[Wikiversity-l] Introducing newcomers to the Wikiversity

[Morley Chalmers]

on 10/26/06 10:15 AM, Cormac Lawler at cormaggio at gmail.com wrote:

> On 10/25/06, Morley Chalmers <morley at morleychalmers.com> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 
>> I'm not in the least knowledgeable on the workings of the Wikipedia, but I
>> suspect there's a strong likelihood some individuals over there have become
>> known as skilled in particular fields, and as responsible editors. I suspect
>> something along this line will build up at the Wikiversity as well.
>> 
>> It's inevitable over time certain individuals will accumulate merit and
>> trust. In its deeper meaning this is what a teacher (or for that matter
>> guru) really means. Someone who is trusted to give reliable instruction.
>> It's institutions which hand out the titles. Which is where ego, personal
>> prestige and rivalry then enters in. Inevitably.
>> 
>> I agree with the concept the Wikiversity should start from scratch, that it
>> shouldn't restrict or control who teaches or gives instruction. Let the
>> merit accumulate. A marketplace solution.
>> 
>> Having said that, it's also inevitable, over time, there will be a need for
>> a thumbnail identification of individuals with merit. Don't know what or how
>> that might unfold, but this too is inevitable.
> 
> 
> All Wikimedia projects work (so far) without such a set-in-stone
> identification, and I think there is a certain amount of brilliance in
> not allowing it to happen. In other words: ok, you're an expert (or,
> better, "have proven expertise"), but you need to prove that through
> your actions here, and be prepared to work with others in
> collaboration - just as they need to be likewise prepared to work with
> you. This encouraging of equal participation is such a positive factor
> in building a healthy community, I think.

Vigorously agree. 

I've received a posting from Michael Irwin which I'll be responding to
separately. Michael's posting has prodded me to realize this issue of
credentials, certification and provenance just won't go away. Certainly not
by simply saying such issues just "aren't the wiki way".

I now believe credentials, certification and provenance, as they apply to
the Wikiversity need to be addressed directly, clearly explaining the
benefits of openness in a positive light.

I plan to put together a proposed statement, taking off from your above
statement and other similar I've picked up from various posters. Something
that addresses concerns of newcomers who worry about "where does this stuff
come from", who authorizes it, what piece of paper am I going to get, etc.
These questions will never end, are quite natural for newcomers who have
zero prior experience with wiki.

I propose to post my proposed text here first, for comment, modification,
etc., before posting on the newcomers page ‹ where, of course, it can be
further punched, pummelled and reshaped.
 
> In my talks with the KDE developer people (who want to transfer and
> develop their entire set of training materials in/to Wikiversity),
> they suggested they might want to have some way of having a
> differential level of login for people who were learning and others
> who are helping others learn. However, I don't personally regard this
> as "inevitable" - I think we need to discuss this to see if it is
> desirable for what we're building.

Interesting. Had no idea that was in the works. Which leads to yet another
phenomena ‹ organizations, especially non-profits, using the Wikiversity as
a training facility. Raises a lot of issues such as internet load factors,
their expectations as you mention, but a lot of positive ones as well.
 
> <snip>
> 
>> Overall, a repository of learning materials, while worthy and useful, is
>> only half the equation. By having active online learning as Cormaggio
>> envisions above there will inevitably be cross fertilization from the online
>> learning back to the course materials themselves. That's exactly the pattern
>> in conventional learning institutions. One feeds the other.
> 
> Exactly. :-) This is why I'm *very* happy that we went further in the
> proposal than simply the collaborative building of free educational
> materials, and carved a space for the actual *use* of these materials.
 
Essential. 
 
>> In my mind online learning as Cormaggio describes is very doable, even
>> inevitable. Exactly how to do it remains for discussions such as this one.
>  
> Yes, and I think that it may be quite some time before we genuinely
> find out what is really best - my PhD is going to be about
> Wikiversity, and if we have really built a solid resource by that
> stage - 3 years time - I think we will have done very well. :-)
> However, I also think we need to be realistic about what is "doable"
> in a wiki context - I think we also need to be critical of "wiki" and
> see its limitations as well as its possibilities.

Move forward confidently, holding onto only the principles of openness and
collaboration, not any particular mechanics of execution. Watch what people
do with what's posted at the Wikiversity. Be prepared to be surprised. Be
prepared to learn from the users. In the long run it will be the users who
shape the Wikiversity. What's essential is a facility to encourage learning.
 
> <snip>
> 
>> I have the feedback from one "instructor" (a course on the Third Reich)
>> saying he/she's very well pleased with how it's going.
>> 
>> For the purpose of my current Wikiversity Newcomers page expansion it's my
>> intention to survey other "course" leaders and discover how they're doing
>> it, how well it's going and from that provide pointers to other would-be
>> "leaders" on how it can be done. This is down the road a bit but was/is part
>> of my original vision for a proper newcomers page.
>> 
>> I also plan a similar section for would-be learners as well. In other words,
>> learn from the participants both whether and how it works.
>> 
> 
> This is really great, Morley. Your surveying of course facilitators is
> exactly what we should be doing - hopefully feeding into worksheets on
> how to add materials/courses to Wikiversity, what's worked in the past
> etc. The welcome newcomers page should have links to tutorials and
> activities for all aspects of our work and for all types of people who
> would be interested in using Wikiversity, ie "what is wikiversity?",
> "editing wikis", "adding content", "adding metadata" (down the road),
> "self-studying", "collaborative learning" etc. The more we can
> encourage participation, and the more feedback systems we can
> incorporate, the better we will find out exactly how useful we are to
> the newcomer - which should really be our "holy grail".

All universities have outreach programs in one form or another. The
Wikiversity should too. The first such project should be to constantly pull
together what's new and worthy at the Wikiversity and let people know about
it on the Wikiversity Main Page and the Newcomers page. I can foresee a need
for volunteers to take up a self-assignment of discovery, then to craft
stuff for the Main Page. Change it daily. Generate a constant internet buzz.
But that's well down the road, but inevitable.

I'm delighted to be here. Very exciting stuff.


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