Wikiversity talk:What Wikiversity is not/Archive

Remove "will not" from degree granting institution. It's not clear to me the point of restricting this from Wikiversity's future. Becoming an accredited degree granting institution is a lot easier than most people assume. Olin College did it with less seed money than the Wikimedia Foundation now has.

Roadrunner 10:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind the statement about Olin College. I missed a few decimal places.  Roadrunner 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

perhaps "does not" is a better choice. something to think about though: the college de france i think doesn't confer degrees and as a result has a kind of intellectual freedom that someplace like UC Berkeley or Columbia doesn't.--Smithgrrl 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can well imagine some 'physical' institutions (as opposed to a virtual ones like Wv) confer degrees, or credits, based on (a) studies conducted in WV plus (b) a real life examn confirming sufficient success. This may of course take some time to develop ;-) --Purodha 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think wikiversity should or schools of wikiversity could give a certificate of comleation, not a degree obviously. but something rather than nothing perhaps....it may have some value if an employer has seen wikiversity and perhaps knows of the course that was completed, who knows.--Ryan524 03:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to see this idea (of accreditation, or simply of "certificates of learning") explored. "Expert" involvement and peer review would be critical in this process.  Jade Knight 07:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Others interested in this concept should visit Creation of Free Online University for further discussion, exploration of options. The Jade Knight 03:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote pro, neutral or contra to express your general feeling towards the policy page this page discusses. (Does that even make sense? Shouldn't votes be per policy instead?) --Rogerhc 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should archive these votes. Any polls should be well-thought-out and advertised for community discussion. These votes did not mean anything as far as I can tell. --JWSchmidt 05:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mirwin 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Messedrocker 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rayc 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * JWSchmidt 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * see comments. Guillom 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reswik 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * digital_metalk 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (as it is, or with certain minor modifactions also - such as Guillom's suggestion.) Cormaggio 08:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --Dario vet 12:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * TimNelson 13:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heltec talk

Comments

 * Wikiversity should not be limited by external projects carving territory to subtract from its activities. How long before a wikiX project subtracts fun learning games for kindergartners or sportstrivia wiki subtracts learning communities studying issues of interest in sports fields or whatever identifiable catagory of interest to some site outside of Wikiversity?  Further this negative mandating (which was customary early on in Wikipedia) substantially slowed the initiation of various projects of direct and obvious use in improving Wikipedia and growing its accuracy and community.  How does one write "NPOV" if no common definition of specific words or jargon is available?  Wiktionary was an obvious sister project to Wikipedia yet the early community was determined to keep others efforts focused on an Encyclopedia and "Wikipedia is not a dictionary."  This mindset of telling others what they cannot helpfully do may have some limited use in a specific data project attempting to determine a well defined reference work.  It has no place in a human knowledge applied learning institution allowing some participants to restrict what other participants choose to study or work to present applicable free materials to humanity.  It is easily abused censorship.  People offended by others efforts should cordially help improve them or move on.  The field of human knowledge is huge and ever growing and it is not reasonable or civilized to tell others what they may or may not study.  Mirwin 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't decide on this policy until we try things out and see what we really don't want to have. Messedrocker 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think we should keep our options open, though points 1-3 seem ok. Point 4 seems wrong though: "Wikiversity is not a university" is like saying "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia". Wikipedia fixed that by saying it is not a paper encyclopedia. Point 4 also says "strive to act like a university" which seems to contridict itself. Maybe "Wikiversity is not a brick and morter university"?--Rayc 22:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These 4 items were part of the approved Wikiversity project proposal. If we take them out now, we need to have a good reason. --JWSchmidt 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Point 4. A university is an institution of higher education and research, which grants academic degrees at all levels (bachelor, master, and doctorate) in a variety of subjects. <-- Wikiversity does not grant degrees and cannot be called a university. The phrase "strive to act like a university" is not contradictory; it could even be viewed as including the idea that at some time in the future Wikiversity might grant degrees. --JWSchmidt 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Points 1 to 3 seem ok to me. As for point 4, I think we should write something like Wikiversity is not a higher education university (I let you make it more English), to make it clear that WV is a community of learning which doesn't limit itself to higher learning, but which wants to gather teachers, students and reserchers like a "classic" university does. About deciding now or not, I don't mind making this a policy now and modifying/improving it later when we have a clearer view of the project. Guillom 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the WV community should consider at length if Wikiversity may be a repository for some types of original data and original works, including specialized reference works and specialized subject-oriented encyclopedias (which go in more depth than a general encyclopedia). Also, perhaps it would be best to put a conditional statement on points about Wikiversity not being this or doing that (such as "at this time"). Point one could be restated in a more positive manner -- it may make sense for there to be some titles that experienced WV teachers may earn or be appointed to. Reswik 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to declare this proposal as failed and try to rework the proposal. We do need some sort of WV:NOT, but this obviously isn't it, and we are going to need some serious discussion on where it will go.  Personally, I like the section that was worked on with Approved Wikiversity project proposal, as it had many more eyes to see what it was about.  --Robert Horning 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replaced "[is not] A university" with "[is not] A Post-secondary institution. It is a university in the finest sense of that term. Eclecticology 18:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good, so instead of saying it not what what we are trying to make it (university=place for learning), the note now says it is not confined to just university level material. Changed my vote to support. --Rayc 13:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with all said on titles and degrees, I want it regarded valid for courses to allow participants to somehow measure themselves how successful they were in the course, or how successful or useful the course was for them. This may or may not lead to a feedback to the course designers. This is imho a topic on its own that needs no coverage under "what WV is not" but needs attention and possibly affirmative mention elsewhere. --Purodha 12:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WV is not Duplication of other Wikimedia projects
Rather than going into specifics, I reverted this paragraph to be more in line with what was said on the Wikiversity project proposal. I felt this paragraph recieved the necessary attention for wording and keeps a more positive tone. Besides, I like the paragraph better than the Wikiversity is not a library that was here earlier. Still, I welcome any further changes or discussion on this part of the policy page. --Robert Horning 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity Is not a place to teach 'weird' subjects
The risk is to see Mr. X come and write lessons about "How to read in somebody's mind", I think we should put in policy those kinds of lessons aren't allowed. Schiste 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why specifically? It would seem easy enough for you to avoid subject areas which you find of no use or offensive.  Mirwin 17:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with weird subjects? Having unique things is what will make Wikiversity special, just like how Wikipedia has more comprehension of Pokémon than they do of classical art. Messedrocker 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And imagine, we could be the top university in some fields, like teaching klignon or memetic studies.--Rayc 13:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Imho, there are not weird subjects, only courses that work or do not. While "mindreading" to some extent can indeed be taught (which I only know, since I learned about subconscious body language, of all primates, btw.) I tend to believe a course: "How to frog-leap from the earth to the moon", if not meant metaphorically, should be 100% unsuccessfull due to students limiting 'adherence' to the laws of physics. But good research will be open to demonstrating the as to yet unbelieved. So should such a course be successful, we'd need to adjust physics, not in the first place inhibit the course based on "weird topic" and possibly impediate physics' scientific progress. --Purodha 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a place to confer titles
If you are a professor in real life (TM), you are free to call yourself such, but Wikiversity does not allow for people to make up their own titles.

Agreed, but something like this should be added: Note that similar sounding titles are used very differently between cultures, states, and languages, so someone having a title abroad, may be not called so in your environment. - or something similar, preferrably less words. :-) --Purodha 12:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just state that wikiversity is not a university.--Hillgentleman 07:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * An explicit statement saying that Wikiversity is not a university is in the Wikiversity project proposal. It should also be in the Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 12:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just find the word title vague and a little confusing.  Why is Professor a title, and a Sysop not?  What about community experts and other qualified facilitators?  I would prefer avoid mentioning the word title at all.--Hillgentleman 12:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the intent of the statement, "Not a place to confer titles," was first of all, "Not a place to self-confer titles." It should be made clear that the community can designate participants as "functionaries" such as custodian. --JWSchmidt 12:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity is not a substitute for one's education.
Wikiverstity is not perfect, it is work in progress, and a far as I am concerned, would not be a subsitute for you teacher/lecturer anymore that OrthodoxWiki or any other christian site is for one's priest for bishop. Having mentioned OrthodxWiki, they have an interesting way of dealing with inapropriate usernames. I see no problem with doing it here, and I would say that one this wiki is fully developed, we should disable anon editing as well (this will be my only such edit here). Since this is an educational site, we shouldn't need to host what we defince as obsinity, not even in the list of users. I would also say that email confirmation should be required to edit pages, see this relevent policy. What do you think? 144.139.89.22


 * I think it makes perfect sense to require editors of Wikiversity to create a username. It'd certainly help with administration, having teachers contact learners, "graffiti" issues, and I don't think Wikiversity has the same needs Wikipedia does that way.  Jade Knight 07:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What does one's education mean?--Hillgentleman 07:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikiversity an appropriate place to make sponsored page
Ryan524 created two pages which seem to be some sponsored pages to me. The pages are: Is wikiversity an appropriate place to make such sponsored pages. Shyam
 * School of Information Technology Registeration Center
 * School of Information Technology Registeration Center/IT-101 (IT vs CS)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "sponsored pages". Some Wikiversity participants may feel most comfortable if they use a conventional system of getting organized such as "course registration". Other participants can ignore that and get right to the heart of collaborative learning....just hit the "edit" button and get to work. --JWSchmidt 14:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Substantial Error Has Crept into this "policy".
"A Do it yourself site: Wikiversity is a site dedicated to education. This is not the place to post "How to be a good person" or "how to build a birdhouse" guides. These might be parts of the psychology or engineering schools, but not stand-alone lessons."

Wikiversity is exactly a do it yourself site. The site was never intended to be dedicated to "education" but rather to be a place for self study. Learning "how to build a birdhouse" is not trivial if one has no prior materials working skills. Learning "how to be a good person" is also not trivial if engaged in self study. First one must start with philosophy and religous and cultural beliefs and backgrounds to establish personal standards and then devise a personal improvement plan. All of the above may be incorporated into useful lesson plans. If no further comments are made here within a few weeks I shall be bold and remove this attempt to disallow some types of self study at Wikiversity. User:mirwin 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A professor in real life (TM)
What does the "(TM)"designate? Sincerely 69.231.242.15 04:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See Trademark. I think that when people put "(TM)" after a word like professor they mean someone who is a real professor, not just someone who has claimed to be a professor. --JWSchmidt 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)