gerard and I have talked a bit about this; once we have a Wikidata prototype out in the wild, perhaps we'll be able to find funding to create a Wikidata schema for Wikispecies.
a news site whose participants are in the process of learning journalism (with very varying success if I look at the latest headlines of german wikinews)
I won't pat myself on the back too much, but I think we're doing well in terms of monitoring the progress of the international editions and highlighting successes and weaknesses.
a dead memorial wiki for sep 11
Yes. Please convert into static HTML ASAP. If nobody else feels up to the task, I'm willing to help.
a wiki for developing teaching resources where I'm always disappointed when I look into
Yes, Wikibooks is another project which is suffering from the software not addressing all of its needs, particularly the modularization of individual books.
a source repository which duplicates the efforts of project gutenberg.
A bit harsh; the coming language subdomain split is a good short term solution to encourage more translations (I don't think it's the best approach, but that's another story), which is probably the great potential of Wikisource.
Isn't this enough to work on?
Yes, for the time being. Our existing projects should stabilize before Wikisophia is launched. That doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it or work on grant applications and cooperations which will benefit all our projects.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
a wiki for developing teaching resources where I'm always disappointed
when I look into
Yes, Wikibooks is another project which is suffering from the software not addressing all of its needs, particularly the modularization of individual books.
While I still hope it will turn into something very useful, I do think writing full-fledged books is something that is much harder to do in a wiki-style form of collaboration, even with software changes. Even on Wikipedia, the "broad overview" articles, with a few exceptions, tend to be at a much lower standard of quality than you might expect by looking at the more narrow articles below them in the hierarchy. This is probably because it's just a lot harder to write a broad/synthesis article in a collaborative fashion---they don't lend themselves very well to division of labor and modularization, since their entire point is to do the big-picture thing.
This isn't to say that decent WikiBooks couldn't be written in a modular fashion, but a *great* book really needs someone to come by and integrate everything---a great textbook is a much different thing than 15 stapled-together individually great chapters, which I think we're much better at doing.
-Mark
The wiki based development suffers a lack of cohesion. The purpose of many of the books is not very well defined, specifically the target audience and the guidelines on writing for that audience.
The FHSST project will develop only raw content on WikiBooks, then extract it all and edit it properly to produce a final book which can be printed. We'll put the final content back for the community but keep a fixed stable copy. The dynamic nature of the wikis also ensures that schools and governments will never have confidence in the quality of the content they would pull off one of the wikis, there is no reason to assume that someone hasn't maliciously modified the content and waving changelogs around isn't going to be very convincing.
My 2 cents worth.
Mark
Delirium wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
a wiki for developing teaching resources where I'm always disappointed
when I look into
Yes, Wikibooks is another project which is suffering from the software not addressing all of its needs, particularly the modularization of individual books.
While I still hope it will turn into something very useful, I do think writing full-fledged books is something that is much harder to do in a wiki-style form of collaboration, even with software changes. Even on Wikipedia, the "broad overview" articles, with a few exceptions, tend to be at a much lower standard of quality than you might expect by looking at the more narrow articles below them in the hierarchy. This is probably because it's just a lot harder to write a broad/synthesis article in a collaborative fashion---they don't lend themselves very well to division of labor and modularization, since their entire point is to do the big-picture thing.
This isn't to say that decent WikiBooks couldn't be written in a modular fashion, but a *great* book really needs someone to come by and integrate everything---a great textbook is a much different thing than 15 stapled-together individually great chapters, which I think we're much better at doing.
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Okay...
Since everything is taking care of, the weather is gorgious, my lawn mower repaired, I go take care of my garden :-)
Ant
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Elisabeth Bauer:
So far, we have one rather successful encylopedia, a media repository which could use better organization,
Kennisnet may be interested in helping with that, I am in talks with the relevant people.
a dictionary which is in desperate need of software modifications,
I'm working on that.
a quote collection with unsolved legal problems,
Headache. Personally, I never wanted Wikiquote to be a Wikimedia project.
a biology wiki which is boycotted by all wikipedian biologists I know,
:-) Gerard and I have talked a bit about this; once we have a Wikidata prototype out in the wild, perhaps we'll be able to find funding to create a Wikidata schema for Wikispecies.
a news site whose participants are in the process of learning journalism (with very varying success if I look at the latest headlines of german wikinews)
I won't pat myself on the back too much, but I think we're doing well in terms of monitoring the progress of the international editions and highlighting successes and weaknesses.
a dead memorial wiki for sep 11
Yes. Please convert into static HTML ASAP. If nobody else feels up to the task, I'm willing to help.
a wiki for developing teaching resources where I'm always disappointed
when I look into
Yes, Wikibooks is another project which is suffering from the software not addressing all of its needs, particularly the modularization of individual books.
a source repository which duplicates the efforts of project
gutenberg.
A bit harsh; the coming language subdomain split is a good short term solution to encourage more translations (I don't think it's the best approach, but that's another story), which is probably the great potential of Wikisource.
Isn't this enough to work on?
Yes, for the time being. Our existing projects should stabilize before Wikisophia is launched. That doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it or work on grant applications and cooperations which will benefit all our projects.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Isn't this enough to work on?
Yes, for the time being. Our existing projects should stabilize before Wikisophia is launched. That doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it or work on grant applications and cooperations which will benefit all our projects.
Yes of course. But in your original post on the matter you said, "I'd like to announce my intention to move the relevant pages on Meta and edit the summary to reflect the name change." This kind of comment announcing unilateral action is bound to rouse the community, and get them it completely distracted on the issue of the name. As much as I support the continued use of "Wikiversity" I realize that if and when it becomes a full fledged independent project it could do so with a different name. If your POV is that the new name should be "Wikisophia" just keep using it in your messages. If there is support for it others will start using it too. Presuming that it will be accepted is bound to stir passions.
Ec
Ray Saintonge:
Yes of course. But in your original post on the matter you said, "I'd like to announce my intention to move the relevant pages on Meta and edit the summary to reflect the name change."
Yes, I was blinded by the quick agreement among the people I talked to (Angela, who had the idea, Jimbo, and Mav). Nevertheless, I posted here to give people the opportunity to object to the name change, which several people did: no harm done.
Contrary to my prior announcement, I will not open a vote immediately.
First of all, we don't have the domain name Wikisophia.org yet. We'll have to see how the negotiations with Peter go before it makes sense to decide formally to use it. If it had been an informal decision as I intended, that wouldn't have been so bad, but if it's now formally decided, that will influence the negotiations with Peter in undesirable ways. As Lee pointed out, the integrity of technical decisions should never be compromised. Out of enthusiasm, I did not completely see the risks of committing to the name too early.
Secondly, several new naming suggestions have been made. These should be included in the final naming vote.
Thirdly, a vote should not take place until all arguments for and against each name have been heard.
Finally, I agree that we need a clearer definition of the project. I'm not sure such a definition will arise out of discussions, and for the moment, this list is the wrong place for them. My experience is that it often makes sense for a single person to sit down and formulate their perspective, and to then refine this perspective based on the reactions from the community. Whether this person will be Ambi, me, or someone else is not relevant. But that person can then also guide the process of choosing the final name.
Again, I have no intention of pushing the process of launching the project, though I do intend to seek funding for it and to pursue the technical needs evaluation.
So, as I said in my original post, there's no reason to panic. I will however, refrain from using the name "Wikiversity" to describe the project I'm talking about, as I really do not see the creation of a "wiki university" as my goal. This may culminate in separate proposals, if it turns out that the disagreement is less than superficial.
I regret that my suggestion caused so much commotion, though perhaps it is good that we now have a better idea where this project stands, and the beginnings of a consensus on how to proceed.
Erik
I agree with Tim.
The project looks very vague to me. Plus there are already many people working on such things. For example, I am currently working with researchers in France on something that could be part of it: a tool to allow to adress consistency problems and evolution within wikis.
Addressing the list in general:
Wikiversity is a vastly larger and more ambitious project than anything launched before by Wikimedia. You have no incentive scheme for teachers besides monetary. You're a bunch of 20-something year old dreamers who happened to be in the right place at the right time, and you expect large organisations to give you grants? Perhaps we have an advantage in that the rest of the world hasn't yet cottoned on to the fact that the people running Wikipedia were just lucky to discover a good idea early and enthusiastically jump on the bandwagon, and that the whole thing has been pulled off with near-zero managerial expertise or effort. They will cotton on, possibly after a failure or two.
No-one here has experience with running a university. As far as I know, none of the people involved in this project have even taught at the tertiary level.
It would be alright if this were a project like Wikipedia, where all we needed to do is write 2000 lines of code, strike a spark, and watch the whole thing roar into flame. But it's not. Wikipedia is mostly written by the huge pool of bored students with plenty of time on their hands. The vast bulk of them don't have the skills to teach at the tertiary level, and those that do are already paid for their time at an existing university.
Of course there are people willing to teach for free, but they are greatly outnumbered by the people who want to learn for free. In short, there's no way to obtain an acceptable student-teacher ratio without paying teachers, and to pay teachers you need an administrative structure and managerial expertise.
Sorry to be harsh, but it had to be said. I count myself in all statements about lack of collective skills.
-- Tim Starling
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not true. I was involved for many years with the Denver Free University. But my advice would mainly consist of avoiding much of what happened there.
Fred
From: Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:00:23 +0200 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikiversity
No-one here has experience with running a university. As far as I know, none of the people involved in this project have even taught at the tertiary level.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
No-one here has experience with running a university. As far as I know, none of the people involved in this project have even taught at the tertiary level.
Not true. I was involved for many years with the Denver Free University. But my advice would mainly consist of avoiding much of what happened there.
[top post repaired]
I meant the Wikiversity project, not all of Wikimedia. Only a handful of people have contributed to the Wikiversity pages on the wiki. No offence, but I didn't think you were one of them.
-- Tim Starling
The posts on the list have resulted in my having an interest in the project. That is what results from widening the base of people discussing a project. My continued involvement would depend on others also having a serious interest and the project amounting to something. "No one here" is quite ambiguous.
Fred
From: Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 03:55:24 +1000 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikiversity
Fred Bauder wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
No-one here has experience with running a university. As far as I know, none of the people involved in this project have even taught at the tertiary level.
Not true. I was involved for many years with the Denver Free University. But my advice would mainly consist of avoiding much of what happened there.
[top post repaired]
I meant the Wikiversity project, not all of Wikimedia. Only a handful of people have contributed to the Wikiversity pages on the wiki. No offence, but I didn't think you were one of them.
-- Tim Starling
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org