There is much in Morley's questions/frustrations that I can empathise with, but there is a lot of sense here from Michael. I'm not going to labour over everything but I'll pick out some salient points (as I see them).

Morley:

...

Accredited universities do not have a lock, a patent on the terms "teacher", "student", "instructor" or "course". Lots of institutions of learning which do not give or require accreditation use these terms every day, world wide. There's no good reason for the Wikiversity to avoid commonplace terminology.

Michael:

Well I agreed with your position above initially. However, after watching a few teenagers set themselves up as "Department Heads" I now have a better appreciation of some of the nuances of anonymous internet participation. Something most of the members of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation have probably been immersed in for several years in various ways.

As I now see it the good reason to avoid common place terminology is that it carries a lot of baggage. Most people hear teacher and think "qualified professional compensated by the institution" not "precocious teenager or retired project manager who can help me review thermodynamics if I cross check and verify all facts and reasoning for myself".

This is a thorny issue and one we definitely need to address more head-on in the not-too-distant future. Wikiversity will definitely have people who are there to help other people learning and there will be other people simply there to learn (or perhaps even to "be taught"). I don't think there is anything wrong with calling oneself a "teacher" or "student" (in fact, some people have suggested that we need some sort of differential login for teachers and students in particular circumstances). However, I think the fundamental tenet of a learning community is that anybody can be either/both simultaneously. This is why I like the proposed Wikiversity motto: "Where the teachers learn and the learners teach" (and its variants).

Teenagers calling themselves professors or heads of department - well, we need to avoid being too ageist here and recognise that some of the best contributors to Wikiversity so far have been teenagers (and the fact that we will need to invert, to an extent, the age-old preconceptions of who a "teacher" is - or "expert", for that matter). But I find personally distasteful something we've seen in the past which is like someone "claiming" a department for themselves (simply because they were first on the scene). This is really bad for building and developing a learning community. What I think we need to be doing is to list ourselves as "participants" - then, some of us will facilitate, point etc, and some of us will ask to be guided - and we will switch between these roles depending on our needs, knowledge etc.

Fundamentally, in my view, Wikiversity isn't about the *conferring* of such titles as "teacher" or "professor" on people - though we *should* recognise the expertise someone brings to Wikiversity, including that of being a teacher in a brick-and-mortar institution. However, we need to adapt the "baggage" of such terms to the building of such an open learning community/system as Wikiversity.

...

By stating up front this is NOT an accredited learning situation that whole issue really ought to be put aside and simply get on with it. To ban courses or to try to invent some other word, to ban teachers or try to invent some other word, you're making the institution look foolish.

Actually I am not responsible. The "institution" can only look foolish if the terms and the name Wikiversity are activating preconceptions in the listener. Thus demonstrating what others have called "the wisdom of the Board" in asking that we avoid these terms to reduce confusion to newcomers.

I don't think we are about banning teachers - or even courses. As far as defining Wikiversity goes, I'm not a hardline radical (even though I would like us to become something radical). I think we have considerable flexibility in our proposal - and this includes constructing materials in the format of a course that someone can follow themselves - with links to pages where activities, discussions take place between people in the role of teachers/facilitators and some people in the role of learers/students. Specifically how this works hasn't been fully explained (or 'discovered') - this is one of the primary things that we are trying to learn about as we experiment. So, I would urge you, Morley, to be experimental, and not see this is as a stumbling block. And if you/we find that there is a particular element to our processes that are particularly brilliant or problematic, we can start to develop guidelines help pages, and maybe policies around these elements. But really, to a large extent, we are more knowledgeable than the board in this respect - part of the original rejection and subsequent furore around the "exclude online courses" recommendation was because there was a lack of clarity in the original proposal. What we have now does not - as far as i see it - prevent anyone from following a "traditional" route as their preferred mode of pedagogy. However, for better or worse, I am going to revive his discussion soon - probably on the Foundation-l mailing list - to try to get some clarity on why the original proposal was rejected and place it within the context of recent discussions.

...

A Wikiversity with teaching materials but no support for online teaching would be a major piece of foolishness. And to obsess over this issue is simply alienating.

?? Forgive me but I think you are completely wrong above. If Wikiversity accomplishes nothing but becoming a large online free repository of useful GPL'ed teaching/studying/learning materials covering wide sections of human knowledge then it will be an outstanding accomplishment rivaling the invention of the printing press.

Personally I think we can establish support for online learning and have been continually amazed that no professional instituation or government has tackled this for the shear economic benefits to society ..... the ever present fear of layoff I suppose. Perhaps amateurs and professionals working together at Wikiversity can accomplish this obvious benefit of interactive learning computer technology. If not, then just the repository of GPL'ed information will still be of great value to every society which chooses to allow its free use.

I fully agree with Michael here. In fact, a "free repository of resources" was one of the original proposals for wikiversity - and one which i thought we were being forced into following the board's original rejection. Since then, however, we have sculpted a proposal which promotes the developing of learning communities - so we explicitly also allow for teaching and learning - however successful or not this experiment will actually turn out to be.

There are other points that I'd like to address, but I think I've sketched my general take on this for now. Fundamentally though, I'd like to thank you Morley for your keen interest and dedicated and patient work on-wiki. I'll be seeing you around. And, also, good to hear from you again, Michael :-)

Warm regards, Cormac

Morley Chalmers wrote:

snip previous discussion

...

...

...

Morley: A Wikiversity with teaching materials but no support for online teaching would be a major piece of foolishness. And to obsess over this issue is simply alienating.

Michael: ?? Forgive me but I think you are completely wrong above. If Wikiversity accomplishes nothing but becoming a large online free repository of useful GPL'ed teaching/studying/learning materials covering wide sections of human knowledge then it will be an outstanding accomplishment rivaling the invention of the printing press.

A policy of learning materials that cannot be put into service online (at least not on the Wikiversity) would have two effects.

1. The materials would have no provenance. Nothing to indicate how good or

bad, how practical in a teaching situation. They might be accurate but how practical? With no visitor guidance on this issue the Wikiversity has no ability to build up its representation as a worthy resource. The reverse could well develop ‹ the Wikiversity as a dump, as a hodge podge.

The materials do not need a provenance if individual teachers and institutions are downloading and modifying or presenting them. The provenance comes from the presenter.

It is very easy to avoid Wikiversity as a dump. Interested administrators and editors can mark and delete material much easier than people can dump it. The steady state solution can and will be quite high on average.

Hodge podge. We want a hodge podge. The field of human knowledge is very hodge podgy. There is currently less cross linking than there should be often with identical concepts and totally different vocabularies used in differing fields.

2. With no online activity someone will fork the Wikiversity into an

alternate site that actively supports online learning. In other words, take it commercial. This will happen anyway and is probably harmless. But in my view if the Wikiversity can do it itself in a no-advertising manner it will have much greater appeal to the public and likely gain grants from various bodies.

Overall, a repository of learning materials, while worthy and useful, is only half the equation. By having active online learning as Cormaggio envisions above there will inevitably be cross fertilization from the online learning back to the course materials themselves. That's exactly the pattern in conventional learning institutions. One feeds the other.

In my mind online learning as Cormaggio describes is very doable, even inevitable. Exactly how to do it remains for discussions such as this one.

One might argue that Wikia is already doing so. They are attempting to make the Wiki environment look attractive to small groups of academics or students by providing some editing protection and/or some group privacy. Personally I think a better approach is an individual computer but this will take some serious software development effort if one is to link to other's private computers via GNUnet or other distributed access technology.

I agree. I also prefer a no advertising model.

I agree the learning provides helpful and necessary feedback into the materials. It will be a much faster cycle if we have the feedback direct from local learners vs. second hand from instructers. Nevertheless should educators start to tailor, use and republish their own materials starting from Wikiversity material it should start to undergo an adequate evolutionary improvement process.

...

...

Personally I think we can establish support for online learning and have been continually amazed that no professional instituation or government has tackled this for the shear economic benefits to society ..... the ever present fear of layoff I suppose. Perhaps amateurs and professionals working together at Wikiversity can accomplish this obvious benefit of interactive learning computer technology. If not, then just the repository of GPL'ed information will still be of great value to every society which chooses to allow its free use.

Lack of vision is the probable explanation. Most of us navigate by looking through the rear view mirror.

Do not kid yourself. We have plenty of vision. What we lack is critical mass levels of internet traffic familar or interested with online self study techniques. We may be attempting to establish our own unique market as what Wikiversity offers is distinctly different from what most mean by traditionally oriented "online learning". Growing new markets is always a slow steady challenge until a pivot point is reached.

...

Cormaggio: I fully agree with Michael here. In fact, a "free repository of resources" was one of the original proposals for wikiversity - and one which i thought we were being forced into following the board's original rejection. Since then, however, we have sculpted a proposal which promotes the developing of learning communities - so we explicitly also allow for teaching and learning - however successful or not this experiment will actually turn out to be.

I have the feedback from one "instructor" (a course on the Third Reich) saying he/she's very well pleased with how it's going.

Cool. How many participants does she have? Can you estimate it?

For the purpose of my current Wikiversity Newcomers page expansion it's my intention to survey other "course" leaders and discover how they're doing it, how well it's going and from that provide pointers to other would-be "leaders" on how it can be done. This is down the road a bit but was/is part of my original vision for a proper newcomers page.

Critical number of participants per course type to generate/stimulate an interesting fun environment might be a useful parameter.

I also plan a similar section for would-be learners as well. In other words, learn from the participants both whether and how it works.

Excellent idea!

High Regards, mirwin

Morley Chalmers wrote:

The issue of credentials and authority keeps coming up. Inevitably keeps coming up. Therefore I am proposing a comprehensive statement on these topics specifically aimed at orienting newcomers.

Before I poke a stick into a hornets nest, I'm asking for feedback here. Please say whether you like what follows or not and why. Please post your positives, as well as your negatives and revisions. Let's put together something that won't embarrass before posting to the newcomers page ‹ where it can then be further edited as much as anyone likes.

There are pointers to other pages within the text. I'd appreciate someone to link to the relevant live pages.

===Credentials, diplomas & provenance===

The Wikiversity follows in the traditions of the Wikipedia, in other words collaborative creation and editing without reference to higher authority. [[What does that mean in practice?]] {The following appears on a separate page, available by clicking the above link.}

This is incorrect. Wikipedia has always had a "higher authority". Jimmy Wales acted as such from the first and then later appointed the Arbcom. Just because "authority" is rarely used or necessary does not mean it does not exist.

• Will I earn a diploma at the Wikiversity?

:No, that's one thing we don't do. This is about the learning itself, by itself. You cannot earn credentials here. But you can learn here and then earn your credentials elsewhere.

• Are there exams at the Wikiversity?

:Some course leaders may post some questionnaires so you can assess your learning progress. Course leaders may also give personal feedback on their observations of your progress. But there's no passing grade, no way to achieve status by your participation here.

• Who gets to decide what gets posted here?

:You do. Go ahead and post, no permission required. This project has no set-in-stone identification of authorship. Anything can be posted by anyone and then revised by anyone at any time. Each version is preserved. You can easily step back and compare one version to any other, see who performed the edits and communicate with those editors.

Perhaps "You do" should be "We do". "Anything" is incorrect. Hate speech is unacceptable. Propaganda used as propaganda is unacceptable. Many people will find much material inoffensive and request it be modifed "collaboratively" or deleted. Perhaps the editor of this paragraph should consult the submittal form.

:If you're an expert (or, better, "have proven expertise"), you need to prove that through your actions here, and be prepared to work with others in collaboration - just as they must likewise be prepared to work with you. This encouraging of equal participation is a positive factor in building a healthy community of learning, for the sake of learning.

Experts do not need to "prove" anything. Everybody needs to be willing to discuss or reason with others. Appeal to non present or non proven authority is not the normal expectation here. Much less is learn by authoritatively stating a fact with no supporting reasoning than a reasoned dialogue showing a neophyte the reasons, assumptions, etc. that make a commonly accepted fact in a given field of expertise commonly accepted.

• How is "inappropriate" material kept off the site?

:It isn't (except for Bombmaking 101 and similar). It's '''you''' who decides what's appropriate. There's no higher bureaucracy "authorizing" publication. (Copyrighted material is immediately removed, on discovery).

"Inappropriate material" is kept off the site. Who determines what is "inappropriate". Commonly we the community. Occasionally the employees, directors or owners of the Wikimedia Foundation who provide the servers.

:There are indeed senior custodians who debate what's an abuse and take corrective measures. These individuals earn whatever status they have by their past actions. That's the limit of their power and of any hierarchy at the Wikiversity.

This is incorrect in its implications. "Senior custodians" have no implicit or explicit authority to decide beyond newcomers. They have an ability and responsibility to take certain actions consistent with the needs and norms of the project and the community.

• What if someone wrecks a perfectly good course?

:It's you who decides (at least in your eyes). Use the History tab at the top of the page and find the older version you like. Go ahead and use that version. Or better yet, integrate what you liked about the older version into the current version. You can also "fork" a course into two equivalent and equal versions covering the same subject but in different styles. Nothing at the Wikiversity is "definitive".

• How can I determine whether the material here is any good?

:By trying it out. It's your judgement call. If you can make it better, go ahead and edit. Note that every page has a Discussion area where you can post your observations and questions. You can review the History of a page, see who wrote which version and enter into dialogue with these individuals. Together we can, and will, make the material here stronger and stronger.

• Who's authorized to teach?

:You are, no credentials required. Yes, you can set yourself up as a teacher of anything, with or without any prior experience in the subject. If your students like the process, good, they'll probably continue working with you. If not, they'll likely wander away. You'll find all kinds of individuals teaching here, retired professional academics, currently active ones, people from industry and the self-taught with no formal qualifications at all. Ask course leaders for their backgrounds, or not.

• If I teach, will I get paid, can I charge my students?

:No, not through the Wikiversity. You can ask for donations if you like, but offsite and independently. We frown on fees as against the spirit of the Wikiversity. But we can't control such a practice, do not have the resources to police it. If we discover you're '''requiring''' payment for an online course conducted within the Wikiversity website or using the Wikiversity site itself to solicit donations we most likely will take action against you. The Wikiversity is free to all.

• Can I download materials here and use them in my own offsite classes? Can

I revise the materials? Must I make attribution to the Wikiversity? :Yes, yes and no. Download and use. [[Check here for how our learning materials are protected]] {Page reference to come} And definitely revise. Better yet, post your revisions back to the Wikiversity. Also post your experiences using the materials to the page's Discussion area. Give back and make the Wikiversity better. Finally, attributions to the Wikiversity are welcome but not required.

Attributions are required by the GPL and Wikiversity has no right to waive this requirement for individual submitters. I would say it is acceptable to provide a link to Wikiversity specific enough to find the history of the starting point of the newly tailored materials. This is common in academic materials so it should not be a major problem to provide the link for starting source material.

• Who pays for the Wikiversity?

:You do, by donations. [[Here's how you can make a donation]] {link to come} (entirely voluntary). Notice there's no advertising on the Wikiversity. We're non-commercial, entirely run by volunteers, operating costs covered by donations, from people like you.

The Wikiversity is a facility for learning.

In general, I would prefer the orientation of the text to be the community including the newcomer vs. the singular "You do(s)". There is lot less individual freedom or anarchy than this consistent "you do" implies. Ultimately the front page material will be like a Wikipedia page with many eyeballs focused historically and at present time. Certainly there can be a lot more freedom in more specialized or tailored courses off the beaten track but the above implies complete anarchy do as you please which will not last long.

Raising expectations for a few hours or days that newcomer's can do totally as they individually please can generate quite a system shock when they encounter their first few consensus building exercises necessary to change existing prose, lessons, excercises, notes, facts, assumptions, policies, etc.

regards, mirwin

Thanks for the post, Morley - I'll comment below.

On 10/27/06, Morley Chalmers morley@morleychalmers.com wrote:

The issue of credentials and authority keeps coming up. Inevitably keeps coming up. Therefore I am proposing a comprehensive statement on these topics specifically aimed at orienting newcomers.

Before I poke a stick into a hornets nest, I'm asking for feedback here. Please say whether you like what follows or not and why. Please post your positives, as well as your negatives and revisions. Let's put together something that won't embarrass before posting to the newcomers page ‹ where it can then be further edited as much as anyone likes.

There are pointers to other pages within the text. I'd appreciate someone to link to the relevant live pages.

===Credentials, diplomas & provenance===

The Wikiversity follows in the traditions of the Wikipedia, in other words collaborative creation and editing without reference to higher authority. [[What does that mean in practice?]] {The following appears on a separate page, available by clicking the above link.}

I'm dubious of the "no reference to higher authority" statement. It is true that Wikiversity is about the evolving, collaborative co-creation of materials which can be edited by anyone at any time, just like any wiki. But there is obviously a social context to all of this (which will inevitably structure Wikiversity in some way) - as well as, for example, being a part of Wikimedia - that also plays a role in the scope of the project. I don't want to make a big point out of this - nor do I want to imply that I think Wikimedia or the contributors to Wikiversity will make Wikiversity into a structure of authority - but I think that painting it like this is immediately sending out the wrong message. What I think you're getting at is that Wikiversity is a [[wiki]] - I think it makes more sense to make *that* the link and explaining *there* "what this means in practice".

• Will I earn a diploma at the Wikiversity?

:No, that's one thing we don't do. This is about the learning itself, by itself. You cannot earn credentials here. But you can learn here and then earn your credentials elsewhere.

I agree - though I wonder, by putting it like that, if we're selling ourselves short for future developments? I've thought, for example, about the possibility of people doing work on Wikiversity which would translate into credits towards an accredited course somewhere - though perhaps this is what you mean by the "earning credentials elsewhere"? I know some people are very motivated about developing this route - for the moment, I would say that we keep the focus on *learning* (as you've done), but that we neither play this up nor down - again, just for the moment.

• Are there exams at the Wikiversity?

:Some course leaders may post some questionnaires so you can assess your learning progress. Course leaders may also give personal feedback on their observations of your progress. But there's no passing grade, no way to achieve status by your participation here.

I'd change that last bit, which sounds a bit non-inspiring to me. :-) How about something like: "Wikiversity strives to help each person define and reach their personal learning goals, and so there shouldn't be any pressure to perform or fear of failure; instead, we promote learning through experience, which includes making mistakes."?

• Who gets to decide what gets posted here?

:You do. Go ahead and post, no permission required. This project has no set-in-stone identification of authorship. Anything can be posted by anyone and then revised by anyone at any time. Each version is preserved. You can easily step back and compare one version to any other, see who performed the edits and communicate with those editors.

With some relatively minor tweaks, this is perfect. :-)

:If you're an expert (or, better, "have proven expertise"), you need to prove that through your actions here, and be prepared to work with others in collaboration - just as they must likewise be prepared to work with you. This encouraging of equal participation is a positive factor in building a healthy community of learning, for the sake of learning.

Even though I recognise my words, I would like to change the tone of this. :-) Better to use language like "we encourage you to be prepared to work in collaboration..", over "you need to prove that you are prepared to work in collaboration..".

• How is "inappropriate" material kept off the site?

:It isn't (except for Bombmaking 101 and similar). It's '''you''' who decides what's appropriate. There's no higher bureaucracy "authorizing" publication. (Copyrighted material is immediately removed, on discovery).

We're a wiki - so you can edit it - and particularly we are about finding out about education - but we need better guidelines about the appropriacy of content than this. It's a large question - it has spawned thoughts on Wikiversity pages like http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Science_teaching_materials_for_creationism ; http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Disclosures - which mainly came from discussion on the foundation-l mailing list, from this post onwards http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-August/009074.html. But we can't be simply saying that nothing, bar Bombmaking 101 and the like, is inappropriate.

:There are indeed senior custodians who debate what's an abuse and take corrective measures. These individuals earn whatever status they have by their past actions. That's the limit of their power and of any hierarchy at the Wikiversity.

It's the *community* that decide what's abusive/inappropriate etc. Custodians are *delegated* by the community to effect an action relating to that discussion - whether deleting a page, blocking a user etc. Any vandalism can be undone by any user.

• What if someone wrecks a perfectly good course?

:It's you who decides (at least in your eyes). Use the History tab at the top of the page and find the older version you like. Go ahead and use that version. Or better yet, integrate what you liked about the older version into the current version. You can also "fork" a course into two equivalent and equal versions covering the same subject but in different styles. Nothing at the Wikiversity is "definitive".

I think asking people to scroll through the history of a page for their preferred version is asking far too much. Forking of material within Wikiversity is, of course, always a very valid option, and could be very interesting to see people adapting material to different pedagogies/audiences (ie agegroups) etc.

• How can I determine whether the material here is any good?

:By trying it out. It's your judgement call. If you can make it better, go ahead and edit. Note that every page has a Discussion area where you can post your observations and questions. You can review the History of a page, see who wrote which version and enter into dialogue with these individuals. Together we can, and will, make the material here stronger and stronger.

Yes, I think it's very important to stress that we are constantly trying to improve our materials - though I know that some people will probably think their material is perfect and should not be edited ;-) - and this may be dealt with by forking, for example.

• Who's authorized to teach?

:You are, no credentials required. Yes, you can set yourself up as a teacher of anything, with or without any prior experience in the subject. If your students like the process, good, they'll probably continue working with you. If not, they'll likely wander away. You'll find all kinds of individuals teaching here, retired professional academics, currently active ones, people from industry and the self-taught with no formal qualifications at all. Ask course leaders for their backgrounds, or not.

Personally, I would change the opening sentence to "Anyone with the motivation to help others learn". For me, the option above might lend itself towards careerism - or even put off people who are looking for assurance. I'd like us to focus on promoting "quality" as well as the "open" side of Wikiversity. Yes, we're open, and we're likely to confuse and even disappoint many visitors in our developing phase - but let's try and put the emphasis on promoting good practice (and content). However, the larger point is good - and I would supplement it by personally advocating that Wikiversity is about *people learning how to learn as well as to teach* - we value expertise and experience, but we also value learning *through experience*.

• If I teach, will I get paid, can I charge my students?

:No, not through the Wikiversity. You can ask for donations if you like, but offsite and independently. We frown on fees as against the spirit of the Wikiversity. But we can't control such a practice, do not have the resources to police it. If we discover you're '''requiring''' payment for an online course conducted within the Wikiversity website or using the Wikiversity site itself to solicit donations we most likely will take action against you. The Wikiversity is free to all.

Hmm. Well, fees are most definitely out - no question. But donations - personally, I don't find it sits right with me in this kind of space - though it probably needs further discussion. There is already one example of someone doing this which has been mentioned in discussions over the last few days.

• Can I download materials here and use them in my own offsite classes? Can

I revise the materials? Must I make attribution to the Wikiversity? :Yes, yes and no. Download and use. [[Check here for how our learning materials are protected]] {Page reference to come} And definitely revise. Better yet, post your revisions back to the Wikiversity. Also post your experiences using the materials to the page's Discussion area. Give back and make the Wikiversity better. Finally, attributions to the Wikiversity are welcome but not required.

Attribution *is* required - it's part of the GFDL - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:GNU_Free_Documentation_License - though I admit to not understanding the licence inside out.

• Who pays for the Wikiversity?

:You do, by donations. [[Here's how you can make a donation]] {link to come} (entirely voluntary). Notice there's no advertising on the Wikiversity. We're non-commercial, entirely run by volunteers, operating costs covered by donations, from people like you.

Donations and - very possibly - grants from institutions, trusts, NGOs etc. Don't forget that servers/bandwidth are secured from of general Wikimedia funds, which are a composite of all of these things. Simply adding "..and other grants" at the end here would suffice.

The Wikiversity is a facility for learning.

Morley Chalmers

Well, I hope this critique has been constructive. I sincerely applaud your efforts to move on these issues and pages, Morley - it's high time we did so.

All the best,

Cormac

I'm currently editing the Wikiversity Newcomers page (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Welcome%2C_newcomers#Proposed_Ne w_Content)

I'm looking for recommendations of good examples of active instruction being conducted online at Wikiversity. So far I've found just one (on Hitler's Germany). I'd like more, especially those demonstrating different styles of instruction in a variety of disciplines. It's my intention to use these to form an introductory overview for newcomers.

Later I'll do the same for downloadable learning and teaching plans.

Kind regards,

Morley Chalmers -- Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. -- Henry David Thoreau

I've stumbled on the following text in several places. I believe it to be unfortunate, misleading and disheartening. In my view, it can easily be misinterpreted as anti Learning Project. Here's where I found it most recently:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/School_of_Mathematics:Course_Catalog

Question: What's generating this prominent yellow box in so many locations and can it be at least revised?

Other views?

============ Where are the courses? There is nothing that prevents Wikiversity participants from creating and attending conventional courses within Wikiversity. However, the wiki user interface is not well-suited for a conventional course format. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has directed the Wikiversity community away from courses (the Board's comments). Wikiversity participants are encouraged to innovate and create learning experiences that take full advantage of the wiki format of online community interactions. Non-traditional Learning Projects that are oriented towards learning about conventional course subjects are encouraged within Wikiversity. See: Wikiversity:Learning and Portal:Education. ============

Morley Chalmers -- Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. -- Henry David Thoreau

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects

Can someone update this page with wikiversity info and logo ?

Thanks

Ant

On 10/25/06, Morley Chalmers morley@morleychalmers.com wrote:

<snip>

I'm not in the least knowledgeable on the workings of the Wikipedia, but I suspect there's a strong likelihood some individuals over there have become known as skilled in particular fields, and as responsible editors. I suspect something along this line will build up at the Wikiversity as well.

It's inevitable over time certain individuals will accumulate merit and trust. In its deeper meaning this is what a teacher (or for that matter guru) really means. Someone who is trusted to give reliable instruction. It's institutions which hand out the titles. Which is where ego, personal prestige and rivalry then enters in. Inevitably.

I agree with the concept the Wikiversity should start from scratch, that it shouldn't restrict or control who teaches or gives instruction. Let the merit accumulate. A marketplace solution.

Having said that, it's also inevitable, over time, there will be a need for a thumbnail identification of individuals with merit. Don't know what or how that might unfold, but this too is inevitable.

All Wikimedia projects work (so far) without such a set-in-stone identification, and I think there is a certain amount of brilliance in not allowing it to happen. In other words: ok, you're an expert (or, better, "have proven expertise"), but you need to prove that through your actions here, and be prepared to work with others in collaboration - just as they need to be likewise prepared to work with you. This encouraging of equal participation is such a positive factor in building a healthy community, I think.

In my talks with the KDE developer people (who want to transfer and develop their entire set of training materials in/to Wikiversity), they suggested they might want to have some way of having a differential level of login for people who were learning and others who are helping others learn. However, I don't personally regard this as "inevitable" - I think we need to discuss this to see if it is desirable for what we're building.

<snip>

Overall, a repository of learning materials, while worthy and useful, is only half the equation. By having active online learning as Cormaggio envisions above there will inevitably be cross fertilization from the online learning back to the course materials themselves. That's exactly the pattern in conventional learning institutions. One feeds the other.

Exactly. :-) This is why I'm *very* happy that we went further in the proposal than simply the collaborative building of free educational materials, and carved a space for the actual *use* of these materials.

In my mind online learning as Cormaggio describes is very doable, even inevitable. Exactly how to do it remains for discussions such as this one.

Yes, and I think that it may be quite some time before we genuinely find out what is really best - my PhD is going to be about Wikiversity, and if we have really built a solid resource by that stage - 3 years time - I think we will have done very well. :-) However, I also think we need to be realistic about what is "doable" in a wiki context - I think we also need to be critical of "wiki" and see its limitations as well as its possibilities.

<snip>

I have the feedback from one "instructor" (a course on the Third Reich) saying he/she's very well pleased with how it's going.

For the purpose of my current Wikiversity Newcomers page expansion it's my intention to survey other "course" leaders and discover how they're doing it, how well it's going and from that provide pointers to other would-be "leaders" on how it can be done. This is down the road a bit but was/is part of my original vision for a proper newcomers page.

I also plan a similar section for would-be learners as well. In other words, learn from the participants both whether and how it works.

This is really great, Morley. Your surveying of course facilitators is exactly what we should be doing - hopefully feeding into worksheets on how to add materials/courses to Wikiversity, what's worked in the past etc. The welcome newcomers page should have links to tutorials and activities for all aspects of our work and for all types of people who would be interested in using Wikiversity, ie "what is wikiversity?", "editing wikis", "adding content", "adding metadata" (down the road), "self-studying", "collaborative learning" etc. The more we can encourage participation, and the more feedback systems we can incorporate, the better we will find out exactly how useful we are to the newcomer - which should really be our "holy grail".

Thanks again,

Cormac

Cormac Lawler wrote:

In my talks with the KDE developer people (who want to transfer and develop their entire set of training materials in/to Wikiversity), they suggested they might want to have some way of having a differential level of login for people who were learning and others who are helping others learn. However, I don't personally regard this as "inevitable" - I think we need to discuss this to see if it is desirable for what we're building.

I think it might be useful as long it is strictly under the control of the person logging in. Hopefully this capability can be delivered by adequate labeling of click trails so one can get where one wants/needs to be by following the labeled links.

regards, mirwin