On 8/20/06, Michael R. Irwin
<michael_irwin(a)verizon.net> wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
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
I will point out that Wikiversity is not going to have necessarily the
God-King type person like Jimbo who is going to be ever-present but yet
nowhere. Yeah, Jimbo himself will show up from time to time (hopfully
not as damaging as he's been on Wikibooks BTW). There isn't any "one"
person that is going to stand out and be able to "pull the plug" on
everything, nor have the social standing of Jimbo on Wikipedia. We are
going to all be more or less equals in that regard. Yeah, there are
going to be some very active and "prominent" individuals that will
certainly be leaders, but we won't be having somebody who is going to
make pronouncements that are simply unquestioned.
I hope it works out that way for everybody. I still think this type of
project has a lot of potential. As a result of some recent research I
have become much more aware of the overall "leadership" structure/chain
between the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. I am not confident
of any effective mechanism evolving soon to allow specific people to
undertake specific tasks with both the solid backing of the local
community and a high level of confidence of reasonable responses at
higher levels. Unfortunately some projects and tasks that Wikiversity
will need to undertake fairly soon are simply too large for a small
group of people to tackle on speculation that the decision loops as is
can keep up.
I'm not sure exactly what kinds of "projects and tasks" you're
referring to that would require some sort of "mechanism" that doesn't
already exist within Wikimedia. I'd remind you that Wikimedia is a
community of volunteers, some of whom are more involved in the
organisational matters than others. If you want to make organisational
suggestions, you can bring them up on foundation-l for discussion.
[snip]
Cormac
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l