Hello,
There was an article published today on Wikiversity in "The Chronicle": http://chronicle.com/free/2005/12/2005121601t.htm (I was one of the people interviewed for this, and just to pre-emptively point out an inaccuracy - apart from the obvious "2.5 million articles in *10* languages" typo - that I didn't say that I want Wikiversity to "focus on original research", but that I said I see research as playing a central role in Wikiversity.) However, the article isn't bad, and is reasonably fair.
But the real purpose of this mail is to clarify the idea of Wikiversity and courses. According to the relevant board meeting notes*, the recommendation is to "exclude online courses". There is much confusion about this, and some despair (contributors saying they will give up on the project if courses are excluded). What needs to be clarified is whether courses are to be excluded in Wikiversity's initial phase but included with time, or whether courses will be excluded altogether.
* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/November_13%2C_2005
The 'safe' proposal until now has been to make wikiversity a repository of learning materials. This, I presume, would include lesson plans/curricula as well as actual resources like reading/listening comprehension exercises, flash cards, discursive questions on particular advertisements, etc.
But, for a start, I'm not sure that this line between resources and courses exists. I would say that if we who are creating these resources are to be genuinely engaged (and to make them genuinely useful), we will need to have some sort of use of these resources, or at least some of them. The reading comprehension can be printed and used by any language teacher anywhere; the flash cards and (possibly) discursive questions likewise. But consider an activity like critiquing two sources of online information in order to write a neutral encylopedic article. This is provoking higher order thinking in order to develop another resource, namely Wikipedia. I think this is the idea behind what JWSchmidt is proposing in his advocacy of "service-provider courses" - which will act as interfaces between Wikimedia projects, and hopefully reconnecting projects where they have diverged. I've written about this myself in numerous places, including: * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity_%28overview%29 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal (which has my proposed objects of Wikiversity, namely: materials, learning communities, research)
Personally, I think that the inclusion/exclusion of courses is more complex that people might imagine. Some current or proposed courses are along the didactic (ie teacher informs, students re-produce material) model, some are along the critical model (as above) and some are more "practical" (eg. write computer code). If the board is nervous about the didactic model (eg. as Angela said that she was concerned that Wikimedia would be ridiculed if Wikiversity was widely advertised and (I presume) wasn't ready for incoming students), then it could still allow for the remaining two models (which ironically are at polar ends of the pedagogical spectrum), without too much fear of backlash from the press or wider public. However, I would add that excluding the didactic model for now would bitterly disappoint some contributors.
Basically, the issue is that the most recent board decision wasn't very well explained. I am aware the board itself is looking for clarification, but it has just created more confusion than anything. I particularly invite board members to respond both *as individuals* and also to explain a bit more on their last decision. That's what I'm trying to gather here, as much as getting the wider community's perspective(s).
Thanks,
Cormac / Cormaggio
Cormac Lawler wrote:
If the board is nervous about the didactic model (eg. as Angela said that she was concerned that Wikimedia would be ridiculed if Wikiversity was widely advertised and (I presume) wasn't ready for incoming students), then it could still allow for the remaining two models (which ironically are at polar ends of the pedagogical spectrum), without too much fear of backlash from the press or wider public. However, I would add that excluding the didactic model for now would bitterly disappoint some contributors.
I want to add my $0.02 here asking for clarification about this issue as well, and an understanding if the concern about no on-line courses is to be something temporary (just during the start-up phase of Wikiversity) or if this is a permanent exclusion on the part of the board. It also cuts deep into some major differences between Wikiversity and Wikibooks, as Wikibooks is a place to create instructional materials (particularly textbooks), but not appropriate to schedule a class and display syllibi for a particular course (more of what Wikiversity is about). The reasoning for why on-line courses is to be excluded IMHO has not been satisfactorily explained to the participants on existing parts of Wikiversity other than just a simple whim or suggestion, nor what philosophical camp is pushing for that concept.
Obviously there are hundreds of different opinions on what Wikiversity ought to be, just based on the participation of the voting process of Wikiversity in the first place. Nobody is advocating that we create instantly a multi-college advanced degree-granting research university. Even the best universities started with a simple foundation, and I can give countless examples of even relatively "new" universities with humble origins, and I think Wikiversity should be no different. In the case of Wikiversity, there is also an existing community that has already gone off into some interesting directions, so any exclusions or restrictions are also going to have to address current content that has already been created and try to fit within the current framework that already exists at Wikibooks and de.wikiversity. The minutes of the board meeting didn't seem to address that issue at all.
Cormac Lawler wrote:
The 'safe' proposal until now has been to make wikiversity a repository of learning materials. This, I presume, would include lesson plans/curricula as well as actual resources like reading/listening comprehension exercises, flash cards, discursive questions on particular advertisements, etc. ...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
This proposal is not 'safe'. Look at the Wikiversity (overview) page linked here, then follow any of the six links from "Cell Biology" to "Media literacy". They all read like textbooks or introductions to textbooks. The C programming course contains "lectures" and "quizzes", which together function as a textbook. The pages also contain lists of students (instead of authors), but in short, most of the current Wikiversity consists of textbooks which must stay at Wikibooks, and not become a separate wiki.
A 'safe' version of the proposal would include all learning materials EXCEPT any that could be found in a textbook, encyclopedia, dictionary (or other Wikimedia project).
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
What is interesting about the "modified project proposal" is that it is an opportunity to define Wikiversity (or whatever we call this project) in a way that does not overlap with Wikibooks, but supports the other Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia. I like the proposal for "reading groups" where multiple users meet on a wiki and agree to read the same (free or non-free) material and discuss it; then if they want, they use their knowledge to improve Wikibooks or Wiktionary or add citations to Wikipedia. The users learn and (optionally) the other Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks gain benefits.
Another proposal that I have read about is to have an "index of sources". This would not be a collection of free source texts, like Wikisource is. This would be a database potentially listing every (free or non-free) source that was ever cited in any Wikipedia article or Wikibook, and some new sources. What if whenever I wanted more information while writing a Wikibook, I could go to "Wikiversity" to find interesting books or web sites on my topic?
The problem with both of these proposals is that with the current http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity they share not much. Its as if someone just made some random proposals and attached the "Wikiversity" name.
In fact, there is currently no consensus for what Wikiversity means.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward wrote:
Wikiversity currently means different things to different people.
See for example http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moving_Wikiversity_forward#living_boo ks where a user actually proposes that Wikiversity should develop textbooks!
-- [[Wikibooks:User:Kernigh]] ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
On 12/17/05, xkernigh@netscape.net xkernigh@netscape.net wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
The 'safe' proposal until now has been to make wikiversity a repository of learning materials. This, I presume, would include lesson plans/curricula as well as actual resources like reading/listening comprehension exercises, flash cards, discursive questions on particular advertisements, etc. ...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
This proposal is not 'safe'. Look at the Wikiversity (overview) page linked here, then follow any of the six links from "Cell Biology" to "Media literacy". They all read like textbooks or introductions to textbooks. The C programming course contains "lectures" and "quizzes", which together function as a textbook. The pages also contain lists of students (instead of authors), but in short, most of the current Wikiversity consists of textbooks which must stay at Wikibooks, and not become a separate wiki.
I would argue that the reason so much of Wikiversity looks like stuff that should be on Wikibooks is because it has been developed (and still resides) on Wikibooks! I wrote the outline on the media literacy course (which I repeat is a mere outline) and I certainly don't envision this to be a book-like resource/course.
A 'safe' version of the proposal would include all learning materials EXCEPT any that could be found in a textbook, encyclopedia, dictionary (or other Wikimedia project).
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
What is interesting about the "modified project proposal" is that it is an opportunity to define Wikiversity (or whatever we call this project) in a way that does not overlap with Wikibooks, but supports the other Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia. I like the proposal for "reading groups" where multiple users meet on a wiki and agree to read the same (free or non-free) material and discuss it; then if they want, they use their knowledge to improve Wikibooks or Wiktionary or add citations to Wikipedia. The users learn and (optionally) the other Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks gain benefits.
I'm glad you agree on this - this is certainly a central idea of mine (User:Cormaggio) and John's (User:JWSchmidt) thinking on Wikiversity these days.
Another proposal that I have read about is to have an "index of sources". This would not be a collection of free source texts, like Wikisource is. This would be a database potentially listing every (free or non-free) source that was ever cited in any Wikipedia article or Wikibook, and some new sources. What if whenever I wanted more information while writing a Wikibook, I could go to "Wikiversity" to find interesting books or web sites on my topic?
The problem with both of these proposals is that with the current http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity they share not much. Its as if someone just made some random proposals and attached the "Wikiversity" name.
The random nature of that page is because of the general diversity of visions of Wikiversity, as you've already observed. A quick flick through any of the talk pages on meta or wikibooks is testament to that. I'd go with the current proposals to get a sense of what is proposed/envisioned for now.
In fact, there is currently no consensus for what Wikiversity means.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward wrote:
Wikiversity currently means different things to different people.
See for example http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moving_Wikiversity_forward#living_boo ks where a user actually proposes that Wikiversity should develop textbooks!
That misrepresents what John was saying. Nobody is proposing that Wikiversity is for developing textbooks for itself - though it could and should be about developing resources in all Wikimedia projects. There may be some overlap between the projects but Wikiversity doesn't really fully belong on any one project (eg Wikibooks) and thus deserves its own. How it delineates itself from other projects remains to be seen, but I would argue that it should focus on those three things 1) developing multilingual learning materials; 2) growing learning communities attached to specific tasks (ie finding sources); and 3) prompting and hosting research (including but not limited to Wikimedia projects). This final "object" would already give it a clear distinction from all other Wikimedia projects. After this, the main outstanding issue is whether the project should be called "Wikiversity", given the general consensus (from what I see) that materials should be available for all learner levels/ages.
Cormac
Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 12/17/05, xkernigh@netscape.net xkernigh@netscape.net wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
The 'safe' proposal until now has been to make wikiversity a repository of learning materials. This, I presume, would include lesson plans/curricula as well as actual resources like reading/listening comprehension exercises, flash cards, discursive questions on particular advertisements, etc. ...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
This proposal is not 'safe'. Look at the Wikiversity (overview) page linked here, then follow any of the six links from "Cell Biology" to "Media literacy". They all read like textbooks or introductions to textbooks. The C programming course contains "lectures" and "quizzes", which together function as a textbook. The pages also contain lists of students (instead of authors), but in short, most of the current Wikiversity consists of textbooks which must stay at Wikibooks, and not become a separate wiki.
I would argue that the reason so much of Wikiversity looks like stuff that should be on Wikibooks is because it has been developed (and still resides) on Wikibooks! I wrote the outline on the media literacy course (which I repeat is a mere outline) and I certainly don't envision this to be a book-like resource/course.
If all that Wikversity ends up doing is producing textbooks, course outlines and other tangible materials it might as well stay where it is.
In fact, there is currently no consensus for what Wikiversity means.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward wrote:
Wikiversity currently means different things to different people.
See for example http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moving_Wikiversity_forward#living_boo ks where a user actually proposes that Wikiversity should develop textbooks!
That misrepresents what John was saying. Nobody is proposing that Wikiversity is for developing textbooks for itself - though it could and should be about developing resources in all Wikimedia projects. There may be some overlap between the projects but Wikiversity doesn't really fully belong on any one project (eg Wikibooks) and thus deserves its own. How it delineates itself from other projects remains to be seen, but I would argue that it should focus on those three things 1) developing multilingual learning materials; 2) growing learning communities attached to specific tasks (ie finding sources); and 3) prompting and hosting research (including but not limited to Wikimedia projects). This final "object" would already give it a clear distinction from all other Wikimedia projects. After this, the main outstanding issue is whether the project should be called "Wikiversity", given the general consensus (from what I see) that materials should be available for all learner levels/ages.
I think that the key thing that would distinguish Wikiversity from the other projects is that it is about process while the others are about product.
In considering your suggested three foci I thinkl that as long as we can't get past the first one Wikiversity is just as well in Wikibooks. The third is very far ahead of where we are. It would be absolutely forbidden in Wikipedia under the No Original Research rule. Making that a part of Wikiversity before Wikiversity is ready for it could be an invitation to all kinds of nutcase research that defies peer review. Peer reviewers would need to be in place before original research could take place.
Your second focus is key to Wikiversity.but I would leave it simply at "growing learning communities" without reference to specific tasks. Getting tangled up in specific tasks and courses leaves too much room for Wikiversity to repeat the educational model established by traditional universities. The top down development of a course by a "teacher" imposes a range of requirements on what's being done. It does nothing about revolutionizing the entire learning process. "Courses" are about the teacher rather than the learner.
The name "Wikiversity" is just fine *because* it is about all learners at all levels and all ages. That's what universality is all about. It's about life-long learning from kindergarten to post-graduate. It's about those who know a little bit more helping (not teaching) those who know a little bit less. I think that it's very encouraging that kids can go into seniors' homes to teach about computers. A book that I recently acquired "What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy" by James Paul Gee. He analyzes video game playing in terms of 36 "Learning principles". The first of these is the "Active, Critical Learning Principle" - "All aspects of the learning environment (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning."
Perhaps the first "course" to be offered in the Wikiversity should be about learning, and how it happens. If it is to have any such thing as a core curriculum maybe that should be on it.
Ec
On 12/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: [snip]
I think that the key thing that would distinguish Wikiversity from the other projects is that it is about process while the others are about product.
In considering your suggested three foci I thinkl that as long as we can't get past the first one Wikiversity is just as well in Wikibooks. The third is very far ahead of where we are. It would be absolutely forbidden in Wikipedia under the No Original Research rule. Making that a part of Wikiversity before Wikiversity is ready for it could be an invitation to all kinds of nutcase research that defies peer review. Peer reviewers would need to be in place before original research could take place.
Well, I think peer review would grow out of having research hosted on Wikiversity. But until the research is peer reviewed, it shouldn't be considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia/books. I personally think the Wikimedia community is hampered by not having recourse to publishing research somewhere within Wikimedia (even though we all do - in Wikibooks!)
Your second focus is key to Wikiversity.but I would leave it simply at "growing learning communities" without reference to specific tasks. Getting tangled up in specific tasks and courses leaves too much room for Wikiversity to repeat the educational model established by traditional universities. The top down development of a course by a "teacher" imposes a range of requirements on what's being done. It does nothing about revolutionizing the entire learning process. "Courses" are about the teacher rather than the learner.
I agree that top-down course development shouldn't be where we're going, but I just meant that learning communities generally have to have some sort of goal (ie writing a good article, exploring the pros and cons of advertising, etc.) - that's all.
The name "Wikiversity" is just fine *because* it is about all learners at all levels and all ages. That's what universality is all about. It's about life-long learning from kindergarten to post-graduate. It's about those who know a little bit more helping (not teaching) those who know a little bit less. I think that it's very encouraging that kids can go into seniors' homes to teach about computers. A book that I recently acquired "What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy" by James Paul Gee. He analyzes video game playing in terms of 36 "Learning principles". The first of these is the "Active, Critical Learning Principle" - "All aspects of the learning environment (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning."
Absolutely - the wiki-format is entirely geared towards active, critical learning. Learning by doing - experiential learning. That's the kind of learning that I'm personally talking about when I talk about wikiversity - not the acquisition and repetition of facts.
Perhaps the first "course" to be offered in the Wikiversity should be about learning, and how it happens. If it is to have any such thing as a core curriculum maybe that should be on it.
Sounds good (I had already thought of this). Would you be willing to help out? (I am..)
Cormac
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 12/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think that the key thing that would distinguish Wikiversity from the other projects is that it is about process while the others are about product.
In considering your suggested three foci I think that as long as we can't get past the first one Wikiversity is just as well in Wikibooks. The third is very far ahead of where we are. It would be absolutely forbidden in Wikipedia under the No Original Research rule. Making that a part of Wikiversity before Wikiversity is ready for it could be an invitation to all kinds of nutcase research that defies peer review. Peer reviewers would need to be in place before original research could take place.
Well, I think peer review would grow out of having research hosted on Wikiversity. But until the research is peer reviewed, it shouldn't be considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia/books. I personally think the Wikimedia community is hampered by not having recourse to publishing research somewhere within Wikimedia (even though we all do
- in Wikibooks!)
To make myself perfectly clear, I have never believed that "No Original Research" should be a rule in an ideal wiki. It became a real issue when one individual sought to publish his offbeat theories in physics. The issue is really a matter of when, not whether.
Your second focus is key to Wikiversity.but I would leave it simply at "growing learning communities" without reference to specific tasks. Getting tangled up in specific tasks and courses leaves too much room for Wikiversity to repeat the educational model established by traditional universities. The top down development of a course by a "teacher" imposes a range of requirements on what's being done. It does nothing about revolutionizing the entire learning process. "Courses" are about the teacher rather than the learner.
I agree that top-down course development shouldn't be where we're going, but I just meant that learning communities generally have to have some sort of goal (ie writing a good article, exploring the pros and cons of advertising, etc.) - that's all.
Yes, content will eventually escape from the process, but it must not drive the process. To quote McLuhan, "The medium is the message."
The name "Wikiversity" is just fine *because* it is about all learners at all levels and all ages. That's what universality is all about. It's about life-long learning from kindergarten to post-graduate. It's about those who know a little bit more helping (not teaching) those who know a little bit less. I think that it's very encouraging that kids can go into seniors' homes to teach about computers. A book that I recently acquired "What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy" by James Paul Gee. He analyzes video game playing in terms of 36 "Learning principles". The first of these is the "Active, Critical Learning Principle" - "All aspects of the learning environment (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning."
Absolutely - the wiki-format is entirely geared towards active, critical learning. Learning by doing - experiential learning. That's the kind of learning that I'm personally talking about when I talk about wikiversity - not the acquisition and repetition of facts.
Great! I think that we need to keep that ruthlessly in mind as this thing develops.
Perhaps the first "course" to be offered in the Wikiversity should be about learning, and how it happens. If it is to have any such thing as a core curriculum maybe that should be on it.
Sounds good (I had already thought of this). Would you be willing to help out? (I am..)
Gingerly, yes. I must however remain modest about what I can do. What, currently is the best place to develop this idea?
Ec
On 12/21/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 12/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think that the key thing that would distinguish Wikiversity from the other projects is that it is about process while the others are about product.
In considering your suggested three foci I think that as long as we can't get past the first one Wikiversity is just as well in Wikibooks. The third is very far ahead of where we are. It would be absolutely forbidden in Wikipedia under the No Original Research rule. Making that a part of Wikiversity before Wikiversity is ready for it could be an invitation to all kinds of nutcase research that defies peer review. Peer reviewers would need to be in place before original research could take place.
Well, I think peer review would grow out of having research hosted on Wikiversity. But until the research is peer reviewed, it shouldn't be considered an appropriate source for Wikipedia/books. I personally think the Wikimedia community is hampered by not having recourse to publishing research somewhere within Wikimedia (even though we all do
- in Wikibooks!)
To make myself perfectly clear, I have never believed that "No Original Research" should be a rule in an ideal wiki. It became a real issue when one individual sought to publish his offbeat theories in physics. The issue is really a matter of when, not whether.
Your second focus is key to Wikiversity.but I would leave it simply at "growing learning communities" without reference to specific tasks. Getting tangled up in specific tasks and courses leaves too much room for Wikiversity to repeat the educational model established by traditional universities. The top down development of a course by a "teacher" imposes a range of requirements on what's being done. It does nothing about revolutionizing the entire learning process. "Courses" are about the teacher rather than the learner.
I agree that top-down course development shouldn't be where we're going, but I just meant that learning communities generally have to have some sort of goal (ie writing a good article, exploring the pros and cons of advertising, etc.) - that's all.
Yes, content will eventually escape from the process, but it must not drive the process. To quote McLuhan, "The medium is the message."
The name "Wikiversity" is just fine *because* it is about all learners at all levels and all ages. That's what universality is all about. It's about life-long learning from kindergarten to post-graduate. It's about those who know a little bit more helping (not teaching) those who know a little bit less. I think that it's very encouraging that kids can go into seniors' homes to teach about computers. A book that I recently acquired "What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy" by James Paul Gee. He analyzes video game playing in terms of 36 "Learning principles". The first of these is the "Active, Critical Learning Principle" - "All aspects of the learning environment (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning."
Absolutely - the wiki-format is entirely geared towards active, critical learning. Learning by doing - experiential learning. That's the kind of learning that I'm personally talking about when I talk about wikiversity - not the acquisition and repetition of facts.
Great! I think that we need to keep that ruthlessly in mind as this thing develops.
Perhaps the first "course" to be offered in the Wikiversity should be about learning, and how it happens. If it is to have any such thing as a core curriculum maybe that should be on it.
Sounds good (I had already thought of this). Would you be willing to help out? (I am..)
Gingerly, yes. I must however remain modest about what I can do. What, currently is the best place to develop this idea?
Ec
Even though I prefer to work on Meta these days, I've started a stub at wikiboooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Learning - it's just bullet points, and more along the "about experiential learning", rather than learning through it, but I hope it will grow into something really useful. I agree that this should be core to the project. Agree with everything above, actually - thanks.
Cormac
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org