[Foundation-l] Re: Vote to create Wikiversity 2 sides

[Anthere]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> On 11/7/05, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On 11/7/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>For my part I think Wikiversity is a great idea, but I don't see where
>>
>>it
>>
>>>benefits from being part of Wikimedia. Wikimedia is primarily a media
>>>company, and a university and a media company are only loosely tied with
>>
>>one
>>
>>>another. Yes, books need to be used by a university, but a) most
>>>universities don't make all their own books, and b) Wikibooks can handle
>>>that part of the project without being part of the university (but
>>
>>merely
>>
>>>working hand-in-hand with the university).
>>>
>>>If there is enough support for this project to be at all successful it
>>
>>would
>>
>>>be no problem to start it up as its own organization separate from the
>>>Wikimedia Foundation. That doesn't mean it would compete with the WMF,
>>
>>in
>>
>>>fact the two would likely co-exist quite amicably.
>>>
>>>The only way I really think it'd be reasonable to expect Wikiversity to
>>
>>work
>>
>>>as a Wikimedia project would be if this came from the top down, as a
>>
>>board
>>
>>>mandate. Even then, for Wikiversity and Wikipedia both to truly be
>>>successful they would probably have to be run as separate legal and/or
>>>economic entities. For Wikiversity to be successful it's going to
>>
>>require a
>>
>>>lot of money. This is not to say donations, it very well could be
>>>self-sustaining, but I bet a lot of Wikipedians are going to want to
>>
>>know
>>
>>>that their donations are going to Wikipedia and not to subsidize a
>>>university. Furthermore, there would probably be legal implications that
>>>would necessitate forming a separate entity, especially if the
>>
>>university
>>
>>>ever wants to be accredited (which I think it should).
>>>
>>>Maybe I'm just looking too far into the future. Or maybe I'm seeing this
>>
>>as
>>
>>>a bigger project than it really is. But that's just the way I think. I
>>
>>think
>>
>>>you've got to set your goals high and plan out the full path too those
>>
>>goals
>>
>>>early on - not to have everything written in stone but at least to have
>>
>>a
>>
>>>rough draft of what the future has in store.
>>>
>>>Anthony
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>There was a discussion about Wikiversity on IRC last night, as part of
>>the Wikimedia Research Network, details and log of which can be found
>>here:
>>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network/Meetings/2005-11-06
>>
>>I think you're raising some interesting points here - I think what's
>>emerging for me is that some people are quite nervous about
>>Wikiversity being a Wikimedia project - if it aspires to be an
>>e-learning resource. I don't personally see the problem, as long as we
>>start small, stay realistic and grow from there, but it is clear that
>>more thinking (and probably research) needs to be done. This should be
>>collated on Meta, probably on a new page like
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Moving_Wikiversity_forward - please
>>feel free to add any ideas to related pages. I think at this stage we
>>need practical proposals, but also practical questions.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Cormac
> 
> 
>  Yeah, I'm not sure what the best way is to get a project like this started,
> but you probably need one or a small few people really dedicated to making
> it happen who all share the same vision. I have my own vision as to what I'd
> like to see Wikiversity as, but I don't have the time to really dedicate
> myself to the project.
>  Anyway, this is part of the trouble with voting on things like this. I
> voted no, primarily because I think Wikiversity would do better as an
> independent project, but at the same time I don't particularly object to
> Wikimedians trying to do it anyway.
>  Maybe a more narrow focus to start out would alleviate some of the concern.
>>From the project page there are two parts to the project, creating teaching
> materials and then using them to teach. The first fits a lot better in with
> Wikimedia, and I don't think there would be much if any objection to the
> foundation supporting this work. This could either be done on Wikibooks or,
> if there is objection from people on Wikibooks, then maybe it could be done
> as part of a new project.
>  The actual teaching part, I think can wait, but if there are a few people
> really dedicated to making it happen they should get together and start
> doing it, Wikimedia project or not.
>  All just my opinion,
> Anthony


I actually pretty much agree with Anthony here.

I have spent a long time reading all the past and recent discussions, 
disseminated in several wikis in september to prepare the presentation 
of Wikiversity in South Africa. 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity#Presentation (ad)

I could clearly separate two parts in the project, one being the 
production of e-teaching materials and the second being setting up a 
e-learning platform.

It seems to me the first part is pretty uncontroversial... though some 
people seem to consider it could entirely fit under wikibooks (the main 
problem being that many wikibooks do not agree with this).
If we want to stick to "any" type of e-teaching material, we do have 
either to create a new project, or to expand the goal of wikibooks. This 
part will also need software implementation... which it seems no 
developer is currently interested in. So, it also mean finding funds to 
support the development of these tools.
Overall, setting up a recipiendary of material is highly within our 
project goals generally. From a secondary perspective, I think that 
supporting the development of tools which will allow collaboration over 
material production is a "grand" goal. We could expand further than text 
production, to other type of products.


The second part, the e-learning platform (ie, making possible to follow 
on-line courses, whith the collection of issues such as "credential of 
teachers", "diplomas" etc...) is highly controversial. It will directly 
compete with schools and universities (while making e-teaching material 
is likely to get teachers involved very much and likely to set up 
collaborations with schools). It will meet full face with the fact not 
all countries rely on the same educational organisation. It will stale 
in face of "diplomas" granting.
As the first part, it needs software development (so, again, funds).
And it will set an entire new goal for our organisation.


I believe we should not try to "replace" what currently exist, but we 
should rather seek to provide information or other formats of 
information to "enrich" what already exist. In short, not to become a 
monopole others will fear, but to add our abilities and products to the 
already existing set. To be seen as partners rather than competitors.

This suggest to me that the e-learning part of the project should be 
dropped and that should rather focus on making the best material ever, 
and set collaborations with other e-learning projects. If these projects 
are set-up by wikipedians, so much the better probably. If they do not 
put ads on their site, we might even become partners without editors 
screaming :-)


Anthere