Morley Chalmers wrote:
on 10/22/06 9:16 PM, Michael R. Irwin at
michael_irwin(a)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.
You are preaching to part of the choir. Personally I think when many
people wish to learn about something they will come looking for
"teachers", "courses", etc. However, the Board of the Wikimedia
Foundation has mandated that we will do without these terms at least
initially.
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.
While the above is certainly true for a business with a specific agenda
to make money off of specific activities it may be less true of
Wikiversity. Ultimately we wish the visitor to set their own agenda
and take a lead role in assisting others while studying what they wish
to personally learn. I am confident something suitable will evolve
once we get a fair amount of sticky returning traffic.
I went to the page today to continue fleshing out the
following material.
Instead I find myself engaged in a muddle-headed turf war.
Turf wars is what wiki is all about. If you find it a waste of time in
pursuit of collaboration or consensus building; I suggest you migrate
to a different page of material with different people currently
interested. If you find you are being subjected to "wiki stalking"
then perhap use of the Wikimedia Foundation's various arbitration
methods may be useful.
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.
Well I tend to agree with the way you have stated your case above.
Nevertheless the Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation Board are the
800lb Gorillas in the room. Unless you can get them to make a
statement that they never intended the direction to not use certain
words for certain concepts to hamper Wikiversity's fundamental ability
to communicate amongst users then I think you will continue to encounter
resistance to effectively frowned upon words such as "teacher",
"course"
etc. that imply specific traditional relationships between users.
A Thesaurus might be useful. Personally, I like the words and phrases
"mentor", "study buddy", "exercise review team" etc.
"Notes",
"Learning Trails", or other locally evolved phrases or terms might be
useful.
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.
Well I agreed with your position above initially. However, after
watching a few teenagers set themselves up as "Department Heads" I now
have a better appreciation of some of the nuances of anonymous internet
participation. Something most of the members of the Board of the
Wikimedia Foundation have probably been immersed in for several years in
various ways.
As I now see it the good reason to avoid common place terminology is
that it carries a lot of baggage. Most people hear teacher and think
"qualified professional compensated by the institution" not "precocious
teenager or retired project manager who can help me review
thermodynamics if I cross check and verify all facts and reasoning for
myself".
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.
Actually I am not responsible. The "institution" can only look foolish
if the terms and the name Wikiversity are activating preconceptions in
the listener. Thus demonstrating what others have called "the wisdom
of the Board" in asking that we avoid these terms to reduce confusion to
newcomers.
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.
?? Forgive me but I think you are completely wrong above. If
Wikiversity accomplishes nothing but becoming a large online free
repository of useful GPL'ed teaching/studying/learning materials
covering wide sections of human knowledge then it will be an outstanding
accomplishment rivaling the invention of the printing press.
Personally I think we can establish support for online learning and have
been continually amazed that no professional instituation or government
has tackled this for the shear economic benefits to society ..... the
ever present fear of layoff I suppose. Perhaps amateurs and
professionals working together at Wikiversity can accomplish this
obvious benefit of interactive learning computer technology. If not,
then just the repository of GPL'ed information will still be of great
value to every society which chooses to allow its free use.
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.
"Leadership" at Wikipedia has found non traditional ways to apply itself
to the goal of creating an encyclopedia via the participation of first
thousands and then millions of amateurs at the wiki url. Perhaps
Wikiversity shall likewise succeed. I agree that useful concepts such
as "courses" are likely to be recycled and remain with us in some form.
Such foolishness. You're doing damage to the very
institution you're trying
to birth.
Actually I bear no responsibility for discouraging the use of the word
"course". In defense of the Board however, I do not think it is
possible to damage a non existent entity before it is built or
evolves. Our permission to proceed was based upon the premise that
Wikiversity would not focus its efforts around traditional courses. In
hindsight, I still do not think the confusion and delay introduced by
banning the word or concept of "course" was justified by the resulting
encouragement to evolve something else better suited to the wiki medium
or online medium. Nevertheless our permission to proceed was
predicated upon being clear that we do not offer traditional "courses"
for credit from professionally qualified instructors.
Besides, a rose by any other name still smells like a rose, unless of
course somebody forgot to add the perfume to the appropriate batch of
plastic polymers.
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 am past it. Online learning occurs via wikis even without
"instructors" and "courses". Perhaps you may need to get past this
issue to avoid encountering "muddle headed" opponents. You may also
find that better (more positive) labeling of your discussion partners
results in a more enjoyable online experience. If not for you, then
perhaps for them and others.
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.
I think you are missing the process of the wiki. Wikipedia worked out
well because it turns out that brilliant prose and useful information
can and does evolve from apparently almost random or chaotic input and
review processes as well as concentrated reasoned discourse and editing
or writing. There is no integration beyond the respect accorded peers
and awarded by peers and the ever incrementally improving or reverting
front pages served upon demand to the public. Individual editors do
try to apply some "brilliant prose" criteria but ultimately the mob
rules just like an incoming tide. Part of the success at Wikipedia is
that the community of users and editors has continued to evolve new
standards for content and participation to improve the Wikipedia's
content and delivery.
I have confidence that the same integration process can be used at
Wikiversity to evolve useful learning experiences. However, this will
depend upon actively engaged learners modifying the materials they find
inadequate. Overly aggressive "teachers" protecting the materials in
the name of specific integration theories are fine as long as they are
well labeled so learners can avoid biases they do not like. Notice
evolution happens where the action is ..... "teachers" may find they are
"learning" a lot from effective participants providing candid hit and
run reviews, comments or modifications of the material which must be
"changed back" or smoothly re-integrated into the material.
The integration process is already well tested and completely
implemented. When volunteers weary of debate (friendly or otherwise)
they tend to move on and others take charge of configuration management
and control (deciding what is on the front page for future users).
This process certainly can and will be augmented. A couple of
augmenting steps at Wikipedia included appeal to authority and name
calling. Others certainly were and are present. After over five
years of evolution, in my opinion, Wikipedia now threatens to become the
largest and best encyclopedia ever implemented by humanity.
Hopefully Wikiversity will do the same. We have a much larger project
in some ways but also many significant advantages in previous successful
widespread experience with the technology.
Have a nice day,
mirwin