Talk:Wikiversity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Notice[edit]

Wikiversity has been nominated for deletion from Wikibooks. For the deletion discussion see b:Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Wikiversity. Please comment on the deletion there, not here. Uncle G 14:01:57, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

Wikiversity's existence[edit]

12 days have been gone and there are more votes for it to exist than there are for it not to exist. What's the problem as of this moment?? Georgia guy 20:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

According to this page there was to be a Wikimedia board of directors meeting today with wikiversity on the agenda. A suggested timetable for steps in making wikiversity an independent Wikimedia project is here. --JWSchmidt 22:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

the point[edit]

is it that you can dump your cranky theories on Wikiversity first, and then quote yourself as a published source on Wikipedia? Dark times ahead, then. Wikiversity will crawl with otherwise unpublished kooks. dab () 15:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No. The Wikiversity proposal does not include any system for publishing original research. In fact, Wikiversity might be able to provide an organized system for teaching Wikipedia editors how to find good sources and cite them in Wikipedia articles. I suspect that many Wikipedia editors have no experience in doing this. Any Wikipedia editor who tried to add material without providing good sources could be "sent to school" at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The original Wikiversity proposal said that Wikiversity should, "test the limits of the wiki model both for developing electronic learning resources as well as for teaching and for conducting research and publishing results (within a policy framework developed by the community)". In the current version of the Wikiversity proposal, "conducting research and publishing results" remains as part of the stated mission of Wikiversity. I think the clear intention of the proposal is that Wikiversity support and fosters scholarly “secondary research” (literature reviews). However, the current proposal also says, "Whether or not Wikiversity will host original research or secondary research is still the subject of debate." The comment by User:Dbachmann (above) expressed a very real concern: if Wikiversity allows original research then special effort will have to be made to deal with crank theories and the problem of "original research spam". I think it is safe to say that original research will only exist within Wikiversity if a policy framework can be developed by the community to deal with the potential problems of original research. Everyone who is interested in Wikiversity should read the current proposal and contribute to discussion of these issues. --JWSchmidt 03:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vague[edit]

The article really doesn't give much of a clue what this is. "…free, open learning environment and research community…" is so vague as to be vacuous. - Jmabel | Talk 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I came here to see what Wikiversity is, and I was refracted into a mindless jingoism. What is this? --208.3.137.68 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, what is it specifically? What is the difference between it and Wikibooks? Dessydes 08:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a place for 1) Learning materials (that are not textbooks) and 2) Learning communities (around those materials). Please see the proposal on Meta (which is also on Wikiversity itself, but at least all the links work from the Meta page). Research guidelines still have to be worked out - this is one of the main reasons behind the Beta phase. Cormaggio is learning 13:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity needs translators[edit]

Wikiversity
Wikiversity needs help with translations

Wikiversity is establishing versions in several languages and is going to be holding multi-language discussions in order to develop policies, particularly for research. Wikiversity needs participants who can translate documents from one language into another language. Thanks for your help! --JWSchmidt 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reception?[edit]

Could we get in this article something on how it's turned out? Last time I saw, it looked like it wasn't working. Nobody was writing in it, and there was an implicit pesimistic air among the editors there. Naturally, I don't have evidence nor sources, but if someone could find any (especially if it's someone who says it's going well), it would be great.--Once in a Blue Moon 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

While I don't know how this relates to this article directly, I'm puzzled a little bit about the "pessimistic air among the editors there". Frankly, from what I have seen from other "new" wikimedia projects, the launch of Wikiversity was one of the more successful that I have ever seen, with huge amounts of new content being added within hours of when it started, and a rather successful community of individuals striving to reach the original goals of the project.
That said, there certainly were some significant detractors and critics of the project, and it certainly is a much smaller community compared to those working on Wikipedia, but it is still something that has a continual bit of interest, and is not by any means a dead community.
It should be pointed out (and added to the article somehow) that Wikiversity is the only Wikimedia sister project that has gone through the official new project approval process. It could be argued perhaps that Wikinews also went through the process, but the official guidelines weren't established until after Wikinews became official. Other sister projects like Commons, Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wiktionary were established at a much earlier era when mainly it took convincing Jimbo that it was a good idea to create a sister project...or simply get the support of the developers (as happened with the Wikimedia Incubator project).
The harshest critics about Wikiversity are from the academic community, who are upset at the presumption of this being compared to an actual university, and citing concerns about accreditation and other issues from any on-line learning environment being organized with people lacking PhDs or other academic credentials. Some criticisms are valid, but I would say if you want to know what is going on, visit the website and check it out yourself. It is just one click away! --Robert Horning (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikiversity is a complex project and faces many challenges - I've written about some of these challenges in my paper for Wikimania 2007. You could also read Teemu Leinonen's paper, more about the project's definition. Addressing these challenges might look like pessimism to outsiders, though I would see it as part of its fundamental groundwork. I wouldn't agree with Robert that the harshest critics of Wikiversity are from the academic community - I've heard many opinions from academics, educators, Wikimedians and others which range from unbridled optimism to deep scepticism. This is just part of the terrain that Wikiversity traverses. :-) Cormaggio is learning 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Wikiversity has "turned out" yet ... it's still much in its formative state but is progressing quite nicely in relation to the duration of its existence. I'm also not clear on where you have witnessed this "implicit pessimism" ... from my perspective, while there are clear detractors (as there are in almost all Wikimedia Foundation projects) there is definite sense of optimism about the potential of Wikiversity from a lot of its active participants; its difficult to see just what a 'future' WV may look like, but thats the nature of this game from what I can tell and there seems to be enough people willing to try to take it wherever that future may be that I'm interested in seeing it along on this course and I think the foundation should as well. All that said, this article sucks and I'm going to recommend to the WV community that we get on it for part of Edit Wikipedia Week. Countrymike (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Much of the negativity is from people who drop in looking for great things of interest to themselves only to be disappointed that no one has created it for them yet. They often sneer and then vanish with little productive contribution. Wikipedia survived these hit and run consumers who do not yet quite grasp the wiki way and Wikiversity will also. Meanwhile game developers, artists (CGI or physical ... we can find scanners to get the data in), and java hackers are welcome at v:cisLunarFreighter or v:Lunar Boom Town. Neither are focal points of huge numbers of dynamic web editors yet but I have been having some fun getting ready to pour some aluminum green sand castings and thinking about studying Java so I can move my own art around a web page. A few drop ins have added useful welcome additions so the potential for a community to grow is there. Lazyquasar (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Validationn of 3rd party sources[edit]

If someone feels like validating that some of the quotes provided under the section "Applicability to Modern Learning" are from 3rd party sources viewed as reputable perhaps we can remove the "No third party sources" tag near the bottom of the article. Lazyquasar (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

possible ref[edit]

Possible reference for the line: "Interestingly, Wikiversity embodies James Grier Miller's concept (1982) of the University of the World." New structures for lifelong global education --mikeu (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Though the page does appear to discuss wikis, it doesn't seem to discuss Miller (at least not on the linked page, given my very cursory look) and I wonder if it would be considered a reliable source. At minimum, the statement would require better attribution 'cause right now it looks like some editor made the connection and happened to have a reference. I could be missing some information, but it still looks like WP:OR to me, possibly a WP:SYNTH. WLU (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes cannot be Wikified[edit]

Skomorokh, quotes by their nature cannot be wikified. The quotes have been provided to demonstrate that Wikiversity is indeed notable at the leading edge of pedagogical research and belongs in Wikipedia just as other similar inititiatives such as MIT's OpenCourseWare or One Laptop Per Child programs. If you wish to reinsert the wikifiy tag please place it near the top of the article to indicate you wish the entire article wikified without inviting insertions into quotes provided with citation to original sources for readers eddification. Many people have asked what is Wikiversity and what makes it notable. These research papers help answer those questions in detail for anyone who wishes to learn about Wikiviersity or edit the article in good faith. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. cc Wikiversity discussion page. Lazyquasar (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing that could be done is to convert the inline citations to footnote referencing. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to wikify the links. --mikeu (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
One thing that could be done is to remove that section. Its the majority of the article and reads like a giant advertisement created to promote the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Applicability Section[edit]

Since no one really wanted to discuss the content itself, let's be bold. While there are a lot of good quotes here, they're best used as citations for content, and not simply as the content themselves. If the major content of an article is just quotes from other sources, what kind of article do we have? Not a very good one in my opinion. I'd recommend an interested party take these sources and create their own words to discuss the applicability of wikiversity using these as citations. Otherwise it just reads as some kind of testimonial section, or an advert as I tagged it. "Hey look how great this subject is, all these people say so!"--Crossmr (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone needs those quotes for creating a section based on their own words, feel free to grab them from the history[1]--Crossmr (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I reinserted the refs since these are needed to address concerns [2] about primary sources. I left out the quotes since that seems to be the main point of contention. I realize that the refs need to be wikified. Please be patient, it is the holidays, and it might take a few days for me to cleanup the section. --mikeu (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
are they refs though? is any of the article based on them, or are they really just external links at this point? It seems that they were just there to support those quotes.--Crossmr (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
We're trying to improve the article and address the concerns that have been noted in edit summaries and on this page. The idea is to incorporate info from those references into text that describes the subject of the article, as was requested.--mikeu (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said you weren't trying to improve the article. I'm trying to improve the article as well. I'm also not saying don't include them, I'm simply saying they should be in the right place. Listing them in the references section if none of the article has actually been written using them as a reference could be misleading and confusing to a reader. One because it makes the text look more heavily sourced than it is, and two if someone were to try and verify information and begin reading sources they may read one of these sources and think "Nothing in this article appears to be drawn from this source, why is it listed as a reference?" and move to remove it without realizing they're there temporarily until the section is rewritten using our own words.--Crossmr (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I undid my inclusion of the refs, for a couple of reasons. First, there were some errors in the attribution of the quotes. Second, the comment above about confusion due to placement. Lastly, I think it would be better to work on the material in a sandbox and only include it in the live article when it is more polished. I copied the section to User:Mu301/Sandbox. As a first step I corrected a number of errors (such as crediting a quote to an editor, instead of the author) Next I will try to pull some ideas out of the quotes and write some descriptive text. Although it is in my userspace I encourage others to help me create a draft that can be worked back into the main article. --mikeu (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As an editor who has repeatedly requested that reliable third party sources be added to this article, I support their inclusion in a less than ideal form (ex links perhaps) until someone get around to integrating them. Skomorokh incite 16:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
After cleaning up the citations, I reinserted them in the external links section, per above suggestion. I'm not too concerned about them getting pruned since we are working on a rewrite of the quote material at User:Mu301/Sandbox to be included later.--mikeu (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please incorporate this material into the article.[edit]

Isn't it better just to link it? --Sistemx (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ref for improving the article[edit]

"Wikiversity; or education meets the free culture movement: An ethnographic investigation" Norm Friesen, Janet Hopkins (First Monday, Volume 13 Number 10 - 6 October 2008) --mikeu talk 13:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added it as a external link and also expanded the history section, take a look. extra999 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Project Details[edit]

I cannot decipher this sentence: "Learning is facilitated through collaboration on projects that are detailed, outlined, summarized or results reported by editing Wikiversity pages." Could someone rephrase this sentence to be more meaningful. Thanks. JteB (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

v:Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not is presently cited in footnote 15 of this article. It seems to me that v:Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not should not be cited as a source for this article because it is presently marked as a proposal and its talk page indicates that it has not achieved consensus. James500 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)