[Wikiversity-l] Credentials, diplomas & provenance

Tue Oct 31 00:52:08 UTC 2006

Thanks for the post, Morley - I'll comment below.

On 10/27/06, Morley Chalmers <morley at morleychalmers.com> wrote:
> The issue of credentials and authority keeps coming up. Inevitably keeps
> coming up. Therefore I am proposing a comprehensive statement on these
> topics specifically aimed at orienting newcomers.
>
> Before I poke a stick into a hornets nest, I'm asking for feedback here.
> Please say whether you like what follows or not and why. Please post your
> positives, as well as your negatives and revisions. Let's put together
> something that won't embarrass before posting to the newcomers page ‹ where
> it can then be further edited as much as anyone likes.
>
> There are pointers to other pages within the text. I'd appreciate someone to
> link to the relevant live pages.
>
>
>
> ===Credentials, diplomas & provenance===
>
> The Wikiversity follows in the traditions of the Wikipedia, in other words
> collaborative creation and editing without reference to higher authority.
> [[What does that mean in practice?]] {The following appears on a separate
> page, available by clicking the above link.}

I'm dubious of the "no reference to higher authority" statement. It is
true that Wikiversity is about the evolving, collaborative co-creation
of materials which can be edited by anyone at any time, just like any
wiki. But there is obviously a social context to all of this (which
will inevitably structure Wikiversity in some way) - as well as, for
example, being a part of Wikimedia - that also plays a role in the
scope of the project. I don't want to make a big point out of this -
nor do I want to imply that I think Wikimedia or the contributors to
Wikiversity will make Wikiversity into a structure of authority - but
I think that painting it like this is immediately sending out the
wrong message. What I think you're getting at is that Wikiversity is a
[[wiki]] - I think it makes more sense to make *that* the link and
explaining *there* "what this means in practice".

>
> * Will I earn a diploma at the Wikiversity?
> :No, that's one thing we don't do. This is about the learning itself, by
> itself. You cannot earn credentials here. But you can learn here and then
> earn your credentials elsewhere.

I agree - though I wonder, by putting it like that, if we're selling
ourselves short for future developments? I've thought, for example,
about the possibility of people doing work on Wikiversity which would
translate into credits towards an accredited course somewhere - though
perhaps this is what you mean by the "earning credentials elsewhere"?
I know some people are very motivated about developing this route -
for the moment, I would say that we keep the focus on *learning* (as
you've done), but that we neither play this up nor down - again, just
for the moment.

>
> * Are there exams at the Wikiversity?
> :Some course leaders may post some questionnaires so you can assess your
> learning progress. Course leaders may also give personal feedback on their
> observations of your progress. But there's no passing grade, no way to
> achieve status by your participation here.

I'd change that last bit, which sounds a bit non-inspiring to me. :-)
How about something like: "Wikiversity strives to help each person
define and reach their personal learning goals, and so there shouldn't
be any pressure to perform or fear of failure; instead, we promote
learning through experience, which includes making mistakes."?

>
> * Who gets to decide what gets posted here?
> :You do. Go ahead and post, no permission required. This project has no
> set-in-stone identification of authorship. Anything can be posted by anyone
> and then revised by anyone at any time. Each version is preserved. You can
> easily step back and compare one version to any other, see who performed the
> edits and communicate with those editors.

With some relatively minor tweaks, this is perfect. :-)

>
> :If you're an expert (or, better, "have proven expertise"), you need to
> prove that through your actions here, and be prepared to work with others in
> collaboration - just as they must likewise be prepared to work with you.
> This encouraging of equal participation is a positive factor in building a
> healthy community of learning, for the sake of learning.

Even though I recognise my words, I would like to change the tone of
this. :-) Better to use language like "we encourage you to be prepared
to work in collaboration..", over "you need to prove that you are
prepared to work in collaboration..".

>
> * How is "inappropriate" material kept off the site?
> :It isn't (except for Bombmaking 101 and similar). It's '''you''' who
> decides what's appropriate. There's no higher bureaucracy "authorizing"
> publication. (Copyrighted material is immediately removed, on discovery).

We're a wiki - so you can edit it - and particularly we are about
finding out about education - but we need better guidelines about the
appropriacy of content than this. It's a large question - it has
spawned thoughts on Wikiversity pages like
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Science_teaching_materials_for_creationism
; http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Disclosures - which
mainly came from discussion on the foundation-l mailing list, from
this post onwards
<http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-August/009074.html>.
But we can't be simply saying that nothing, bar Bombmaking 101 and the
like, is inappropriate.

>
> :There are indeed senior custodians who debate what's an abuse and take
> corrective measures. These individuals earn whatever status they have by
> their past actions. That's the limit of their power and of any hierarchy at
> the Wikiversity.

It's the *community* that decide what's abusive/inappropriate etc.
Custodians are *delegated* by the community to effect an action
relating to that discussion - whether deleting a page, blocking a user
etc. Any vandalism can be undone by any user.

>
> * What if someone wrecks a perfectly good course?
> :It's you who decides (at least in your eyes). Use the History tab at the
> top of the page and find the older version you like. Go ahead and use that
> version. Or better yet, integrate what you liked about the older version
> into the current version. You can also "fork" a course into two equivalent
> and equal versions covering the same subject but in different styles.
> Nothing at the Wikiversity is "definitive".

I think asking people to scroll through the history of a page for
their preferred version is asking far too much. Forking of material
within Wikiversity is, of course, always a very valid option, and
could be very interesting to see people adapting material to different
pedagogies/audiences (ie agegroups) etc.

>
> * How can I determine whether the material here is any good?
> :By trying it out. It's your judgement call. If you can make it better, go
> ahead and edit. Note that every page has a Discussion area where you can
> post your observations and questions. You can review the History of a page,
> see who wrote which version and enter into dialogue with these individuals.
> Together we can, and will, make the material here stronger and stronger.

Yes, I think it's very important to stress that we are constantly
trying to improve our materials - though I know that some people will
probably think their material is perfect and should not be edited ;-)
- and this may be dealt with by forking, for example.

>
> * Who's authorized to teach?
> :You are, no credentials required. Yes, you can set yourself up as a teacher
> of anything, with or without any prior experience in the subject. If your
> students like the process, good, they'll probably continue working with you.
> If not, they'll likely wander away. You'll find all kinds of individuals
> teaching here, retired professional academics, currently active ones, people
> from industry and the self-taught with no formal qualifications at all. Ask
> course leaders for their backgrounds, or not.

Personally, I would change the opening sentence to "Anyone with the
motivation to help others learn". For me, the option above might lend
itself towards careerism - or even put off people who are looking for
assurance. I'd like us to focus on promoting "quality" as well as the
"open" side of Wikiversity. Yes, we're open, and we're likely to
confuse and even disappoint many visitors in our developing phase -
but let's try and put the emphasis on promoting good practice (and
content). However, the larger point is good - and I would supplement
it by personally advocating that Wikiversity is about *people learning
how to learn as well as to teach* - we value expertise and experience,
but we also value learning *through experience*.

>
> * If I teach, will I get paid, can I charge my students?
> :No, not through the Wikiversity. You can ask for donations if you like, but
> offsite and independently. We frown on fees as against the spirit of the
> Wikiversity. But we can't control such a practice, do not have the resources
> to police it. If we discover you're '''requiring''' payment for an online
> course conducted within the Wikiversity website or using the Wikiversity
> site itself to solicit donations we most likely will take action against
> you. The Wikiversity is free to all.

Hmm. Well, fees are most definitely out - no question. But donations -
personally, I don't find it sits right with me in this kind of space -
though it probably needs further discussion. There is already one
example of someone doing this which has been mentioned in discussions
over the last few days.

>
> * Can I download materials here and use them in my own offsite classes? Can
> I revise the materials? Must I make attribution to the Wikiversity?
> :Yes, yes and no. Download and use. [[Check here for how our learning
> materials are protected]] {Page reference to come} And definitely revise.
> Better yet, post your revisions back to the Wikiversity. Also post your
> experiences using the materials to the page's Discussion area. Give back and
> make the Wikiversity better. Finally, attributions to the Wikiversity are
> welcome but not required.

Attribution *is* required - it's part of the GFDL -
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:GNU_Free_Documentation_License
- though I admit to not understanding the licence inside out.

>
> * Who pays for the Wikiversity?
> :You do, by donations. [[Here's how you can make a donation]] {link to come}
> (entirely voluntary). Notice there's no advertising on the Wikiversity.
> We're non-commercial, entirely run by volunteers, operating costs covered by
> donations, from people like you.

Donations and - very possibly - grants from institutions, trusts, NGOs
etc. Don't forget that servers/bandwidth are secured from of general
Wikimedia funds, which are a composite of all of these things. Simply
adding "..and other grants"  at the end here would suffice.

>
> The Wikiversity is a facility for learning.
>
>
>
> Morley Chalmers

Well, I hope this critique has been constructive. I sincerely applaud
your efforts to move on these issues and pages, Morley - it's high
time we did so.

All the best,

Cormac