[Wikiversity-l] Introducing newcomers to the Wikiversity

[Morley Chalmers]

on 10/22/06 9:16 PM, Michael R. Irwin at michael_irwin at verizon.net wrote:

> Hi Morley

> Your text outline looks pretty good to me. I suggest being bold
> and placing at the proper location. Be ready for significant editing as you
> 
touch on many political issues.
>
> For example: The original proposal was on
> hold for about a year prior to Wikimedia Foundation Board approval because
> they did not like the term course or any use of the word which might suggest
> to someone an accredited learning process.

I've already participated in considerable discussion on this theme. Which is
precisely why I prepared my opening statement the way I did.

Actually I personally agree with the decision to stand aside from
accreditation, certainly at this very early stage and possibly forever. But
the controversy was so stormy some appear to have come to the belief it can
only be resolved by offering no teaching. That position I totally disagree
with.

Your newcomer page is actually a marketing statement. Its purpose is to
arouse confidence the site is worth pursuing, not by good feeling statements
but by offering solutions to the visitor's needs, reasons for visiting the
site in the first place.

It should do this right off the top. If the first sentence doesn't satisfy
or feels muddled the reader won't proceed to the next. And so forth. It's
all about setting a positive, productive agenda for the visitor and making a
clear, positive first impression.

I went to the page today to continue fleshing out the following material.
Instead I find myself engaged in a muddle-headed turf war.

If mine is "pretty good", then it should last more than just two days. Mine
was also pre-published for community comment. If my contributions are
welcome, I shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail, constantly fighting off
this fear of accreditation issues.

> Obviously similar objections
> apply to "teacher" or "student" with no way to review or assign credibility
> or credentials to potential "instructors".

With respect, this is silly. 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.

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.

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. 

If the Wikiversity gets involved in online learning in any way you will
always have people in positions of leadership, whatever their title. There
will always be something analogous to a "course" even if you ban that word.

Such foolishness. You're doing damage to the very institution you're trying
to birth. 

> Many of the issues you address
> below are at the root of major policy discussions that in my view will need
> to be repeated periodically for newcomers as they flock to Wikiversity before
> and after it achieves critical mass.

I agree. The structure, purposes and organization should be regularly
reviewed. But avoidance of supporting online learning because of this
accreditation nonsense is unthinkable. Get past this issue.

> I congratulate you on the initiative
> shown attempting to coordinate and document these types of discussions for
> the benefit of current and future users.

This newcomers project needs practical support, well beyond good wishes. Get
on with the positive, what you're going to do, rather than obsess on what
you're not doing. Unfortunately yanking back and forth on this accreditation
issue has been going on for quite some time.

I believe something like the Wikiversity would be of great benefit, but
until it develops a process of integrating its volunteers it's not going to
achieve its potential.

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