Talk:Wikiversity/Draft Charter

"Internet-based learning materials" <-- There are some Wikimedia projects that are archives. There is no reason that Wikiversity cannot include an archive of "learning materials", but if Wikiversity is described only in terms of "learning materials" then the first thing that some people will claim is that Wikiversity is in competition with Wikibooks.

Exactly but since they have said no to online courses... what can you do? --MateoP

I've never seen an objection to the idea that Wikiversity could develop and archive "learning material" (except for textbooks, they go to Wikibooks). But I think there is more that Wikiversity can do than just focus on "materials". In my view, a wiki learning environment should emphasize learning by doing. Wikiversity participants will learn by participating in wiki editing projects that involve research and scholarship. I think Wikiversity should start with some "service projects" that will help existing WikiMedia projects, particularly Wikipedia (see this discussion page for some ideas). --JWSurf 19:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

One idea, which I was reading about at Talk:Wikiversity/Modified project proposal, was to use the wiki to form reading groups. I guess that these might be groups of people who arrange to read the same material, then some of them use what they learned to contribute to Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikipedia and to add citations to Wikipedia. --Kernigh 19:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen several people on different Wikiversity discussion pages voice support for the idea of groups of people reading on a topic and even having discussions about what is read. I hope that such reading groups would include one or more wiki documents that are edited by the group in order to record what they think is important about what has been read. I think we need to learn how to have temporally distributed reading groups. If someone comes along next year, they can pick up work on a topic that was explored by others the previous year. --JWSurf 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Learning participants of Wikiversity will naturally assist with quality improvement edits of wiki resources used in the course of their individual and collective learning paths. I have no problem with introducing an early bias towards use of Wikimedia projects and materials so they/we get the additional benefit of "many eyeballs" reviewing our material. However, I think Wikiversity must keep clearly in mind that we are establishing a elearning environment for the benefit of our participants. Participant attention is going to naturally move to effective online resources. If Wikipedia's active community cannot get or keep its act together to make their online article the best entry portal to a subject with good easy to follow links to known high quality more detailed information then they will lose the benefit from participants of effective Wikiversity learning environments. Ultimately our self study collaborative learning environments must maximize the benefit to the participants to succeed, not be biased for the benefit of external projects. Otherwise we are wasting our time. Our participants would be potentially as well served by frequenting any commercial information portal such as M$, google or wikicities. Lazyquasar 02:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal Status

Why limit Wikiversity to a subproject of an online enclyclopedia community hijacked (fraudulently established?) by a dot.com entrepreneur? If you check the mailing list archives...assuming they remain intact ... you will find that in the middle of an extended debate regarding whether the wikipedia project was a community or not Jimbo unilaterally organized the Florida nonprofit and stacked the board. This was met with vocal approval by his cronies/cabal and some of the other regulars and a deafening silence from other project supporters who wished wikipedia to move forward successfully. Now we reap the adverse consequences of silence in the face of self serving tyranny and expediency in exchange for some easy funding from Jimbo's pockets. Are we risking another such mistake via the expediency of Wikimedia Foundation funding and established servers and community/participation base? How many months/years can we afford to risk/waste finding out if a more legitimate government established by the governed to protect their interests, rather than the founder's or the selected board member's, will eventually evolve from effective participation?

It is not a terrible amount of overhead/effort to simply agree to form an appropriate non-profit with officers interested primarily in the success of a free online university (rather than a for profit wikicities.com or self aggrandizing philanthropic effort supported by a founder). If we took this course we would have to establish our own mailing list server (perhaps starting with a google or other list for initial organization efforts) and get a couple of wikimedia software servers up and running. Then port the appropriate starting materials from the existing FDL knowledge bases or simply start over from scratch.

This course of action would give us the benefit of a clear mission with a specific URL to advertise to newcomers and a non conflicted project leadership. It would give us the benefit enjoyed by the early wikipedia community of allowing active participants to get started despite efforts of naysayers to limit what the elearning experience might consist of. Why should a nonparticipant in a elearning environment have any say whatsoever about how the course participants choose to proceed with exchanging information and leaving crumbs behind them for the next individual or wave of information exchangers to utilize? If an individual does not think a course is appropriate for themselves they can easily ignore it. Accreditation authorities are a little more sticky but they are probably more easily swayed by a resort to measured results and facts than arbitrary individuals attempting to suppress others legitimate interests via the internet.

Indeed. Other legal entities are already popping up to support free elearning environments. The only question facing the wikimedia "community" is whether we wish to remain at the leading edge or allow others to do the heavy lifting and attempt to copy their success later or stick to our knitting with existing wikimedia projects. Personally I am satisfied that Wikipedia has proven out the wikipedia concept and the wikibooks concept sufficiently to meet my personal goals. If the head winds adverse to free nonprofit elearning wiki environments prove too severe locally, I will probably migrate the FDL materials I find of use and interest to another free learning environment. Lazyquasar 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)