I'm really confused about this proposal. Who is it that originally came up with the idea of a "beta" Wikiversity and what is it supposed to do?
I can't really find any substantive details about the whole thing, and it seems to be merely an afterthought of some other discussion. If this is supposed to be an independent incubator for multi-lingual Wikiversity projects, the whole idea really needs quite a bit more thought put into it.
Frankly, I think the whole idea stinks altogether. If there is a pressing need to start up a trial Wikiversity in another language other than de and en, it should be on the incubator wiki together with other similar kinds of ideas. And there is absolutely not even acknowledgement that Wikiversity has been going for some time in other languages like Portuguese, Polish, and Italian. I really don't see too many people really pushing to remove Wikiversity from the other language projects either, but then again I'm not on the community discussion pages for those other projects.
If given my druthers, I would not want to see http://beta.wikiversity.org/ go live as a seperate Wikimedia project ever.
BTW, I'm not exactly sure what the next language that will be set up for Wikiversity will be, and there is some support for several languages right now. Surprisingly, there is now 5 votes for fr.wikiversity on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Requests_for_Wikiv...
Like Wikinews, we're trying to see if Wikiversity is viable. This is being accomplished through a six month beta run, then it's cleared on its own.
I don't know what the difference between Beta and Not-Beta in this case is. Just a bunch of names to me.
On 8/18/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I'm really confused about this proposal. Who is it that originally came up with the idea of a "beta" Wikiversity and what is it supposed to do?
I can't really find any substantive details about the whole thing, and it seems to be merely an afterthought of some other discussion. If this is supposed to be an independent incubator for multi-lingual Wikiversity projects, the whole idea really needs quite a bit more thought put into it.
Frankly, I think the whole idea stinks altogether. If there is a pressing need to start up a trial Wikiversity in another language other than de and en, it should be on the incubator wiki together with other similar kinds of ideas. And there is absolutely not even acknowledgement that Wikiversity has been going for some time in other languages like Portuguese, Polish, and Italian. I really don't see too many people really pushing to remove Wikiversity from the other language projects either, but then again I'm not on the community discussion pages for those other projects.
If given my druthers, I would not want to see http://beta.wikiversity.org/ go live as a seperate Wikimedia project ever.
BTW, I'm not exactly sure what the next language that will be set up for Wikiversity will be, and there is some support for several languages right now. Surprisingly, there is now 5 votes for fr.wikiversity on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Requests_for_Wikiv...
-- Robert Scott Horning
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
James Hare wrote:
Like Wikinews, we're trying to see if Wikiversity is viable. This is being accomplished through a six month beta run, then it's cleared on its own.
Hi James,
Have you seen any quantitative or specific criteria written down anywhere regarding what comprises success or viability at the six month mark?
regards, mirwin
James Hare wrote:
Like Wikinews, we're trying to see if Wikiversity is viable. This is being accomplished through a six month beta run, then it's cleared on its own.
I don't know what the difference between Beta and Not-Beta in this case is. Just a bunch of names to me.
On 8/18/06, *Robert Scott Horning* <robert_horning@netzero.net mailto:robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
If given my druthers, I would not want to see http://beta.wikiversity.org/ <http://beta.wikiversity.org/> go live as a seperate Wikimedia project ever.
That is the whole point I'm trying to make. I am fine with the idea that Wikiversity is in "beta" mode as a demonstration of viability and to avoid the mistakes that happened to Wikispecies (I won't get into everything, but it was awful... slowly recovering and it might actually get some progress finally).
The point is what to do with this beta server, as I don't see it serving any useful purpose at all, and I don't think it will get the support including strong admins that are needed for something that will be so prominent. As I said, any group of individuals wanting to start Wikiversity in a language other than en, de, or fr and can't get the necessary 10 votes on meta should try the incubator instead. That is precisely why it was set up in the first place BTW.
I will nominate it for closure on Meta as soon as it is started, if it is started.
As far as I know, since there's already an en.wikiversity, there's no need for a beta.wikiversity.
On 8/19/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
James Hare wrote:
Like Wikinews, we're trying to see if Wikiversity is viable. This is being accomplished through a six month beta run, then it's cleared on its own.
I don't know what the difference between Beta and Not-Beta in this case is. Just a bunch of names to me.
On 8/18/06, *Robert Scott Horning* <robert_horning@netzero.net mailto:robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
If given my druthers, I would not want to see http://beta.wikiversity.org/ <http://beta.wikiversity.org/> go live as a seperate Wikimedia project ever.That is the whole point I'm trying to make. I am fine with the idea that Wikiversity is in "beta" mode as a demonstration of viability and to avoid the mistakes that happened to Wikispecies (I won't get into everything, but it was awful... slowly recovering and it might actually get some progress finally).
The point is what to do with this beta server, as I don't see it serving any useful purpose at all, and I don't think it will get the support including strong admins that are needed for something that will be so prominent. As I said, any group of individuals wanting to start Wikiversity in a language other than en, de, or fr and can't get the necessary 10 votes on meta should try the incubator instead. That is precisely why it was set up in the first place BTW.
I will nominate it for closure on Meta as soon as it is started, if it is started.
-- Robert Scott Horning
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
BTW, I'm not exactly sure what the next language that will be set up for Wikiversity will be, and there is some support for several languages right now. Surprisingly, there is now 5 votes for fr.wikiversity on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Requests_for_Wikiv...
That French is gathering support rapidly is not really surprising. About four or five months ago a couple of French graduate students dropped by the en.Wikibooks Wikivervity or maybe they sent me an email since I was active occasionally there. They were quite disappointed that Wikiversity was still figmo.
Also Anthere seemed quite interested and supportive the couple of times she dropped by. She is a native French speaker and has probably been spreading the word for us as opportunity presents itself.
Regards, mirwin
On 8/18/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I'm really confused about this proposal. Who is it that originally came up with the idea of a "beta" Wikiversity and what is it supposed to do?
I can't really find any substantive details about the whole thing, and it seems to be merely an afterthought of some other discussion. If this is supposed to be an independent incubator for multi-lingual Wikiversity projects, the whole idea really needs quite a bit more thought put into it.
Frankly, I think the whole idea stinks altogether. If there is a pressing need to start up a trial Wikiversity in another language other than de and en, it should be on the incubator wiki together with other similar kinds of ideas. And there is absolutely not even acknowledgement that Wikiversity has been going for some time in other languages like Portuguese, Polish, and Italian. I really don't see too many people really pushing to remove Wikiversity from the other language projects either, but then again I'm not on the community discussion pages for those other projects.
If given my druthers, I would not want to see http://beta.wikiversity.org/ go live as a seperate Wikimedia project ever.
BTW, I'm not exactly sure what the next language that will be set up for Wikiversity will be, and there is some support for several languages right now. Surprisingly, there is now 5 votes for fr.wikiversity on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Requests_for_Wikiv...
-- Robert Scott Horning
I can hopefully clear up some of these doubts, since I have been privy to all relevant discussions (and not everyone here has been). In case you're wondering what that means, I'm on the Special projects committee http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee - which negotiated the decision that set up en.wikiversity.org and beta.wikiversity.org
At the meeting in which the SPC decided to give Wikiversity the go ahead, we decided to provide for both a general beta site and an English site (since English was one project we were certain of the minimum number of participants in). The beta site was to develop new languages Wikiversities (a sort of local incubator), where, with a minimum number of participants (10), a new language Wikiversity (eg. fr.wikiversity.org) would be created.
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).
So, one reason for proposing the beta site was to develop these guidelines internationally (not all guidelines and policies, obviously - but simply those related to the project's *scope*). However, I will admit to still being confused about why the need for a beta for new languages - and not simply developing all new languages on the incubator. I went back to the meeting transcript and, FWIW, here's what Anthere said:
"the benefit of a beta.wikiversity is that they get the right namespace or tool bar from the very beginning"
It was also pointed out that this is (or is similar to) what Wikisource does, and has policy which governs its scope internationally - see: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Policies_and_guidelines (note: not an en: domain).
I may have missed other justifications for setting it up like this. So, I'm not sure if this will alleviate your concerns, Robert - but, in case, I'd encourage you to work on finding the best solution to getting Wikiversity going. Remember, we, the participants of Wikiversity, are the people best-equipped to talk about Wikiversity - if you think that others don't understand, or are doing the wrong thing, please bring it up on this list, which we can move on to the foundation list, or pass on to people like the SPC. We're still figuring this whole thing out.
Cheers, Cormac
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
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 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.
Your blackboard proposal is an excellent example unless you plan to develop a generic that can go standalone as well as interface with the Wikimedia code ..... you would know more about the technical end than I. However, I suspect potential participants familar with the Wikimedia Foundation's approach to management would like to hear it could used elsewhere before investing a lot of time.
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.
Well if things go badly Wikiversity should have enough name recognition by then around the internet that any surviving group should be able to fork under a new name. I doubt the Foundation would give up the name even if they shut down the project locally. Personally I think things will be in a muddle for 12-24 months and then the overall volume of dissatisfaction will force the Wikimedia Foundation to gets its act together and figure out how to allow the various projects to select and ratify their own leadership. I think Wikimedia is coasting on Wikipedia's initial success and the other projects are also feeling the strain.
If you want I can read the tea leaves for you sometime at a ridiculously high fee that we will not mention to the IRS .... or we could go the other way and make the fee trivially small and then keep pestering them for an audit. lol I will be checking my talk page occasionally to see if any algebra students show up with questions. I intend to mention the opportunity to my nephew, maybe he will show up. He might need a slower track as he is in high school. On the other hand it is his second year so maybe he can hack it. 8)
Thanks for your support for custodialship, it was promptly acted on. I left them a note that they can strip it since I no longer need it.
I might lurk here for a while unless the volume gets high or I get too opinionated and voluable. An ongoing personal problem. 8)
high regard, mirwin
On 8/20/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@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
Cormac Lawler wrote:
On 8/20/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@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@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org