[Foundation-l] Vote to create Wikiversity Vote

[Ray Saintonge]

Cormac Lawler wrote:

>On 11/1/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>This is a reminder/formal notice that the voting period for the creation
>>of Wikiversity is now over, and that the proposal to create Wikiversity
>>as a new Wikimedia sister project is now being submitted to the
>>Wikimedia Foundation board for a formal review..[snip]
>>    
>>
>It is clear that many people are afraid that the idea is too
>half-baked or not ready enough to be started. This is currently true -
>Wikiversity exists as many different ideas in many people's heads,
>with plenty of enthusiasm but not much to actually to show for it. But
>my counter argument to this is: *every* wiki project has developed
>from a similar position. Every wiki is an idea which is generated and
>created through the combined energy of its participants - you only
>have to look at the various listings of people at the vote or on the
>proposed projects page or on the meta Wikiversity talk page amongst
>others, to see that there is so much energy there waiting to be
>tapped, and rearing to go. That, surely, is the main thing. I think
>the crucial point is that Wikiversity, if created now, will not (in
>the main) be ready to actually go live as a learning centre *just
>yet*. It needs to have a creation period, it needs to be widely known
>about to generate a learner base - and *then* it can flourish. Just
>don't expect results yet (though some courses could be created quite
>quickly - and who's to say that we need to constuct whole courses in
>the first place? What about single lesson plans? What about
>collections of flash cards? etc.)
>
When I first suggested the name Wikiversity in an exchange with Mav it 
was only semi-serious.  While I sincerely believe in the idea, I also 
see that no-one has yet appeared with the vision needed  to really take 
this idea forward.  The vision that Jimbo provided to the development of 
Wikipedia is simply not there for Wikiversity.  The "Vision" section of 
the proposal starts with "Wikiversity could ...".  Great visions do not 
start with a conditional verb.

The vision must go further than a mere listing of proposed courses or 
textbooks.  Relying too much on our experiences with established 
universitie (or our rebellion against them) is nothing more than a 
recipe for "same old, same old".  If a Wikiversity is to really succeed 
it must offer something different.  An electronic version of traditional 
techniques is not different enough.  Nothing in what I have read in 
these discussions shows that anybody has any idea about the nature of 
education and how people learn.  Has anyone considered why it is that 
critical thinking can only start when the prejudiced logic of earlier 
education has been unlearned?  How does Wikiversity adapt to NPOV?

>Another major concern is resources - both human and electronic (ie.
>financial). ... I have a hunch that not only could
>we get a whole lot more poeple involved in setting up this project,
>but we could also get some major funding. UNESCO's ecucation for all
>campaign comes to mind - and I'd appreciate any other suggestions.
>
With a  clear sense of vision and purpose I don't see these as a big 
problem.

Ec