[Foundation-l] Wikiversity - courses

[Cormac Lawler]

On 12/17/05, xkernigh at netscape.net <xkernigh at netscape.net> wrote:
> Cormac Lawler wrote:
> > The 'safe' proposal until now has been to make wikiversity a
> > repository of learning materials. This, I presume, would include
> > lesson plans/curricula as well as actual resources like
> > reading/listening comprehension exercises, flash cards, discursive
> > questions on particular advertisements, etc.
> > ...
> > * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity_%28overview%29
> > *
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
>
>
> This proposal is not 'safe'. Look at the Wikiversity (overview) page
> linked here, then follow any of the six links from "Cell Biology" to
> "Media literacy". They all read like textbooks or introductions to
> textbooks. The C programming course contains "lectures" and "quizzes",
> which together function as a textbook. The pages also contain lists of
> students (instead of authors), but in short, most of the current
> Wikiversity consists of textbooks which must stay at Wikibooks, and not
> become a separate wiki.


I would argue that the reason so much of Wikiversity looks like stuff
that should be on Wikibooks is because it has been developed (and
still resides) on Wikibooks! I wrote the outline on the media literacy
course (which I repeat is a mere outline) and I certainly don't
envision this to be a book-like resource/course.


>
> A 'safe' version of the proposal would include all learning materials
> EXCEPT any that could be found in a textbook, encyclopedia, dictionary
> (or other Wikimedia project).
>
> > *
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Modified_project_proposal
>
> What is interesting about the "modified project proposal" is that it is
> an opportunity to define Wikiversity (or whatever we call this project)
> in a way that does not overlap with Wikibooks, but supports the other
> Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia. I
> like the proposal for "reading groups" where multiple users meet on a
> wiki and agree to read the same (free or non-free) material and discuss
> it; then if they want, they use their knowledge to improve Wikibooks or
> Wiktionary or add citations to Wikipedia. The users learn and
> (optionally) the other Wikimedia projects including Wikibooks gain
> benefits.


I'm glad you agree on this - this is certainly a central idea of mine
(User:Cormaggio) and John's (User:JWSchmidt) thinking on Wikiversity
these days.

>
> Another proposal that I have read about is to have an "index of
> sources". This would not be a collection of free source texts, like
> Wikisource is. This would be a database potentially listing every (free
> or non-free) source that was ever cited in any Wikipedia article or
> Wikibook, and some new sources. What if whenever I wanted more
> information while writing a Wikibook, I could go to "Wikiversity" to
> find interesting books or web sites on my topic?
>
> The problem with both of these proposals is that with the current
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity they share not much. Its as if
> someone just made some random proposals and attached the "Wikiversity"
> name.


The random nature of that page is because of the general diversity of
visions of Wikiversity, as you've already observed. A quick flick
through any of the talk pages on meta or wikibooks is testament to
that. I'd go with the current proposals to get a sense of what is
proposed/envisioned for now.

>
> In fact, there is currently no consensus for what Wikiversity means.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward wrote:
> > Wikiversity currently means different things to different people.
>
> See for example
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moving_Wikiversity_forward#living_boo
> ks where a user actually proposes that Wikiversity should develop
> textbooks!


That misrepresents what John was saying. Nobody is proposing that
Wikiversity is for developing textbooks for itself - though it could
and should be about developing resources in all Wikimedia projects.
There may be some overlap between the projects but Wikiversity doesn't
really fully belong on any one project (eg Wikibooks) and thus
deserves its own. How it delineates itself from other projects remains
to be seen, but I would argue that it should focus on those three
things 1) developing multilingual learning materials; 2) growing
learning communities attached to specific tasks (ie finding sources);
and 3) prompting and hosting research (including but not limited to
Wikimedia projects). This final "object" would already give it a clear
distinction from all other Wikimedia projects. After this, the main
outstanding issue is whether the project should be called
"Wikiversity", given the general consensus (from what I see) that
materials should be available for all learner levels/ages.

Cormac