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
On Friday, November 9, 2012, Joe Corneli wrote:
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.
I always thought Wikiversity can be used for research in union with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is primarily thought of as an encyclopedia, but its a handy tool for research i believe.
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?
The issue of 'original' research came up recently among a group of wikimedians in accra. I see it as, if original research should have a place on Wikimedia, then Wikimedia will have to push aside some writing guidelines and policies.
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
A little question: Will the Wiki Studies journal be a standalone website
(eg. Wikistudies.org) owned by a separate organization (and not wikimedia) or it will be the next Wiki project?
thanks
rexford
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nkansah Rexford nkansahrexford@gmail.com wrote:
A little question: Will the Wiki Studies journal be a standalone website (eg. Wikistudies.org) owned by a separate organization (and not wikimedia) or it will be the next Wiki project?
I think that's not known at the moment, but you can follow or join the discussion here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
Okay.
thanks
On Friday, November 9, 2012, Joe Corneli wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nkansah Rexford <nkansahrexford@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
A little question: Will the Wiki Studies journal be a standalone website (eg. Wikistudies.org) owned by a separate organization (and not
wikimedia)
or it will be the next Wiki project?
I think that's not known at the moment, but you can follow or join the discussion here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Well,
it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not only education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal, but if there are not many contributors its better to start on existing project and than if needed move it outside.
Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our multilingual hub and incubator.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/9 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
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
Well,
as I have just seen the list of volunteershttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Volunteers, I would recomend to start withing the existing community which can support you and than fork it if necessary. The best en.wv, which is multigenrational. Wikiversity Beta has a very low number of contributors.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/11 Juan de Vojníkov juandevojnikov@gmail.com
Well,
it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not only education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal, but if there are not many contributors its better to start on existing project and than if needed move it outside.
Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our multilingual hub and incubator.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/9 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
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
Hi Juan:
I hope it won't offend anyone too much if I say that the research currently hosted on Wikiversity is not all of high quality. (Note to reader: if you were offended by what I just said, please stop reading now, it's not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just sharing my impressions of the site as I think about whether it is suitable for use as the kind of Research Hub I've been imagining, or as a place to build a scholarly journal, etc.)
Indeed, it's a bit hard to figure out what all is really meant to be included under the "research" label on Wikiversity.
For instance, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Research links to the "research-related portal" http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics -- but this page says:
"Wikiversity participants who are interested in mathematics are invited to create and develop *learning projects* and *learning resources* and help organize them by developing this portal."
If we return to the Research Portal itself, then there's this:
"Guide to Research: The following is a dynamic listing of all the pages categorised into this portal. To restructure or extend this list, you will need to edit the category system itself. Where are the use instructions for this template?"
(It seems like the curator(s) are having a public conversation with themselves here.)
But, OK, examining the list of pages that are designated as belonging to research, my eyes are instantly drawn to things like:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Wikipedia,_Wikiversity_and_disruptiv... http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Brainless_humans_for_transplants(User:Super_Q...) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group
none of which are particularly easy for me to make sense of.
This one is much more straightforward:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Early_telescope
but it looks more like a student research project, rather than something that is aiming for eventual publication in a journal, or any other sort of further development. And this would describe many of the other articles that I sampled. It's not clear what the difference is between this kind of page and a Wikipedia page on the same topic.
My initial conclusion is that Wikiversity's Research Portal could potentially be used as a research hub like I was envisioning, but it would need to be retooled almost completely, and most of the current content would get pushed into a "student research" or "science fiction" category.
I'm not sure I have time to take on something like this! I'll be focusing on developing my own work elsewhere... and I'll report back to the other people looking at building a Research Hub to see what they think.
Joe
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Juan de Vojníkov juandevojnikov@gmail.com wrote:
Well,
it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not only education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal, but if there are not many contributors its better to start on existing project and than if needed move it outside.
Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our multilingual hub and incubator.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/9 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
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
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Hello
For me, one delimiting factor I see to the progress of Wikiversity is the number of contributors. As compared to Wikipedia, wikiversity has got few people helping expand articles there. Everyone's (if not some) are on Wikipedia most often.
Wikiversity can be a useful and complete research tool provided contributors to it are many (like Wikipedia).
Creating a new journal to hold research stuffs, to me will also depend on user contribution. And if Wikiversity is lacking the huge number of contributors to turn it into a full-fledged research hub, how much more a new journal created?
If there'll be any effort in building a research tool aside Wikiversity, then I think it will be better rather inviting more contributors to Wikiversity.
Starting a new journal isn't easy ('m sure you guys know about Wikidata. ) the work involved and required, I think we can direct it to amassing more users for Wikiversity which is the lifeblood of all Wikimedia project websites.
If Wikiversity doesn't succeed as a research tool, can success be said of a new one?
thanks rex
On Sunday, November 11, 2012, Joe Corneli wrote:
Hi Juan:
I hope it won't offend anyone too much if I say that the research currently hosted on Wikiversity is not all of high quality. (Note to reader: if you were offended by what I just said, please stop reading now, it's not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just sharing my impressions of the site as I think about whether it is suitable for use as the kind of Research Hub I've been imagining, or as a place to build a scholarly journal, etc.)
Indeed, it's a bit hard to figure out what all is really meant to be included under the "research" label on Wikiversity.
For instance, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Research links to the "research-related portal" http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics -- but this page says:
"Wikiversity participants who are interested in mathematics are invited to create and develop *learning projects* and *learning resources* and help organize them by developing this portal."
If we return to the Research Portal itself, then there's this:
"Guide to Research: The following is a dynamic listing of all the pages categorised into this portal. To restructure or extend this list, you will need to edit the category system itself. Where are the use instructions for this template?"
(It seems like the curator(s) are having a public conversation with themselves here.)
But, OK, examining the list of pages that are designated as belonging to research, my eyes are instantly drawn to things like:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Wikipedia,_Wikiversity_and_disruptiv...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Brainless_humans_for_transplants(User:Super_Q...) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group
none of which are particularly easy for me to make sense of.
This one is much more straightforward:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Early_telescope
but it looks more like a student research project, rather than something that is aiming for eventual publication in a journal, or any other sort of further development. And this would describe many of the other articles that I sampled. It's not clear what the difference is between this kind of page and a Wikipedia page on the same topic.
My initial conclusion is that Wikiversity's Research Portal could potentially be used as a research hub like I was envisioning, but it would need to be retooled almost completely, and most of the current content would get pushed into a "student research" or "science fiction" category.
I'm not sure I have time to take on something like this! I'll be focusing on developing my own work elsewhere... and I'll report back to the other people looking at building a Research Hub to see what they think.
Joe
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Juan de Vojníkov <juandevojnikov@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Well,
it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not only education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal, but
if
there are not many contributors its better to start on existing project
and
than if needed move it outside.
Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our
multilingual
hub and incubator.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/9 Joe Corneli <holtzermann17@gmail.com javascript:;>
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 javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
A small group of people learning about research practice has been forming around the Wikiversity page PhD. New members and help in progressing this project would be wonderful. We could schedule a Hangout meeting if anyone is interested. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:03 AM, Nkansah Rexford nkansahrexford@gmail.comwrote:
Hello
For me, one delimiting factor I see to the progress of Wikiversity is the number of contributors. As compared to Wikipedia, wikiversity has got few people helping expand articles there. Everyone's (if not some) are on Wikipedia most often.
Wikiversity can be a useful and complete research tool provided contributors to it are many (like Wikipedia).
Creating a new journal to hold research stuffs, to me will also depend on user contribution. And if Wikiversity is lacking the huge number of contributors to turn it into a full-fledged research hub, how much more a new journal created?
If there'll be any effort in building a research tool aside Wikiversity, then I think it will be better rather inviting more contributors to Wikiversity.
Starting a new journal isn't easy ('m sure you guys know about Wikidata. ) the work involved and required, I think we can direct it to amassing more users for Wikiversity which is the lifeblood of all Wikimedia project websites.
If Wikiversity doesn't succeed as a research tool, can success be said of a new one?
thanks rex
On Sunday, November 11, 2012, Joe Corneli wrote:
Hi Juan:
I hope it won't offend anyone too much if I say that the research currently hosted on Wikiversity is not all of high quality. (Note to reader: if you were offended by what I just said, please stop reading now, it's not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just sharing my impressions of the site as I think about whether it is suitable for use as the kind of Research Hub I've been imagining, or as a place to build a scholarly journal, etc.)
Indeed, it's a bit hard to figure out what all is really meant to be included under the "research" label on Wikiversity.
For instance, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Research links to the "research-related portal" http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics -- but this page says:
"Wikiversity participants who are interested in mathematics are invited to create and develop *learning projects* and *learning resources* and help organize them by developing this portal."
If we return to the Research Portal itself, then there's this:
"Guide to Research: The following is a dynamic listing of all the pages categorised into this portal. To restructure or extend this list, you will need to edit the category system itself. Where are the use instructions for this template?"
(It seems like the curator(s) are having a public conversation with themselves here.)
But, OK, examining the list of pages that are designated as belonging to research, my eyes are instantly drawn to things like:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Wikipedia,_Wikiversity_and_disruptiv...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Brainless_humans_for_transplants(User:Super_Q...) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group
none of which are particularly easy for me to make sense of.
This one is much more straightforward:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Early_telescope
but it looks more like a student research project, rather than something that is aiming for eventual publication in a journal, or any other sort of further development. And this would describe many of the other articles that I sampled. It's not clear what the difference is between this kind of page and a Wikipedia page on the same topic.
My initial conclusion is that Wikiversity's Research Portal could potentially be used as a research hub like I was envisioning, but it would need to be retooled almost completely, and most of the current content would get pushed into a "student research" or "science fiction" category.
I'm not sure I have time to take on something like this! I'll be focusing on developing my own work elsewhere... and I'll report back to the other people looking at building a Research Hub to see what they think.
Joe
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Juan de Vojníkov juandevojnikov@gmail.com wrote:
Well,
it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not only education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal, but
if
there are not many contributors its better to start on existing project
and
than if needed move it outside.
Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our
multilingual
hub and incubator.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/9 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
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
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
-- +Nyarko Rexford https://plus.google.com/u/0/107174506890941499078
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Well,
I am not offended. Wikiversity is how it is. If you dont have powers to start a new project within Wikiversity or rebuild actual Research portal than I dont understand, why you are coining with the idea to buid such hub within Wikiversity.
But I should have a look to Meta. I still dont understand, why the Journal team needs also Research Hub - thats extra work.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/11 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
Hi Juan:
I hope it won't offend anyone too much if I say that the research currently hosted on Wikiversity is not all of high quality. (Note to reader: if you were offended by what I just said, please stop reading now, it's not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just sharing my impressions of the site as I think about whether it is suitable for use as the kind of Research Hub I've been imagining, or as a place to build a scholarly journal, etc.)
Indeed, it's a bit hard to figure out what all is really meant to be included under the "research" label on Wikiversity.
For instance, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Research links to the "research-related portal" http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics -- but this page says:
"Wikiversity participants who are interested in mathematics are invited to create and develop *learning projects* and *learning resources* and help organize them by developing this portal."
If we return to the Research Portal itself, then there's this:
"Guide to Research: The following is a dynamic listing of all the pages categorised into this portal. To restructure or extend this list, you will need to edit the category system itself. Where are the use instructions for this template?"
(It seems like the curator(s) are having a public conversation with themselves here.)
But, OK, examining the list of pages that are designated as belonging to research, my eyes are instantly drawn to things like:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Wikipedia,_Wikiversity_and_disruptiv...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Brainless_humans_for_transplants(User:Super_Q...) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group
none of which are particularly easy for me to make sense of.
This one is much more straightforward:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Early_telescope
but it looks more like a student research project, rather than something that is aiming for eventual publication in a journal, or any other sort of further development. And this would describe many of the other articles that I sampled. It's not clear what the difference is between this kind of page and a Wikipedia page on the same topic.
My initial conclusion is that Wikiversity's Research Portal could potentially be used as a research hub like I was envisioning, but it would need to be retooled almost completely, and most of the current content would get pushed into a "student research" or "science fiction" category.
I'm not sure I have time to take on something like this! I'll be focusing on developing my own work elsewhere... and I'll report back to the other people looking at building a Research Hub to see what they think.
Joe
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Juan de Vojníkov juandevojnikov@gmail.com wrote:
Well,
it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not only education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal, but
if
there are not many contributors its better to start on existing project
and
than if needed move it outside.
Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our
multilingual
hub and incubator.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/9 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
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
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
I've been involved in several projects on Wikiversity where a formal institution is involved.
See page UCNISS for one example. I help set that up for that teaching and research institute at the University of Canberra. One of the more successful courses we ran using Wikiversity was, The Business and Politics of Support (see BPS2011). James Neill, also at the University of Canberra, uses Wikiversity with his psychology students. See the pages under Motivation and Emotion. Today, the University of Canberra offers little recognition for this work, but the seed was planted and open education and research is getting more support across Australia and internationally. I'm now at La Trobe University in Melbourne, and starting work with several academics there who want to develop open academic practices. Our focus will be around education for health professionals, but presented in a way that should be useful for non professionals as well. See the page Health Education and Development for a WIP in it's early stages.
Wikiversity is positioned to accept unceasing numbers of university academics who are only now beginning to look at openness in their profession. Research funding bodies are starting to demand openness (in access and copyright of reports and papers at this stage, but I'd expect process and data too come as well), and universities are exploring open courses as well.
I think Wikiversity should do very little. It's "community" is precarious, having been through at least 2 major upheavals. It simply needs to maintain the platform spam and vandal free, avoid deletionism, welcome new comers, and highlight new and interesting projects on the front page.
Hopefully conversations like these don't lead to a closure around Wikiversity scope, stemming from some people's performance anxiety in the shadow of Wikipedia. I'm confident that in time (read 3-5 years) Wikiversity will be a vibrant and diverse space for teaching, learning and research. It's critical however, that those who currently work to maintain the space today, avoid the wars and closures of the recent past. On Nov 13, 2012 3:16 AM, "Juan de Vojníkov" juandevojnikov@gmail.com wrote:
Well,
I am not offended. Wikiversity is how it is. If you dont have powers to start a new project within Wikiversity or rebuild actual Research portal than I dont understand, why you are coining with the idea to buid such hub within Wikiversity.
But I should have a look to Meta. I still dont understand, why the Journal team needs also Research Hub - thats extra work.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/11 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
Hi Juan:
I hope it won't offend anyone too much if I say that the research currently hosted on Wikiversity is not all of high quality. (Note to reader: if you were offended by what I just said, please stop reading now, it's not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just sharing my impressions of the site as I think about whether it is suitable for use as the kind of Research Hub I've been imagining, or as a place to build a scholarly journal, etc.)
Indeed, it's a bit hard to figure out what all is really meant to be included under the "research" label on Wikiversity.
For instance, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Research links to the "research-related portal" http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics -- but this page says:
"Wikiversity participants who are interested in mathematics are invited to create and develop *learning projects* and *learning resources* and help organize them by developing this portal."
If we return to the Research Portal itself, then there's this:
"Guide to Research: The following is a dynamic listing of all the pages categorised into this portal. To restructure or extend this list, you will need to edit the category system itself. Where are the use instructions for this template?"
(It seems like the curator(s) are having a public conversation with themselves here.)
But, OK, examining the list of pages that are designated as belonging to research, my eyes are instantly drawn to things like:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Wikipedia,_Wikiversity_and_disruptiv...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Brainless_humans_for_transplants(User:Super_Q...) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group
none of which are particularly easy for me to make sense of.
This one is much more straightforward:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Early_telescope
but it looks more like a student research project, rather than something that is aiming for eventual publication in a journal, or any other sort of further development. And this would describe many of the other articles that I sampled. It's not clear what the difference is between this kind of page and a Wikipedia page on the same topic.
My initial conclusion is that Wikiversity's Research Portal could potentially be used as a research hub like I was envisioning, but it would need to be retooled almost completely, and most of the current content would get pushed into a "student research" or "science fiction" category.
I'm not sure I have time to take on something like this! I'll be focusing on developing my own work elsewhere... and I'll report back to the other people looking at building a Research Hub to see what they think.
Joe
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Juan de Vojníkov juandevojnikov@gmail.com wrote:
Well,
it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not only education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal, but
if
there are not many contributors its better to start on existing project
and
than if needed move it outside.
Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our
multilingual
hub and incubator.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/9 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
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
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
I think this is a great movement. I will support the Wikiversity eXtension and would love to help out with some of the design and implementation. Best of luck with the future progression to helping out with supporting a more modern higher education. dYlan
On 12 November 2012 13:12, Leigh Blackall leighblackall@gmail.com wrote:
I've been involved in several projects on Wikiversity where a formal institution is involved.
See page UCNISS for one example. I help set that up for that teaching and research institute at the University of Canberra. One of the more successful courses we ran using Wikiversity was, The Business and Politics of Support (see BPS2011). James Neill, also at the University of Canberra, uses Wikiversity with his psychology students. See the pages under Motivation and Emotion. Today, the University of Canberra offers little recognition for this work, but the seed was planted and open education and research is getting more support across Australia and internationally. I'm now at La Trobe University in Melbourne, and starting work with several academics there who want to develop open academic practices. Our focus will be around education for health professionals, but presented in a way that should be useful for non professionals as well. See the page Health Education and Development for a WIP in it's early stages.
Wikiversity is positioned to accept unceasing numbers of university academics who are only now beginning to look at openness in their profession. Research funding bodies are starting to demand openness (in access and copyright of reports and papers at this stage, but I'd expect process and data too come as well), and universities are exploring open courses as well.
I think Wikiversity should do very little. It's "community" is precarious, having been through at least 2 major upheavals. It simply needs to maintain the platform spam and vandal free, avoid deletionism, welcome new comers, and highlight new and interesting projects on the front page.
Hopefully conversations like these don't lead to a closure around Wikiversity scope, stemming from some people's performance anxiety in the shadow of Wikipedia. I'm confident that in time (read 3-5 years) Wikiversity will be a vibrant and diverse space for teaching, learning and research. It's critical however, that those who currently work to maintain the space today, avoid the wars and closures of the recent past. On Nov 13, 2012 3:16 AM, "Juan de Vojníkov" juandevojnikov@gmail.com wrote:
Well,
I am not offended. Wikiversity is how it is. If you dont have powers to start a new project within Wikiversity or rebuild actual Research portal than I dont understand, why you are coining with the idea to buid such hub within Wikiversity.
But I should have a look to Meta. I still dont understand, why the Journal team needs also Research Hub - thats extra work.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/11 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
Hi Juan:
I hope it won't offend anyone too much if I say that the research currently hosted on Wikiversity is not all of high quality. (Note to reader: if you were offended by what I just said, please stop reading now, it's not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just sharing my impressions of the site as I think about whether it is suitable for use as the kind of Research Hub I've been imagining, or as a place to build a scholarly journal, etc.)
Indeed, it's a bit hard to figure out what all is really meant to be included under the "research" label on Wikiversity.
For instance, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Research links to the "research-related portal" http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics -- but this page says:
"Wikiversity participants who are interested in mathematics are invited to create and develop *learning projects* and *learning resources* and help organize them by developing this portal."
If we return to the Research Portal itself, then there's this:
"Guide to Research: The following is a dynamic listing of all the pages categorised into this portal. To restructure or extend this list, you will need to edit the category system itself. Where are the use instructions for this template?"
(It seems like the curator(s) are having a public conversation with themselves here.)
But, OK, examining the list of pages that are designated as belonging to research, my eyes are instantly drawn to things like:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Abd/Wikipedia,_Wikiversity_and_disruptiv...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Brainless_humans_for_transplants(User:Super_Q...) http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dominant_group
none of which are particularly easy for me to make sense of.
This one is much more straightforward:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Early_telescope
but it looks more like a student research project, rather than something that is aiming for eventual publication in a journal, or any other sort of further development. And this would describe many of the other articles that I sampled. It's not clear what the difference is between this kind of page and a Wikipedia page on the same topic.
My initial conclusion is that Wikiversity's Research Portal could potentially be used as a research hub like I was envisioning, but it would need to be retooled almost completely, and most of the current content would get pushed into a "student research" or "science fiction" category.
I'm not sure I have time to take on something like this! I'll be focusing on developing my own work elsewhere... and I'll report back to the other people looking at building a Research Hub to see what they think.
Joe
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Juan de Vojníkov juandevojnikov@gmail.com wrote:
Well,
it could go to Wikiversity. Wikiversity is also about research, not
only
education. Recently I was kicked from Wikibooks, where I left a primary research textbook, so I came back to Wikiversity. That is like GLAM bulletin, which is on outreach wiki, not at its own special wiki.
There is also the other way to have a special wiki for the journal,
but if
there are not many contributors its better to start on existing
project and
than if needed move it outside.
Think also about Wikiversity Beta, which is suppose to be our
multilingual
hub and incubator.
Regards, Juandev
2012/11/9 Joe Corneli holtzermann17@gmail.com
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
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
Wikiversity-l mailing list Wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
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
wikiversity-l@lists.wikimedia.org