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