User talk:Fidocancan

ideaweb
I don't think wiki has the structure to deal with this, and I suspect a new thing might evolve, different from wiki, blog or social networking horizontal tag systems. Although eg science has specific factual content to learn, objectively irrespective of the human subjective perception, if we are going to do learning any justice, and give learners any respect, I suggest a completely radical position: no central authorative base to anything. The database is purely relational. There is no objective, authorative account. How can this work? If every contribution is subjective, an honouring system occurs which works like a basic rating system. If I see a page on alebra I like and agree with, I can just add my vote to it. This means that I invest the subjectivity who wrote that page with my agreement. I may also see another page which seems to capture other elements of algebra, and I can vote for that too. Thus, different competing views are supported. As more popular views emerge, so those writers may communicate and resolve differences, and perhaps collaborate to produce mutually supporting pages. Or, if they don't, I can write my page based on the elements from both. This may sound as if the whole theory of knowledge fractures, but if the system of voting is accurate enough, the most accurate and valuable pages will emerge. In the same way wikipedia is patrolled by interested parties, so contributors are patrolled by other contributors. Also, it does not matter if there are thousands of people who think wrongly about a subject, as long as there are those who are sticking to their perception, knowledge, theory, or practice. And after all, people want to learn what works, not what people just think is the case... Hence the system tends towards accuracy, in terms of scientific accuracy of the external world, as well as accuracy in terms of the internal world, languages, human sciences, arts. If a working system can be developed, this should simulate the evolution of learning, not based on institutional authority but on living trust in individuals.


 * I agree with what you are saying. I think Wikiversity is a step in that direction and provides a quick and easy way for people to participate through the MediaWiki interface, as crude as it is in some aspects. The idea that Wikiversity is a learning community building both a knowlegebase and a trust network gives us a platform to expand the whole paradigm shift toward a more evolved collaborative learning/teaching environment. As for quality of the content, a rating system is another good step, as long as the userbase has a focus on scholarly ethics (consensus-driven ones not handed down by an "authority"). Let's just see how things evolve here. I'd like to hear more of your ideas, Fidocancan. By the way, I've listed your "Feedforward" video at our YouTube project page. If you come up with any more, please list them there. Thanks! -- CQ 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Fidocancan, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; for it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWS 21:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jamming Online
Jamming Online has new developments in case you're still interested. &bull; CQ 06:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)