James Hare wrote: I'm not sure if the concept of NPOV fits for a collaborative research project. Maybe one of the project supporters can say something about this. greetings, elian

On 8/15/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote: I very much agree with what I think Elian was saying, in that I think NPOV is a useless concept when applied to research. If we stick to the concept of NPOV (in all its ambiguity and complexity) we get nowhere in actually allowing someone to test and apply their learning about the world in an academic context. NPOV works for an encyclopedia - it will not work (or, at least, not the same way) for a place of learning. I don't know what kind of NPOV in research you were referring to, Amgine - there is a whole range of complexity on doing and writing research - and all academic research should be structured in a way that does not compromise ethics, with a methodology that can be justified, and be grounded in the appropriate literature (hopefully to make some contribution to that literature). That's good research practice - not NPOV. But yes, what we need to do, over the coming months, is to create a framework and guidelines for good practice in research, including ethical and methodological guidelines. That will determine what kind of research will be hosted and what we are to do with/about it. Cormac

On 8/15/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote: Yes, your outline of research (and good practice) is fine - until the assumption that all of that good practice constitutes NPOV. I absolutely agree (not many wouldn't) that research needs to be justified, but I have a problem (possibly simply semantic) with requiring that research be "neutral". Even though a piece of research needs to be grounded in what other people have done, it can take a provocative stance, advocate that a system needs changing etc. Furthermore, it is very much written from a point of view - a whole set of assumptions about how the world works. Maybe I'm arguing for something quite particular here, but most of the research i immerse myself in does not exactly subscribe to a view of the world which can be objectively described - or even, that the researcher is somehow able to present the research or their methodology as somehow "neutral". I have difficulties with the notion of "neutrality" in Wikipedia (though it works well enough), but I have even more of a problem with it when applied to research. However, i appreciate what you are arguing for, and i fully agree with it. We eventually need a system of peer review of research to be hosted on wikiversity, as well as a community of researchers who are prepared to provide constructive criticism on each others work. We also need guidelines to help people starting out, as to what they should be thinking about throughout their research planning and fieldwork. If we need some sort of concept that equates with NPOV, then we should think about that concept and give it meaning (as Jimbo said, during Wikimania, that we have done with NPOV itself). So, my parting thought is: What is that concept? What is Wikiversity's NPOV? Cormac

NPOV does apply to Wikiversity, but of course context matters in how we understand and apply it. For example, a course which is highly biased and pushing some POV should be fixed, as we would quite properly consider it to be broken. But of course, as Cormac points out, some of what Wikiversity is going to be about is explorations of research, etc. As Amgine put it, even here NPOV applies, but it applies in a way that makes sense for this type of content. The danger of saying too quickly "NPOV does not apply" is that we would thereby open the door to lunatics (and there are lunatics!) trying to push extremely biased courses. We can do better than that. --Jimbo

On 8/15/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Yes, I think you've got me, Birgitte :-). I just think that NPOV (as I conceptualise it) is not a useful concept to apply to Wikiversity. Don't get me wrong - I wince just as much as anyone if someone will try to teach people that the world began 10,000 years ago ;-), but surely the point of education is to try to get people to think for themselves? I see no problem with provocative, even biased, educational materials - so long as people are given the wherewithal to critically evaluate them. I think we need an analogy to NPOV - "completeness" sounds better, but just not catchy enough :-) Cormac

James Hare wrote: Well, I don't have any agenda other than getting the books in print for our language preservation -- and that costs money. And once in print, I will have to take any heat for stuff put into them that's not allowed or subject to claims. I certainly hope people don't think I'm greedy... Jeff

We can develop Creationism instruction material as well as Science instruction material, can't we? As long as we have interested parties? On 8/15/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

On 8/16/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote: None of the examples you cite are NPOV. They are, in fact, distinctly POV. Treating these topics in an NPOV manner requires us to clearly state that "there was never such a thing as an Armenian genocide" is a fringe theory which has a significant number of adherents only in Turkey. [[Creationism]] is clearly labeled as pseudoscience in the English Wikipedia right now. I have no problem with Wikiversity instructional materials that treat it as such. The scope of the project should be "educational materials with a scientific grounding"; there may be a need for additional ethical principles, but this is not it. Research is another story. Some research may only be a cover for propaganda. But the principle of open collaboration might be enough to discourage crackpots, who will find their nonsense ideas dismantled before they have even started putting them together. We've mostly been able to deal with propaganda on Wikinews so far, which encourages original reporting, comparable to original research. Erik

--- Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: . The scope of the I do not think the scope can be so narrow. I imagine there is a place for art and music at WV. BirgitteSB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

*phew* that's a relief. On 8/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

On 8/16/06, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't understand why a course about feminism needs to advocate feminism, or why a course about free market economics needs to present it as uncontroversial. I don't see why religion cannot be discussed neutrally. Really, for educational content in WV, I don't believe the issue is much bigger than it is for Wikipedia. I would think that the educational component of Wikiversity is about new structure, presentation, methodology and interaction, but not about abandoning NPOV. Of course we might want to import resources that are clearly POV. They can then be labeled as such in the same way it is done on Wikipedia. POV can be viewed as a deficiency, rather than an attribute of the content we have to accept. The Encyclopaedia Britannica takes positions on many issues where we strive for NPOV. For instance, it still describes male neonatal circumcision as an important hygienic procedure, while the practice is today extremely controversial. Many would find the Britannica article preferable because it endorses their position. That does not mean it is the right approach for us to take. The _topic_ defines the scope. Free market economics doesn't need to include a discussion of socialism, but it should include socialist views _about_ free market economics. The most knowledgeable voices about a topic should always be the ones that are the most prominent--regardless of what they have to say. Defining "knowledgeable" will be an interesting challenge, of course. I don't think original research can be NPOV, but it can be consensus-oriented and collaborative. Erik

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: I can understand NPOV when creating new materials. Although WV may still have the sort of problem Wikibooks asked for guidance on regarding unethical topics. There may also be issues with following NPOV as is outlined on WP, simply because lectures and things will have time constraints and may not be able to cover the whole "constallation of opinion" within a course on the subject. Still this is hopefully nothing consensus cannot handle. I guess the bigger issue I see with WV and bias has more to do with the "learning communities". I will say first off I do not understand exactly how they will operate. But within these communities it seems people will guide each other in learning. Also I imagine contributors here are expected to be themselves rather than edit within the persona of "textbook editor". I do not see how to apply NPOV in these learning communities. I suppose that they could be compared to the Talk pages at WP which no one really worries about. However as WV will be directing users to these spaces as a place to learn and encouraging the guidance type of interaction, I think that bias here is a larger concern than on WP talk pages. Are other people concerned with bias in these communities, or do I misunderstand the concept somehow? Birgitte SB __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On 8/16/06, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's a very difficult topic. For perspective: a french curriculum about how to teach neutrally, for teachers in french-speaking belgium -- http://www.academielouvain.be/view.php3?include=288&pere=139&print=0 Investing "NPOV" or the general sense of neutrality with different meaning for each Project -- and taking this seriously, rather than relying on the acronym as a totem, may be quite beneficial. Other examples in the Wikimedia family : there are certainly different senses of neutrality needed for coping with linguistic or species standards than there are when crafting encyclopedic articles. SJ

Amgine wrote: There is currently policy discussion underway at Wikiversity easily available from links on the main page. The progress is easily measurable in bytes if you care to count. I suppose the count could be compared to the early byte counts regarding policy and procedure at en.wikipedia if we have any wizard programmers interested. Wikipedia did not evolve useful or detailed policy overnight, it took some serious effort and participation. There are six specific policies currently collecting votes/opinion/comments. One is an appropriate wrapper policy on "NPOV" attempting to explain that we will use NPOV and properly labeled POV and attempt to adhere to high moral and ethical standards in avoiding any attempt to deceive or deceptively influence the wikiversity participant and readers. Ironically, I personally oppose the title. I favor sticking with the current definition of NPOV which has evolved and stabilized at Wikipedia to avoid confusion for experienced Wikimedians and simply title other specific policies appropriately. For this to be possible the Foundation must define its specific minimum standards. We are clearly striving to meet the Foundation's minimum specific pitch. Paraphrased personally as: Help provide all free human knowledge freely to all humans who wish it. Only NPOV is too restrictive. In studying engineering thermodynamics it is useful and necessary to be exposed to fake dilemmas provided widely and free of charge regarding closed systems so that you clearly understand that you as the engineer are responsible for defining the closed system surfaces and all flows of conserved quantities so no errors creep into calculations of complex systems found in the real world. This simple example go like this: A seed is a certain complexty, it grows a tree of certain complexity, the tree grows a seed of same complexity. A tree/seed is a closed system. So entropy cannot always increase in the closed tree system therefor thermodynamics is all wrong, a miracle is required and engineers who believe in thermdynamics rather than God creating miracles as required are all wrong or congenital idiots. The spoiler is: ...... place your virtual sphere around the tree/seeds system and track the nutrients, water, but most of all heat and light transfers. Sunlight in, heat out, entropy as defined by thermodynics increases. Life and the future of engineering profession expensively under study is save for all future engineers ... true believers, agnostics, and atheists alike. That is actual propaganda that was aimed at my freshmen engineering dorm and many hours of study time and a few friendships would have been saved had we been able to quickly resolve the fake definitions and dilemmas. Maybe it belongs in an historical treatment of engineering fundamentals. Other examples are available in other disciplines of study. It is difficult for me to understand how one would truly study Christiananity via NPOV. You either reach the point of understanding Christ's answer to the politicians inquiring about the really real answers to life, the universe, and everything paraphrased (rather than the existing 6 or 7 hundred commandments) concisely as: 1. Love God completely with all your heart. 2. Love others as you love yourself. and begin to see how to integrate your other knowledge and worldviews with ever more complex integrations of these two rules or you do not truly understand "Christianity". How could an atheist "NPOV" the two rules above to effectively teach Christianity to others? We would be quibbling about shifting words, language, historical shading, cultural biases, etc. until the cows come home. To an atheist "God" is a non sequitor or zero. 1. Love nothing with all your heart. 2. Love your neighbors as you love yourself. Instead of an expanding set of useful self consistent beliefs/equations provided by the historical genius/messiah Jesus Christ or the Son of God himself (God himself if you purchase the trinity theory) you get a shrinking personal universe of: Love nothing, not even yourself. To an agnostic a big unknown. 1. Love big X with all your heart. 2. Love your neighbors as yourself. That is not great as anyone can provide by providing their own X. Exclusionary treehuggers vs. allout free loggers. I love trees therfore no tree can be cut. I love money so all trees must be cut. How about a fuzzy "science" or "discipline" like medicine or human biology? How is this NPOVed only in the face of conflicting experts and more research required? Computer science or software engineering. How do we apply NPOV to expert opinion (AFAIK software is ultimately all opinion)? Nobody ever has the same total datasets or expertise and when you get into details or measuring reliability there is alway variance in the details or some measurable error. Actually very few of our other participants actually simply throw crap at the wall. I guess I am a bit unique in that regard. One of the policies up for vote and doing fairly well if I recall correctly (3/3 for) is "Edit boldly." I always personally add ".... serene in the knowledge that another wiklar (one contraction among many proposed I will leave you in suspense regarding who devised it from "wiki scholar") will correct any errors identified boldly. This is pretty clearly a cheap trick based upon past successful en.wikipedia tactics to get some material started (crap tossed) to encourage additional participation via further bold editing. As far as I know nobody has proposed mandating nothing but bold editing. You or anyone are welcome to provide only "brilliant prose" and "no crap". This might appear to invite ownership issues but I have a draft "Fork and tailor productively when appropriate" that I have requested admin assistance in relocating to the new wiki linked to from the policy discussion page to resolve many of the edit wars or cycling that seem to result from excessive attachment to one's own crap or brilliant prose. I am hopeful this will allow us to separate warring factions occasionally without running off the minority factions or alleged social misfits. I would like to proudly point out here how we are addressing the measureable goal of "serving all free information to all people". Last time I was at Wikipedia they were not meeting this Foundation goal as they were running off highly POV people, often before we could acquire their specific POV information for effective NPOVing. Certainly they were failing to help the misfit driven off to effectively utilize or understand the NPOV material they allegedly kept trying to bias to unwanted allegedly POV information. By simply encouraging separation and effective development of well labeled and convincing POV or controversial multiple versions of provably NPOV (by simple majority vote of those interested and timely possibly) I hope to achieve a portion of the Foundation's stated and measurable (Alexi counts hits ...) goal of all free human information to all freely. Last but not least, quizzes and problem set solutions have certainly been discussed. I am a bit quirky that way. I probably will not do much measurable work until another engineering student or engineering professional shows up interested in the same topics as I. I think some of the preliminary history classes already have some quizzes available but I could be mistaken. I have wandered around quite a bit looking for signs of life but found little while the project was in limbo. Maybe it will be a bit better for our second or third six month trial period, maybe not. In closing I will point out that it might be better to discuss Wikiversity Policy on the Wikiversity-L list setup for that purpose or within the now evolving active community at en.wikiversity.org or other active language of choice. regards, Mirwin

On 8/17/06, Amgine <amgine(a)saewyc.net> wrote: I expect Wikiversity to provide the world with quality educational resources, as well as a space within which to learn. No, scratch that, *everybody* expects (or should expect) this to be the case. I'm not arguing that material will aim to be "non-NPOV". I've been instead saying that we should be flexible enough to allow for various types of material within different pedagogical frameworks to combine in order to provide for a real education. However, throughout this discussion, I've been thinking about ways in which to manage this complexity, and make it explicitly a part of the introduction to Wikiversity. Can you either trust us to work this out, or will you help in developing this yourself? Cormac

Cormac Lawler wrote: The serious scholar is not deterred by the fact that a subject is controversial, and that he must fairly explore areas that many would fairly consider POV. The integrity of research is not well served by putting it in the hands of True Unbelievers who are more satisfied with polemical than with reasoned approaches. My own brand of atheistic spiritualism is not consistent with creationsm. If creationsim as a theory or doctrine must fail it must fail of its own accord, and not in as a part of freeing itself from a heap of mindless invective. If someone wants to teach a course on creationism that puts that doctrine in a favorable light, I have no objection. The introductory page should probably note prominently that the subject is very controversial. Those enrolled could then proceed at their own risk, but with eyes wide open. I would like to see the creationsit emperor without his clothes. In the light of day he may not be as powerful as either the supporters or detractors would have us believe. Ec

On 8/15/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Well, Wikipedia, for example, has an article about a given topic, say [[Earth]]. Wikiversity, I would imagine, will have many learning resources on the Earth - geared toward particular learner levels, or styles of teaching. So, much as I wouldn't like there to be a Creationism school on Wikiversity, I could tolerate it as long as it was categorised properly - for that level, within that pedagogical/theoretical framework. I hope that materials will be searchable for teachers and learners, sop that they can find materials that suit their needs, quickly. This is one reason we're working on a metadata patch to be added to wikiversity - though I don't know just how developed it is yet. Cormac

Cormac Lawler wrote: University == accepted standards of "Academic Freedom". (not MeatBall Wiki) Wikiversity == accepted standards of "Academic Freedom" (not MeatBall Wiki) NPOV = No such thing in an environment of "Academic Freedom", it's called "accepted standards of Academic Freedom". If it's a university of content it needs to adhere to these standards -- they've been around for a couple of thousand years and seem to work governing institutions of higher learning. Should be no different if what you are creating is an open environment -- Free speech and all. The one exception to the Wiki MeatBall rules would be this project -- within the framework of established foundation policies of fair treatment and code of conduct. Jeff

Birgitte SB wrote: Agreed. Code of Conduct. Foundation Policies. Getting folks to use the content and get it blessed would not be hard. It's a word game. The word is "developed under an umbrella of Academic Freedom". This can mean to apply EXACTLY the same rules that exist in Wikipedia, but approached from a different angle. i.e. Foundation policies prohibit inflamatory writings that attack protected classes, NLT, and other restrictions. Not surprising, Universities don;t tolerate this type of conduct either -- it's listed in the Code of Conduct and their published standards. I had this debate with the university I was working with that has been historially funded in part by the Baptist Community. We applied a template of Academic Freedom and appropriate standards -- result, classes which attack other religions are now banned in the cirriculum. Clubs for various groups are not, including highly controversial clubs at schools. Academic Freedom means a lot of the same things Wikipedia policies esspouse, just not approached the same way. It would be an worthwhile goal to develop Wikiversity content under the auspices of "acccepted standards of Academic Freedom" which is broader than "concensus based rules and standards". It's a top down approach, but still is open to community standards which can be input as a Code of Conduct for conduction research, writing, and developing curricullum. Jeff

Elisabeth Bauer wrote: The concept of "Academic Freedom" does fit and the normal MeatBall rules should not apply. Jeff

George Herbert wrote: Brion, If you could please activate a Wikiversity mailing list as previously discussed it will be useful in coordinating Wikiversity activities and encouraging immediate participation and useful policy formation. Further, if you could please activate the English namespace and make it accessible from a portal page similar to what has been done with Wikipedia it could get us off on a level playing field for everybody who chooses to participate or browse Wikiversity materials. This has the major advantage that all participants in all languages have an easy portal page and URL to publicize while encouraging useful participation from newcomers. I will attempt to get a language registration page accessible from the current Wikibooks Wikiversity main page setup to facilitate documenting ten language users who wish to move away from the beta site currently being established to a dedicated language site. Thanks for your efforts on our behalf. Sincerely, lazyquasar

Yaaaay! was already wondering when it would be set up ;-) Lodewijk

Jeff V. Merkey wrote: What a frightening idea! A helpful rule might be, "Wikiversity is not a diploma mill." Ec

I went in and checked the prices of college textbooks at the BYU bookstore. The books cost almost as much as the tuition, church funded or not. UofU bookstore is the same. Why shouldn't we be able to create a business around the Foundation Wikiversity Programs? I might be able to swing this one. I'll work on it next week and let everyone know what I find out. Jeff James Hare wrote:

Hello, I'm *very* interested in this new project. I think it's an outstanding idea because it might offer the benefit of a college-level education to people who don't usually have access to that. That being said, how can I find out more about the project and what I can do to help. Sebastian On 8/15/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:

Well, The knowledge is free, but paper and book binding costs money, so we should be able to undercut these book peddlers by 45%. I think that would be compelling and still keep the electronic versions FREE. Jeff James Hare wrote:

Let's do it. I've already setup a Foundation and Endowment with a major university doing the Cherokee textbooks. Let's roll this in as well. It will take me a week or so to get everything setup -- Brad already has the paperwork on it (except they mispelled my name). I will be teaching Computer Science next year at this new school, and this will roll in nicely. Jeff James Hare wrote:

On 8/15/06, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi Sebastian, you can get going right away at: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Main_Page (though there's hardly anything there yet - it's just been set up). If you want to find out more about what Wikiversity is envisaged to be, you could try the proposal we wrote at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal Looking forward to working with you (I'm User:Cormaggio everywhere :-)) Cormac

Cormac Lawler wrote: I very much agree. I think that it would be a big accomplishment if courses were brought to such a standard that "our students" could use what they learned at Wikiversity as a basis for challenging courses in their own respective schools. It would be too easy to fall into the rat race of granting diplomas and degrees. Wikipedia is a success because it dared to do things differently; I expect nothing less from Wikiversity. Ec

Ray Saintonge wrote: Not a diploma mill, accreditdation of the content and course materials, similiar to what college textbook publishers do. Jeff

Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote: Even if I were to concede that accreditation were a good thing, I could not see this happening for several years. You can go through a lot of bureaucratic nonsense just trying to get things accredited. What is acceptable in one state may not be acceptable in another. In a wiki environment it may be difficult to keep a text that remains unchanged, and who would want to when the students themselves may want to participate in improving the material. Second language learning is probably an easy place to start, but even there decent workbooks are more in demand than decent textbooks. The textbooks can be loaned by the school to the students, and be reusable for several years. Workbooks in which students must write will have a life of only one school year, after which they become worthless because of all the writing in them. Several schools in our district offer Chinese language lessons, but the cost of workbooks and other study material varies considerably depending on the resourcefulness of the teacher. Ec

Michael R. Irwin wrote: Well, this is a reasonable plan. I intend to proceed with publishing hard cover books of the Cherokee translations for our internal use. It could be extended to English and we have the ability to accredit and approve the content after thorough review. I discussed the plan with Dr. Delso this evening and we are going to incorporate the Cherokee translations into our approved curricullum. I realize the Foundation is not a University, however, we have one and its accredited and I am on its Board of Trustees. At some point, when you feel ready, we will be available to review this as a possibility. I appreciate your response and well thought out position on the matter. Jeff