Wikiversity talk:Scope

Time frames
In thinking about how to launch Wikiversity, it is important to talk about a timeline for the development of the project. My expectation is that the project will start small and grow larger. It will not be possible to do everything right at the start. We should think critically about the types of activities and subgoals that should be emphasized in order to support the launch of the project. Some major and ultimate goals for the project might need to be approached incrementally with the expectation that "obvious" goals such as constructing conventional online courses will require a wiki support system that will encourage multiple editors to contibute to a course's development in a distributed fashion over an extended period of time.

It has been natural for all of us to leap to the logical conclusion: that it would possible to construct conventional online courses within a wiki. However, we need to put some thought into the practicalities of attracting and supporting Wikiversity editors who will do the hard work of editing the Wikiversity pages so as to construct such courses. Also, we need to face the reality that the easily imagined goal of constructing Wikiversity courses is in competition with many other activities that potential Wikiversity editors can be involved in. I think the past history of Wikiversity (within the Wikibooks project) demonstrates that it is not enough to just start the Wikiversity project and expect that editors will automatically show up and put functioning courses on line. Also, I think that almost all wiki courses will never really fit the "conventional" mode. The natural mode of operations for any wiki is dependent on distributed processes to an extent that is not compatible with conventional online courses that have specific times of existence, designated instructors and a group of students forced to march in lock-step.

All that said, I think the dream of constructing conventional online courses within Wikiversity is fine, but the Board is correct to state that it is not wise to try to launch the project by simply imagining that by setting up a new wiki space then Wikiversity editors will suddenly show up and put courses online. That is not how wiki works. There might be a few people who are only looking for free server space so that they can put some training session online TODAY, but for the most part it is unreasonable to expect that there is an army of people just waiting to put free courses online in wiki format as soon as the doors open.

It is not constructive to view the Board's stated requirements for the contents of an approvable Wikiversity project proposal as a roadblock to goals that are widely held by members of the community who voted in favor of the Wikiversity project. It is not an "us vs them" situation. It is not a question of should there by Wikiversity courses or not. The Board cannot prevent the community from making online courses. However, in my view, the requirements for the project proposal that have been imposed by the Board are based on a realistic assessment of how the wiki interface works and communities of wiki editors grow, interact and die. The requirements for the Wikiversity project proposal that have been established by the Board are not based on arbitrary decisions that should provoke outrage and contempt within the Wikiversity community. If members of the community fail to try to recognize the good intentions of the Board and the wisdom of the imposed restrictions, then the project will never be approved by the Board.

To those members of the community who have responded with outrage to the Board's Wikiversity project proposal requirements, I can suggest a first step towards possible reconciliation. I suspect that it is possible to construct a wiki learning environment that optimally takes advantage of the wiki user interface. There are some goals and projects that make sense for the launch of Wikiversity because they take into account the realities of the wiki interface and how communities of wiki editors grow and function. At the same time, there are some concievable goals for Wikiversity that would actually damage the project if they were adopted as immediate goals for the project launch. I suggest that our first natural impulse, to imagine re-creating conventional courses in wiki format, is easier to imagine than to make happen. I encourage the members of the Wikiversity community to be open to un-conventional learning opportunities that are "natural fits" for the wiki user interface. In my view, if we develop these "wiki-natural" learning-oriented projects at the launch of Wikiversity, then the project will get a good start in life and be able to move on to the most ambitious goals. If the community eventually finds a way (and a need) to put online a bunch of conventional courses, the Board will never be able to stop it. For those who view conventional courses as the only concievable content for Wikiversity, I ask that you remain open to other types of learning opportunities that are made possible by the wiki interface and will be the best way to launch Wikiversity. Please be open to various learning projects that are natural for the wiki interface and will tap into existing pools of wiki editors. Starting Wikiversity with an emphasis on such wiki-oriented learning projects is not saying no to the future possibility of conventional courses. It is saying yes to a viable project that will be approved by the Board. We should all be able to live with courses as a long-term goal that will come into focus after a strong launch of the project. --JWSurf 17:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * John, I fully agree with this assessment (with the caveat that the board obviously can stop courses developing if they like, but with the strong feeling that they wouldn't if courses developed in the way that you envisage). As I understand WiseWoman to see them, "full courses" are simply full course materials - in this case there is absolutely no controversy. The controversy begins in whether Wikiversity is itself used as a place of learning. Now, I believe that Wikiversity should be this "place of learning", and I believe that it could include online courses, but I agree that they do not need to be our initial goal. I agree that wiki-based learning projects could be designed around the materials that Wikiversity hosts, and I believe that they can be mediated through study groups, learning communities and portals, which we have already discussed. I think that this needs to be better explained on Learning, so that people who are obviously motivated to share their knowledge can do so, without feeling frustrated. Cormaggio @ 09:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Methinks we need to define the term "online course", as there are many things this could actually be. I'll get right on it, even if I don't have time :) --WiseWoman 20:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This section of the proposal is too conciliatory to other projects. For example: Wikibooks has a clique of regulars who wish the Wikibooks to be printer ready and who frown upon links to external materials.   It is no large stretch of imagination to foresee that this will often make these books less useful to online students than they could be.  It is likely in this situation that rather than wasting time debating with Wikibooks regulars learning groups or even individual student will fork the book if it is a useful starting point and start adding links to other online material to improve its effectiveness on Wikiversity learning trails and to Wikiversity students.  It would reduce future strife and controversy if it was understood in the approved project proposal that Wikiversity will tend to its knitting and other WMF sponsored projects can tend to theirs.  Nevertheless, the project is fine as written if it gets a permanment URL activated.   Opponents to Wikiversity never seem to account for its total lack of visibility, advertising, stability, etc. when claiming it has not prospered so far therefore it will never prosper.  Allow me to assist you WiseWoman with a prototype definition"


 * A Wikiversity Online Course is a location in the Wikiversity URL/namespace where more than one student has agreed to work together via some documented and evolving procedures to study material (information, data, and documented knowledge interlinked with the rest of the internet as well as using traditional references to offline material) of interest; while improving that available body of free material available in humanity's knowledge commons (see GNU FDL and the stated mission of WFM used when soliciting public funds for operation) for future students, groups or asynchronous mobs or individual students, and other useful purposes at the sole discretion of the user as per the GNU FDL.  68.238.143.172 06:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)  lazyquasar

"What Wikiversity is not"
I, and some of the other users (such as those at Creation of Free Online University) disagree strongly with this section (as it was added by WiseWoman) and feel than there should be nothing preventing Wikiversity to offer pseudo-traditional courses (as the excellent Hitler's Germany course currently underway), and that accredation is not only desirable, but a real long-term possibility. The Jade Knight 03:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The scope of Wikiversity
Wikiversity is two things. It is the framework for creating and using learning materials and it is the actual learning materials. Therefore, the success or failure of Wikiversity will be judged on these two items alone. Only these will define the scope of Wikiversity.


 * The structure - Functional and fantasy
 * The structure of Wikiversity is still very rough and the eventual direction is not clear. Initially a general structure was need and that is being developed now.  However, the trend is to develop an imaginary university (fantasy) rather than a real one (functional).  While half the structural development is to flesh out the categories where the lessons and materials will go, too much distraction is being created by developing imaginary lessons which are just useless stubs that hinder, not help the attraction of authors to Wikiversity.


 * An equally important part of the structure of Wikiversity is the software. While designed for efficient use at Wikipedia, the design of the software is awkward and limiting for authors at Wikiversity to use.  These deficiencies are not being address and new authors are finding the wikiversity environment extremely awkward to develop in.  Therefore, Wikiversity has not been attracting authors who complete and maintain lessons.


 * The ultimate measure
 * The final measure of the success and failure of Wikiversity will be the lessons and learning materials that are developed. Wikiversity will eventually bend to fit the lessons that are completed, ready for use, and staffed by willing coordinators.  Only when lessons are actually finished will we know what the true scope of Wikiversity is. Robert Elliott 15:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"useless stubs that hinder, not help the attraction of authors to Wikiversity" <-- A wiki is a website for collaborative authoring of webpages. A stubby page might hinder some "authors" who are not familiar with online collaboration. For "authors" who respect the fact that Wikiversity is a place for collaboration, a stub page is an invitation to collaborative editing. A Wikiversity stub page was probably started by a student who wishes that there were learning resources at Wikiversity about a particular topic.

"new authors are finding the wikiversity environment extremely awkward to develop in" <-- Wikipedia has a large number of resources for helping editors learn how to contribute (Editing Wikipedia). The Wikiversity help pages need work and Wikiversity should have better development of resources such as Wiki 101 that would help participants "learn the ropes" for wiki editing.

"lessons that are completed" <-- this is just one part of the Wikiversity mission. "..... the idea here is to also host learning communities, so people who are actually trying to learn, actually have a place to come and interact and help each other figure out how to learn things. We're also going to be hosting and fostering research into how these kinds of things can be used more effectively." (source)Most Wikiversity editors are students who are not going to wait for someone else to produce "complete lessons". Does Wikiversity have "staff" or does it have participants? --JWSchmidt 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)