Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Archive 3

Main Page | talk | archive


 * Archived conversations from September at Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Archive 2
 * Please do not edit these archived sections

Where are announcements about Content?
Good News! The first  Motion Picture Storyboard has been created for the WikiU Film School's short movie called Seduced by the Dark Side!

Where do I tell people about it? All the news and announcement pages that I can find are only about the site itself, not about the new and great lessons inside. Robert Elliott 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great! I've added it to the featured content of Portal:Media for now. There's no place as of yet to make general announcements about content (apart from Colloquium) - though I've also been trying to get Examples going as an indication of the breadth of various types and levels of content on Wikiversity - it could be added there too (in an appropriate - ie probably new - section). Nice one! Cormaggio 16:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Major problem!
Coming to this front page, no one understands (certainly not immediately) what the hell this wiki is for/about!? I still don't really get it!

The Main Page needs to state CLEARLY AND SUCCINTYLY exactly what this wiki is about: what kind of information is in the Main namespace. --131.111.8.98 02:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (w:User:Alfakim)


 * You might be able to help make the main page more user friendly by helping at User:Morley/Sandbox. --JWSchmidt 04:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

i think that wiki is a great source of help for all persons (Unsigned comment by User:216.240.107.1 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

What about Wiki tutors?
For students learning to write, what about Wiki tutors to give pointers and praise. Pointers could be to subject areas / writing advice subheadings the tutors may be familiar with, but the new learning students might not.--68.4.98.20 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe Wikiversity needs its own version of Writing Across the Curriculum. The basic unit of writing in a wiki is the page edit and everything we write is subject to correction by others. There could also be a more formal system in which Wikiversity participants could be encouraged to write essays that would be moved to subpages and subjected to corrections by "tutors" and re-writes by the student. --JWSchmidt 02:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A Friendly Observation
There have been comments on the Main Page being inadequate to describe what this wiki is/does. I'd like to second these comments and provide a couple observations. There are two groups of people on this wiki, those from the original project at Wikibooks, and those who have joined since the split. I am noting a severe disconnect bewteen these groups regarding the impression of what the wiki is/does. I've noted, for example, that any attempt to mention "online courses" or anything thereto related has met with polite opposition from the old hands. The statement is that courses belong in Wikibooks, whereas learning projects belong here. I feel that this can be explained, in part, by the ambiguity and confusion with which the Wikiversity mission statement is articulated. The other major part of the problem is the name. Who would imagine that courses, not simply books, should be on Wikibooks? Who would imagine that courses should not be on Wikiversity? If the mission of this wiki is to do other than provide courses and learning materials and curricula, its name ought to be changed. I will keep doing what I am doing. I forsee that, unless something is done to hone the message being given to newbs, the newer members of this commuunity will think more and more like me and less and less like the originators of this site had intended. Part of it is the genuine lack of direction (save the polite requests to "stop it and go to Wikibooks"), and the issue of nomenclature. If the previous culture is fine with mission creep and a change of focus, just leave things as they are. If the old guard wants to preserve the mission statement, it would be best to elucidate it clearly, and change the name of this wiki.--Dnjkirk 07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to examples of, "the statement is that courses belong in Wikibooks". "Who would imagine that courses should not be on Wikiversity?" <-- In November 2005 the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees rejected the first Wikiversity project proposal and instructed the Wikiversity community to modify the proposal to "exclude online-courses". As far as I can tell, the Board was encouraging the Wikiversity community to think about learning activities that are suited for the wiki user interface rather than try to cram conventional course structures into wiki pages. Wiki technology facilitates online collaborative authoring of webpages. An interesting question is: can the Wikiversity community discover new, non-traditional structures for "wiki-courses" that build on the power of collaborative learning? About the name of this wiki.....why should it be changed? --JWSchmidt 04:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "any type of material on here in Wikiversity which could (or should) belong in a book belongs on Wikibooks, including book-style self-teaching courses." (User_talk:Dnjkirk), "The one thing I think we want to avoid are self-teaching courses. These are the sort which are found in Wikibooks and belong in Wikibooks." (School_talk:History). As for the question of changing the name, that is not the statement I made. It was to either tighten the definition of what is done here, or change the name to discourage people from imagining this to be a place that is for University-style learning. Basically, if it isn't for courses and university-style learning, should it be called Wikiversity? And if it is, and this is all just a misunderstanding... then perhaps the Main Page should be rendered more clear? Where I work right now, education is very inaccessible to the bulk of the citizens and when it can be paid for it is not of the highest quality. My hope for Wikiversity is that it will be useful in spreading more accessible and free learning materials to people who live in places like this. I've been developing whatever pages I've been developing with this in mind, and in the hopes communities would form around these pages to create a more community-style approach to learning. In this, I feel I'm embracing the mission statement at least in spirit if not in nomenclature. What seems to be the problem is that my misuse (reinterpretation?) of your nomenclature seems to have sparked some belief that it shouldn't be here.--Dnjkirk 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is the place for all textbooks that meet the requirements of that project, in particular, "A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." Wikiversity is a place that is open to other types of learning materials that do not fit the definition of a Wikibooks textbook. In addition, Wikiversity encourages participants to form Learning groups and engage in collaborative learning activities here at the Wikiversity website. In other words, Wikiversity is not just a collection of static learning materials for use at conventional educational institutions. I think we need to get creative with respect to the relationship between Wikiversity and Wikibooks. I think a good habit for Wikiversity participants is to be aware of what Wikibooks textbooks exist. Wikiversity participants should make use of Wikibooks textbooks and participate in the creation and improvement of Wikibooks textbooks. Participants in Wikiversity learning projects should be encouraged to develop Wikibooks textbooks; working to improve a textbook is a great way to learn. As for the name issue, it is true that many people will see the word "wikiversity" and think, "hmm, that must mean it is a university like other universities I am familiar with." The Wikiversity project proposal says, "What Wikiversity is not: A place to confer titles, A degree-granting institution, A library, A university." When the Wikiversity project website was launched, there were some people who thought they could re-write the proposal and make the claim that Wikiversity is a university. This made it very difficult to provide a coherent description of the project for new participants. In my view, a good starting point would be to encourage Wikiversity participants to actually read the approved project proposal. This might be a good time to re-do the main page to provide a clearer description of the project. There are similar on-going efforts at pages such as Welcome, newcomers. --JWSchmidt 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There will continue to be contention on this issue, as there is more than adequate volition but inadequate definition. I read the documents you are pointing to above, I read them a while ago. An examination of what I've been putting together at Strategic Studies should allay any fears you have of my acting contrary to the Mission Statement. For example, I have been starting up Wikibooks textbooks for use in (and development by) students at the School of Strategic Studies. Courses are geared to learning around a Project that typically involves the creation, critique, or editing of Wikimedia articles. What is not settled is definition, and you are perfectly right in the assessment that the Main Page needs a re-vamp. I understand this is a beta, as Cormaggio mentioned, but the mission should be as clear as the light of day on the front page or there may be further confusion. Better to act sooner rather than later.--Dnjkirk 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input Dnjkirk. I'm firstly disappointed you perceive some sort of split between "old hands" and newbies - that's absolutely not the way it should be - nor how I perceive it. I think the issues you outline, however, are down to the fact that Wikiversity has had such a long (and often painful) birth. The issue of "courses" is, as John points out, down to the original rejection of the proposal by the board in November 2005 - based, in part, on a nervousness about "online courses". However, this matter is still unresolved, in my eyes at least, and I think I will take it upon myself to respark this discussion within the whole Wikimedia community to see if we can find any clarity as to the exact reasoning behind the original rejection. (On second thoughts, I think I might leave it a week, seeing as the board are currently on a retreat in Frankfurt.) Overall, on the identity of the project and your work within it, I think it is perfectly ok to continue as you are, and to try to feed back to the wider community about what you are finding about your pedagogical style as you go. That's a key ingredient towards becoming a meta-learning community about learning - one of my personal goals for Wikiversity. :-) But I think there's absolutely no point in having to change the name - we are a community of teachers and learners in the classical sense of the word "universitas" - though we are defining ourselves as we go along. Cormaggio 10:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC) I should also note that we are in "beta phase" - in which the proposal that we put together over the last year is to be consolidated. I would urge that we work within that (very broad) format - which should not prevent you from working as you are doing - so that, if we have presented a sustainable project base at the six month mark, we should become a fully-fledged Wikimedia project. Cormaggio 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cormaggio, your comments have always been positive and encouraging and a testament to your patience. I also believe you understood my use of a rhetorical device to discuss the issue of definition rather than the silly suggestion of name changes for the site. I don't have much time in the day, but I do spend a lot of my spare time thinking, writing, and developing ideas for Wikiversity. I've become quite passionate. It's easy to be so when you see how much something like this is needed. Thanks for the understanding.--Dnjkirk 15:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Research monograph $$ \in $$ wikiversity; Textbook $$ \in $$ wikibook.--Hillgentleman 11:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * rough work sheets$$ \in $$ wikiversity; research paper $$ \in $$ Established Journals for the moment, $$ \in $$ wikiversity ultimately;  Schaum outline $$\in$$ wikibook or wikipaedia--Hillgentleman 11:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I lecture part time at a local college. At present I am entering post-graduate material, but I have found that my (undergraduate) students don't take notes and rarely read their textbooks.


 * Wikiversity is an ideal place to put a synopsys of lectures.
 * It has an advantage over conventional textbooks in that it can be updated immediately.
 * Academia is not accessable to all and I personally believe in the widest possible distribution of knowlege. If my notes help a student at a correspondent university, I would welcome that.
 * It will allow shy students to ask questions anonomously.
 * It allows Q & A sessions outside of class - particularly in study week when students are panicking.
 * I am intending to use it as a resource for real life teaching at a recognised college.
 * If it is not policy to promote recognised university courses, then I really believe that the policy should be reviewed to take cogniscence of these issues. If not, what is the point?
 * If I am at the wrong place, then does the Wiki system have a home for what I want to do?
 * In the mean time, I think it is a wonderful home, and fuly intend to continue to "lecture" here until I am told otherwise. Andrew massyn 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "promote recognised university courses" <-- I have no idea what you mean by "promote". You are welcome to add content to Wikiversity that comes from conventional courses as long as that content can be placed under the GFDL. "does the Wiki system have a home for what I want to do?" <-- If your educational content is in the form of a textbook then it should be placed in Wikibooks. Most other educational content is welcome here at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 04:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See also:Computer Architecture Lab--Hillgentleman|User talk:hillgentleman 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Newest Additions

 * What about something like a "Newest Additions" section on the main page? It could show a newly founded school, department, course (whichever was founded latest). mehmetaergun 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, perhaps. Something like Wikipedia's "newest articles"?  The Jade Knight 02:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's always Special:Newpages. I was thinking this could be done somehow automatically (possibly even from Recent changes), just as it is done on many user-created sites. If someone was to write that script and implement it, I would have no problem with that. The only thing for me would be - isn't newest pages likely to show educational material in barely sketched stage, rather than other pages/materials which are more developed? (This is what I set up Examples to show, btw.) But perhaps this could be done cleverly - so I'll leave it to the clever technical people to figure out. ;-) Cormaggio 11:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why wikipedia has featured articles. There could be featured schools/departments/courses. 80.167.94.145 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Other languages
Should people start building Wikiversity in other languages? AQu01rius > (User | Talk | Websites) 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to make a request for a Wikiversity in another language. Also, you can use this site to start making Wikiversity pages for another language. --JWSchmidt 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity already exists in some other languages. Are you looking for a specific language?  The Jade Knight 05:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the Main Page should include a list of Wikiversity in other languages similar to some of the other Wikis. Talonhawk 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Look down near the bottom, "Wikiversity in other languages". --JWSchmidt 22:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just saw that and realized my mistake. So then this question seems to be well answered. Talonhawk 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"where teachers learn, and learners teach"
Cringe... sounds like Wikiversity is embracing the worst criticisms of Wikipedia, where history is determined by who can stick at an edit war the longest. 128.250.37.103 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, seven slogans are rotated currently, one for each day of the week, in the subtitle at the top of the main page. These are based on on suggestions made in a previous round of the motto and slogan contest. When this round is finished, those selections will be changed to the final selection(s). (Btw, based on greater support for other options in the last round, my guess is the "where teachers learn..." option probably won't be a final selection.) Please feel free to comment and select options in the motto and slogan contest. :) --Reswik 02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "I agree that this slogan does not communicate the true goal of wikiversity, for me the excitement of finding this site this morning came while I was doing research for an online english course offered at my university. I am a huge fan of online study, the freedom in scheduling and the overflowing fountain of information available is what makes learning online a wonderful creation to me. However, without my professors I know the learning would be unfocused and the structure they give would be absent. A slogan downplaying their role in learning would be a great mistake on Wikiversity's part."

Create and host free content, multimedia learning materials, resources, and curricula for all age groups in all languages
Oh great, but how I can host my free website on wikiversity?


 * Well, Wikiversity isn't about "hosting your free website", but you're free to upload or develop your resources on Wikiversity. You might find this page at Adding content useful, or perhaps on Welcome, newcomers. Cheers! Cormaggio 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might find wikia.com (formerly wikicities) useful in hosting a free web site if you meet their criteria. Mirwin 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Schools
Nice to see the varied "schools," but where's the school of business? Legend78 14:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Add School of Business
I think the wikiversity should include the school of business.
 * Portal:Professions>School:business

Wik Bullies, Thugs and Ferals
Howcome the Australian editors with the help of some offshore admins are being totally rude and ignorant to new editors and claiming they are using 'sockpuppets' when I had to look up what that was, and am not etc?

Registered user 'Gretaw' has been blocked along with my block when Gretaw is totally absolutely nil to do with me. The admins who did this are either Gretaw or they have attacked a totally not involved reg wik user.

Whatever, the go at me on wikipedia has been pretty disgusting and bad form wik that you allow this bully stuff to happen on your site. Check out that Gretaw stuff and what Thatcher131, Golden Wattle, Longhair/Durova, and any other whinney ones - oh I forgot the pompous Sarah Uhart. There was the spree slope Grahame something also.

Bad show wik. Poor form and disgusting org.


 * Um, there isn't any user Gretaw... Are you sure that this didn't happen in wikipedia?--Rayc 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify Rayc's comment: the administrators on wikiversity aren't the same people as the administrators on wikiversity (or wikibooks, commons, etc.). --SB_Johnny | talk 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, presume Johnny means that the admins on Wikiversity aren't the same as those on Wikipedia ... :-) Cormaggio talk 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)