(Cross-posted on [[m:Talk:Wikiversity]] and briefly summarized on de.wikiversity.org)
During and after our visit to the free software conference in South Africa, Angela and I talked a lot about the Wikiversity project, and the potential Wikimedia has to develop a truly global, free institution of learning as a new project.
As you probably know, these discussions are currently focused on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity and the talk page.
Don't panic: We're still a long way from launching anything. I'm not going to push this until we have the server situation under control and the existing projects have stabilized a bit. Nevertheless, there's one issue that I'd like to resolve now, which is the naming of the project.
Angela, Jimbo, Daniel Mayer and I agree that the name Wikiversity is problematic in that it ties the project very strongly to the idea of traditional universities. This may lead to certain expectations as to its structure and the services it will provide (e.g. faculties, degrees), but also limit the project in other ways, e.g., by being perceived primarily or only as an institution of teritary learning.
I'd like us to look at ideas for primary and secondary education as well, and I don't want to run into a wall because the established people of the Wikiversity community will say "It's an electronic university, this doesn't belong here."
Angela suggested the name Wikisophia.org/.com, which is currently owned by Peter Danenberg (WikiTeX). I loved the idea immediately: the Greek sophia means "wisdom", but also has many other meanings in the area of learning. It is specific enough to be useful and vague enough to not limit the project very early in its nature or scope.
Peter is willing to give us the name if we push WikiTeX a little to get it security-reviewed and installed on our servers, which seems like a fair deal to us.
So, after discussing this in a small circle, I'd like to announce my intention to move the relevant pages on Meta and edit the summary to reflect the name change. This does not affect the existing efforts under the Wikibooks domain which use the "Wikiversity" label, but only any potential future eLearning/eTeaching project we intend to pursue. de.wikiversity.org could be renamed and moved to the new domain once it is owned by Wikimedia.
Thoughts and comments are welcome. Hopefully, we can find a consensus on this without needing a vote.
All best,
Erik
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 23:10 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
Angela suggested the name Wikisophia.org/.com, which is currently owned by Peter Danenberg (WikiTeX). I loved the idea immediately: the Greek sophia means "wisdom", but also has many other meanings in the area of learning. It is specific enough to be useful and vague enough to not limit the project very early in its nature or scope.
Peter is willing to give us the name if we push WikiTeX a little to get it security-reviewed and installed on our servers, which seems like a fair deal to us.
I don't see how it's acceptable for us to agree to any conditions that affect our prerogatives for software use. We need to use whatever software best suits our purposes. WikiTeX is nice work, and we may very well end up using it or something similar. But that has to be our choice, and ours alone, based on our needs. We can certainly agree to give him money and/or some official imprimatur, but not our freedom.
Secondly, what's wrong with good old fashioned plain-English multiple word names for things like "Wikimedia Schools Project" or "Wikimedia Offline" or something? The trend of squeezing things into obscure neologisms strikes me as too cute for a serious project.
Lee Daniel Crocker-
I don't see how it's acceptable for us to agree to any conditions that affect our prerogatives for software use. We need to use whatever software best suits our purposes. WikiTeX is nice work, and we may very well end up using it or something similar.
Of course we're not going to install WikiTeX if we decide that there's a better option, but that seems unlikely. WikiTeX is one of the most requested features from our users. What has been holding up its setup are not criticisms of its functionality, but security considerations. As I see it, if we do this, the Board will ask Brion, as a paid Wikimedia employee, to assist Peter in the security review and evaluation of WikiTeX and if, and only if, it meets our needs and our strict security requirements, it's going to be installed. Peter is working on a chroot-jail based approach already, which should help to address the concerns about possible shell escapes in certain LaTeX macros.
I would never want to make compromises about security or freedom of choice. This is more a matter of exchanging favors within the limits of sanity.
Secondly, what's wrong with good old fashioned plain-English multiple word names for things like "Wikimedia Schools Project" or "Wikimedia Offline" or something?
Wikimedia is not an English language project, for starters. This makes it necessary for English language derived names like Wiktionary to be localized, which then leads to confusion when you go to a domain like pl.wiktionary.org and end up on a site called Wikisłownik. Of course, to a certain extent, you will never be able to avoid this, but at least in the Latin languages, you can strive for a name which doesn't require localization. Wiktionary is not too bad because it's still a neologism, whereas something like "Wikimedia Dictionary" would be much worse.
Secondly, if you want a fully descriptive name, this would make the name unwieldy and impractical. "Wikimedia Computer Assisted Learning, Teaching, Certification and Index of Resources" would obviously be unacceptable. You can try making a nice acronym out of it, but then you end up with the English language problem mentioned above.
A short and unique name is also useful for searching the project and marketing it. That is why companies, including those working in academia, come up with short and catchy names for their products. Anything unsexy or unwieldy will not be found or linked as frequently as something short and memorable. You can trust capitalism when it comes to the mechanisms of meme optimization.
Finally, consistency is important. We have an established naming scheme -- our projects have unique names that usually begin with "Wiki-" -- and in order to maintain our corporate identity, new projects should follow the same pattern. (Incidentally, I named the "Wikimedia Commons" using a different pattern because it is not a regular Wikimedia project, but an umbrella project used by all others. Regardless, it is often abbreviated as "Wikicommons", indicating a strong desire of users to have names following this pattern..)
FWIW, the "cute" part of "Wikisophia" is not "-sophia", but "Wiki", and we're pretty much stuck with that no matter what we do.
Erik
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 04:52 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
Of course we're not going to install WikiTeX if we decide that there's a better option, but that seems unlikely. WikiTeX is one of the most requested features from our users.
Just because users demand something, that doesn't mean it's really what they need. Part of the job of good software design is filtering user input to determine what the user's problem really is, and finding the best way to solve that problem regardless of what the user thinks is the right solution.
I like WikiTeX, and the formal wiki syntax I'm working on has a nearly identical extension-based syntax for the kinds of things it does.
It might be a good idea to, say, promise to devote some resources to do a security review and make WikiTeX part of the mediawiki software on SourceForge that other wikis install, but not commit to installing it ourselves until we do more work on performance as well.
Wikimedia is not an English language project, for starters. This makes it necessary for English language derived names like Wiktionary to be localized, which then leads to confusion when you go to a domain like pl.wiktionary.org and end up on a site called Wikisłownik. Of course, to a certain extent, you will never be able to avoid this, but at least in the Latin languages, you can strive for a name which doesn't require localization. Wiktionary is not too bad because it's still a neologism, whereas something like "Wikimedia Dictionary" would be much worse.
I don't see that at all--plain words translate into plain words directly: "Dictionnaire Wikipédia", "Wikipedia Słownik", etc. Trying to find a latin-based neologism or something doesn't avoid the problem of translation, it just warps it a bit.
A short and unique name is also useful for searching the project and marketing it... FWIW, the "cute" part of "Wikisophia" is not "-sophia", but "Wiki", and we're pretty much stuck with that no matter what we do.
Fair enough. "Wikisophia" is a fine name, and might not have to be translated in some languages (though Bulgarians might think it's just a local chapter or something :-). I just don't think a serious academic project should fall into the habit of marketing-speak, even if it would be effective (which is far from given).
Erik Moeller wrote:
Finally, consistency is important. We have an established naming scheme -- our projects have unique names that usually begin with "Wiki-" -- and in order to maintain our corporate identity, new projects should follow the same pattern. (Incidentally, I named the "Wikimedia Commons" using a different pattern because it is not a regular Wikimedia project, but an umbrella project used by all others. Regardless, it is often abbreviated as "Wikicommons", indicating a strong desire of users to have names following this pattern..)
FWIW, the "cute" part of "Wikisophia" is not "-sophia", but "Wiki", and we're pretty much stuck with that no matter what we do.
Erik
Wikiversity is great, but quite rightly suggests tertiary education. How about Wikademy ("academy"), and Wikitutor for the intermediate and junior versions of the educational resource, respectively?
-- Neil
On 5/9/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Lee Daniel Crocker-
I don't see how it's acceptable for us to agree to any conditions that affect our prerogatives for software use. We need to use whatever software best suits our purposes. WikiTeX is nice work, and we may very well end up using it or something similar.
Of course we're not going to install WikiTeX if we decide that there's a better option, but that seems unlikely. WikiTeX is one of the most requested features from our users. What has been holding up its setup are not criticisms of its functionality, but security considerations. As I see it, if we do this, the Board will ask Brion, as a paid Wikimedia employee, to assist Peter in the security review and evaluation of
Where do users log such feature requests? I see four people have voted for the relevant bug, which was filed six weeks ago: http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1792
I don't think the "paid Wikimedia employee" has much to do with this process. Of course the person best positioned to judge security considerations may indeed by SPARTA^B^B^B^Brion ...
This makes it necessary for English language derived names like Wiktionary to be localized, which then leads to confusion when you go to a domain like pl.wiktionary.org and end up on a site called Wikisłownik.
This is confusing? Hopefully not, if you know any Polish! The Red Cross and similar orgs seem to do just fine with translations into many languages. So does Wikipedia, in fact.
SJ
On 5/10/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Don't panic: We're still a long way from launching anything. I'm not going to push this until we have the server situation under control and the existing projects have stabilized a bit. Nevertheless, there's one issue that I'd like to resolve now, which is the naming of the project.
I'm panicking. Based on what you've announced below, it sounds like this hijacking of a project that I and others have been keen on for a long time has been already decided.
Angela, Jimbo, Daniel Mayer and I agree that the name Wikiversity is problematic in that it ties the project very strongly to the idea of traditional universities. This may lead to certain expectations as to its structure and the services it will provide (e.g. faculties, degrees), but also limit the project in other ways, e.g., by being perceived primarily or only as an institution of teritary learning.
I've explained a number of ways this could work in the past. There's basic models in both English and German. It's an excellent way to expand what Wikimedia does into a whole new area, and boost Wikibooks in the process - while also utilising the existing resource in Wikipedia.
I'd like us to look at ideas for primary and secondary education as well, and I don't want to run into a wall because the established people of the Wikiversity community will say "It's an electronic university, this doesn't belong here."
It depends what you're talking about. Myself and the others who've been pursuing this have a fair idea of how a tertiary-level system could work. If you've got a way to expand it to primary and secondary education (without simply producing textbooks), I'm all ears.
Angela suggested the name Wikisophia.org/.com, which is currently owned by Peter Danenberg (WikiTeX). I loved the idea immediately: the Greek sophia means "wisdom", but also has many other meanings in the area of learning. It is specific enough to be useful and vague enough to not limit the project very early in its nature or scope.
Excuse my terseness, but this is vile. Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource and Wikibooks all make it reasonably clear from the title what the project is actually about. Where Wikiversity would follow this trend, "Wikisophia" is about as vague as you can get. It just screams "place to dump random stuff".
So, after discussing this in a small circle, I'd like to announce my intention to move the relevant pages on Meta and edit the summary to reflect the name change. This does not affect the existing efforts under the Wikibooks domain which use the "Wikiversity" label, but only any potential future eLearning/eTeaching project we intend to pursue. de.wikiversity.org could be renamed and moved to the new domain once it is owned by Wikimedia.
If you move the pages on meta, or change the summary, I'll move/revert them back, until you actually consult the community and put this through a vote. You've absolutely no business unilaterally pulling this - or doing so without consulting anyone but the board. It also seems pretty damned rich to suggest that it's not going to affect the English version (which was never meant to be a part of Wikibooks - it's still there as a beta of what a seperate project would look like), while in the next sentence stating that you plan to hijack the German version for your project.
I thought Wikispecies was a terrible idea, and so far, I think I've been proved right. In terms of disaster ideas, though, this one well and truly takes the cake.
-- ambi
Rebecca:
Your accusations are uncalled for. I will responed to the substantial points of your letter.
a project that I and others have been keen on for a long time has been already decided.
Nothing has been decided. It is not clear at all that Wikiversity (or Wikisophia) will be launched, or what it will encompass. The procedure for new projects requires board approval and a vote, none of which has taken place.
It depends what you're talking about. Myself and the others who've been pursuing this have a fair idea of how a tertiary-level system could work. If you've got a way to expand it to primary and secondary education (without simply producing textbooks), I'm all ears.
This is what I'm currently exploring through an evaluation of existing Learning Management Systems. The key question to me is what changes need to be made to our software to support all types of learning and assessment.
Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource and Wikibooks all make it reasonably clear from the title what the project is actually about. Where Wikiversity would follow this trend, "Wikisophia" is about as vague as you can get. It just screams "place to dump random stuff".
That's because, as I said, it is not at all clear what the scope of Wikisophia will be, whether it will, for example, include original research and publication, certification, summarization of certifications into degrees, and so on. A name that is reasonable open-ended allows us to explore the possibilities relatively freely.
consult the community and put this through a vote.
I will proceed to do so.
Erik
On 5/10/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Rebecca:
Your accusations are uncalled for. I will responed to the substantial points of your letter.
a project that I and others have been keen on for a long time has been already decided.
Nothing has been decided. It is not clear at all that Wikiversity (or Wikisophia) will be launched, or what it will encompass. The procedure for new projects requires board approval and a vote, none of which has taken place.
It depends what you're talking about. Myself and the others who've been pursuing this have a fair idea of how a tertiary-level system could work. If you've got a way to expand it to primary and secondary education (without simply producing textbooks), I'm all ears.
This is what I'm currently exploring through an evaluation of existing Learning Management Systems. The key question to me is what changes need to be made to our software to support all types of learning and assessment.
There is something I am not entirely understanding there. I have, for one, no real clue as to what Wikiversity is all about, but Erik, are you actually working/have worked on the launch/development of this project before you discovered it existed not so long ago? (see a previous thread on this list where you seemed to uncover the whole concept all of sudden).
Why suddenly go through all these proposals and changes without consulting the people who actually have been developping the project in their own corner and own time, to find together a solution and actually address the right community before launching any grand community vote?
It is one thing to "launch" a project, it is altogether another to make it live and make it sustainable, it seems to me that what Rebecca has said is that having been a part of this project for a long time, she does not exactly understand where and how suddenly we are talking about changing the name and such. An understandable surprise.
It could also be that I have not understood a thing about what this thread is all about.
This said, I very much agree with Rebecca that Wikisophia is way too broad and does not actually bring anything. It akes me think of something having to do with philosophy. I like the Wikademy idea. At least it works in French. ;-)
Cheers,
Delphine-
There is something I am not entirely understanding there. I have, for one, no real clue as to what Wikiversity is all about
That is the main problem with the project, and has been from the start. The current English Wikiversity subproject is organized in a pseudo-namespace on Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity
There are various "School" pages, most of which are stubs, some of which are vague collections of links to Wikibooks and Wikipedia, and very few of which make real attempts to organize information in courses. Due to the nature of (pseudo-)namespaces, information is strewn about: some is in the article namespace, some is in the proper pseudo-namespace, and it is very difficult to search the content properly. Categories are missing almost entirely. The software needs of the project have never been properly evaluated -- all that is used are standard blank wiki pages.
With such a broad scope, people have no idea what to put on those blank pages, so everyone is putting something different there. And, as expected, the project follows very strongly the models of traditional universities, which is not necessarily what is appropriate to achieve the desired goals.
Given this, it is quite bitterly ironic that Ambi refers to the possible outcome of (re-)organizing the project as "disastrous"; it can hardly get any worse than it is at the present time. Moving this mess of pages to its own domain name is a recipe for failure.
To be sure, there is quite a bit of text that we can use, but the current (English) Wikibooks-Wikiversity effort lacks the sort of coherence and structure required to make meaningful progress. As I noted, until the point I refactored the page, [[m:Wikiversity]] itself was a very long, very chaotic discussion about the definition of the project without any real conclusion. The English Wikiversity page http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Some_ideas_about_Wikiversity is a bit more useful, but a long way from setting out any clear structure for organizing the project.
Many people are very excited about the idea, but very few people agree on what it actually means. The process of moving the project from a subspace on Wikibooks to its own domain name, as an official Wikimedia project, is the best possible opportunity to rethink Wikiversity, to evaluate and prioritize its technical needs, to get the existing eLearning community involved, to develop useful and consistent policies, to define and pursue long term goals, and so on.
Why suddenly go through all these proposals and changes without consulting the people who actually have been developping the project in their own corner and own time
There have been no "proposals and changes without consulting". I have suggested changing the name of the project, and I have cross-posted this suggestion to the relevant multi-language fora. This *is* a solicitation of feedback from the existing Wikiversity community on the proposed name change.
to find together a solution and actually address the right community before launching any grand community vote?
Ambi was the one who called for a vote on the name. Nobody is talking about a general community vote on the project yet.
Erik
On 5/11/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
There are various "School" pages, most of which are stubs, some of which are vague collections of links to Wikibooks and Wikipedia, and very few of which make real attempts to organize information in courses. Due to the nature of (pseudo-)namespaces, information is strewn about: some is in the article namespace, some is in the proper pseudo-namespace, and it is very difficult to search the content properly. Categories are missing almost entirely. The software needs of the project have never been properly evaluated -- all that is used are standard blank wiki pages.
This is all it's ever going to become as long as it sits in template mode in Wikibooks. Give it wings and it will fly.
With such a broad scope, people have no idea what to put on those blank pages, so everyone is putting something different there. And, as expected, the project follows very strongly the models of traditional universities, which is not necessarily what is appropriate to achieve the desired goals.
A broad scope? The site Erik is advocating has no defined purpose apart from "learning", and no model of how this could be achieved. Our current model sets out a potential site design. Furthermore, I've argued in the past of how this could work - taking some of the basic ideas behind the structure of a university, and adapting them to create our own e-learning project following wiki principles. There is the potential for courses in all sorts of areas - not just your standard tertiary fare - and the potential to boost Wikibooks, because it would create the need to design workable textbooks and supplementary materials.
Given this, it is quite bitterly ironic that Ambi refers to the possible outcome of (re-)organizing the project as "disastrous"; it can hardly get any worse than it is at the present time. Moving this mess of pages to its own domain name is a recipe for failure.
It does need to be more clearly defined before being taken live - that is true. I've had it in mind to write up a Wikinews-style proposal since you began the process with that project, but haven't had the time nor motivation to do so as of yet. This is why I'm *not* arguing to move the current model to its own domain name at this very moment - although I believe it would be a very good idea to do so in the future.
Many people are very excited about the idea, but very few people agree on what it actually means. The process of moving the project from a subspace on Wikibooks to its own domain name, as an official Wikimedia project, is the best possible opportunity to rethink Wikiversity, to evaluate and prioritize its technical needs, to get the existing eLearning community involved, to develop useful and consistent policies, to define and pursue long term goals, and so on.
Precisely. The way to do this, however, is not to throw the entire idea out the window and insist on some amorphous mass that would not even try to be a coherent project, but to finetune what's already been proposed by the interested parties.
There have been no "proposals and changes without consulting". I have suggested changing the name of the project, and I have cross-posted this suggestion to the relevant multi-language fora. This *is* a solicitation of feedback from the existing Wikiversity community on the proposed name change.
That's not what you advocated in your first post, but whatever - at least it's a step away from mutilating the proposal immediately.
-- ambi
Erik Moeller wrote:
During and after our visit to the free software conference in South Africa, Angela and I talked a lot about the Wikiversity project, and the potential Wikimedia has to develop a truly global, free institution of learning as a new project.
As you probably know, these discussions are currently focused on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity and the talk page.
Don't panic: We're still a long way from launching anything. I'm not going to push this until we have the server situation under control and the existing projects have stabilized a bit. Nevertheless, there's one issue that I'd like to resolve now, which is the naming of the project.
Good, I think that a lot of groundwork needs to be laid before we get there.
Angela, Jimbo, Daniel Mayer and I agree that the name Wikiversity is problematic in that it ties the project very strongly to the idea of traditional universities. This may lead to certain expectations as to its structure and the services it will provide (e.g. faculties, degrees), but also limit the project in other ways, e.g., by being perceived primarily or only as an institution of teritary learning.
I still prefer the term wikiversity. I don't feel the strong association with traditional universities, nor any of the other perceptions that you have of it. There was a time when university was another name for a corporation. What I find attractive about "wikiversity" of turning toward a totality in a more classical approach to learning.
I'd like us to look at ideas for primary and secondary education as well, and I don't want to run into a wall because the established people of the Wikiversity community will say "It's an electronic university, this doesn't belong here."
Absolutely. I believe that education is a seemless lifelong process. Separate buildings for different levels of education makes sense in the brick and mortar world. Just as much as Wikipedia is not paper, Wikiversity is not bricks and mortar. Certainly there will be people to raise the kind of objection that you mention, but I don't expect them to be very influential.
Angela suggested the name Wikisophia.org/.com, which is currently owned by Peter Danenberg (WikiTeX). I loved the idea immediately: the Greek sophia means "wisdom", but also has many other meanings in the area of learning. It is specific enough to be useful and vague enough to not limit the project very early in its nature or scope.
I find "sophia" to be a little pompous, and I also link it with the concept of sophistry. Teaching wisdom is a bit akin to teaching common sense. There is also the possibility of confusion with "Sophia University", the Jesuit university in Japan.
So, after discussing this in a small circle, I'd like to announce my intention to move the relevant pages on Meta and edit the summary to reflect the name change.
This action seems premature.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I find "sophia" to be a little pompous, and I also link it with the concept of sophistry. Teaching wisdom is a bit akin to teaching common sense.
I mostly agree with this as well; I find "Wikisophia" a kind of weird-looking name, and a bit pretentious. I might be in the minority (?), but I never interpreted "Wikiversity" as actually a university, but in a more metaphorical sense---sort of like [[en:Wikipedia:Sandbox]]. I wouldn't be averse to some other name I suppose, but I can't think of one offhand that I like better.
-Mark
On 5/10/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
During and after our visit to the free software conference in South Africa, Angela and I talked a lot about the Wikiversity project, and the potential Wikimedia has to develop a truly global, free institution of learning as a new project.
As you probably know, these discussions are currently focused on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity and the talk page.
Don't panic: We're still a long way from launching anything. I'm not going to push this until we have the server situation under control and the existing projects have stabilized a bit. Nevertheless, there's one issue that I'd like to resolve now, which is the naming of the project.
Good, I think that a lot of groundwork needs to be laid before we get there.
Angela, Jimbo, Daniel Mayer and I agree that the name Wikiversity is problematic in that it ties the project very strongly to the idea of traditional universities. This may lead to certain expectations as to its structure and the services it will provide (e.g. faculties, degrees), but also limit the project in other ways, e.g., by being perceived primarily or only as an institution of teritary learning.
I still prefer the term wikiversity. I don't feel the strong association with traditional universities, nor any of the other perceptions that you have of it. There was a time when university was another name for a corporation. What I find attractive about "wikiversity" of turning toward a totality in a more classical approach to learning.
I'd like us to look at ideas for primary and secondary education as well, and I don't want to run into a wall because the established people of the Wikiversity community will say "It's an electronic university, this doesn't belong here."
Absolutely. I believe that education is a seemless lifelong process. Separate buildings for different levels of education makes sense in the brick and mortar world. Just as much as Wikipedia is not paper, Wikiversity is not bricks and mortar. Certainly there will be people to raise the kind of objection that you mention, but I don't expect them to be very influential.
Angela suggested the name Wikisophia.org/.com, which is currently owned by Peter Danenberg (WikiTeX). I loved the idea immediately: the Greek sophia means "wisdom", but also has many other meanings in the area of learning. It is specific enough to be useful and vague enough to not limit the project very early in its nature or scope.
I find "sophia" to be a little pompous, and I also link it with the concept of sophistry. Teaching wisdom is a bit akin to teaching common sense. There is also the possibility of confusion with "Sophia University", the Jesuit university in Japan.
So, after discussing this in a small circle, I'd like to announce my intention to move the relevant pages on Meta and edit the summary to reflect the name change.
This action seems premature.
Ec
How about Wikilearning? Or Wikiducation? Another idea could be to have a parallel project to Wikiversity and call it Wikischools.
I'd like to get involved - have long had it in mind - and will try to give some practical input when I'm not so busy with my own studies. I have some experience and knowledge that might be useful.
Cormac
Hi :-)
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.
Ant
I agree with Anthere :)
Cordialement,
Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Doctorant CERSA - CNRS, Paris 2 http://soufron.free.fr
Le 10 mai 05, à 12:45, Anthere a écrit :
Hi :-)
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.
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, at 11:12, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10 mai 05, à 12:45, Anthere a écrit :
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.
I agree with Anthere :)
Hmm. I rather liked someone's (whose?) suggestion of "Wikademy", which is has the same contraction of the "Wiki" prefix to "Wik" that we have in "Wiktionary", for example, but is strongly educationally-themed without having too much of a Higher Education feel to it; indeed, it much more stresses a Further Education bent which I think is the direction that the project is heading towards... ?
Yours,
Well if I had a remark to do...
Wikiversity, Wikademy, etc. All these names are quite funny... but they are quite funny!
Do you want it to be a serious project for players in real markets or do you want to be a wikijoke for folks like us... ?
Why not something very simple like : WIKI UNIVERSITY
It's simple, precise, clear, beautiful and cool. Plus it looks serious enough.
Le 11 mai 05, à 00:23, James D. Forrester a écrit :
On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, at 11:12, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10 mai 05, à 12:45, Anthere a écrit :
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.
I agree with Anthere :)
Hmm. I rather liked someone's (whose?) suggestion of "Wikademy", which is has the same contraction of the "Wiki" prefix to "Wik" that we have in "Wiktionary", for example, but is strongly educationally-themed without having too much of a Higher Education feel to it; indeed, it much more stresses a Further Education bent which I think is the direction that the project is heading towards... ?
Yours,
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Mail: james@jdforrester.org | jon@eh.org | csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org