Wikiversity:Meetings/Learning on Wikiversity/03June2008/log

This is a log of a meeting on IRC on 3rd June, 2008 about 'learning in Wikiversity' - see Meetings/Learning on Wikiversity.

A short summary you can find here.

intro

 * [5:05pm] cormaggio: ok, maybe we can start and people can join in as they arrive (McCormack might be here)
 * [5:07pm] cormaggio: I'm hoping to get some discussion going around 'learning on Wikiversity' - how it works, what problems exist, what we've experienced, and what we could do about it..
 * [5:08pm] cormaggio: this is partly towards my research - hence this meeting being logged - and I'd like to use some of this discussion as part of my PhD
 * [5:09pm] cormaggio: but I'd like to make clear that I will check this with everyone afterwords to see whether it is ok that I use something, or whether it should be anonymized etc
 * [5:09pm] cormaggio: is that ok, or any questions so far?
 * [5:09pm] assassingr: I'm ok with that
 * [5:10pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: what is the topic of your PhD ? and why the discussion now ? did there anything special happen?
 * [5:10pm] cormaggio: (that's not a request for consent, btw - just to make sure)
 * [5:10pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: with using the info: ok
 * [5:10pm] cormaggio: the topic of my PhD is 'Developing Wikiversity through action research'
 * [5:11pm] cormaggio: (but you don't need to read that!)
 * [5:11pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: no worries :-)
 * [5:12pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: so and now you are at the end of your PHD and want some more info?
 * [5:12pm] cormaggio: why the discussion now - I'm hoping to get an *action plan* together for improving our understanding of how learning works on Wikiversity, and implementing some actions to improve learning on Wikiversity
 * [5:12pm] cormaggio: no - I still see this PHD as in process
 * [5:12pm] cormaggio: very much so
 * [5:13pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: and final question:
 * [5:13pm] cormaggio: there has been a lot of discussion - and action - but I'm not sure I can fit it all into my research question
 * [5:13pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: do you also agree that we can publish the chat afterwards?
 * [5:14pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: (well we can talk also later about that)
 * [5:14pm] cormaggio: oh yes, i agree of course - but I think it's only fair to check *afterwards* just in case someone isn't comfortable with something they said earlier
 * [5:14pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: of course
 * [5:14pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: you mean like: Osama bin Laden?
 * [5:15pm] cormaggio: that's what i meant earlier about feeling comfortable
 * [5:15pm] cormaggio: well, I can't see how Osama fits in here, but.. :-)
 * [5:15pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: :-)
 * [5:16pm] assassingr: and a question from me if Erkan finished with his
 * [5:16pm] _Lou: hi you all !
 * [5:16pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: temporarily I am finished :-)
 * [5:16pm] cormaggio: and another thing I'd like to discuss is the research itself - how you see it and your own relation to it; whether it's been of any influence to you; whether you feel like you're involved ..
 * [5:16pm] assassingr: You are mostly focusing in en.wv?
 * [5:17pm] cormaggio: yes assassingr - that's a good question - it's mainly on en (even though I'm very interested in other projects)
 * [5:17pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: well that would mean you would have to participate there also :-)
 * [5:18pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: or get the knowledge from there to here
 * [5:18pm] cormaggio: yes, exactly - though it;s interesting to hear other projects' participants' reports of their experiences
 * [5:18pm] cormaggio: well, you're both here - so you've brought some knowledge ;-)
 * [5:19pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: another question: how long will this meeting now go ? is there a time limit?
 * [5:19pm] cormaggio: ok - i had thought about 1.5 hours - is that ok, or do you have a cut off point?
 * [5:19pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: that is ok, as long I have coffee
 * [5:19pm] cormaggio: maybe 1 hour could be enough - we'll see
 * [5:20pm] assassingr: we can see that as the conversation rolls

what is the major obstacle to learning in Wikiversity?

 * [5:20pm] cormaggio: so maybe let's start with a problem ;-) - what is the major obstacle to learning in Wikiversity?
 * [5:21pm] cormaggio: what difficulties have we observed people having?
 * [5:21pm] cormaggio: or what difficulties have we had ourselves?
 * [5:21pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: depends on the person - how he learns - one point can be: the used means for learning
 * [5:21pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: WV is mostly just a collection of pages, static
 * [5:21pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: they can, but must not contain multimedia
 * [5:22pm] cormaggio: so, it's a case of not having stimulating enough materials, or..?
 * [5:23pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: yes, that is one - I mean take for example vocabulary learning programs like Rosetta they use many things which stimulate the senses
 * [5:23pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: such things is a little rare at WV
 * [5:24pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: the more senses you use - e.g. when eating - you get a better experience
 * [5:24pm] cormaggio: multimedia has been a long source of frustration for me (and many other people) - our lack of an easy to embed media player is annoying
 * [5:24pm] assassingr: well, at the current stage I think that the lack of material is one problem, but that's not due to the learning model of WV
 * [5:24pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: media upload: yes, that is really bad from commons side to not allow more formats :-(
 * [5:24pm] cormaggio: Erkan - right, so we could be making more interactive materials..
 * [5:25pm] cormaggio: assassingr - that's great - I'd like to know what you think of the 'learning model" of WV - is it one model, or..?
 * [5:25pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: lack of material: that depends what you are searching for I guess - I think stuff like mathematics, IT and so were (e.g. on de.WV) the first things to come - which category/topics you mean assassingr?
 * [5:26pm] assassingr: Erkan_Yilmaz: well, the math, physics and engineering departments which I have checked are not so developed I think
 * [5:27pm] cormaggio: Erkan - the formats issue is a long-standing and very complex one - this is a discussion that's been around the Foundation for a long time - there is a sliding scale from ultra-hardcore people to semi-hardcore people to people that want any content as long as it's free...
 * [5:27pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: depends who is reading it - e.g. most people think the materials must be for university level, since WV contains 'versity'
 * [5:27pm] assassingr: but I think that's about to change in 1 or 2 years from now - take WP as an example
 * [5:27pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: but in general assassingr you are right: the things at WV are less then elsewhere
 * [5:28pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: I also think that material will increase with time: people just think of the image of WP and arrive here at WV and will extend the WV pages
 * [5:28pm] cormaggio: well, on 'not much material', we can take for granted that it's "early days" at WV, right?
 * [5:28pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: yup
 * [5:28pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: WP is now also about 7 years old or?
 * [5:29pm] cormaggio: yeah - Jan 15 2001
 * [5:29pm] assassingr: cormaggio: for starters, I don't believe than any learning model should be static or that there should exist just one
 * [5:29pm] cormaggio: I'm with you there assassingr :-)
 * [5:30pm] assassingr: we could try to develop more learning models and try to categorize them on how people can learn
 * [5:31pm] cormaggio: back to the not much material question - I wonder if there is something holding back content development, as well as it being early days (why, here's McCormack now!)
 * [5:31pm] assassingr: (i don't know if that does make any sense in English, I'm not familiar with education vocabulary so much)
 * [5:31pm] cormaggio: I understand assassingr - and I agree again
 * [5:32pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: any task requires time
 * [5:32pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: and to give for a task x time that task x must have prio for person y
 * [5:33pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: I think people are not so much motivated probably because WV is still young and not like WP or they just don't want to share or didn't learn to share
 * [5:33pm] McCormack: Nothing is holding back content development except lack of contributor retention.
 * [5:33pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: because when they press the save button the things don't belong to them anymore
 * [5:33pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: anyone can theoretically edit it
 * [5:34pm] ¥ McCormack says "contributor retention" again.
 * [5:34pm] cormaggio: well, that's interesting McCormack - that begs the question why we're not retaining contributors..
 * [5:34pm] McCormack: Possibly go back a step and ask first why it is that contributor retention is the problem and not something else?
 * [5:35pm] cormaggio: hold on Erkan - are you saying that this dynamic is different on WV than WP?
 * [5:35pm] McCormack: Successful projects have exponential development - which is what we would like to see.
 * [5:35pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: of course
 * [5:35pm] assassingr: also - when we were about to begin el.wv there was someone that told me that it wouldn't be easy to approach academic people. That way "expert knowledge" wouldn't be freely available and still it would be a prerogative for some few people
 * [5:35pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: one point is: WV and WP have different goals
 * [5:35pm] McCormack: WV has linear development, upwards, steady, but a straight line.
 * [5:35pm] assassingr: I don't know if I agree with that, but it's something to think about
 * [5:35pm] darkcode: it's probably because people try to treat Wikiversity like any other classroom/college/university oriented website when it's not
 * [5:36pm] cormaggio: Erkan - I just want to make sure I understand - the fact that anyone can edit affects contributors on WV more than those on WP?
 * [5:36pm] cormaggio: hi darkcode
 * [5:37pm] ¥ assassingr waves at McCormack and darkcode
 * [5:37pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: yes, because on WP people try to be objective because they are creating an encyclopedia article, but on WV it is about learning in all aspects. That means also non-objective things could be posted
 * [5:37pm] darkcode: I think it's the mix of the fact anyone can edit and people trying to treat Wikiversity like other university oriented websites that is the problem
 * [5:37pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: which then could be edited immediately because someone doesn't like it
 * [5:37pm] cormaggio: assassingr - what was the perceived problem with academic people again?
 * [5:37pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: in WP they have some kind of "guarantee" that when they post neutral enough that their contribution stays
 * [5:38pm] darkcode: people contributing to university oriented websites are probably use to writing papers that aren't edited without there approved review
 * [5:39pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: yeah, people have when thinking of university some kind of fixed/structured/hierarchical viewpoint
 * [5:39pm] assassingr: Academic people wouldn't be interested in doing research in Wikiversity, that was the problem
 * [5:39pm] cormaggio: ok Erkan - I think I see better what you're saying - so have you any thoughts on how this subjectivity can be harnessed in a productive and perhaps wiki way?
 * [5:39pm] cormaggio: (or anyone else for that matter!)
 * [5:40pm] darkcode: Wikiversity probably needs to work on encouraging more NPOV if that's an issue, I think original research can be done in NPOV way, by also including the fact that people disagree with said original research or interpretations, and by including what other conclusions are possible
 * [5:40pm] cormaggio: assassingr - was this because it could be edited, or..?
 * [5:40pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: by having a common goal: that we welcome anyone and any edit
 * [5:40pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: even if it may be not neutral
 * [5:40pm] ¥ Erkan_Yilmaz sees it now more form an individual POV
 * [5:41pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: because most of the time think when thinking of WV on a group/ group of student
 * [5:41pm] cormaggio: ok - just to be provocative - would we accept a Nazi POV?
 * [5:41pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: s
 * [5:41pm] darkcode: nothing is learned when everyone agrees
 * [5:41pm] assassingr: cormaggio: no, because there are interested in doing research inside a bricks-and-mortar university, and research there could make more profit
 * [5:42pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: I: yes, because it brings then people together, people interact then, and they learn on the topic and share their viewpoints
 * [5:42pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: because: when people do such things in private you can not bring them to others viewpoints
 * [5:42pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: you could not convince them perhaps
 * [5:42pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: when they do it openly here: it attracts others (pro + contra)
 * [5:42pm] cormaggio: darkcode - that's interesting - but surely a wiki is a form of peer review - different from academia sure, but no less/more susceptible to conflict :-)
 * [5:43pm] darkcode: Wikiversity shouldn't be about trying to convince anyone of there personal POV, but rather about including all POVs in order for people to make up there own conclusions
 * [5:44pm] cormaggio: assassingr - oh sure, the profit motive will play its role - but there are others who see research as something which *must* be in the public domain. indeed, such research is being increasingly funded..
 * [5:45pm] cormaggio: darkcode - that's a good point (or at least that's how I see it) - to allow the possibility to recognize and co-critique different perspectives on any given subject
 * [5:45pm] assassingr: sure, but from personal experience I could tell that there would be may professors that would mock wiki research
 * [5:45pm] cormaggio: oh yes assassingr - I know plenty myself :-)
 * [5:46pm] darkcode: there are professors who use to mock Wikipedia as well and now they tell there students to use Wikipedia to research stuff for there class
 * [5:46pm] cormaggio: but darkcode's idea of NPOV research is interesting - how would that work?
 * [5:47pm] cormaggio: for me the issue of "neutrality" is always problematic - but I see an analogy between WP's method of NPOV and academia's method of 'academic/scholarly practice'
 * [5:47pm] darkcode: neutral in this sense would mean including conflicting perspectives for any research done, and letting the audience make up there own conclusions from the research
 * [5:47pm] assassingr: (about the Nazis, there are some guidelines about fringe research at betawikiversity:Wikiversity:Research_guidelines/En - just to make sure everyone knows)
 * [5:48pm] cormaggio: mmm, interesting
 * [5:48pm] darkcode: even in academic/scholarly research not everyone agrees with conclusions made
 * [5:49pm] cormaggio: yes, the 'Nazi' issue was the main question over whether/how we would allow for research on WV - one of the main questions at its set-up
 * [5:49pm] cormaggio: (not just Nazi - I'm just using it as an extreme example)
 * [5:49pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: so that means that some people (perhaps a majority) agrees to suppress a smaller group's idea?
 * [5:49pm] assassingr: oh, I know, I'm sure you don't have anything personal with Nazis :)
 * [5:49pm] cormaggio: so where are we - how to allow for subjectivity while promoting collaboration - yes?
 * [5:50pm] cormaggio: I'm just trying to keep track of multiple threads
 * [5:50pm] darkcode: by including all conflicting views/perspectives the research can be made less bias, also including any supporting facts/data from the research or from previous research, could booster its reliability
 * [5:50pm] cormaggio: does this relate to contributor retention perhaps?
 * [5:51pm] wknight8111: and we could all sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya
 * [5:51pm] cormaggio: Erkan - you make a good point - how do you validate who decides what is ok and what is not..?
 * [5:51pm] cormaggio: wknight8111 (!!)
 * [5:52pm] wknight8111: there are going to be an infinite number of conflicting views, and some of them are always going to be obvious quackery
 * [5:53pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: you forget one thing: one person has now a viewpoint x (which may be wrong), but by allowing him/her to post it, a process of learning starts, who says that x months later the person doesn't realize the viewpoint was wrong? by not allowing to post/stay you take away this chance
 * [5:53pm] darkcode: using Nazi as an example, could include the Nazi point of view, include information like historical info that may have influenced the Nazi perspective, include any scientific data that might be available that supports there view, as well as any data that is in conflict with the Nazi perspective
 * [5:53pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: people should not limit others freedoms right from the begin, we don't know what will happen with something in the future
 * [5:53pm] cormaggio: I'm going to semi-answer the question I just raised - if it is a community-consensus-driven process, doesn't that eliminate some of the ethical problems with majority rule?
 * [5:54pm] assassingr: I think Erkan's answer is different than yours
 * [5:54pm] wknight8111: and include the perspective that there were no Nazis, no holocaust. Include the idea that Nazis are aliens. Include the idea that Nazis are demons that return to earth every 666 years, include the idea that Jews are made of candy and need to be killed to release the candy, etc
 * [5:55pm] darkcode: cormaggio: not really because the majority can be equated with the most popular POV, and the minority with the least popular POV
 * [5:55pm] assassingr: wknight8111: o.O
 * [5:55pm] cormaggio: ok - I seem to have pressed the 'Nazi button' :-)
 * [5:55pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: well, even if someone posts false data, it is something they have fun with are interested in, they can use WV as their sandbox to spend their time here - we give them an atmosphere to live their dreams
 * [5:56pm] wknight8111: I'm just saying, there are a million points of view, and you can't include them all because all of them aren't serious
 * [5:56pm] assassingr: well, Erkan_Yilmaz, you are extremely liberal for my taste
 * [5:56pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: assassingr probably I also will behave different from situation to situation
 * [5:56pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: but when talking abstract, we should also be open for others ideas
 * [5:56pm] assassingr: that would be better
 * [5:57pm] cormaggio: I'm sure Erkan also has boundaries - like he says
 * [5:57pm] darkcode: well assume good faith plays some role in that, we can assume there serious until reason is given to believe there not being serious
 * [5:57pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: abstract is a high level and when you eliminate right there something you lose many other things below
 * [5:57pm] assassingr: don't take me wrong, I'm a liberal too, but using WV as a sandbox, that's.... new
 * [5:57pm] darkcode: well Wikiversity does have a sandbox server
 * [5:57pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: well it depends: JWS e.g. had some idea with a WV for vandals
 * [5:58pm] darkcode: vandals.wikiversity.org ;p
 * [5:58pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: WV should be for anyone - people should not hinder others form being here
 * [5:58pm] assassingr: darkcode was very right about that - the assume-good-faith part
 * [5:58pm] cormaggio: can I reframe this in pure terms of learning? I think Erkan is raising the point of how a person learns and participates as a *process* - I quite like that lens...
 * [5:58pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: yup, because I speak personally also
 * [5:58pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: when I joined the wiki verse:
 * [5:58pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: I saw it just as a medium to make ads
 * [5:58pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: but since then:
 * [5:59pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: I have had process changes
 * [5:59pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: and now as you all know: devote my time for the health of WV
 * [5:59pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: when someone right at begin had blocked me, I wouldn't be here
 * [5:59pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: and I guess you all would say: that is a loss
 * [5:59pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: you never know how someone develops over time
 * [5:59pm] cormaggio: absolutely! (loss)
 * [6:00pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: and WV is for me besides doing academic research/learning a place for the individual to learn and to develop
 * [6:00pm] cormaggio: thanks Erkan
 * [6:00pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: it goes a little more in the direction like: it is a virtual world which allows people to be home
 * [6:00pm] assassingr: well, I'm sure that everyone is acting the same way as regards ads - leave a message in the talk page
 * [6:01pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: but that is just my POV :-)
 * [6:01pm] cormaggio: (I'm not sure I understand "ads", btw)
 * [6:01pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: ads: I explain
 * [6:02pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: 
 * [6:03pm] cormaggio: ah yes - ok
 * [6:04pm] cormaggio: so yes exactly - people who come in for purposes alien to the spirit of the project can become acculturated etc and become great contributors
 * [6:04pm] darkcode: one way I guess a page could be evaluated is by asking the question "is this a serious page that I can learn/study and allows me to easily make up my own conclusions?"
 * [6:04pm] cormaggio: thanks for bringing that up darkcode
 * [6:05pm] cormaggio: I was going to return to the question of what Wikiversity should include - as we were discussing - which is one part of this
 * [6:05pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: rehi assassingr :-)
 * [6:06pm] cormaggio: are there ways that we can help a random clicker evaluate a page perhaps?
 * [6:06pm] cormaggio: could/should we incorporate a feedback mechanism into every page?
 * [6:06pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: evaluate in regards to ? design/content quality/understandability?
 * [6:07pm] cormaggio: Erkan - right - could/should we ask all of these questions? Or would it put people off?
 * [6:07pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: feedback mechanism would be nice, e.g.a simple one: make a template on the main page asking: did you like the content ? click here and share your view - and the here goes to the talk page
 * [6:07pm] darkcode: well a random clicker is already going to evaluate it by different things, like by its appearance, if it catches there interest, if it sounds plausible, if it includes information they need or if it's lacking in information to backup any claims, etc.
 * [6:07pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: someone who is willing to contribute will add his opinion anyway
 * [6:08pm] cormaggio: hmm, surely "willing to contribute" spans many types of people in many different 'states'..
 * [6:08pm] darkcode: different people will evaluate it in different ways, depending on what there needs are and purpose in looking for it on Wikiversity
 * [6:09pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: I think any kind of feedback is good even if it's vandalism (because vandalism shows, that the page got known)
 * [6:09pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: because so far you don't know besides edits on talk or main page that users saw it
 * [6:09pm] cormaggio: sure darkcode - perhaps simply a "tell us what you think" link which is a new section on the talk page..
 * [6:09pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: we don't have access to server logs :-(
 * [6:10pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: we could go over search engine hits which appear at begin of a search or so, but still this is not reliable
 * [6:10pm] cormaggio: Erkan - yes, this is an issue - but WP has it and presumably so will we eventually..
 * [6:11pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: implementing an easy to use and simple feedback mechanism which rewards people in some kind of form would be something that also non-altruistic people would then use
 * [6:11pm] McCormack is now known as Sleeping.
 * [6:11pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: the reward can happen e.g. already: by increasing edit count, because some only work for that :-)
 * [6:12pm] darkcode: well its been discussed before about having some kind of comments extension that acts similar to the cite extension, adding a comments section to the bottom of the page when say is used on it
 * [6:13pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: interesting: I just thought: the talk page takes the user from the page where he is and takes him out of his thoughts probably - he doesn't see the relation so much more?
 * [6:13pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: I mean if you read the page and you are on the page your mind is still "there"
 * [6:13pm] cormaggio: that's another interesting point Erkan :-)
 * [6:13pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: and not radically - by your eyes - split
 * [6:14pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: comment on the main page sounds ok
 * [6:14pm] cormaggio: and I hadn't noticed that proposal darkcode
 * [6:14pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: but then: would that people like ? e.g. the authors?
 * [6:14pm] darkcode: its only been discussed before on IRC cormaggio
 * [6:14pm] cormaggio: ok
 * [6:15pm] cormaggio: but feedback is only one part of this, surely
 * [6:16pm] cormaggio: if we're discussing how to make learning resources more easily usable for people, there are other considerations..
 * [6:16pm] darkcode: just as the Classes Clock idea has only been discussed on IRC
 * [6:17pm] ¥ Erkan_Yilmaz thinks we have lost some of the participants and should try to bring them in again?
 * [6:17pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: IRC participants now
 * [6:18pm] darkcode: I think some of the problems are that people try too hard to anticipate what people want and divide people into imaginary stereotypes
 * [6:18pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: hi Devourer
 * [6:18pm] cormaggio: how/where do you see that, darkcode?
 * [6:19pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: perhaps when they try to make a 100% perfect page instead of developing it slowly with errors - everybody can see?
 * [6:19pm] darkcode: well for instance I see in the Schools vs Topics vs Portals namespaces, it's assumed that people are only interested in a certain thing and would not want to be distracted by other things
 * [6:20pm] ¥ Erkan_Yilmaz has successfully avoided that discussion :-)
 * [6:20pm] darkcode: it's also in the page about the different type of Wikiversity participants, in calling people teachers, learners, whatever
 * [6:20pm] cormaggio: I wonder if "having errors" is seen as the key to other people jumping in and collaborating? Is that our model for participation?
 * [6:20pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: darkcode: yes, how they title others :-)
 * [6:20pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: but people just need such stereotypes to make the world look easier, simpler to understand
 * [6:21pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: seeing errors and jumping could mean 2 things: either I want to help or I want to show the other has made an error
 * [6:21pm] cormaggio: well, I think there's benefit in identifying uses of Wikiversity - because people will have clear needs to use Wikiversity for
 * [6:22pm] darkcode: it encourages the attitude that people are just learners, just students or just teachers, rather than encouraging people to teach what they know, while trying to learn what they don't know
 * [6:22pm] cormaggio: but I think there's always been the attitude that people's roles and needs will always be flexible in Wikiversity - changing from a teacher to a learner to a browser, etc
 * [6:23pm] atglenn: I kind of like the approach of collective learning, where there is not someone teaching to an audience but, while someone learns a topic they are recording their experiences learning it and each participant is...
 * [6:23pm] atglenn: ... adding content to the others' contributions
 * [6:23pm] darkcode: well that is a problem too, people's roles don't necessarily change either, people may need to browse in order to learn or teach something
 * [6:24pm] cormaggio: atglenn - that's something that I'd like to see more of actually - and develop a style of working that might encourage people to take control of their learning
 * [6:24pm] darkcode: someone way want to build on existing work and avoid duplicating what someone else has already done
 * [6:25pm] atglenn: with the "record after you learn it" model, (thanks Erkan) people have to wait for one person to
 * [6:25pm] atglenn: have complete knowledge of the topic (and then be dependent on that person's knowledge)
 * [6:25pm] atglenn: with a collective learning process there is no waiting and each person can contribute as they experiment,
 * [6:26pm] atglenn: so that we benefit from their struggles during the learning process
 * [6:26pm] darkcode: ya
 * [6:26pm] atglenn: rather than seeing only the finished product
 * [6:26pm] cormaggio: atglenn - I'd really like to start to define that model - that would be a great action step for this meeting
 * [6:26pm] darkcode: everyone should be learning while mentoring those who want to learn, what they already have learned, as they've learned it
 * [6:26pm] assassingr: for me teacher/learner attributes are just to indicate if someone works towards providing resources or he wants to get more resources, nothing more than that
 * [6:26pm] atglenn: and since none of us actually learns bu producing a finished product straight away...
 * [6:27pm] atglenn: we all learn by encountering obstacles and working through them... this seems like an added benefit.
 * [6:27pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: yup, learning is a mental change
 * [6:28pm] ¥ assassingr darkcode confused me...
 * [6:28pm] assassingr: oh, I give up
 * [6:29pm] cormaggio: well, there are probably a few things I haven't understood fully myself
 * [6:29pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: only a few?
 * [6:29pm] darkcode: well like say your learning C++, while your learning C++, you could be mentoring someone on how to declare variables in C++ because you've learned that concept, but your still learning, and there learning from you, so your both learning and a mentor for another learner
 * [6:29pm] * Erkan_Yilmaz understands many things not
 * [6:29pm] cormaggio: but I'm aware that this meeting has been going a while now and I think we might want to put our heads together for some action
 * [6:30pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: darkcode: yes
 * [6:30pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: by seeing how someone else does it, you have another viewpoint instead just learning yourself alone
 * [6:31pm] darkcode: you can also explain what worked for you, with many people explaining what worked for them, people have more methods of learning
 * [6:32pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: darkcode - by any chance your example was in relation to pair programming?
 * [6:32pm] cormaggio: I'm not sure atglenn's model and darkcode's model are the same...
 * [6:33pm] darkcode: also I was thinking of an alternative to primary school, secondary school, etc. that might be a better way to organize resources
 * [6:33pm] cormaggio: perhaps they are..
 * [6:33pm] atglenn: I think my model is different. they are not mutually exclusive, certainly.
 * [6:33pm] cormaggio: ..but my point is: maybe we should write up this model explicitly on-wiki?
 * [6:34pm] darkcode: organize them by more general category like Resources for young children, Resources for older children, Resources for teens, Resources for young adults, Resources for adults, Resources for the elderly
 * [6:35pm] darkcode: those are more easily recognized categories that don't rely on as much on geographical location, but still rely some though on culture
 * [6:35pm] darkcode: might be a little less confusing
 * [6:35pm] darkcode: could also have Resources for everyone
 * [6:36pm] cormaggio: darkcode - yeah, but there's always going to be problems
 * [6:36pm] cormaggio: there are plenty of adult learners who don't know how to read advanced texts (or at all)..
 * [6:37pm] cormaggio: (but I'm just being my usual 'problematic self')
 * [6:37pm] darkcode: well the way I see it, these names make it easier for people to tell what kind of resources they might understand
 * [6:38pm] darkcode: with the educational levels approach more guesswork is involved I think
 * [6:39pm] darkcode: but I still think A depends on B, so B is categorized in Resources depending on A, is the best approach
 * [6:39pm] atglenn: can someone scour JWS' pages to see if he hasn't written up something like this already?
 * [6:39pm] cormaggio: right - well, we're not going to solve this one now perhaps..
 * [6:39pm] atglenn: (sorry, was occupied)
 * [6:40pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: about the categorizing there is hot discussion atm at en.wv
 * [6:40pm] cormaggio: ..but I'd like to start to bring this to a conclusion of 'what next'
 * [6:40pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: just browse through the colloquium
 * [6:41pm] atglenn: *already
 * [6:41pm] cormaggio: I definitely like the idea of clarifying how collective learning would work - without the need for 'waiting' for others
 * [6:41pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: what means collective learning ? learning together or creating a collective mind which knows all what was learned?
 * [6:42pm] cormaggio: atglenn - I'm pretty sure JWS hasn't written it up quite like this - but I'll send on some relevant links
 * [6:42pm] atglenn: one downside with that model is that it requires a group that learns together (ideally)... and with our current numbers this is difficult. but this is the model we could strive for.
 * [6:42pm] atglenn: I'll try to write something, where should it go?
 * [6:42pm] cormaggio: Erkan - that's an interesting question - one for the wiki :-)
 * [6:42pm] atglenn: learning together, Erkan, and leaving a record of that learning process
 * [6:42pm] atglenn: in my head, anyways
 * [6:42pm] cormaggio: I think we should set up a page Collective learning?
 * [6:42pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: leaving a record: like in a blog?
 * [6:43pm] cormaggio: or we can get a better name if we like
 * [6:43pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: page name: it is a wiki it can be changed anytime
 * [6:43pm] atglenn: not necessarily a blog. the on-wikt writings of the participants would be that record
 * [6:43pm] cormaggio: but there's also some other pages, two are linked in the channel info
 * [6:43pm] cormaggio: "learning model" and "discussion group"
 * [6:44pm] atglenn: well, I vote for the collective learning page and it can be linked to from anywhere else that's appropriate.
 * [6:45pm] cormaggio: I'd also like to pick up on this theme of subjectivity, personal development, and wiki inclusion/exclusion..
 * [6:45pm] cormaggio: Erkan - do you have a place for that, or a new page required?
 * [6:45pm] atglenn: please elaborate
 * [6:45pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: place for?
 * [6:46pm] cormaggio: Erkan - the notion of how to include people into the process of learning, when they might first appear to be radical POV's or vandals etc
 * [6:46pm] cormaggio: atglenn - that was the theme in a nutshell ;-)
 * [6:46pm] atglenn: thanks!
 * [6:46pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: well isn't there - assume good faith and don't bite newcomers?
 * [6:47pm] cormaggio: right

PLE

 * [6:47pm] cormaggio: I also think the notion of a PLE is relevant here..
 * [6:47pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: :-)
 * [6:47pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: well PLEs as the name PLE are a new wave at WV
 * [6:47pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: it was started by you :-)
 * [6:47pm] cormaggio: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Personal_learning_environment
 * [6:48pm] cormaggio: yes :-)
 * [6:48pm] Sleeping is now known as McCormack.
 * [6:48pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: rehi McCormack
 * [6:48pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: well I have a PLE
 * [6:48pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: but Cormac - I don't see your PLE or?
 * [6:48pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: or it is a little hidden or not declared as PLE?
 * [6:49pm] cormaggio: but I think it's relevant to the question of how the individual interacts with the community/space, and how community facilitators can help people on their personal learning curves
 * [6:49pm] cormaggio: hmm, interesting observation Erkan!
 * [6:49pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: well every interaction/edit in WV is a step in the PLE
 * [6:49pm] cormaggio: I have to admit - a lot of my reflections are in a diary on my desktop - not much/all of it goes onto my blog :-(
 * [6:50pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: so, why are they private?
 * [6:50pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: just lazy?
 * [6:50pm] cormaggio: that's a long discussion - but basically so I don't have to think about what I'm writing
 * [6:51pm] cormaggio: whether it's ok to be read etc
 * [6:51pm] cormaggio: but really, that's another discussion..
 * [6:51pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: ok
 * [6:52pm] cormaggio: I think contributor retention brought up by McCormack is an interesting point to take up - but it was left unexplored..
 * [6:52pm] cormaggio: maybe next meeting, or on-wiki
 * [6:53pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: could someone explain the meaning of c.r. ? because when I search the translator there is much words :-(
 * [6:53pm] atglenn: are these discussions only about models for en wikt?
 * [6:53pm] cormaggio: anything else that anyone wants to focus on - arising from this meeting?
 * [6:53pm] atglenn: or are they meant to be cross-wv models?
 * [6:53pm] atglenn: *discussions
 * [6:53pm] cormaggio: atglenn - it would be great if ideas could cross-pollinate between projects
 * [6:54pm] atglenn: I wonder if we might want to have these discussions in the main channel, rather than here
 * [6:54pm] cormaggio: ok - I'll bear that in mind for the next meeting - thanks atglenn
 * [6:54pm] atglenn: ok
 * [6:55pm] cormaggio: oh yes, NPOV was a big theme here - and whether/how it's useful..
 * [6:56pm] cormaggio: what's c.r. Erkan? where did you see it?
 * [6:56pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: c.r. = contributor retention
 * [6:57pm] cormaggio: ok - that would be 'how to keep (active) contributors (actively) contributing'
 * [6:57pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: I see
 * [6:57pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: making them feel comfortable and valued
 * [6:58pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: but we can elaborate next meeting also?
 * [6:58pm] cormaggio: that would be great, yes
 * [6:58pm] cormaggio: so, I'm not sure of the action coming from this meeting..
 * [6:58pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: you could make some points where we could talk for the next meeting?
 * [6:58pm] cormaggio: I see the page on collective learning as a great step - but what else?
 * [6:58pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: and everybody can suggest also themselves
 * [6:58pm] cormaggio: yes, I'll do that
 * [6:58pm] cormaggio: exactly
 * [7:00pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: well one action is: we have laid the basics for the next meeting
 * [7:00pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: people can see what it is we talk about and then from that they can bring more input - we were just 4-5 persons now
 * [7:01pm] McCormack: So did you reach any conclusions?
 * [7:01pm] cormaggio: yes - I'll have to read this log and see what actions/problems we've defined - and it would be great if people could add to the list
 * [7:01pm] cormaggio: I'll post a summary of the meeting as well as the log on-wiki
 * [7:02pm] cormaggio: conclusions McCormack? well, we at least have something to define and something to talk about - that was the purpose here :-)
 * [7:02pm] cormaggio: so, unless someone has something burning to say, maybe we should call this (meeting) to a close for now..?
 * [7:03pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: 2h is enough
 * [7:03pm] cormaggio: it's been 2 hours - sorry Erkan :-)
 * [7:03pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: :-)
 * [7:04pm] cormaggio: well, thanks very much to everyone - it's been very interesting, and, I think, useful
 * [7:04pm] atglenn: thanks for having us.
 * [7:04pm] cormaggio: but the test of that is in the action to come of course
 * [7:04pm] cormaggio: atglenn :-)
 * [7:05pm] cormaggio: oops - phone
 * [7:06pm] cormaggio: sorry everyone! thanks again!
 * [7:06pm] Erkan_Yilmaz: bye then for this meeting, now IRC life begins