|
<div class="borderc6 backgroundc2" style="border-style:solid;border-width:medium;padding:0.3em 0.5em;color:lightgrey">
== Gut reaction to the page ==
<div align="center">{{Welcome/lang}}</div>
This is just a gut reaction to this page. What I think we need is not for another load of links and previous discussions in all their complexity, but a clear set of numbered things we propose to do ''now'' (with a set of options for the future), along with preferably a few examples of the kind of thing we would be doing, ie learning resources/courses, finding sources wikiproject for Wikipedia. In other words, what is realistic, what should the scope be at the beginning and what would be a natural progression of these endeavours. I think this last point is important because if we put a cap on courses altogether, it seems a lot of the motivation and potential would be wasted.
== Welcome to Meta! ==
<!--{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>void|{{error:not substituted|welcome}}}}-->
My suggested starter objects are:
<div class="lang-en" lang="en" style="color:black">
*To create and host a range of learning resources for educational courses, for all agegroups in all languages. (Maybe refine types of courses?)
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. Welcome to the '''Wikimedia [[Meta:About Meta|Meta-Wiki]]'''! This website is for coordinating and discussing all [[Complete list of Wikimedia projects|Wikimedia projects]]. You may find it useful to read our [[Meta:Policy|policy page]]. If you are interested in doing translations, visit [[Meta:Babylon]]. You can also leave a note on [[Meta:Babel]] or [[Wikimedia Forum]] if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
*To form projects to interface with, (ie develop) existing Wikimedia projects, eg. Sources project for Wikipedia
</div>
*To host and foster research based on existing resources in Wikiversity and other Wikimedia projects (such as Wikibooks)
These will need a bit of work, but basically, we need to make this not just understandable, but really envisionable for Wikimedians ''right now''. [[User:Cormaggio|Cormaggio]] [[User talk:Cormaggio|<sup><small>@</small></sup>]] 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
: Let me start with what I think should be in the Wikiversity and not at Wikibooks:
:* Reading Groups, especially for textbooks and/or wikibooks. Example: http://www.ibiblio.org/taocprg/
:* Forums and lessons on standard classes, especially AP classes or SAT prep classes.
:* Students should teach, even if they teach incorrectly. You learn more from what you teach others than what others teach you sorta principle.
:* Research Projects in general. Get a bunch of people trying to answer a single question.
:Well, it is a start. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
----
*I think that we three (Cormaggio, Dragontamer, JWSchmidt) are basically in agreement. Cormaggio, I thought it would be polite to provide a foundation for constructing the required modifications to the Wikiversity proposal. What I put at the top of the [[Wikiversity/Modified project proposal|article]] is meant to be such a foundation. A few folks may join us who will benefit from "another load of links to previous discussions". I agree that we now need to describe how Wikiversity will use the wiki user interface to facilitate learning.
*We must perform a fundamental conceptual transformation by which we shift our thinking away from conventional university courses and towards collaborative wiki editing projects that facilitate learning. The fundamental component of a wiki is the electronic document that can be edited by a community of wiki users. At Wikipedia the fundamental document is an encyclopedia article. At Wikibooks the fundamental document is a textbook module. At Wikinews the fundamental document is a news article. In my view, for Wikiversity the fundamental document will be a research article. Wikiversity participants will identify shared interests and needs and form research collaborations that will address those needs. Those Wikiversity participants with more knowledge and experience that is relevant to a particular research project will act as facilitators and guide less experienced project members towards useful learning activities. Initially, Wikiversity projects and participant activities should be heavily oriented towards the learning needs of participants in existing WikiMedia projects. Existing Wikimedia projects are by far the major existing source of likely Wikiversity participants. In particular, Wikipedia needs help orienting its editors towards
#seeking to become better informed about the Wikipedia articles they edit,
#knowing how to find good sources and references
#being able to function within a wiki community so as to comparatively evaluate the quality of references and sources
#knowing how to write good encyclopedia articles that cite their sources
*Wikiversity participants will learn by active participation in the editing of research project reports. Wikiversity, in performing its initial service role, can strive to make each Wikipedia article be linked to one or more Wikiversity research projects. Wikiversity project documents that are devolted to this service role will evolve towards descriptions of all sources and references that participants identify as relevant to Wikipedia articles. Wikiversity participants will interactively evaluate the relative merits of those sources and references and pass on to Wikipedia the best available sources to serve as references that support the content of Wikipedia articles.
*If Wikiversity starts by providing services to Wikimedia projects it will quickly attract participants. All branches of human knowledge can be applied to improving existing WikiMedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. From a foundation of initial service-oriented research projects, Wikiversity will naturally evolve many subcommunities devoted to the exploration of both conventional academic disciplines as well as exciting new unconventional learning endeavors.
*If there are fundamentally important books or documents that a Wikipedia editor should know in order to edit certain Wikipedia articles, then there should certainly be Wikiversity reading groups that read and discuss and write about those books and documents. It will become possible to identify basic lessons and courses that editors need in order to fully participate in the editing of various WikiMedia project documents, so from its initial service role, Wikiversity will naturally evolve towards including coverage of topics found in conventional academic course work. Various learning resources will have to be developed and made available, including good textbooks. As for any university, some of the scholarly activity of Wikiversity will come to be focused on producing textbooks at Wikibooks. In turn, the Wikipedia articles and Wikibook textbooks will be resources available to be used as learning aids for Wikiversity participants. A positive feedback loop between WikiMedia projects will be established with Wikiversity providing a useful function to promote research projects that benefit various WikiMedia projects. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 05:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
==Confused about part of the request==
I'm confused about part of the request by the board. Specificly "exclude online courses". To me, that pretty much *is* the wikiversity concept. I know several of the people here viewed the core concept as some sort of research club, but I think the vast majority saw it as classes and teaching, and a place to facillitate that and host resources for that goal. Do we know what the board actually meant by that? --[[User:Javariel|Gabe Sechan]] 23:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
===exclude online courses===
I think the Board is seeking a Wikiversity proposal that recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of wiki communities. Yes, it is possible to make conventional online courses using wiki software, but it is not clear that trying to do so is the best way to launch Wikiversity. Conventional course formats do not take advantage of the primary function of wiki software: collaborative authoring of webpages. Also, conventional universities have features such as accreditation, testing, grading and certification that instructors are qualified. These features are not available for Wikiversity.
"some sort of research club" Two different models of learning:
# '''The factory model'''. Students are containers moving along the conveyer belt. Instructors, using "teaching materials" like textbooks pour knowledge into the containers. At the end, test results show that learning took place.
# '''The collaborative learning model'''. Learners and facilitators work together on research projects. Learning is hands-on during the process of exploring a topic of interest. At the end, research project participants have constructed reports and other documents describing what they have discovered.
"host resources" Wikibooks is always going to be the main wiki host for textbook resources and I think Wikisource could hold any other "educational resources" collected/produced such as lesson plans. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 02:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
:Wikisource makes no sense for lesson plans or other resources- wikisource is for existing texts, to the best of my knowledge. As for your "research based learning"- lets say I think you have a very odd and skewed view of teaching and learning. I also think its very unsuitable for the vast majority of people and subjects. If I want to learn physics, I am not going to do a series of research projects on basic mechanics- why waste my time when they've already been discovered, and I just need to find sources? And the vast majority of people haven't the time or the access of resources to do research.
:Are we sure that this is what the Board wants? If it is, I would like to know- because I have no plans to contribute under that kind of a setup. I think I'll be ceasing all contributions until its been made clear. I have other projects that need my time just as much, I'd rather spend it on them than this. I think this method of a wikiversity is doomed to failure at any rate.--[[User:Javariel|Gabe Sechan]] 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
::"I am not going to do a series of research projects on basic mechanics" Nobody would expect you to. Wikiversity is always going to involve people exploring what they are personally most interested in. Initially, the research projects that are likely to attract significant numbers of participant would be literature review projects that would help in fact checking of existing Wikipedia articles and finding good sources that can be cited in those articles. If scholarly communities could become established at Wikiversity, they would naturally move in additional directions such as helping to develop textbooks at Wikibooks. I think if anyone was sure what the Board wants, they would write the required modifications to the Wikiversity proposal. As it stands now, discussion continues. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 19:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I think you misunderstand. I think WIkiversity should be a place where I can go and learn about mechanics (or other more advanced topic), or CS, or math. It seems like your wikiversity is just an organization spot for wikiprojects. WHy bother, just put them on wikiversity with the rest of the wikiprojects. I viewed wikiversity as a palce for non-textbook learning resources on various topics. A place where I could go and learn about physics, or mech engineering, or advanced calculus, etc. I don't see any real vision or goals in wikiversity with courses removed- what you explain is a bunch of guys trying to find sources for wikipedia articles. Somewhat useful to wikipedia editors, but of no use to the rest of the world and not needing a whole new site- wikiprojects already exist to improve classes of articles. What point is there in a new wiki then? I'm honestly trying to understand what you're suggesting here, but I just can't see anything in whats left. --[[User:Javariel|Gabe Sechan]] 22:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
::::I will not try to argue that Wikiversity as it has existed for the past two years was really a "fair test" of the ability of the WikiMedia community to create a functional system for online learning. However, we cannot ignore what has happened during those two years. When Wikibooks started the process of ejecting Wikiversity from Wikibooks, the Wikiversity proposal was slapped together and basically it said, "Our plan is to do more of the same, just give us our own ___domain name." But is it reasonable to expect that the next two years of "more of the same" would look significantly different than the past two years?
::::I think the problem we are confronting here in trying to launch Wikiversity is centered on the need to understand and respect the realities of how online communities grow. We need to learn from the past, from evidence such as the difference between [[w:Nupedia|Nupedia]] and Wikipedia. Nupedia adopted a traditional approach to constructing high quality articles for an encyclopedia: an expert sits down and writes one, gets some feedback, makes the final draft. Wikipedia adopted a non-traditional approach that was oriented around developing high quality articles incrementally. The power of Wikipedia, and why it blew right past Nupedia, is that Wikipedia provided a system in which thousands of people could participating right away -it was an instant community where everyone could contribute in many different ways, each finding a niche. What most members of the community brought to the project was not the time and ability to produce a high quality encyclopedia article, but rather the ability to contribute to a process by which high quality encyclopedia articles would be developed by means of a broadly distributed community of collaborators.
::::What lesson should be learned from the past two years of Wikiversity? I think one lesson is that a university full of thriving conventional university courses does not magically appear in a wiki environment. I think we need to find a development model for Wikiversity that will support the incremental development of a place where eventually you will be able to "go and learn about physics, or mech engineering, or advanced calculus". When Wikiversity launches, what will Wikiversity participants be able to do? Read and edit webpages. That's it. Part of the problem confronting Wikiversity is competition with other wikis. During the past two years, WikiMedia community members have voted with their feet and they have not swarmed to Wikiversity. People have a choice of where to spend their time and most people go to Wikipedia, a few go to Wikibooks. In my view, Wikiversity needs to '''START''' (I'm not saying this is THE goal of Wikiversity, I'm looking for a starting place) by finding a way to shift the slant of the playing field so that members of WikiMedia community have a reason to spend time at Wikiversity. In my view, one way to do that is to provide services to existing WikiMedia projects such as Wikipedia.
::::Wikipedia is struggling with the problem of getting editors to provide good sources for everything that is in Wikipedia. Yes, there are existing efforts ([[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]] | [[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikicite]] | [[Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]]) within Wikipedia to facilitate this. I am suggesting that a starting place for Wikiversity could be to provide an organized system for showing Wikipedia editors how to find sources, archive them, evaluate and compare them and then send editors back to Wikipedia with the ability to [[w:Wikipedia:Cite sources|add the best sources]] available to Wikipedia articles. Wikiversity would provide this service function by creating and being a wiki with a scholarly approach to editing. Wikipedia editors who do not know how to support their contributions to Wikipedia with verifiable sources and who do not know how to constructively participate in a community evaluation of the relative merits of sources could be sent to school at Wikiversity. Even editors who know how to cite sources could make use of an archive of sources that are relevant to a topic. Wikiversity could keep track of every source that has ever been suggested for use at Wikipedia. Someone who starts editing a Wikipedia article should not have to recreate all of the research that has previously been done on that topic by earlier editors. Wikiversity could provide the useful service of archiving sources, archiving discussions and analyses of the relative importance of sources. What would Wikiversity get from providing such services to other existing WikiMedia projects? Wikiversity would get a start, a ready source of participants who would help build Wikiversity as a scholarly wiki. As Wikiversity communities roughly corresponding to various traditional academic disciplines grew from that start, they would naturally develop the elements of Wikiversity away from this initial service function towards broader educational goals.
::::So I am not advocating that the mission of Wikiversity be an "organization spot for wikiprojects." I am suggesting that each Wikipedia article could be linked to a Wikiversity research project that is initially designed to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. That initial orientation of Wikiversity towards "service courses" would provide a source of editors and a starting place for Wikiversity. From that starting place, Wikiversity could evolve towards a general purpose learning environment that we would all like to see. In my view, this is a viable way to grow Wikiversity within the existing realities of the WikiMedia community. If you have another vision for how to make Wikiversity a reality, I'd be happy to hear it.
::::"not needing a whole new site" This is a truism. Everything could we done in one massive wiki. However, I think there are advantages in making wiki communities with different flavors. Wikiversity could have the kind of scholarly standards that are found in universities. Wikiversity could provide the fruits of those standards to other wiki projects through the service function of Wikiversity. From that start (providing services) Wikiversity could grow in more traditional academic directions. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 14:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::This is not the reason the board rejected the proposal. If you want to start a program whereby wikiversity members help find sources for wikipedia articles or teach people how to find sources themselves, you should do that, when wikiversity is launched. That's you're prerogative. You can mention this as a possibility or an "idea" in the proposal but it is not an essential part of hte proposal. All you have to do is answer the questions that they posed. You've already done this by saying that online courses are really just group learning environments. Put that into a new proposal and we've solved one of the problems they had. --[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 01:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
**The board had requested clarification the Wikiversity "concept of e-learning". The original proposal included in its [[Wikiversity#Vision|vision statement]] the idea that Wikiversity participants would learn by "collaboratively writing and researching". Speaking for myself, when the original proposal said that Wikiversity would be a place for taking courses, I thought it was clear that this would not be an attempt to create traditional university courses. Some people still seem to be thinking that Wikiversity has to be about traditional courses, and I think the Board wants clarification on this point. The first priority is probably to make clear that the Wikiversity "model of e-learning" is not a proposal to do what some traditional universities are doing when they put traditional courses online. The functional unit of a Wikiversity is naturally a community of Wikiversity participants with a common learning goal. Groups with common learning goals will work collaboratively on projects that center on educational activities and the editing of Wikiversity pages devoted to the study of topics that are relevant to the group's goal. Having clarified this to the Board, I think Wikiversity will still be in a position that will not be much different from where it was in August. Groups of Wikiversity participants with common interests do not spontaneously materialize and accomplish great things. I think that "give Wikiversity a ___domain name and participants will come" is not a realistic expectation. I think the Board knows that and I think the Board would like to see a plan for how Wikiversity will attract participants and become a viable project. The idea of Wikiversity "service courses" oriented around existing Wikimedia projects is just "a possibility or an idea" of how to efficiently attract participants and launce Wikiversity as a useful Wikimedia project. It is the first idea that I came up with. There are others. For example, Wikiversity could partner with non-traditional schools that are abandoning textbooks and lectures and using internet resources as the learning environment for their students. I think the modified Wikiversity project proposal should include a plan for attracting participants. We need something beyond "build it and they will come". This may not be an essential part of a modified Wikiversity proposal but I think it is essential for a good proposal. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 05:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::'''"Exclude online courses"''': Given the current confusion on this statement, I've written simultaneously to the foundation-l mailing list and the board itself [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-December/005562.html] to clarify the issue. [[User:Cormaggio|Cormaggio]] [[User talk:Cormaggio|<sup><small>@</small></sup>]] 19:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
=== If we call it "Wikiversity" instead of "Wikipedia:WikiProject", does it improve? ===
JWSurf wrote: ''Yes, there are existing efforts ([[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]] | [[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikicite]] | [[Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]]) within Wikipedia to facilitate this. I am suggesting that a starting place for Wikiversity could be to provide an organized system for showing Wikipedia editors how to find sources, archive them, evaluate and compare them and then send editors back to Wikipedia with the ability to [[w:Wikipedia:Cite sources|add the best sources]] available to Wikipedia articles.'' What I understand not is, if these WikiProjects fail to "provide an organized system for" finding sources, et cetera, then why would a wiki called "Wikiversity" succeed?
''Wikiversity would provide this service function by creating and being a wiki with a scholarly approach to editing.'' Does this mean that an encyclopedia (Wikipedia), dictionary ([[Wiktionary:Main Page|Wiktionary]]), textbooks ([[Wikibooks:Main Page|Wikibooks]]), and source texts ([[Wikisource:Main Page|Wikisource]]) are not edited scholarly? Assuming that current Wikimedia participants cannot edit these projects scholarly, how would they edit Wikiversity scholarly? I understand not how Wikiversity can provide such a service.
''However, I think there are advantages in making wiki communities with different flavors.'' Pages in the talk and project namespaces already have a separate flavor from the main Wikibooks modules and Wikipedia articles.
''Even editors who know how to cite sources could make use of an archive of sources that are relevant to a topic.'' Try [[Wikisource:Main Page|Wikisource]] for free sources. I acknowledge, though, that we might need some way to keep track of sources (free and non-free) used in Wikibooks and Wikipedia, such as a master list of all sources with comments on the usefulness of the source. Perhaps this could happen here at Meta, perhaps it could happen at [[Wikibooks:Wikiversity|the Wikiversity]]. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
:::"'''if [existing] WikiProjects fail .... why would a wiki called 'Wikiversity' succeed'''" <BR>
:::I would not say that existing attempts have failed. I would say that they are struggling towards success. What would be different about a Wikiversity project? In my view, Wikiversity should adopt and enforce stricter standards of scholarship than Wikipedia. The recent [http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html article about Wikipedia] in the journal [[w:Nature (journal)|Nature]] has a link called "Challenges of being a Wikipedian" near the end that takes you to a nice little account of some of the challenges of Wikipedia scholarship. A major challenge facing Wikipedia is that anyone can add anything to articles and they do not have to provide verifiable sources or discuss the merits of their sources in a logical way. This often leads to tedious editing wars that some people seem to enjoy as a sport, distracting serious and scholarly contributors from working. This is all part of the open approach of Wikipedia that has allowed it to grow rapidly. I have faith that Wikipedia can continue to attract more great editors who know how to cite sources and people who will do the dirty work of confronting and cleaning up after people who would rather push one point of view rather than construct objective encyclopedia articles. However, I feel that the Wikipedia [[w:Wikipedia:Verifiability|policy on verifiability]] needs all of the support it can get.
:::I think the WikiMedia community will eventually develop (from efforts such as [[Wikicite]]) an good system to facilitate and organize the collective intelligence of editors who are devoted to doing background research and citing good sources. My suggestion is that Wikiversity could contribute to this process through the efforts of a wiki community that is explicitly devoted to the standards of university scholarship. I take seriously the idea that Wikiversity could function as a school for teaching editing skills to Wikipedia editors who need that kind of help. Wikipedia currently tries to use an ad hoc system of "mentoring" for forcing disruptive editors to learn how to behave. Teaching is not part of the mission of Wikipedia. The first rule of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further." Such narrow focus comes to dominate each wiki. Even though most good textbooks are produced by university scholars, the decision was made that Wikibooks would not include Wikiversity. It seems to be a natural social phenomenon for wiki communities to fragment. There is nothing wrong with having a collection of WikiMedia projects that specialize for certain tasks, as long as they can cooperate.
:::Some people seem to have the idea that each wiki project is fighting for survival in a zero sum game where creating a new wiki will damage existing wikis. Some people have the idea that Wikiversity is a threat to Wikibooks. My view is that the scholarly community of Wikiversity will become an important source of people who can contribute to the production of good textbooks at Wikibooks. Similarly, Wikiversity could be a wiki community that is devoted to learning and specialized for teaching and scholarly research. Such a specialized wiki community would attract people who are comfortable with the standards of academic scholarship. At Wikiversity they could do scholarly work in an environment that insulates itself from the more free-style "we take everything" atmosphere of Wikipedia. They could pass along to others the cultural heritage of good scholarship. It is common practice for university members to perform services for the larger community that they exist in.
:::I do not suggest that Wikiversity get its start from such service activities because it is glamorous or particularly attractive to people who are devoted to learning. It is a matter of pragmatics. I think that efforts to promote better scholarship from within Wikipedia are swamped by all the other activity going on. People become dejected from fighting for higher standards and give up. By placing such efforts in an independent Wikiversity project it would be possible to nurture contributors who are devoted to scholarship while minimally disrupting the free-wheeling Wikipedia information input system. The Wikipedia community hates to hear the word "fork", and I am not proposing an encyclopedia content fork. I do think it makes sense to have a resource fork where efforts devoted to collecting, evaluating and cataloging sources would be concentrated. I've never suggested that this MUST happen. I only argue that it makes sense to have a place for teaching and such a specialized place could both provide benefit to other Wikimedia projects and in so doing get a start by attracting participants from Wikipedia. I have never suggested that other Wikimedia projects are devoid of scholarship or that they cannot function as learning tools, or that they will not naturally continue to develop scholarly approaches to their missions. I think it is the nature of each wiki to become dominated by a core of narrowly-focused fanatics who perceive anything beyond their narrow specialty as a distraction to be thwarted and ejected. It is natural for specialized functions to bud off from parent wikis and create their own daughter communities that specialize for their own goals. And I have never suggested that the goal of Wikiversity is JUST to provide services to other projects. I think that by providing services, Wikiversity could get a start and then go on to develop its own educational priorities that go beyond the needs of other wiki projects.
:::When I talk about collecting sources, I do not mean collecting ''texts''. I mean the process of working with documents that make citations to sources. For example, the Wikipedia article on [[w:H5N1|H5N1]] does not cite every published article and book about H5N1 influenza. How can Wikipedia editors efficiently cooperate to decide which sources to cite? Wikiversity could provide a place where a much larger collection of sources are archived and discussed and those discussions are archived. Currently, inefficiencies exist such as editor A doing some research on H5N1 flu, adding a source to [[w:H5N1|H5N1]], then editor B removes the first source and adds a different source and then editor C comes along, does more research on H5N1 and finds the first source again and adds it again. The "talk page system" limps along trying to support the coordination of editors, but I think Wikiversity could provide a better system for supporting and coordinating groups of editors who are finding sources and deciding which ones to use in articles. By developing such a system, Wikiversity would provide a service while also getting a source of editors who would start the Wikiversity community. Once established, Wikiversity would naturally evolve towards its more general educational goals. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 02:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
''For example, the Wikipedia article on [[w:H5N1|H5N1]] does not cite every published article and book about H5N1 influenza. How can Wikipedia editors efficiently cooperate to decide which sources to cite? Wikiversity could provide a place where a much larger collection of sources are archived and discussed and those discussions are archived.'' Exactly. Also, other Wikipedia articles and Wikibooks might also mention H5N1, so just having a list of sources below a Wikipedia article is insufficient. As I work (currently slowly) at [[Wikibooks:Modern History]], I might want to use Wikiversity to post my sources and search for other sources.
''... Wikiversity would naturally evolve towards its more general educational goals.'' These might include "learning groups" that do reading or discussion. This should not include the lectures or quizzes hosted at [[Wikibooks:Wikiversity]]. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 02:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
== Another Direction: The Wikitest ==
I'd name this concept the "wiki group project" if i could, but that is too ambiguous. Wikiversity still would be the name of the project, but Wikitest is the easiest phrase I could think of for this concept.
The idea is simple: Put up tests that take between 3 hours and 1 week to answer. From there, wiki-participants who don't know how to answer the question can contribute and give ideas on how to answer it. A programming question would be along the lines of "Create an AI based off of the min-max tree concept for the game Tic-Tac-Toe". Discussions on specific problems should be encouraged in the talk page, and people submit their work.
Other "wikitests":
* The translation page [[Wikibooks:Wikiversity:Translation_practice_course]]
Basically, focus on the strength of the wiki for an e-learning environment. Anyone who can answer the question should grade work. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 00:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
: Another spinoff of this idea is to give it in the form of a [http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:nbzPs4Q-isIJ:www.arml.com/2005%2520Contest/2005%2520ARML%2520Power%2520Question.doc+ARML+Power+Question&hl=en&client=firefox power question]. Basically, one massive question that if you solve each of its parts, you get the final proof of the problem. Just a thought. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't want to sound rude, but this is exactly the reason the project is so slow to take off. You're getting WAY ahead. None of this has to do with the problems raised by the board. We need to stay focused so that we can get this thing launched and THEN worry about problems like this. Again I don't want to come across as condescending I just think it's important to focus on what the board is asking for. --[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 01:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
: I'm just brainstorming. We need to know what activities the Wikiversity will be focused on doing before we can write up what the Wikiversity will do. What is a "university" without classes? Well, I just added a little: Tests. Should the wikiversity focus around tests instead of classes? --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
:: I consider Wikiversity to be a wiki, not a university. (A university would hire profressors, grade students, and give degrees; Wikiversity does not do that.) As for the tests, it might be useful to put them at [[Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Study help desk]], then write the answer into a Wikibook or Wikipedia article. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
::: What of the cases where self-grading is impractical? You cannot grade your own project; or your own essay, or if you did the correct steps in a math problem (what if you discovered a new way to solve a math problem?). I agree that self-tests and self-grading *should* go on wikibooks. Where the "wikitest" comes in is where people can grade other people's work. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== How to fix "no online courses" ==
I think where the board has a problem is that this creates an idea of a hierarchial structure. So if we just remove "professors" and make everyone a "learner" or "student" or just "participant" I think that's all they really want. Then the class a a group comes together and decides on reading material, the group comes together and creates the lecture. It's all done on equal grounds, like someone else said, a learning center. I propose that we change the proposal (whoever is in charge of writing a new proposal, i don't know how to do this) to reflect the fact that these are no online courses, they are learning centers where everyone has an equal relationship in the project. Any objections? --[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
: I agree with that. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
::If I happen to have a bit of knowledge about a topic (say, for example, the repair and maintainence of a bicycle) and I would like to "teach" that subject, what is wrong about trying to organize a "lecture" about that using something like IRC channels or even audio media (MP3s) about the topic? Or even coming up with testing materials? Clearly I would have to be an "expert" in the area to do that subject, and there is no reason to grant me special privileges elsewhere on Wikiversity just because I happen to "teach" a particular course.
::The heirarchial structure is already going to exist anyway with the whole user/admin/bureaucrat/steward system as well, so we are not going to get rid of some of the heirarchy just through that alone. Depending on how the on-line testing system is going to be implemented, you may want to give some special "privileges" to the teacher or teachers who are submitting testing materials, or to some sort of "testing center administrator" who can put the answer key into testing software.
::Still, I like the idea that a "freshman" student can try to push for and perhaps even teach a course on some bit of knowledge they have obtained through their own life experience. It would make the Wikiversity experience much more informal and suit the learning needs of many people.
::In terms of no on-line courses... I don't see how that can even be stopped, or what the consequences should be if a user decides to hold an IRC chat session about a topic with an announcement on a Wikiversity course discussion page as to the time the "lecture" will begin. Would that be considered a form of vandalism? I think not! I don't think all Wikiversity courses should necessarily follow that model, but why restrict the form or method for delivering the knowledge? --[[User:Roberth|Roberth]] 16:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
: Well, I'm pretty sure the "problem" the board has is ''not at all'' based on hierarchy, but instead on a general lack of focus and immediate practicality. However, the idea of learning centres or, as I put it, [[Learning community|learning communities]] is nice - I think we should be developing living resources that are developed between learners and teachers/facilitators (who are also learners). And finally, no single person is "in charge" of writing the proposal - this is a wiki - make changes and so will everyone else ;-) [[User:Cormaggio|Cormaggio]] [[User talk:Cormaggio|<sup><small>@</small></sup>]] 17:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
== Timing and Leadership ==
A good way to make difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks (or Wikipedia, Wikisource and other Wikimedia projects) is maybe to have some kind of timing. What I mean is that Wikiversity, just like all other schools, should work in a certain period, for example from September or October to June. So in July it would be closed for teaching, but it would be openned for joining of others as students or teachers, or opening the new schools. In that way, Wikiversity's schools would be better organized. That organization would ask for somebody to be the chief (director, head master...) of the Wikiversity and each school itself. Since all users of Wikiversity should be equal, no one of them could be a chief. That's why we should make a group of users (just like administrators in Wikipedia) who will be called somewhat like School Board, and they will protect pages from vandalism, but they will also work on Wikiversity's organization. --[[User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић|Ђорђе Д. Божовић]] 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
:: Disagree. There is no point in this. There should be classes whenever the students (everyone is a student) feels like having the class. Also heads of the schools and such is unnecessary. What would they even do? People are making this project a lot more complicated than it needs to be. As of now, all we need to concentrate on is the essentials. Over time the project can be more complex, not from day 1. --[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 21:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
::I have to agree with MateoP here. There's no reason to make the school only go certain months. And any time period we chose would confuse southern hemisphere and all year students. --[[User:Javariel|Gabe Sechan]] 09:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::: I disagree with the notion of classes entirely... It will '''not''' be efficient with a wiki structure. There should be no formal position of "master", experts in any given subject are too few and far between, so we just can't rely on experts to come.
::: In wikipedia, you can expect an Expert to come in, and review an article, and then spend 10 minutes correcting any mistakes. In wikibooks, you can expect an Expert to come in, and spend an hour correcting mistakes across the book (far fewer than wikipedia however). But to ask an Expert to come in and '''teach''' a class with weeks worth of dedication... yes, it will happen, but there aren't enough willing experts. Making set scheduals will just isolate those willing teachers because of their schedual.
::: The system has to be easy for an expert to review what has been learned without much dedication. Wikipedia and Wikibooks work because experts require '''no''' long term commitment. Anyone can walk in and give their 2 cents. This means, we must toss out the "class" and more importantly, toss out scheduals and everything that makes teaching a hard job.
::: Of course, if someone wants to start up a course with that kind of dedication to create lectures and so forth, they should go on ahead. But we cannot make that the primary focus of Wikiversity... again, too few people will be willing to make that kind of dedication. --[[User:68.33.164.12|68.33.164.12]] 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC) --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 16:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (stupid me... gotta remember to log in to this site)
Some kind of an organization must exist. Those people who ''lead courses'' (actually the professors, but I think we agreed not to call them so - someone must run the cours: one, two, or more persons if they agree between themselves) should make a deal with the students (users who do nothing but listening to the courses), they should ask all of them: ''What time for the next lesson would be fine for you?'' (of course, it should be known which users are students to which classes, others can just pass by). But it doesn't matter that timing isn't important, the Schools must be organized anyway. Some plans must exist about the lessons and what they should contain, but those plans and lessons can be edited by anyone. And anyone should become a course leader if he wants to, and if the community decides to trust him. It could be connected with the sysop rights. An organization must exist - we are not building a jungle, we're building an university! :) --[[User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић|Ђорђе Д. Божовић]] 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
: We cannot create traditional courses on a wiki. Too much dedication on both the professor AND the student. The wiki works by everyone contributing their 2 cents; learning from your peers basically. Think; if you aren't going to lead a course, then who will? Even if you decide to lead a course, what will happen when you don't feel like wikiversity anymore? Does the course just die of lack of leadership?
: Wikis work because there is no single point of failure; the only way wikis fail is from a malicious community. However; if we create the traditional "leader" and "follower" roles, then we play the wiki's weaknesses (online; lack of face-to-face contact) while ignoring the strengths (leader becomes a point of failure). We need a '''system''' that allows the wiki to be self healing, assuming any single person leaves the system, there is a chance that the role can be filled easily. Look at wikipedia; if the origonal author creates a page with one paragraph and then just leaves it blank, there is a good chance that some random person will come in and finish the article. But in the course leader/follower role, if the leader leaves... then the students have to elect a new leader, which could take days or weeks, which discourages the current students and future students. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== Incremental Course Development Model ==
This is just an idea that needs considerably more development, but I think is applicable to the development of Wikiversity, particularly the development of on-line courses. One of the huge difficulties that has existed with Wikibooks (and unfortunately the current development of Wikiversity as well) is that both projects seem to try to do everything for everybody all at once. There are over 200 Wikibooks under some stages of development, but you really can't point to even one that is "finished" yet, as we have had several years to try to get at least one completed. That is a huge criticism for Wikibooks that I think is valid.
Here is my proposal:
Try to do the incremental development model that is now being done with [[b:Wikijunior|Wikijunior]] right now, with regards to course development. Even in '''The Real World®''' major Universities don't try to establish a whole collection of courses at once. Usually they start with what the students (read Wikimedia users here) are interested in and gradually expand course offerings in a particular field as there is demand and financing (in the form of grants and directed donations).
Start with just a very small core group of courses, perhaps only two or three. As a community we can then try to get those courses developed to a very advanced state and then gradually start to expand the number of courses that are available through "popular demand" such as is happening right now with [[b:Wikijunior:New Book of the Quarter]]. Voting in this manner is a time-honored tradition on Wikimedia projects anyway, and can allow for gradual growth as well as gague demand for new content, as well as allow new users who want to go in different directions the opportunity to present useful new ideas for change in a controlled environment.
Mind you this proposal is agnostic toward the debate over on-line courses, but the same principle applies to either if Wikiversity is just an instructional materials center or a part of a formal instructional environment, and can benefit both concepts. Experience with Wikijunior has IMHO proven this concept, and there is some very real content for Wikijunior that can clearly demonstrate the validity of this model. Even more interesting will be demonstrated by mid January to see what kind of content is added to the new Wikijunior book, and how quickly it is created. --[[User:Roberth|Roberth]] 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
::This violates the point in contributing to a wiki: you contribute what you want. Limiting the amount of courses to 2 or 3 and saying "no, you can't make a course on that topic, instead help out on Astronomy 101" is not what wikis are about. People should make courses about topics that they are interested in learning about. Then users will decide to join existing courses if they want. The ones that get a lot of people on board will be started, the ones where fewer people are interested in will not. That's how all wiki projects work. Individuals choose what they want to participate in and/or create. Not the wikiversity as a whole. --[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 22:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
:I'm also uneasy about any move away from having participants do what they are personally most interested in, but it would be useful to have a kind of "demonstration project" or "proof of concept" for Wikiversity. Having such a "demonstration project" would not block others from doing other things at the same time.
:In trying to decide on the first Wikiversity "learning center" (or perhaps two or three) one criterion for selecting such a "core" of Wikiversity should be that there is likely to be a reasonably large number of editors available to immediately start participating. Wikijunior might be unusual in that writing for a young audience does not require the kind of specialized knowledge that is needed, say, for writing a college neuroscience textbook. It is relatively easy to find a group of people who can contribute to book called "How Things Work" for 10 year olds. Where should Wikiversity turn for core topics that would have a "guaranteed" pool of editors?
:In trying to identify a good topic for a "core learning center" a second criterion that could be used is that any such "demonstration project" should have a clear value for the WikiMedia Foundation. It is not unreasonable for the WikiMedia community to want to see a clear demonstration of the utility of a new WikiMedia project. One way to provide such a demonstration would be to try to develop a Wikiversity "learning center" that would specifically try to help solve an existing problem that is confronting an existing WikiMedia project.
:Wikipedia. We could identify a Wikipedia article that has many editors, few verified sources, poor use of formal references (too many bare external links), and disputes between editors. Wikiversity could create a "learning center" corresponding to that Wikipedia article. Existing editors of the Wikipedia article could be invited to "go to school" at Wikiversity where there would be a coordinated effort to catalog good sources of information relevant to the Wikipedia article, sort through all of the sources that are identified and rank them according to suitability as references for the content of the Wikipedia article and finally return to the Wikipedia article and clean up all of the article's citations. When the first Wikipedia article has been improved, the resources developed at Wikiversity would remain as available tools for future improvement of the Wikipedia article. The Wikiversity learning center could move on to improve other related Wikipedia articles or develop in other more traditional academic directions.
:Wikibooks. Some people do not accept the idea that Wikiversity will be able to help the Wikibooks project develop textbooks. Wikiversity could select an existing partially complete Wikibook that has stalled in its development and which lacks a good bibliography. Wikiversity could start a "learning center" where sources relevant to the Wikibook would be listed, outlined, and ranked according to utility for continuing the development of the Wikibook. After this initial Wikibook improvement drive is complete that learning center would continue to develop in new directions. For example, it could host a continuing discussion/reading group for the Wikibook that was the target of the improvement drive.
:Wikinews. There are Wikinews articles that could benefit from something like a library or reading room that would support good background research. Like Wikipedia, some Wikinews topics are controversial and Wikinews articles about those topics tend to generate editing conflicts and disputes. Wikiversity could identify a controversial current events topic and establish a "learning center" where sources relevant to that news topic could be collected and evaluated. Most Wikinews articles are short repeats of what is reported by other news services. A Wikiversity learning center could tackle a longer news article, possibly including some original reporting.
:As Wikiversity "demonstration projects", learning centers like those suggested above would benefit by being able to involve existing editors at other WikiMedia projects while also showing the WikiMedia community the sorts of benefits that could come from Wikiversity as a new WikiMedia project. It might even be possible to pick a single topic and develop a single Wikiversity "learning center" that would carry out in parallel related service projects for Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikinews by using a common catalog of identified sources that are relevant to that topic. In the end, we would have examples of how Wikiversity can establish collaborations where participants "learn by doing" and learn how to recognize a research topic (a real world problem where scholarly research can be applied), find source materials, collect them in a central ___location, discuss and evaluate the quality of the sources, and use what has been learned through background research to benefit the community. Such a community service-oriented "learning center" would be most likely to attract a stream of existing WikiMedia project editors and demonstrate to the WikiMedia community that Wikiversity can be a productive project. After such an initial demonstration phase, Wikiversity would be able to continue providing research-oriented services and also free to develop in non-service directions according to the interests of its participants. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 22:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
::This is very related to learning group "courses". As I proposed in learning groups idea, an essential part of that will be using what is learned from external reading and then editing wikipedia articles and writing wikibooks to improve them. This isn't much different from what you are suggesting here. The only difference I see is that learning groups get together to learn and then edit wikiproject pages, your "learning center" get together with the objective of improving articles and then learn in the process. So it's really the same thing, but just going about it in the opposite way.
::If that's what you want to do for a demonstration project, then create a page. I'm not the least bit interested in participating in a project where I'm just a slave to improving wikipedia articles, but if that's what you want to do, do it. I already created a learning project "online course" and edited it so that it's clear that there are no instructors. You can see it [[Wikibooks:Interventionism in Latin America During the Cold War: US and USSR|here]]. You can use that as demostration of the concept, as far as I'm concerned. --[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 03:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::The idea of a demo course is fine. I think the ideas you listed are poor. Personally, I couldn't give a shit less if wikipedia has no citations of if every other word has one. I think the citation projects are a waste of time and effort, working on a goal that is neither possible nor valuable. On top of that, its duplicated effort- there are already 5 billion wikiprojects for individual catagories and 3 or 4 for general citations that exist. There's no need for another on another site. Moreso I see it as a very poor idea in general- the point of wikiversity, in my mind, is learning and teaching. A group finding citations doesn't do either. A better idea would be to take some intro collegel level or high school level subject, and using that as a demo. A low level course because it should be easy to find learners and teachers. --[[User:Javariel|Gabe Sechan]] 09:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:I think we'd be better off pushing the "schools" of the wikiversity as an organizational unit. Then have the schools focus their effort on a small group of courses. This is a little less restrictive, and a little more reasonable than expecting people to donate time in a small set of subject. --[[User:Javariel|Gabe Sechan]] 09:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
*Gabe: How is what you are proposing different from what has taken place in Wikiversity during the past two years? How is "schools with courses" different from what the Board rejected? If I understand your position, you seem to have either rejected the Wikiversity [[Wikiversity#Vision|vision statement]] that was crafted by Cormaggio or else you have a different interpretation of it than the one I have given on this page. If so, what is your "model" for how learning will take place within Wikiversity? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
**At the moment, I'm not sure what the board rejected or what they meant- I'm still waiting for clarification. So if you don't mind, I'll beg off that question for the moment. As for what is different from what has been going on in Wikiversity in the past- not a lot. The problem with wikiversity in the past is one of a lack of contributors, not of a flaw in the idea. How many people actually sat down and made a serious stab at a course, vs just setting up framework? Not many. Very few people even knew of its existence. With an official launch, hopefully that would change. (Although remember- I originally was against bringing the proposal to meta on the grounds that it was too soon and we needed more content first. But between being launched too soon and possible deletion from wikibooks, I prefered getting launched too soon).
**As for the vision- I have no problem with collaborative working, its a good fit for some subjects and some students. It isn't a good fit for others. Some people don't like projects (or don't have the time) or learn better in a more static environment- there's no reason we should completely ignore those students. And a lot of math and science (which is what my interests are heavily biased for) falls into the "not" catagory, in my mind. For example, lets take calculus. Sitting a bunch of students down and telling them to figure out how to measure the slope of a function doesn't work. You need to show them why it would be useful, teach them the basic fomula of <math>f'(x)=\frac{f(x+\delta x)-f(x)}{\delta x}</math>. But unless you have a mathematical genius in there, they aren't going to figure it out. I suppose they could research and find it in a book or on mathworld, but why bother? You may as well just tell them straight out, and save them all the time and effort. The same goes for a lot of the sciences. While experiments can be helpful to demonstrate a property, having them spend weeks or months trying to figure out basic scientific laws is impracticle and of very little real use. Collaborative learning isn't the best answer here, not as the primary learning mechanism.
::: Wikibooks is learning by reading. Wikiversity should be learning by doing, and then other people at your level evaluate what you have done (if at all possible)
*::: Math: Just do a bunch of math problems.
*::: Science: Just do a bunch of science problems.
*::: Engineering: Create your design, post it up, recieve critisism
*::: Programming: Create your program, post it up, recieve critisism
*::: Translation: Create your translation, post it up, recieve critism
*::: Vocabulary: Define 30 words, post it up, recieve critisism.
::: ''again'' a branch of my "wikitest" idea --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
**How I envision wikiversity- collaborative learning definitely has a place in it, but its not the only method. Traditional style courses also have a place. I see it as a traditional university, broken into schools or departments. Each department would be a community, a mix of students and teachers (note that those aren't mutually exclusive). The community at the school level would drive development of new courses and material. Each course would be a subcommunity and learning materials, taught in a way appropriate for the the course material. For science and math, probably a lot more top down traditional learning. For engineering, probably more project based with top down interspersed. For things like Literature, probably reading groups where people can bs about inner meaning and waste each others time, like all English classes :) And hopefully enough experienced people in the school community would keep tabs on the lower level courses and keep students on track, answer questions, help them out, etc. Larger entry level courses may become communities unto themselves.
::: I say the wikiversity should condone the formality of "students" and "teachers". Of course, when someone has knowledge to spread, by all means, spread it and spread it fast. Think of a message board: no one has "authority", but it kinda evolves into place. If you hang out long enough, people will just say "go to that guy for help." But signing up for a "course" makes someone feel like dedication; we gotta cut out the feeling of "dedication" to make this (or any) wiki work IMO. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
**Research really is not a part of the vision, in my mind. Oh, secondary research may come in tangentially- a course may suggest students look into such and such. Or a science course may exist on how to design an experiment (actually, that sounds like an interesting class). But unless you're on the cutting edge of a field, research has very little to do with learning. And we're not qualified to do or evaluate cutting edge research- I know I sure don't have a phd. Typically with science research, the number of people qualified to comment on an experiment/idea can be counted on your fingers and toes. But again, I come with a heavy math/science view of the world- research to us is an experiment which proves/disproves something that has never been tested before. Research to us isn't reading old documents and writing our opinions on the author's writing style, or making guesses about why people 100 years ago acted the way they did. Making a poster on pros/cons of GM food wouldn't be research, unless you conducted a double blind experiment and wrote the results on the poster. --[[User:Javariel|Gabe Sechan]] 19:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
== Objections to lectures ==
I wrote this on the [[Wikiversity/Modified project proposal]], but MateoP deleted it, claiming "objections belong on the talk page".
<div style="border: solid 1px black; padding: 1em;">
*** ''Objection:'' Wikiversity should not contain collectively-written lectures, because these act as collectively-written textbook modules, remain on the wiki for ex-post-facto reading, and compete with the textbooks at Wikibooks. In fact, any such lectures should be transwikied and merge into Wikibooks (or Wikipedia, if appropriate).
</div>
-- [[User:Meta-Wiki Welcome|Meta-Wiki Welcome]] ([[User talk:Meta-Wiki Welcome|talk]]) 06:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand why disagreements with parts of the [[Wikiversity/Modified project proposal]] need to be on the talk page. Unless there is consensus by most users on what the modified project proposal should contain, there is no reason for the proposal not to contain multiple alternatives. Further, objections placed on the talk page must be signed, and can not be edited by other users. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 02:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
::I deleted it because the content page is supposed to contain the proposal that will be sent to the board. Would you put "i disagree" in a wikipedia article? If you think that particular point is incorrect, edit it. The content page is not a discussion page here. I know other wikiversity discussions have used both, but this one is intended to be the second proposal sent. Like I said, if you think that particular point is incorrect because it makes lectures too much like wikibooks, then you should either edit it and make lectures different or place your objections on the talk page, which ever you prefer.
::Let me clarify what I mean, because I do not think we should be writing articles that make sense ex post facto in wikiversity (which i've expressed repeatedly). "lectures" as I see them, are just methods for the users to flesh out what they have learned, giving it some organization so that this information is easier so that the users can then use the information to write wikipedia articles or wikibooks. To give you an example: if you have taken a college course think about what your lecture notes look like. Probably you jot down a sentence or two about something important you hear and arrange them with numbers or bullet points. That's all I'm talking about here. It wouldn't compete with wikibooks or wikipedia because it wouldn't make any sense to outside viewers and wouldn't be within style standards of either of those sister projects. If you have different ideas, please bring them up or edit the proposal. I'm going to clarify what i meant in the proposal myself.--[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, the clarified text explains the concept of "lecture" in a better fashion.
I had assumed before that "lecture" would mean something like [[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity:School_of_Electronics#Day_1|this]]. It has an abstract narrator "I", but otherwise resembles a textbook-in-progress. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:No, I would object to lectures that have a textbook approach. --[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
== ''No to online courses'', so what are we left with? ==
The board disagress with online courses, and I see their point. Too much dedication for a wiki to start up on. By dedication, i mean the amount of time you spend before you can contribute to a project. (Wikipedia requires 20 minutes, Wikibooks requires an hour, Wikiversity requires '''days or weeks''') Of course, online courses should take place on Wikiversity, but I don't think it should be a primary focus.
Going back on my "wikitest" idea, if we focus wikiversity on creating "learning problems" and solutions to those problems, I think it could work. Anyone who read 'The Art of Computer Programming' by Knuth should know what i mean; you don't learn from the book, you learn from spending those 5 hours trying to do that level 30 problem Knuth created. You don't learn from "This is how you do Mathematical induction", you learn from Knuth saying "Prove this statement by Induction" (with a little indicator saying he estimates you spend 1 hour on this problem).
Now why doesn't this fit into wikibooks? Anyone can create these kinds of questions and slam them into wikibooks. What wikiversity should focus on however, is "students" answering these questions, through forums or debate or whatnot.
Bottom line? Wikiversity should include many example questions, in which the student learns by doing instead of reading.
How does this differ from wikibooks? I dunno, but it is a start in a direction that requires little dedication from experts, and can be collaborated on easily (students should do this problem before attempting problem xxx... change order of the "course"). --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:We've asked for clarification on what it is about online courses that the board objects to. Until we know that, it's difficult to send a proposal. Some of us are guessing that possibly they object to the idea where someone runs a wiki and "owns" it, so to say. We've instead come up with the idea where it is actually a "group learning project" where everyone is a student and instructor.
:As for the wikitests, that can be part of the project too. The only problem I can see with this is: who wants to participate? Who wants to sit around and write tests? I definitely wouldn't participate in this project, but if you're interested in it then perhaps you should create a demonstration page.
:There's also the problem that some subjects don't test so straight forward. If you're talking about logic or math, fine. How do you know the "correct" answer to questions of social sciences? Usually in real universities those are graded by how well an argument is made, there isn't always necessarily a correct answer. And of course we can't have "experts" because that goes against the wikimedia idea of democracy. --[[User:MateoP|MateoP]] 19:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:: Well, of course, the wikitest wouldn't apply to stuff it couldn't apply to. As for a demo page... [[Wikitest]] --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 19:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== Technical Issues for the Proposal ==
On a technical side, I think it would be nice to add [http://wikisophia.org/wiki/Wikitex Wikitex] support for online quizzes to the proposal. There are many xml formats for quizzes already out there, which could be rendered as javascript interactive quizzes so the server isn't hit.
Another technical thing that would help is adding explicit support for linking wiki pages to irc or jabber discussion/meetup channels.
Also in a "wikiversity", the talk page becomes much more important. ''unsigned comment by unknown user''
:I have imagined potential Wikiversity talk pages becoming so large that there is a separate subpage for each thread.
:I suppose that the Wikimedia projects could use irc and jabber more. I have almost no experience with online chat, but other users might have experience. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 19:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== Differences from Wikibooks and Wikipedia ==
I think we need to clarify the differences between WV and these two existing wikiprojects.
===Wikibooks===
The people at wikibooks should really be the ones doing this, but here's my attempt! A textbook is not necessarily a course: it may aim to be comprehensive or it may stick to a syllabus, whereas a course can only be successful if it corresponds to predefined learning objectives. A textbook will be primarily based around text, whereas a course could take different forms. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
===Wikipedia===
Knoweldge in Wikipedia is organized in a pyramidal fashion. There is no simple way for me to learn about, say, architechture: I have to read [[w:architechture]], then the pages which link form there, then the next layer of pages and so on. Knowledge in Wikiversity should be arranged in a more linear fashion, even if this means some loss of depth and coverage. Wikipedia itself would benefit from a new look at these disciplines, which would not fail to uncover some of its current weak points in terms of coverage. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree with this proposal. Trying to put knowledge in a linear fashion is something that I am attempting in [[Wikibooks:Modern History]]. I would ''not'' want "Modern History" to be transwikied from Wikibooks to Wikiversity.
:[[Wikiversity/Modified project proposal#What Wikiversity is not]]: Wikiversity is not "a resource for reading about a topic". Did you want to disagree with this text? --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 19:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== Requirements of the Wikiversity ==
Taking this from an engineering perspective :) Lets think about the requirements; the goals that this wiki should have... using [[wikibooks:Wiki_Science]] as a guide.
Mind you, this doesn't really go anywhere in terms of a proposal... but with a strong list of requirements, it makes the next step (creation of a goal) much much easier. Just add what you think the ''ideal'' wikiversity would do.
=== Wikiversity must have these in order to survive ===
* Self healing properties; namely, if the "teacher" stops comming there should be an easy replacement (or find a good system without "teachers" :-p ).
* In depth learning where small encyclopedia articles don't suffice (wikipedia) nor do the static environment of books (wikibooks)
* Easy entry for both the learner and the "teacher"
** It should take minutes for a newbie to understand how to learn from the wiki
** It should take minutes for a newbie to become a teacher.
* Fun
* Stub-friendly; the title of a page is all someone needs to make the page begin to evolve
* Student work
* Evaluation of student work that isn't done by the student (articles/lectures that can be self-graded belong on wikibooks [[wikibooks:German:_Answers_1]])
* Takes less than 5 minutes to make a minor contribution.
* Clear separation between wikipedia and wikibooks.
** "Lectures" (in their current wikiversity form) appear to be more of a book form than lecture. Tutorials belong on wikibooks IMO.
* Students must recieve responces from teachers within 3 days.
* A growth cycle that will work with few people (less than 50 users) but will be efficient with a large number of users (more than 10,000 users)
=== It would be nice to have, but we can live without ===
* An efficient system, where students recieve responces from "teachers" within hours or minutes.
* A "session" for a student should take less than 30 minutes to complete.
* A "perfect" policy before it is off the ground.
Thats it for now... feel free to add to the list. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with much of this, except for the parts which suggest that material should '''either''' be on wikibooks '''or''' here. If wikiversity is to be a coherent learning environment, it will certainly contain material which could be on wikibooks or wikipedia with fairly minor changes: this is not a problem if all text is released on the GFDL—all projects benefit! I am also slightly wary of the evaluation criterion: I think we should stick to self-evaluation for starters, otherwise we risk creating two groups of users (those who evaluate and those who are evaluated). [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 13:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
::I might add that a textbook in which each chapter takes 30 minutes to read sounds more like a collection of lectures to me.... [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] 13:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
::: There should '''not''' be unnecessary forks of knowledge. Doing so creates more work without increasing the number of contributors. When you have the "wikiversity" version for calculus, and the "wikibooks" version for calculus, which should the contributor work on?
::: As far as self-evaluation, self-evaluation can be done on wikibooks (and has been). Wikiversity should NOT do anything wikibooks can do or else it will just sufficate. Wikiversity is for learning where books don't suffice.
::: Unless Wikiversity can find a <s>mission</s> way of teaching things different from wikibooks and wikipedia, then it will just fail with lack of contributors. --[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 20:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== Teaching Courses: A parallel distributed free market model ==
I beg the board to reconsider the issue of teaching courses for credit in the light of my new proposal for a parallel distributed free market system of teachers and students that will organize itself automatically, with little need for central organization and control.
I propose a ''school of thought'' model of e-professorship. As in the days of the ancient Greeks, a professor puts up his [[shingle]] and waits for customers. The e-[[shingle]] advertises the professor's accredation and credibility, publications, academic record, etc.
A student in search of a degree would seek out a reputable professor in the appropriate Wiki-department of their specialty, and register, paying whatever tuition the individual professor charges. This is a '''very powerful''' aspect of this scheme, because it is '''self-funding.''' Professors with greater reputations can charge higher fees than less well known professors, and insurance against gouging is guaranteed by the free competition with other professors. In any case the fee paying is done completely independently from Wikiversity, as a private transaction between the student and the prof. This keeps Wikiversity "pure", not open to corruption.
When a student signs up for a course, the professor adds a student page to his "students" list (see example [[shingle]]). All tests and exams are designed by the individual professors, who are responsible for checking on the identies and integrity of their students. The professor has to watch out for cheats, and he stakes his reputation on the merit-worthiness of his certifications. When credits or degrees are awarded, they are posted on the student's page, which is moved to the Graduates list on the professor's page, free for all to verify. The degree basically states that Professor So-and-so testifies to the fact that in his judgment this person is worthy of the degree awarded. It is up to the prof. how he reaches this judgment.
The role of Wikiversity is to accredit the professors. All the professors in a specialty pool together to form a department, and select a Dean (see example [[Dean Boudewijnse]]) from amongst themselves. The Dean in turn checks on the credibility of the professors and certifies them as valid professors of his department. Like the individual professors, individual departments have to protect their own credibility by watching out for fraud or abuse. Departments should rise or fall on their merits. And the departments elect a President from amongst themselves, and the President in turn certifies the departments as valid departments of Wikiversity.
Isn't that what Wiki is all about?
If we just '''allow''' this to happen, hundreds of professors will spring up spontaneously and post their shingles on Wikiversity in search of students. Next, the professors will associate among themselves and form "credibility clusters", they accredit each other by association into departments by mutual consent and respect. And if enough prestigeous professors appear in a department, students will flock in droves to get credit for courses that are arranged and funded privately between the individual students and the professors. It is a beautiful idea! It deserves to be given a chance! It has the potential to revolutionize the corrupt and decrepit academic model by cutting out the bloated middle-man and allowing the Wiki concept to do the accreditation! For more details, see [[Free Market Wikiversity]]. [[User:Slehar|Slehar]] 14:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
:If people want to use wikiversity (or any other wikimedia project) resources to accredit students, they have that right under the GFDL. There is no need for that to be a goal or an official part of wikiversity, and many legal and ethical reasons why it should not be. MediaWiki has always been about the free spread of knowledge worldwide, not about providing ways to make a quick buck. Such an idea is totally against the spirit of their projects. --[[User:Javariel|Gabe Sechan]] 19:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
::Wikimedia projects normally are not used to buy and sell services. I suggest that you read [[Wiki:WikiFarms]] and find a place to start a wiki for professors to sell services. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 19:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== What is a resource? ==
Quote from the current proposal: "Resources are relatively straightforward: these will include teaching aids, lesson plans, curricula etc."
I do not know what this means. Of all the discussion about Wikiversity, these "resources" have almost never had mention.
Can someone link to one example each of a teaching aid, a lesson plan, and a cirriculum? --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 19:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
: My interpretation is basically schedual plans, etc. I don't know of any on Wikiversity at the moment, but the AP credits are a good example of them IMO.
Schedual/Lesson Plan: http://www.skylit.com/syllabi/JavaMethodsSyllabusA.pdf
Syllabus: http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/ap/students/compsci/ap-cd-compsci-0607.pdf
:--[[User:Dragontamer|Dragontamer]] 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
::??? By "resources" I mean the basic learning materials that will be used on Wikiversity, ie the content/strucure of a lesson, a set of provocative questions, photographs, as well as more teacher-based educational resources, like lesson plans and even curricula. I appreciate that debate is widely spread out on Wikiversity, but I thought this at least was fairly self-explanatory. "Never had a mention" - what are you talking about? See any Wikiversity page on Meta (eg. [[Wikiversity (overview)]]), all Wikiversity-related conversations on the [http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l foundation-l mailing list], and also [[wikibooks:Wikimania05/Presentation-JW1|Jimbo's presentation at Wikimania]] on "freeing the curriculum". On examples, there aren't any, because there aren't any well-developed courses or even learning materials. We're not basing any proposals here on what exists now, simply because it isn't good enough. [[User:Cormaggio|Cormaggio]] [[User talk:Cormaggio|<sup><small>@</small></sup>]] 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
== Research ==
Moved from content page
"''However, Wikiversity, like other Wikimedia projects, permits '''no original research'''. A "no original research" policy similar to [[Wikibooks:WB:WIW#Wikibooks is not a place to publish original works|the policy at Wikibooks]] prevents Wikiversity users from forming learning groups to start new businesses, propose new theories, or otherwise use Wikiversity as a soapbox to push their own agenda.''"
"''Wikiversity allows '''secondary research''', such as research needed to write a Wikibook or [[Wikipedia:Main Page|Wikipedia]]. Wikiversity is about making existing knowledge available, not about creating new knowledge. Note that while Wikiversity might have pages to support such research, the results of such research belong at [[Wikibooks:Main Page|Wikibooks]] or in Wikipedia.''"
:I think original research (though it is controversial) should be permitted on Wikiversity. I think it is necessary to conduct a sociology course, for example - to sustain an academic learning community. I do realise there is the academia wikicity, but I feel we should be fostering more research for, from and within the Wikimedia community. For older debate, however, see [[wikibooks:Talk:Wikiversity:About]]. [[User:Cormaggio|Cormaggio]] [[User talk:Cormaggio|<sup><small>@</small></sup>]] 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
::I agree with Cormaggio. The ultimate role of original research in Wikiversity is not something that has to be settled now. It is not an imprortant issue for the launch of Wikiversity. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 00:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
| 