User:Stevesuny/sandbox/blog/WikiversityCriticism

In a quest to figure out what Wikiversity is, was, was supposed to be, and has been, I've been doing a bit of Googling. When I searched for "Wikiversity google suggested adding "criticism", so I did.


 * What Wikiversity is Not makes clear that Wikiversity was not conceptualized as a degree-granting institution, or primarily as a post-secondary educational institution.
 * A Wikiversity Review Board was discussed, with the role of "Referee" contemplated, that would serve as trusted advisors for students, editors, facilitators of a peer review process for original reserch, and liaisons between Wikiversity and external institutions and individuals. It doesn't appear such a role exists at presen.t.
 * MetaWiki administered a "Request for Comments in 2010 on "Shut down Wikiversity" that both highlighted some of the critique of the project, and elicited some extended discussion about the purpose and mission and activities of Wikiversity (13 years ago) that is worth a read.

On the positive side, a user on Quora, responding to a "Why did Wikiversity fail" question nine years ago, noted many positive aspects of the project. Just as one could in a University, one can write essays, give a lecture without having to provide sources for everything, it is far, far easier to write for Wikiversity, so there are many academics doing it, Wikiversity is being used by quite a few brick-and-morter schools for various projects, but there are also others interested in this or that. Wikipedians, as shown in the first answer, generally don't understand Wikiversity. It is not at all about creating encyclopedic articles. It is far more like the complete body of what might be written in a large, highly eclectic university. Wikiversity could ultimately become much larger than Wikipedia, because every topic on Wikipedia could be discussed on Wikiversity: learning by doing -- which includes discussion -- is part of the Wikiversity mission.

We are engaged in the process of organizing Wikiversity according to a hierarchy of knowledge, because the flat alphabetical model of Wikipedia organization, which was adopted on Wikiversity originally, does not work as well as a hierarchical approach. (Wikiversity allows subpages in mainspace, unlike Wikipedia.) We also use that to avoid edit conflict. We can *fork* articles where there are differing points of view and users cannot find consensus. We satisfy neutrality policy through inclusion, not exclusion. It can be mind-blowing for a Wikipedian running into a possible conflict that would have led to revert warring on Wikipedia, disappears through forking on Wikiversity, where he gets to do what he wants and so does the other user. Turns out that finding consensus is not so difficult when one is not limited to a single page!