Talk:WikiCurriculum

Why not a part of Wikiversity or b:Wikibooks? In my first impression, the proposed idea is largely overlapping. --Aphaia 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel this way after reading the section of the proposal on "Distinctions from Existing Projects"? If so, please elaborate. -- Marty 20:51 pm, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like Semantic Wikibooks - it would be better to enhance Wikibooks with these ideas rather than creating a new project. --Tango 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to address issues of overlap with WikiBooks or Wikiversity on my proposal, and I've tried to clarify further on posts on the foundation-l list. Please let me know if you still think there is considerable overlap. --Marty 02:12 am, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--Aphaia 06:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Of your 3 reasons, 1 and 2 would work best as enhancements to Wikiversity, and 3 is country-specific (I assume you are talking about US standards, since you use US terminology) so not suitable for a Wikimedia project (we could work on putting together sets of modules in order to fit existing curricula, but we can't just choose one country to focus on). --Tango 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the proposal to include standards from all nations, not just U.S. national and state standards. This was an issue of language usage, not of desired outcome. Marty 13:58 pm, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I to believe that this would work better as a part of another project. Marlith 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Semantic project

I'm fairly certain if you created a learning project or research project over at Wikiversity no one would cry foul. --Emesee 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mission section

I feel that this section would do better as a lead, as this page does not have an introduction to the topic, as such. AnonymousDissident 14:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing Overlap and Wikiversity

Thank you all for your feedback. Perhaps there is a possibility of fitting into Wikiversity, but first, I would like to address the idea of "semantic extension". Some people think of semantic information as a way to enhance existing (wiki) content. For example, on the Semantic MediaWiki site, they bring up the example of a simple alteration of a wiki, in which the sentence "Berlin is the capital of German" is semantically enhanced, so that the link to Germany also contains information about the "is the capital of" relationship between Berlin and Germany. This is a good example of how to enhance existing content with semantic information.

I wish to have a semantic core, which can be enhanced by traditional content. At the core of my proposal is a semantic skeleton on which to build courses/textbooks. Unlike an encyclopedia, a course or book requires a large amount of structure and direction in the connections between bits of content. Personally, I believe that Wikiversity does not address these issues well, because there is insufficient meta-structure driving content development. Trying to structure this content now would be, as they say, like herding cats.

I would not be willing to add semantic information to existing Wikiversity content for high-school mathematics, for example. I would be willing to start an independent project, in which semantic development would take place first, and content much later and only after semantics were highly developed. I will address these concerns to the foundation-l list. Perhaps, I could get something going at the wikiversity site, with some independent rules. But, perhaps this project is too structure-dependent for the general wiki philosophy.

I greatly appreciate your feedback. Please let me know if you have further ideas. Marty 14:10 pm, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether you start with a semantic framework and add content, or start with content and overlay a semantic framework, you end up with the same end result. Why do you say it's not possible to add the semantic framework to the existing content? If it is well written, it will implicitly take into account the structure you wish to explicitly add - it's impossible to right good course material without taking it into account. Is the current content really that badly written? (I haven't read it - yet. I will now.) --Tango 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion that "you end up with the same end result". A semantic framework ensures that one does not build a series of articles with no particular audience in mind, written with inconsistent style and expectations. It ensures that an author, when writing an article, knows precisely which other articles are logically and pedagogically required. A semantic framework allows an author to design an article with standards in mind -- such standards are often legally required for adoption by school districts. As for the quality of current primary and high-school mathematics on Wikiversity, I will let you judge. Personally, I would consider most of the articles there not only incomplete, but essentially disposable, with the exception of some linked wikibooks that seem worthwhile. Marty 5:25 pm, 2 September 2007 (UTC)