User talk:Cormaggio/Research proposal
I am kind of curious, Cormaggio. Is it not bad methodology to research your own personal project? This looks kind of like a pychologist running through his own rat mazes. Is there not a large potential for invalidating the data that is collected or written up with regard to how the organization actually works? Perhaps you should ask another committee member to take responsibility as the chair of the activation subcommittee and drop out to regain an objective clinical overview of the overall process from the sidelines regarding the data you are collecting with regard to how wikis work (or do not work) and specifically regarding Wikiversity. Lazyquasar 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Michael, and yes, that's a pretty obvious challenge to the validity of my research. This is the case with all such reflexive practice/action research* - and increasingly seen as the case with much, if not all, research, particularly qualitative research. By this, I mean that the role of the researcher in their research is always problematic, and that the only way of dealing with this fairly is by acknowledging your reflexivity, bias, and being transparent (and honest) in the description of your methodology. I don't believe or work within an objectivist paradigm - I don't think that by taking a different stance or playing a different role in this process would make any difference to the way I perceive what, say, yourself or JWSchmidt have written - I just need to be clear on what I'm doing - which, I admit, I'm having some doubts about right now.
- On a side note, just to be clear on roles, I'm not and never was the chair of the Wikiversity subcommittee. There was never such a hierarchy defined - although I have always been the one reporting to and negotiating with the Special projects committee on its behalf.
- Slightly related to this, can I ask you a personal question? Were you disappointed or affronted by the fact that I didn't ask you to be on the subcommittee? Would you have reacted differently to me, or other debates on, say, foundation-l if you had been (or felt) more involved? I have mulled this over a few times, and I am, myself, curious. I'd also like to know if there's anything else that you would like to say about the process of setting up Wikiversity. I know you've made your criticisms (and, with your consent, I will be including them in my data), but I would be happy to hear overall personal or procedural criticisms on the eve of Wikiversity's setting up (if you like, by email).
- I say "the eve" as we have an SPC meeting today (or possibly deferred to sometime over the weekend) in which I fully expect a proposal be made to the board regarding Wikiversity being set up. If there is not one, I will be very annoyed - I have been pushing for this internally for a long time now and have received no feedback to suggest otherwise. I said we should have a sepatae Wikiversity by Wikimania - I still think that is possible.
- This is not much of an answer to your question, as I still need to do more thinking on what the best way to proceed with my methodology is. On this, if you have things you would like me to include in my research, I would appreciate hearing about it - as I've said in the proposal, I am working out the goals of this research with the participants of the process - an ideal I am personally committed to.
- Thanks for your interest,
-
- See, eg. w:Action research
-
- Cormaggio, regarding my reaction to you. Most of my reaction was to the idiotic process utilized in getting a Wikiversity project started and irritation at being labeled in the past by Larry Sanger as a troll at Wikipedia. This lead to some interesting private email from Jimmy Wales and various Bomis employees that resulted in my being largely persona non grata in any meaningful project management, system administration, site/system design, or entrepreneurial style role. I think this was intentional as other potential volunteers were actively discouraged from contributing legal expertise, etc. I expressed interest in a Wikiversity style project on the mailing long ago and maveric149 also championed it for a while. He may have been the instigator of purchasing the URL. wikiversity.org. I can find the email in the public archives of the mailing list where I first expressed support for a wikiversity style project if you are interested or it has any bearing on your research. I watched Robert's efforts with some interest and serious disappointment in the travesty of a response he recieved from the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. At several points I was near irritated enough to consider setting up an Oregon based Foundation to fork/establish wikiversity before sanity returned. In my view, it is clear evidence of the failure of American institutions ranging from University to Government departments that a Wikiversity style project has not been already long established to meet their publicly stated goals. A new fork would have three to five years building credibility which is already available from Wikipedia. Likely in that time someone better funded or farther along the initial startup/credibility curve would have setup a Wikiversity elsewhere. It would be a farce to have to go that route, not to mention an immense duplication of effort that all the people interested locally in Wikiversity have already spent building the Wikimedia Foundation projects usefulness and credibility. Please accept my apologies if you felt my built up frustration, irritation, hostility to the ridiculous self serving activities of Jimbo and his foundation were aimed at you personally. I did feel that you had potentially put yourself in an untenuous situation, possibly due to inexperience with project management, but I hope you recall that I gave you some good advice to approach some people previously involved with attempting to activate the project and get their perspective. Congratulations on your success. It was achieved, in my view, against the odds and intentional sabotage from the Board. Very rare achievement and you and your associates on the committee should be well pleased with the fruit of your labors. Sincerely. User:lazyquasar 09:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding specific questions. No I was not disappointed to be asked to be on the committee, I thought I had made it pretty clear I was persona non grata with the Board so the only appropriate role I could play was that of an outsider or "troll" willing to ask pointed questions where appropriate.
I do not think I would have reacted much different in the debates if I had felt more involved. The entire process was the committee was established was largely a waste of calender time. The Wikiversity community will have to debate and buy into useful policy before the project becomes huge and successful. In my view, the committee was a stalling tactic from the Board hoping the project would go away. To support this I was at Wikipedia when the article count was 41,000 crummy stubs and maybe 2,000 high quality reliable articles. The community was small and still developing what worked, what the community would buy into or take from an owner, and cruising at lightspeed. Things were tried quickly and modified or tossed. Innovation and energetic cooperation/collaboration were largely unhampered by single points of failre. Wikiversity could have used to same process in its early days, instead we have been shifted to more bureaucratic model with top down design and permissions required to proceed. This at the same time the Board insists on NO COURSES. Bureaucratic projects and organizations need traditional known processes to do anything! I do think Wikiversity will throw off unsuitable constraints, particularly peoples urges to tell others what they cannot do, but it will take a lot time, participation, and wasted efforts that could have been avoided simply by setting up the initial wiki at the final URL and allowing a community to form and learn how to self govern. That is what we will be doing for the next six months to two years and we could have started two years ago. See you around Wikiversity. User:lazyquasar 09:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your answers, Michael. I'll, of course, be working with you on Wikiversity, and I hope to work on the points you raise - both on a personal and an organisational level. I'll be in touch.. Cormaggio @ 09:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Cormaggio, do you think that it could be a good idea to write your own dissertation as a wiki? I keep thinking about this excellent project of yours as something that could gain an extra level of complexity if the writing process is in itself participatory. Instead of separating research from writing you can make the writing process another part of the research by working directly on wikiversity. Am I making any sense?Aldenis 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely - plenty of sense :-). This is one thing I want to explore with my PhD - I had wanted to make the dissertation more participatory during my MSc but didn't manage this sufficiently well - something I am reflecting on in the dissertation itself. I really appreciate the question - and it's one I'd like to go through more ideas on with people like yourself - it's just that, unfortunately, time is tight right at this minute - my dissertation is due in two days.. :-0 Cormaggio @ 09:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not to worry, we will talk later. Good luck. Aldenis 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
