Talk:Wikiversity (overview)

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

This page has been moved to Wikiversity
Please do not make any changes or additions to this page.
You can read, edit and discuss the most up-to-date version at v:Talk:Wikiversity (overview).

Wikiversity logo

Moved from Wikiversity (overview) introduction (Red=Jdforrester, Green=Cormaggio)

Have toned this down to "proposed", and slightly tweaked the wording to match and make it more easily flow.
Yes, but I think you've watered it down unnecessarily. It is a project (well, sub-project) of the Foundation and it will serve as a resource of learning. I thought this was meant to be a kind of "sales pitch" anyway..
It's a Wikiproject of a Foundation project; it's not a sub-project of the Foundation, and certainly not a project of the Foundation... yet. Yes, this is a "sales pitch", but I thought that we're meant to be selling the potential of the project, not as an already-running one (which would be bending the truth rather). By pointing out how early we are with this, we can stress how much of an influence this document's readers can have... I dunno.

How was this determined?[edit]

"Some project members hope it will eventually become a fully-fledged e-learning resource, but the wider community is as yet undecided on how this will be managed or whether it should exist."

It strikes me as bullshit but if true then the time for a fork may already be upon us. Who is the "wider community" considering that a solid two thirds of 300 votes supported the activation of the Wikiversity project six months ago? What is a "fully fledged e-learning resource?" User:lazyquasar 11:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section needs substantial rework.[edit]

"How would it work?

Wikiversity would work alongside the other Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia is already the world's biggest encyclopædia and aims to be the world's best. Large learning communities have formed in the larger projects (like English, French, German, Japanese) and these are all engaged in the production of resources which are free to be used in a variety of ways. Wikiversity would be similar, both in consisting of and being based around a learning community of people interested in education, and also in working to complement Wikimedia projects for students and teachers to develop articles for Wikipedia, books for Wikibooks, media files for Wikimedia Commons, and so on. In this sense, teachers and students would be engaged collectively in a learning process, developed according to their own needs and interests."

Wikiversity as proposed intially was not biased towards existing educators and students. It was intended to be a resource created, maintained and used by people interested in self education across the internet and digitial divide.

The above panders to existing educational professionals and processes. Non of whom really benefit should Wikiversity succeed in adding a revolutionary process .... student to student information flows. The existing tightly held educational system is not necessarily going to welcome internet revolutions in their area of expertise and practice and biasing the initial Wikiversity towards this population may not provide sufficient diverse participation to succeed. 11:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This paragraph isn't meant to suggest that Wikiversity is completely biased towards existing educators and students, but it will be focused on educational materials and, probably, projects. Self-education will be key to this (and it should be stressed). But I absolutely disagree that Wikiversity will not benefit existing educational professionals - what about resource-hungry teachers? What about someone looking for a collaborative space in which to encourage their students to work? We're certainly not going to make their jobs or institutions redundant, or, at least, not overnight ;-) Cormaggio @ 14:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section should be deleted. AFAIK no one really knows yet how a wikiversity will work beyond the clear fact that people can exchange, organize, validate and update information in a wiki. Clearly educational processes can be evolved for this medium. If you want to keep this section then you should discuss specific details with the people leading specific efforts regarding what is actually working and what is not currently yet working. I suspect you will find nobody has adequate participation yet to cite specifics with the possible exception of MFinny, who is following a rather specific training methodology pioneered by the U.S. military and used extensively througout U.S. trade and industry .... if I understand correctly, Wikiversity for his fire school is currently a publishing platform, not yet a revolutionary means of using wiki to exchange or develop information and learning resources. It will be instructive to see how wiki influences his fire school but I suspect it is too early to identify trends. We may find that some traditional approaches work so well as is that in some instruction delivered at Wikiversity: the only innovation the use of public internet wikis brings is convenient cost effective worldwide participation. The proposal sent to the Board for authorization to initialize the Wikiversity project should be concise, accurate, and generic. Not filled with a lot of speculation or sales spin that can later be misconstrued as Board approved Wikiversity policy or intent. Time enough to evolve specific Wikiversity policy or marketing efforts towards specific demographics after we have some participants actually prototyping effective methods under documented Wikimedia Foundation policy and approval. User:lazyquasar 01:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really think you are taking the idea that we are specifying exactly how Wikiversity is going to work too far. All we need to do is to put together a proposal that answers the kind of questions that people will have. Asking what Wikiversity is and how it will work are completely valid questions, and they have been asked, repeatedly. We need to answer them. But I fully agree that we should be generic, as well as accurate and concise. Cormaggio @ 07:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]