I think this is an interesting discussion.  The question for me is whether Wikiversity can really develop a meaningful role.  From browsing around wikiversity's content, my feeling is that its learning material is probably not well used.  I'd be delighted to learn that particular courses do indeed have audiences because this would indicate that wikiversity has found its niche.  Wikipedia, by contrast, is certainly valued and is enormously successful so must have 'hit the spot'.  Is wikiversity still looking for its raison d'etre?

Can wikiversity be the 'Open access' university that people will naturally turn to if they want to learn about a topic systematically without enrolling in a conventional university?  (I think of the way the Open University in the UK has become a high quality alternative to conventional universities for those who cannot afford the fees or time that latter demand.)

By extension, what can wikiversity offer for people who want to engage in research and how can wikiversity offer this in a way that other vehicles don't?  The discussions going on about the ways the 'wiki' approach can offer valuable opportunities and new ways of working are very interesting and very relevant.  But can wikiversity be a suitable vehicle?  Would it need resources that go beyond what can be offered by the enthusiastic volunteer?  Might it not need paid staff and a formal organisational structure and governance to set standards and protocols that go beyond the capabilities of a few committed volunteers?  Wikipedia has been successful but is this not because of the basic simplicity of its concept?  By contrast, is a university with a research function not a whole different ball game?

I'd love to see the research side of WV develop.  What is the trick to gain a critical mass and go from strength to strength in practice?

Myself and a few others have recently started a learning project that falls in between teaching/learning and research.  We chose wikiversity because it is open, non-proprietary and global.  The project is 'The Science Behind Parkinson's disease':  http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s  I would like to think that this is the sort of thing that can find a valid place within wikiversity and could develop as a high quality valued resource for people who find themselves, in this instance, living with Parkinson's and want to know more about the condition.  It seems to me that other similar projects could be developed for other medical conditions such as other neurological conditions or even other diseases such as cancer and diabetes where people want to follow the research as it happens.  Wikiversity would be a natural place for these.

So in summary, I want wikiversity to discover its role and capture the imagination of potential users and contributors on a larger scale than now.  Research, and a combination of research and learning, ought clearly be central to its mission.

John Telford
   

-------- Original Message  --------
To: Mailing list for Wikiversity <wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
From: Joe Corneli <holtzermann17@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:26:36 +0000
Subject: [Wikiversity-l] wiki research hub
Dear Wikiversity-ans:

There has been some considerable discussion in wiki-research-l about
creating a new Wiki Studies journal and/or a new place to do research
the wiki way.

One question is, why do we need a new place to do research, couldn't
we just use Wikiversity for that?  For now, Wikiversity seems to focus
on education and specifically-educational research, but might it make
sense to broaden the scope to include original research more
generally?

If you could have a look at the skeleton of the proposal here and add
your input (or via this thread), I would appreciate it!

  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Research_Hub

Thanks,
Joe

_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l