From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How do you vote[edit]

My user names in red, what can I do about that, will it discount my vote?

Click on your user name, and you will be brought to your user page. Edit the page so it has a link to your user page on whatever wiki you edit most- wikipedia, wikibooks, wiktionary, etc. Look at mym user page for an example. --Gabe Sechan 11:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Umm, I unfortunately edit your user page instead of your talk page when trying to send you more detailed instructions. The fact that your name is no longer red does not mean that it is now valid- you still need the link. Sorry about that.--Gabe Sechan 12:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Validity of voting process[edit]

Is it just my immagination or are some of the votes crossed out valid users? Further, I suspect the rules are being applied more leniently to the no votes.

It depends on who did the checking. Some people seem to be absolutely fair, some seem to be very strict on the pro votes. Thats ok, it'll be that much sweeter when we win anyway :)
Seriously, I have noticed it, and I'm double checking all the yes votes daily to see if any invalidated vote was really valid or should be re-validated (due to fixing their links). I check the no votes as well, but less often. Its begining to feel a bit like a U.S. election- two polarized camps each making sure the other doesn't cheat. I think the wiki nature will keep things working though, if you see something that looks odd, investigate it and report it or fix it. --Gabe Sechan 16:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

6 months pilot seems too long[edit]

I suggest a shorter pilot period, maybe 2 months. I know that it's difficult to make a decision about new languages after that amount of time, but it seems unfair to give English and German preferential treatment for 6 months. I also believe that it will probably be very difficult in practice to shut down a running project after 6 months, whereas it might still be possible after 2.--Eloquence 01:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikiversity should be given a chance, but I agree 6mo is a little long. 3-4 should be enough to see if there is a chance for it to work shouldn't it. Also, the voting question is a bit biased. The entire page talks about voting to see if the project should be given a chance, then the question asks if you want to participate. Not everyone that thinks it is a good idea will want to or be able to participate. That question combined with the requiring a supermajority before a pilot project is even allowed seems a bit like there are people that don't want to give this a chance. Maybe that's just me. I don't happen to think it will take off, but giving it a chance seems like a good idea. - Taxman 02:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My vote didn't register[edit]

I recently cast my vote but it is not showing up on the page, Did I make a mistake somehow? --Robert Harrison 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind --Robert Harrison 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Transclusions are cached so the vote will only show after some time - or after an edit or purge of the main page.

oppose the vote - from my undestanding of the reading I've managed to do..[edit]

I oppose this vote. It seems we can only vote yes or no. Call it "Wikiversity" and I think I have to vote no.

  • a University should be defined by ability to meet standards / outside examiners. This isn't yet possible.
  • a University should be at a high level; more basic learning is also worthwhile.
  • a common criticism of wikipedia is that we don't undestand institutional learning, this title opens that accusation wide open.

But at the same time, I think the idea of tutored learning should be supported if there are people willing to tutor, and developing course materials, apart from books, is an excellent idea. I refuse to vote for the material to be deleted, which seems to me to mean I have to vote yes..

I vote for renaming the project "Wikilearn" which has less baggage, is more open to different forms of learning, but at the same time less open to misinterpretation. Wikiversity can be "founded" once there's a serious belief we know what it would mean and might achieve it. Mozzerati 21:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you European or Canadian by any chance? I think this is caused by a confusion of what the term University means to different cultures. I have recently recieved an education in this from outside conversation. From what I've been told, in Canada and Europe, University means a top school. Anything else is a college, and saying you're in college or going to college is admitting you're going somewhere second rate.
In the US, university and college are used interchangably, and mean any type of post secondary school. A lot of vocational schools use both terms as well. What other nations term as college is in the US deemed a "Community College" and is always prefaced with the community part (unless someone is trying to hide the fact, and just says college). It seems to be an unfortunate case of culture clash, and seems to be costing us some nays from people who want us to be an accredited learning institute.
I don't particularly care what the name is, but the current name has a lot of momentum. Changing it at this point might cause a lot of confusion. I'm not sure it can be done. --Gabe Sechan 22:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As a general description in North American academics, a University is a collection of two or more schools or colleges, and engages in research. Colleges and schools may or may not engage in research, and "teaching colleges" do not engage in research. - Amgine 00:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Reply to Mozzerati. The term "university" can be traced back to the practice of groups of scholars banding together as a community to provide students with higher education. The wikiversity proposal calls for a similar community effort that will exist in wiki format. The proposal need not and does not include "meet standards / outside examiners". The wikiversity community will define its own standards as did the original universities in Paris, Bologna and Oxford. No existing conventional university can offer advice on what education methods will work in a wiki enviroment and what standards are applicable. Nobody argues against the idea that "more basic learning is also worthwhile". However, that is not part of the proposal. The current proposal requires students who will take responsibility for their own learning as full collaborators with instructors (facilitators). In my view, the wiki interface rules out most young students and "basic learning". It makes sense to focus on advanced students who will be willing to make the serious effort required to advance their personal learning goals in an open and distributed learning environment. --JWSurf 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I fear it is necessary though to make a poll on the name we should give this project. If the name must be fixed (understand changed), it is now we can do it, not in 2 years. I intend to propose such a thing in the coming weeks. Currently, many editors are opposed to it, there might be no better solution, but best to talk about it rather than ignore it. Anthere

Why are vote order numbers changing?[edit]

I voted and now note that the position number that I voted has changed. What is going on? I voted at "For" position 47 and now I'm at 49. - 14:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC) - sorry I forgot to log in - Bobwinmill 14:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people add themselves to the top of the list. --JWSurf 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Problem identified and patched, not fixed. - Bobwinmill 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

More servers[edit]

I've been trying from multiple computers, and the response time on many of the wiki pages is pretty slow. Wikipedia always loads quickly, but wikibooks always lags, and wikispecies is almost impossible to browse because of lag and timeouts. I can't imagine voting to add a new domain when the hardware can't even support what we already have. -- 19:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a non-issue. People are going to add content and there is going to be an increase in general internet demand for content regardless of how many domains and wiki groups there will be. Certainly there is going to be an initial burst of demand due to the fact that the project is brand new, but that is really quite minor compared to most other projects. Also, because this isn't going to be the "main-line" Wikipedia, it is not going to be pounded on as much as if it were a bunch of new pages on Wikipedia, for instance. Technically, the point is irrelavant in that regard. All project come off from the same server farm anyway, so it doesn't matter what project you are talking about.
If you are suggesting that Wikipedia is somehow better than the other servers, it may be due to your local ISP that has done some caching of content better for Wikipedia due to the high demand as opposed to the other sister projects that aren't as "popular" in terms of content. You can't tell me that editing Wikipedia is any better than trying to edit Wikibooks or Wikispecies. It is all the same thing with the same software and even the same equipment. If anything, Wikipedia is going to be somewhat slower due to the much larger database that it has to navigate than a brand new project like Wikiversity. There are no technical limitation to Wikiversity at all.
There are, arguably, some social issues that need to be discussed and debated. Are there going to be enough people that will participate to make this project work (as opposed to Wikispecies, for instance)? Are vandals going to be effectively stopped and enough "policing" of the content to make this project worth its time? Will actual classes be started or is this going to be more talk and discussion about how to start classes and organize "departments"?
Go ahead, argue those points, but the technical aspects are more to the point either this project is going to work or all of the Wikimedia projects are going down in flames from network overload. In truth, all this is going to do is bring more people to the table that can help pay for the servers. If you are concerned about having the hardware being able to support the content that is current on-line, then stop contributing on any Wikimedia project, including here, or donate money to the foundation, or help make more efficient algorithms for the MediaWiki software that is running everything. Both will make huge differences in general, not complaining about starting a new project. Adding more content to any Wikimedia project is just going to increase demand to read what you have contributed. --Roberth 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Invalid votes[edit]

A quick check shows that about half the votes are not valid - the user page is a red link - this is against voting rule 2 - I think we should strike them out.

It makes sense to trace the past editing activity of people who vote. However, many people who are interested in wikiversity are students and they may not edit wikis. They might simply use wikis as learning tools. I suggest that the validity of each vote cannot be determined until voting closes. Some people may return between now and the end of the voting period and provide the missing link that the rules require. I suggest that a flashing warning message be placed on the voting pages explaining the purpose of voters providing a link to the wiki they edit most. There should also be an option besides voting for people who do not edit wikis but who would like to comment on the wikiversity proposal. --JWSurf 15:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
As you see I have started to strike the invalid votes out. That way they are not lost and the owner can easily correct the problem. It is also a clear warning to new voters that there are rules to be obeyed. Currently it's the invalid votes which will decide - there are far more invalid yes votes. I find that telling: An invalid vote means that the voter hasn't read the text properly. --Krischik 08:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think its telling. There's far more yes votes period, I'd expect more invalids to be yes votes. Its slightly out of proportion, but not by all that much. Just based on the general ratio, you'd expect 3 invalid yes votes per invalid no vote.--Gabe Sechan 16:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
But under rule #4 "yes" needs a 2/3 mayority. --Krischik 08:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
True, but unless the yeses have a higher ratio (not number) of invalid votes, it won't effect the final result. Since there's currently at least 3 yeses per no in the total count, I'd expect to see about 3 invalid yes votes per invalid no vote just by math. --Gabe Sechan 16:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
But that's the point: the yes have indeed higher ratio - prehaps because yes voters are more likely not to have read the proposal propperly? With the strikeout the current result is 139/65 - Well, yes is still ahead but not with that overwelming mayority any more - just 9 votes more then needed for a 2/3 mayority. So I was not that far off with my estimate. --Krischik 06:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note that if you are going to invalidate "yes" votes, the same standard should apply to "no" votes as well. Just be consistant. If there is anybody who wants to be an "independent" observer of the vote, please state so, and note who is doing what for the votes. Keep the process open and don't just try to grind the axe based on your person persuation of how you think the vote for this should go. Clearly this isn't going to go to the 90% popularity rule, as there are just too many people voting altogether and some opposition to this project going forward. If you are going to invalidate a vote, make sure you mention that the vote has been invalidated on the user's talk page (as applicable). We still have about 3 weeks left of this election, so they will definitely kvote if it wasn't valid in the first place... one way or the other. --Roberth 20:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Shure and I did strike out some "no"s as well. I just work top down and there are so many of them. --Krischik 08:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I think some of the invalidations are overly picky. First off, If they sign with a wikipedia, wikibooks, etc user name, that ought to be valid. By using that name, they're telling us what their most commonly edited project is- why else would they use that user page?
All Wikibooks and Wikipedia signs have bee informed on there talk page and most of them have fixed the little mishap - without much argument. It's not that I don't want there votes. --Krischik 08:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition, there's user pages like this: User:Destrogal and User:Canaen who say what wiki books/wikipedia articles they've written or link to another wiki's user page. Well if they're working on that book/article, that tells us what site they're editing, aren't they? If they have a link to a user page elsewhere, thats their main user page, isn't it?
These votes should all be validated. Especially case 2, which is following the letter of the law as well as the spirit. They do have a link, it doesn't need to be spelled out as "this is my link for the wikiversity vote".--Gabe Sechan 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes shure - never touched them anyway. Besides: maybe wikimedia is there main contribution. Who knows. That's why I strike out only red links for now. --Krischik 08:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

To whoever excluded my vote, thank you for following procedure. To the same person, all thanks retracted for having struck out the comment itself. Davilla 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone is removing valid votes[edit]

I voted on day 1 for this project- I was in the first 5 votes. I have a link in my user page to wikibooks. My name is no longer even on the voting page. Is there any way we can find out who is doing this and stop them? --Gabe Sechan 16:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Poked around and found out what happened- an anonymous user (IP address) deleted some 44 valid ayes and a lot of no links in the baragain. I've restored them. I don't qualify as a neutral party (being very heavily for the project), but I hearby appoint myself to look for problems like this in the future, and to ensure noone is changing a vote not their own. I don't think either side wants this to degrade into an argument about the vote itself rather than the content of the project. At some point today I'll try to go through the ayes and the nays for similar deletions in the past.--Gabe Sechan 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Some semi-random thoughts since I can't vote[edit]

I very much like the concept but it needs to be thought out more carefully. I think Wikiversity is an unhelpful name - Wikilearn or similar might be better. Too many people get hung up on the 'virtual university' idea and miss the point of an open, accessible resource slanted towards learning. Wikilearning is (to my mind) more about knowledge than certification - very much in tune with the values of the wider open source community. It would be useful to have a Wikispinoff for learning and it seems likely that such a project would draw more people into the existing projects, rather than drain from them. The potential to involve teachers and schools is exciting and would bring fresh minds into the Wikimedia projects as a whole. Wikipedia is useful for learning but is geared to reference use. Wikibooks are very relevant to the goal of education but don't have the scope of a broader 'learning' remit. I think the level of knowledge suggested by 'Wikiversity' is unhelpful and likely to put off users at a lower level. Without a firm foundation in the basics of a subject, 'university' level information is rather meaningless. Wikiteach is an alternative to Wikilearn but too didactic - the wiki model is fundamentally leaderless and the traditional teacher-pupil paradigm does not fit that well. There is a danger of sprawl and fragmentation. It seems best to keep the project focused on practical knowledge at first. Language learning seems a key area that this could work in and which would be beneficial. Wikibooks are starting to produce useful technical texts which can be used to teach technical skills and applied sciences. Thereafter, Wikipedia provides an increasingly useful resource to use as a basis for more academic courses. My feeling is that the project should be spun off as a 'beta', with its current limitations acknowledged and funding/publicity/development efforts kept correspondingly low. I am sure it will eventually flourish. 10:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

shure you can vote[edit]

There is no lower limit on how many edits you need before you can vote. So as soon as you set up a userpage and paced a link to meta on it (as the needed link to the most edited wiki project - which is your userpage - on meta ;-) ) you can vote.

--Krischik 13:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

well yes, technically[edit]

I could vote. But I don't have a user page and have no real desire to set one up. If I felt strongly enough about things, I guess I would. As it is, I am voluntarily disenfranchised. As is a big chunk of the population across the democratic world. Apathy is a

Oh yeah, and another thing.... why is there no Wikiversity portal at Wikipedia? It would seem pretty much a given first step to drawing together the information held there into something useful to Wikiversity? 08:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no Wikiversity Portal at Wikipedia because the "portal" is on Wikibooks, and organizational content is on Meta (here). Adding Wikipedia to the mix just dillutes the whole effort and breaks up the community even more than the Meta/Wikibooks dual project pages. What additional information do you think could come from having something on Wikipedia? An entry on Wikipedia about Wikiversity is worthwhile, IMHO, even if Wikiversity goes down in flames and is voted down. Indeed, I'm going to head over and get that up to a reasonable standard, as the current Wikipedia article is very poorly written. A very good article on Wikiversity can be found at as an example of what Wikipedia ought to have for its article.

Inconsistencies and such[edit]

I would like to request to those who decide the the results of the vote to look carefully at the voting page in order to ensure that all votes are recorded according to the customs of the foundation and rules outlined at the top of the page. I have personally reviewed the part of the list of FOR votes (down to # 100 or so) and have found the following inconsistencies:

  • User:MMSequeira (# 52 now second bullet after # 51) does not have a link to most edited wiki. (ammended)
  • User:Martin.Wiki (# 62 now one bullet after # 60) vote has been striked but is still in the numbered list. (ammended)
  • User:Destrogal vote was striked even though he was signed in and later added a user page pointing to wiki of preference. Futher research shows that he voted twice (# 61 and first bullet after #74). No harm, no foul... I suppose (changed reason on striked vote to "voted twice")
  • User:Masterhomer (# 94) vote was not striked but there is no link to most active wiki, though a search at en:wikipedia yeilded a user of the same handle. (no change made)

I have ammended the voting page as I understood the rules, however, I did not check the entire list and other inconsistencies might exist. If I am in error I apologize.

--Robert Harrison 06:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

November 1st[edit]

Well, its November 1st. And I think its past 0:00 UTC. A quick estimate of the vote (subtracting red links from the count, but otherwise not doing nit picking stuff) shows the vote carried by a measure of 206:87, or 70.3% support. So, who makes this official? --Gabe Sechan 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As I understand the chatter on the mailing list, a Board representative has acknowledged the end of the voting period and is placing it (Wikiversity) on the agenda for the next meeting. --Robert Harrison 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It strikes me that the best way to go about this from this point might be if the board approved the founding of this project on the condition that more definite policies are written and goals straightened out before a beta version is launched. I've always liked the idea of Wikiversity, but this does need some further planning or it is going to be an almighty flop. Ambi 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Request voting extention[edit]

I strongly suggest that the vote be extended, and that the vote's existence be mentioned on both the front page and the Recent Changes page of every language's Wikipedia. This is big, and all users should know about this. DS 00:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

THis vote has been advertised and going on for 6 weeks. That seems like it should be a more than sufficient time to hold the vote. --Gabe Sechan 00:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the second statement. We've had this vote for enough time. It should have a yes/no vote now. (Voting should have been over 1 hour ago) Preliminary Results show that 71% of all voters agree with starting Wikiversity. 67% is needed to be looked over by the board. 12:55 UTC, 2 November 2005

(The above text was moved from the content page.) I believe that the outcome would not change significantly to warrant an extention. Any additional thoughts? --Robert Harrison 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I move that we delay submitting the proposal to the board until we can agree on the content of the proposal. In particular, we should define the minimum requirements of something purporting itself to be a university (if indirectly) and how we propose to meet those requirements. Certification should be addressed. It is argued that the only major difference between a bunch of online textbooks and an online university is one of certification. --Zephram Stark 19:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


Unless a student plans on always working for himself, knowledge of a discipline won't do him any good without proof that he has that knowledge and can put it to good use. In my opinion, proof should not come from the "good name" of the school, but from some objective measure.

The classes that I have taught for the last twenty years are centered around achieving a quantifiable goal of some practical knowledge upon completion. The level of knowledge, speed and skill is then demonstrated through third-party testing, available to anyone, whether they take the course or not, to generate an unbiased comparison of the student's abilities compared with those of people working in the industry or graduating from other schools. Taking a particular class from a particular school is largely irrelevant to whether or not a student is qualified to do the job. Hence, certification of a particular level of competency should not be tied to a school or a course, but to a demonstrable skill level in an unbiased environment. --Zephram Stark 19:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Testing by Employers[edit]

The instructor developing the course could also create a testing method that could be used independently. One way to keep Certification free and unbiased is to have a potential employer sponsor the testing. An established firm that would like to hire a person based on a certified skill level could offer to conduct the testing for that area in order to draw in potential employees and to verify their expertise. A representative of the established firm would submit a request to the Wikiversity Testing Department for a standardized exam and procedures bundle (available online by password). The representative would sign a non-disclosure form and a promissory agreement to make the names, log-ins, and scores of those desiring certification available to the Testing Department after exams are finished. Those demonstrating a particular skill level in the exam would have a certification thumbnail placed on their user:page that leads to a printable version when clicked. The graphic would include a disclaimer with the name of the established firm that conducted the physical testing. --Zephram Stark 20:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)