Hi all,
I emailed this list (and textbook-l) a few weeks ago about final feedback on Wikiversity [1], but, surprisingly, there was no response at all on this list (only on textbook-l). Can it be true that nobody here is interested in Wikiversity? Or is it that nothing new can be said at this stage? Or possibly that a lack of response indicates tacit agreement/approval?
There was, in any case, a single response on the current proposal's talk page [2] (by Amgine) - which I found instructive. Amgine is still concerned about a lack of clarity in the proposal - I'm wondering if anyone here agrees/disagrees, and how so? I see Wikiversity as occupying a niche within Wikimedia as well as serving the interests of the other projects, but there is still some ambiguity about some of these inter-project relationships - particularly with Wikibooks. I'll briefly define how I personally see this working, and the distinctions.
* Wikiversity and Wikibooks will both host educational materials - but of a different kind. Wikibooks attempts to develop its resources into textbooks; Wikiversity will turn its materials into discrete learning objects, designed to fit within a course structure (though not nercessarily), so that students can avail of them in their own self-directed learning. On top of this, teachers may use these materials "off the shelf" in their lessons, and Wikiversity will construct lesson plans to facilitate their ease-of-use. If people want to do further reading on a subject, they can do so on Wikibooks.
* If someone wants to develop a course (or some sort of body of information for learning), they can start doing so immediately on Wikiversity. It may very well be that this material will, through time, develop into a textbook. I think that the material should then be *copied* (not moved) to Wikibooks, leaving behind material to be used in learning activities. (Note: I'm not sure if the mechanics of this will work within the GFDL licence - I'd appreciate comments on this.)
* Some learning activities on Wikiversity will be to develop content on other Wikimedia projects. For example, a learning group/community will apply their learning in writing a textbook (on Wikibooks) on their subject of interest, or apply their, say, researching skills in writing an article for Wikipedia or Wikinews.
* Finally, as a clear difference between it and Wikibooks, Wikiversity will allow research - though how this is to be done should be left to its community. Personally, I feel that we should be allowing for original research to be carried out and published on Wikiversity - this will then require a peer reviewing process and possibly a way for work to be "protected". How all this is to be done needs to be worked out by the community - we have been hesitant to define such a process on the wikiversity subcommittee, because the project really needs to be developed through its participant community [3].
As an update, I'm still trying to move this process along within the Special projects committee, and hopefully there will be something to show for it soon. Meanwhile, however, I continue to invite comments, suggestions, criticisms from anyone, however new or peripheral to the discussion you may feel yourself to be.
Best regards,
Cormac / Cormaggio
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity_community
Cormac Lawler wrote:
snip
As an update, I'm still trying to move this process along within the Special projects committee, and hopefully there will be something to show for it soon. Meanwhile, however, I continue to invite comments, suggestions, criticisms from anyone, however new or peripheral to the discussion you may feel yourself to be.
I could not find recent Wikiversity proposal activity either in the special subcommittee's resolutions or on their agenda: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee/Resolutions http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee
The only documented suspense I could find required that you setup your Wikiversity subcommittee and report back by March 21, 2006.
What exactly are the tasks remaining before the Wikiversity proposal can be presented to the Wikimedia Board for a final go or nogo decision?
Are you aware that Jimbo has informed us directly a few months ago either here on this list or on the foundation list that the present Wikimedia Foundation board members all support the Wikiversity project?
There is no guarantee this will be true of future Board members.
lazyquasar
On 7/5/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@verizon.net wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
snip
As an update, I'm still trying to move this process along within the Special projects committee, and hopefully there will be something to show for it soon. Meanwhile, however, I continue to invite comments, suggestions, criticisms from anyone, however new or peripheral to the discussion you may feel yourself to be.
I could not find recent Wikiversity proposal activity either in the special subcommittee's resolutions or on their agenda: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee/Resolutions http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee
The only documented suspense I could find required that you setup your Wikiversity subcommittee and report back by March 21, 2006.
You're right. We need to improve documentation of our activity on the Special projects committee. We're currently working on that.
To clarify my update, I have raised Wikiversity at our last two meetings (June 28th and June 14th) as well as on our mailing list, and am awaiting feedback from the other committee members.
What exactly are the tasks remaining before the Wikiversity proposal can be presented to the Wikimedia Board for a final go or nogo decision?
It is to be presented as is, unless the SPC have any specific recommendations. Apart from that, cleaning up the interlinking pages on Meta so that they fully complement each other seems like the best thing we can do. But most importantly, have we addressed the questions raised by the community at the last vote? This is the fundamental question the board will ask.
Are you aware that Jimbo has informed us directly a few months ago either here on this list or on the foundation list that the present Wikimedia Foundation board members all support the Wikiversity project?
There is no guarantee this will be true of future Board members.
lazyquasar
I think there is a difference between supporting the Wikiversity project in principle and endorsing the current proposal in practice (Jimbo's comments fall into the former - not necessarily the latter, as far as I could make out). This is exactly what we have been doing over the last few months - addresssing the last recommendations we were given, as well as the concerns of the community (which the board specifically asked for, and Jimbo re-affirmed). Believe me, I'm as anxious to get Wikiversity set up as you are, and as frustrated it's taken this long, but that doesn't change where we are or what we are doing - which is to develop and realise as clear and realistic a project as possible.
Cormac
Cormac Lawler wrote:
Believe me, I'm as anxious to get Wikiversity set up as you are, and as frustrated it's taken this long, but that doesn't change where we are or what we are doing - which is to develop and realise as clear and realistic a project as possible.
An interesting perspective.
Sometimes when pursuing parallel development of massive projects it helps to have additional effort applied. It seems pretty clear that the cast of thousands has declined to nominate themselves for your committee's assessment and approval. Perhaps we should consider getting the permanent wiki domain operational so those who wish to can begin contributing in ways other than committee chit chat or other leadership responsibilities.
We might even entice the occasional participant to participate in a policy discussion by mistake once in a great while.
As I recall your committee's charter it said something about energizing or activating Wikiversity effectively, nothing about designing it in detail before the participants show up and figure out what works to attract further effective participation.
lazyquasar
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org