Cormac Lawler wrote:
snip
The other thing to mention about the beta *phase* was that we need to
develop guidelines - particularly around research - that will be
reviewed by the SPC after a six month period. These guidelines (around
research) - were to be developed for the
Wikiversity_project_as_a_whole (ie not simply the English one on its
own), in order that smaller Wikiversities, when they start to spring
up, don't become dumping grounds for any old thing, or develop into
cliques of special interest groups who will dominate policy
discussions on those wikis. We wanted to make sure that the guidelines
(let's say, general principles) for research were in place before we
can fully be sure that Wikiversity will thrive and evolve out of its
beta phase. (Side note to Michael Irwin: this six-month evaluation is
not a case of "pulling the plug" - it is simply checking to see that
everything is ok, workable, and working - and if not working,
recommending what we change).
If it is not working who recommends what change, to who, and how is it
ratified? If the community goes somewhere besides the recommendation
of you and your appointed chain of committees, then what? You cannot
simultaneously wield a big stick and deny the big stick exists. In the
last century doublethink and doublespeak have been shown to cause a
shrinking phenomenon. A corrupt few prosper or grow while everything
else shinks.
I usually assume since Wikiversity is starting at zero we cannot afford
to be limiting our horizons and shrinking. Of course Wikipedia has
proven me very wrong. The proper frame of reference is the internet
and by shrinking their potential growth and diversity they have achieved
a god king ruled encyclopedia which is obviously of decent quality for
most people.
Whether a learning institution can achieve success via this formula
remains to be seen. Whether the arriving Wikiversity participants will
put up with this formula after a few communities form also remains to be
seen.
regards,
mirwin