It's great that this is coming up, because it's an opportunity to again explain progressive education and the learning-by-doing model, and the incredible potential of Wikiversity.

If a solution is presented as fact, if error (or reasonably possible error) is presented as fact in a top level page, there is a neutrality violation. WMF policy requires neutrality. However, if a student submits an exercise, or, for that matter, a professor expresses a presumably informed opinion, attributed as opinion, there is no neutrality violation *unless this is unattributed or presented as fact.* So how material is presented is crucial to maintaining neutrality.

One cause of the general lack of major drama on Wikiversity (in spite of what has been seen here, you won't *usually* see this mess on Wikiversity) is that there are so few users. But that's not the deep reason. The deep reason is that the progressive education model *incorporates* disagreement as part of the learning process.

This is, then, ideal for, among other things, cutting edge science, where there may be *deep* disagreement. The scientific method does not reject experimental evidence, normally, it attempts to explain it, through the creation of predictive models that can be tested. If a model can't be tested, it is technically pseudoscientific. That doesn't mean that it's wrong, by the way.

Back to the immediate topic, suppose there is a group of students who want to learn math. Perhaps they can find a teacher, but suppose now that there is no teacher. Suppose that everyone one of us is such a student, that there are no experts. This, in fact, is the position of real scientists. The "student/teacher" model is for children, and it doesn't necessarily work well even there, and definitely not for deep education, where it's necessary for the student to discover and build understanding out of their own experience. Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data storage unit with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and understanding its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through this process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be filled with the wisdom of the teacher.

So these students might pose problems, and then attempt to solve them. They may share their solutions with each other. In the scientific method, one becomes highly critical of one's own solutions, searching vigorously for error. Perhaps the solution is tested against known or expected results. If a number of students come up with the same result through different pathways, that tends to validate each of those pathways. These students, if they cooperate, may build a body of knowledge. If an expert teacher comes along, they will be prepared to understand the teaching.

They will make mistakes. We have been taught a certain horror of error. Most of us were punished, as children, openly or subtly, for making mistakes. However, in my training, it's pointed out that there is an easy way to avoid error: don't attempt anything difficult. Play small. Then you'll be safe! You will be Right, with a small life. It can get very small....

Making mistakes is crucial to deep learning. If we are unlucky enough to get a thing right the first time, our knowledge of it will be shallow compared to our knowledge if we've made lots of mistakes, as long as we can recognize the errors and move on.

So, suppose the discussed problem were on Wikiversity, in the manner I suggested. First of all, as pointed out by Wjhonson, the problem is misstated.

Suppose the problem is on a higher level page, where it should be neutral. Anyone can edit the problem there to fix it according to the obvious intention (so that the subpage solutions then solve the actually stated problem). If that affects the subpage, where the problem might be restated, that can also be fixed, but there the author of that page may have an enhanced right to object. The author is the author! Don't mess with the author's text without the author's consent! The author can also object over the higher level statement of the problem, and then there could be a dispute to be resolved.

Normally, these things can be, with a level of Assumption of Good Faith, readily resolved, directly.

If not, then, with something as I've stated, there can be ready assistance from the community. Nobody is "wrong." If there is an intractable dispute, that is presented. We will not be looking to figure out who is wrong so we can block them and delete their contributions. We will be looking to create and maintain neutrality and the possibility of education.

If one view is "mainstream" and another is "fringe," this can be presented in balance by reference to sources. Fringe views are not suppressed on Wikiversity. If they are found in reliable source, as they sometimes are, they should not be suppressed on Wikpedia, either, but the Wikipedia process can easily break down and be other than what policies and even ArbComm decisions imply.

In the WV cold fusion resource, there have been fringe or idiosyncratic theories presented. I would never totally remove these, but they have been categorized as such, moved to subpages, etc. It's been remarkable to see the results.

I think one editor was quite ready to fight, expected it. When he saw my removal of his section, where his theory was presented as The Truth, equally in presentation with notable theories, he was unhappy. But then he saw that I'd created a subpage just for his theory, linked from the main theory page. Where he could fully express himself. Without harm. He consented and was even pleased.

Wikiversity is *radically inclusive.* Inclusionist heaven.

Deletionists (who hold a position that is at least reasonable for an encyclopedia) see Wikiversity, shake their heads in disgust, maybe try to get something deleted and fail, and go away with an idea that Wikiversity is hopeless, a haven for kooks and nut cases and dangerous trolls.

In a Landmark Education resource, that I created over two years ago, when I had just done the initial training, an editor showed up recently, a WP admin, who has a history of anticult editing, he's known for it. This could have been a total mess. He was editing the resource, adding highly critical material that was presented with (to me) clear bias. So we discussed it, and we forked the resource, creating what I've called "sections," after the university practice of having sections of a class, each with a different "instructor." He has his section and I have mine, and we sometimes cooperate on them. And we have a third section, defined as open (and which must, then, be neutral). That section will represent a high level of consensus, if we ever get there. The top level resource is rigorously neutral (and we just faced an issue there, and resolved it.) We are both learning.

This math problem issue is trivial by comparison.

Basically, I encourage the user to go ahead with the guidelines I suggested. The process itself is educational.

If an appropriately placed Problems page is created, that will then open the door for others to create problems and put up solution pages.

We should have, by the way, lots of links to Planet Math pages, that's one thing that I got out of the mess here. I encourage scholars to add them, in appropriate places, and will assist in handling any possible problems that arise. We do not own our scholars, and we do not own the eyeballs of our readers. Our goal is education, not hits. If we do our job, people's education will be enhanced, and we don't care if they got part of their education elsewhere.

And if we do our job, we will have the support we need. Mostly, what Wikiversity is missing is organization of resources. Clear guidelines were never created, lots of things were proposed, but there was no coherent decision structure. That is a basic structural problem for all the WMF wikis.

As a collection of peers, without relying on outside intervention, can we solve that problem? I saw the possibility of that for Wikiversity, years ago, but I certainly can't do it alone. There are a few who seem to get the idea. Possibly, not quite yet enough for established process to be reliable. Wikiversity could become the crown jewel of WMF wikis, completing the encyclopedia by opening up connection with genuine education.

In theory and occasional practice, sister wiki links to Wikiversity can be added to relevant Wikipedia articles. These would normally be External Links. I've seen this opposed on Wikipedia, on the argument that WV pages were "self published," which is preposterous. I.e., they are no more self published than any Wikpedia page, and any Wikipedia editor can edit WV pages if there is a problem with them.

But there is more that's possible. Student projects could include creating alternate versions of WP articles, which could then be proposed for RfC for an en masse replacement of the WP article. I've seen that done, and it worked. If an outside article (in the case I saw it was Optics, written by ScienceApologist, in his user space on Wikisource, he was banned at the time) is *better* than the existing WP article, it's a simple Yes/No decision in an RfC. WP process can handle that! It can bypass the piecemeal creation of patchwork messes that is common on Wikipedia, even on noncontroversial articles, not to mention controversial ones.

I can hear the screams now, already. However, this idea would leave the Wikipedia community still in clear control of Wikpedia content. What the screams will be about is the loss of control by small factions that is currently common on Wikipedia. Those factions often think of themselves as "the community," but they actually do not trust the real, larger community, and they complain bitterly when it overrules them.

I hope that all who read this will consider lending a hand. If we believe that we already know the answers, we will be quite limited. I have ideas, pieces, possibilities. The real solutions will be a product of community effort.

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell
I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.

From: Wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] rebooting the discussion of solved problem pages on Wikiversity

Who will vet these solutions?

I note an interpretation issue in the language, for example, of this *particular* problem which makes the solution untrue.

[...]

So I would expect subject matter experts would be a requirement if we are to *solve* problems and present these are the sort of solutions you'd expect to see in a University.

http://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/11018 Thanks for any light you can shed on this question. Robert Dodier