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 think this is a good thing BTW. And it will be very healthy for
Wikiversity.
Due to the way that Wikiversity started, I think there will always be a
sort of loyal opposition to the WMF board of trustees and a slight
attitude of questioning what the board members are thinking about
Wikiversity. Still, this is something that is in the Wikimedia family
of projects, and the whole reason why we decided to go this route
instead of trying to form another on-line educational community
independent of everybody else.
--
Robert Scott Horning