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