Talk:Requests for comment/Improve Wikiversity

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Section II[edit]

I agree English Wikiversity needs to undergo an overhaul to organize works better. I think Keep It Simple is the way to achieve this. I have proposed changes twice thus far Namespace reform 2009 and School and Topic merger 2010. I believe Wikiversity:Browse shows an overlap in many ways that makes the organizational model confusing. I think this change is a key step in improving the navigation of Wikiversity and collaboration among like-minded individuals. --darklama 21:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section I[edit]

I must respectfully disagree with the idea that rich media is only compatible with Wikiversity's goals and that it would serve as a useful distinction between Wikiversity and Wikibooks. A print version can simply leave those out, with no need to discard the potential provided by the wiki format's capabilities. The presence of sound files, videos, and animations is not going to help clarify Wikiversity's mission any better than its mission statement. -- Adrignola 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand, and I don't think that there should that many media files removed from Wikibooks, but I do feel like this difference in formatting is important. If I can give an analogy within the sister projects, it would be that we could simply vanquish all of Wiktionary by including a few lines of text into its equivalent Wikipedia article. It would likely be viewed more and would be more centralized. The reason this isn't done is because we are adhering to pre-defined formats of traditional educational methodology; whereas an encyclopedia will include facts etc, it will not include grammar.
The hardest thing about this argument, is that we are using a non-traditional medium to build traditional projects for education. Who says a book.. on the internet.. can't have videos? It's really a tough call, but I do believe that separation, in the long run will have a positive effect on our projects. If this isn't done, what is stopping us from unifying all projects into one where you could, on a single page have all quotes, how-to's, history and media? It's an extreme, but I believe that's why we should have different formats, and thus goals, for different projects. - Theornamentalist 04:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WB:NOTPAPER. Using media as a means of distinguishing Wikiversity from Wikibooks is not the way to go. Like you said yourself, this isn't a traditional medium, books can use video. I can understand how someone new to Wikiversity could be confused by some courses use of subpages. Within Wikiversity quotes, how-tos, history and media can collide on a single page, maybe that is one way Wikiversity's format differs from other projects. Books at Wikibooks sometimes include definitions and a glossary of terms because books are expected to contain everything that is needed to learn the subject. Wikiversity course material can require that the learner refer to other works to learn more which can be another way Wikiversity's format differs from Wikibooks. I like to think of Wikiversity's format as being a happy medium between Wikipedia and Wikibooks. --darklama 11:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nothing wrong with overlapping with other wikimedia projects ; wikiversity is for learning communities[edit]

Wikiversity is meant to complement other wikimedia projects and our focus is on building learning communities. In that process it is inevitable that there will be overlapping of contents with almost all other wikimedia projects. For example, the learning group for studying a text or a theory would need to bring some of the learning material in. Hillgentleman 08:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not mean overlapping other content from other projects, I meant within the same project, namely Wikiversity, which I think isn't a big issue now simply because there is not enough content to do so. Wikibooks has that issue now, and although its not completely debilitating, I find it kind of annoying and pointless.
For example, the learning group for studying a text or a theory would need to bring some of the learning material in.
I agree with you, I think nothing would be better than to take a Wikiversity class and have a Wikibook compliment it. - Theornamentalist 11:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikibooks may have more than one book on a subject, but the idea there is that works should have a unique target audience, scope, and style to it. Wikiversity participants may be students in a real school. Real schools can have a curriculum that is unique to that school. Right now at least Wikiversity seems willing to cater to the needs of each school which means creating multitude of curriculum that can be useful for each school. That may be a bit extreme in terms of how much duplication could result. What both projects seem to realize is that no one work on a subject can satisfy the educational needs of everyone. I think that is a good realization. I think Wikibooks has more or less found the right balance. Wikiversity may still be in the process of learning what the right balance is for itself. --darklama 12:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Currently Wikiversity is so disorganized, it's embarrassing. "[edit]

re:Currently Wikiversity is so disorganized, it's embarrassing. ... ie: I want to start learning about Child Psychology, and within a click or two, it would suggest that in order to fufill my 'Wikidegree' I should enroll in Psych 101, Sociology 101, Statistics 101 etc... This should not be how it is ONLY organized, but I am too used to Wikipedia!

Somehow a lot of educators have been using Wikiversity without much hindrance. I think you are expecting too much - Wikiversity is a small site which is still being built up. Do you expect Wikiversity to be able to teach you every "academic" subject? That in itself is already a bigger task than building Wikipedia. Course materials are everywhere in the internet, and if you want to learn something with someone across the ocean, we can provide a place for you. That's for sure. That's called "v:Wikiversity:Learning by doing".

Moreover, from the onset, Wikiversitians decided not to be constrained by the traditional "brick and mortar" educational models. We believe that online education need not replicate what we do in meat-space. We discouraged course titles like "psychology 101" in favour of descriptive titles like "introductory psychology" or "psychology for high school students".

If you have problems navigating, I suggest you go through the category system. A lot of work has been done on that, and there are dynamic pagelists associated to these categories to help everyone browse by various paths, such as content or education level. Hillgentleman 08:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a lot of educators have been using Wikiversity
Where have you gotten this information? Maybe a few, maybe even a dozen use it, and although a lot isn't a numeric value, somehow I don't think this fits well.
I do not currently expect Wikiversity to teach me everything, but so far, it hasn't taught much of anything. I understand that Wikiversity can be used as an area for research between 2 people, I wasn't addressing that part of it. I think that the archaic ways or organizing classes (and I say archaic jokingly) is very helpful for students and would be helpful for editors and contributors. I've browsed through the various paths of Wikiversity and as a moderately experienced wiki-user, I still feel lost. I can't imagine what it would be like for someone who does not contribute, but rather just jumps to the site through Wikipedia and searches. I can't imagine them spending much time on Wikiversity.
darklama has made some excellent points in his pages regarding browsing: Namespace reform 2009 and School and Topic merger 2010
I didn't mean to offend you, or anyone for that matter about the issues I see with it. I simply want to see it improved, and most important, not removed. I think you cannot deny that there must be core problems, not just trolling, that have prompted the closure of Wikiversity.
I am talking about those who actually use wikiversity in their teaching or learning rather than just browse through it. See, for example, betawikiversity:brick and mortar collaboration betawikiversity:category:ET,betawikiversity:category:RO, Elliott's film course, James Neill's teaching, and other university collaboration groups. Usually these people have experienced very little problems except perhaps the initial wiki-editing learning curve. Frankly, wikiversity is not structured to be a place where you can sit back and relax and passively take in information like wikipedia where you can type in a topic and then browse. To learn in Wikiversity requires continued participation. The reason is simple: that's because the people who started it thought that way. Of course we can always add new resources and new learning paths - I guess that is what you want-, but that would need a lot of hard work - from people like you :-)(on the other hand, I do agree that the current navigational paths need repair.). Hillgentleman 12:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I just have a different idea of what Wikiversity should be, not necessarily right, of course. I think it would be highest functioning and user friendly if it was more of a place to sit back and in an orderly and informationally progressive manner learn about a particular subject, instead of the one-time meetup lessons it has, which I look back on some of these featured projects and think "damn, wish I was around for that". If more content was created as being usable without a professor or mentor as a necessity, and are paced, I think it would draw more people in, as it can be read over by anyone anytime.
It could also have these type of research projects, or one time things (as some projects might only work correctly if done so) but these should be placed in something entirely different within Wikiversity, as I think of these things in comparison to a real university; where 98% of the students just want to attend class and the remainder work with eachother to gain a better understanding or insight of the material they study, or with a professor on a specific point of academic interest. - Theornamentalist 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re: "damn, wish I was around for that" - A wiki is a in continued progression. The material, platform and resources are all out there and if you want to actively learn something, just jump in and do it. We need more active participants, sure, and that why I said what I said. Don't wait for others to do it for you. Learn by doing it yourself. Hillgentleman 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]