Re: [Wikiversity-l] Credentials, diplomas & provenance

Thanks for the post, Morley - I'll comment below. On 10/27/06, Morley Chalmers &lt;morley(a)morleychalmers.com&gt; wrote: 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". 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. 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."? With some relatively minor tweaks, this is perfect. :-) 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..". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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*. 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. 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. 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. 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