[Foundation-l] Re: Wikiversity

[Anthere]

Erik Moeller a écrit:
> Anthere:
> 
>> Wikielearning might be a solution. 
> 
>  > E-learning has the benefit of being a rather framed word at least...
> 
> Wikimedia has a history of coming up with confusing names, I'd like one 
> that will be correctly remembered and spelled for a change. 
> Wikielearning? Wikelearning? Wikilearning?

Wikiedu



>> *naming* should really be one of the *last* issue when thinking 
> 
>  > to create a project.
> 
> I see it more in the middle, which is where we are with Wikiversity. As 
> you correctly say, the name can delineate what the project will be 
> about, as can a temporary name.
> 
> The problem with this project is that it can consist of many individual 
> components, but we cannot tell in advance which ones will be successful 
> and which ones will fail. For example, we may want to *experiment* with 
> the idea of using this framework to publish peer reviewed original 
> research. However, if this fails entirely, we will want to remove this 
> component and carry on regardless. It may very well turn out that we do 
> the best possible job at primary education, and completely suck at 
> tertiary learning -- again, we can choose to then narrow our focus. But 
> imagine a "Wikiversity" which *only* does primary education!

First, thank you for the answer.


If it is a problem that the project is not well defined for now, let's 
try to define it better rather than choosing an undefined fit-it-all name.

Example : I do not understand well why we should be confusing education 
and research. While these two are often done by the same people (my 
husband for example is both a researcher and a teacher), these two 
fields not only are different but SHOULD be different.

I actually think it is a mistake that these two are done so much by the 
same people, because it results in researchers focusing a lot on ... 
research... or academic stuff while teaching. This result is teaching 
most students things they will never use in everyday life. It might 
expand their horizon, but teaching is not only about learning how 
nuclear desintegration occur, but also a lot about practical things such 
wiring a building, making a metal piece or how much fertilizer should be 
applied on a field. As long as we confuse teaching and researching, we 
will get students taught to be researchers, instead of being taught a 
JOB. I wish that we do not fall in this trap ourselves.


> The current proposal at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity
> (which was originally just a big discussion page before I refactored it) 
> is deliberately open about these goals. I'd like the process of 
> precisely defining the scope to be developed in practice rather than in 
> theory.
> 
> We are talking about an extremely ambitious project, and it is almost 
> certain that it will not succeed in all its goals. If we call ourselves 
> a "wiki university" already, then we set expectations, we limit the 
> framework, and we make it impossible to backpedal if we disappoint the 
> expectations set in the project, and its name.
> 
> That's why, to me, the time to choose the name has come. We need to 
> spend some more time on the definition, certainly, but I see technical 
> evaluation as the next priority.
> 
> Erik


I still think defining the "scope" of a project is the first priority, 
then defining the technical needs the second priority, then giving a 
name (especially since it already has one) the third and last priority.

I am not certain I see very well how it places itself with wikibooks 
either....

I am embarassed to see you use the term "we" so much, as if your words 
defined the community, while the person you are interacting with is left 
outside of the circle.

Note that I do not claim to be part of those who worked on wikiversity 
since I never did :-) but I wish more of those currently working on the 
topic, such as the spanish (who are no where mentionned here) 
participate to the discussion as well.

But even though I never participated to it, I have both a teaching and a 
researching experience, not counting a child raising experience. And I 
am confused that we could set a project without more specifications.

I am not sure it is a good idea at all. For all I can see, setting up 
wikinews with rather little defined guidelines was possibly not such a 
good idea. Licence is still not decided. Policies on this are fluttery 
actually and all projects do not seem to follow the same license... I 
wish we try to be a little bit more consistent this time. At least, we 
need to know more about what those involved think on the topic...


Last, I rejoin notafish question : why the hurry ? What happened that 
requires that the project be renamed now ? What is the background of 
this hurry ? Explain please.


ant