Talk:Wikiversity

Image Giant_Impact.jpg must be deleted

The image Giant_Impact.jpg used in Wikiversity must be deleted because of copyright violation. Please use instead of this another one.

Collaboration

Please go to the Meta-Wiki for discussions that involve the current formal proposal to make wikiversity an approved and independent wikimedia foundation project.

Expansion

As we've all noticed, wikiversity is depressingly small. Why haven't student wikipedists asked their professors/teachers to come and contribute?

That's a great idea, I'll do that as soon as I get back in school. The thing is, not all teachers are computer geeks like we are and may not want to :p --Tyciol 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly they are waiting for a stable namespace and URL? Personally I get the impression only brilliant prose, the best of the best of the best etc. is wanted for unique Textbooks only! The subset of students having unpublished polished textbooks lying around idle is possibly vanishingly small. Not everyone will ignore idiotic rules (for Wikiversity, not necessarily Wikibooks) while waiting for them to change. The current structure makes Wikiversity look subordinate to Wikibooks to anyone not familiar with the ongoing community sagas. Who is going to add ugly incomplete personal notes to use as a starting substrate when anything but the best of the best textbooks must be deleted unless the author intends to complete the project in the nearterm? I have attempted to start addressing this problem (as I currently percieve it) at policy here[1], others insights welcome! Let's have a good old fashioned discussion, debate, edit war, whatever sometime. 70.110.35.3 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Idea

It would make sense, as to seperate wikiversity from wikibooks, to maybe have some audio or even video lectures in the course-work. Feedback? Fephisto A very good idea indeed ... I have been thinking of creating/finding a linux livecd with tools for recording video and/or sound - that could be used by teachers to contribute with recorded lectures. R.Randal

Page naming

Moved from /Test - Aya ^T C 15:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As soon as there is a prominent link to Wikibooks:Wikiversity this page can replace the existing redirect there. Akagu 14:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I began to move it, but... Shall we place the main page in Wikibooks:Wikiversity or in Wikiversity?. I think it is better the second option, if not it looks like Wikiversity is a wikibook, or like Wikiversity is a project of wikibooks. But, actually, they do work with a different scope. --Javier Carro 18:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

How about just Wikiversity? Instead of Wikibooks:Wikiversity. Because the background color becomes yellow if it is Wikibooks:Wikiversity. I'll go ahead and change it, but feel free to change it back if you like.

It´s much better, personally, I like it more like that :) thank you--Javier Carro 20:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

New idea: WikiNotes

See my posting at the Village Pump for proposals in wikipedia or check out the link below:

WikiNotes Brainstormin'!

=(Yosofun 06:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Wikimania!

Registration for Wikimania, the first international Wikimedia conference, is now open. It will be brilliant fun. Everyone is invited to join the event this summer... attendees from Wikiversity in particular will be welcome.

See also the call for papers; propose sessions on how to use wikis for education, and pass this announcement on to others interested in education.

Research community

Since revision as of 16:47, 8 Apr 2005 wikiversity is no longer a research community. What are the intentions behind this? 84.160.197.225 09:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, left word the important "research" out in edit merge of the two "about wikiversity" paragraphs! Could you please add back any other appropriate bits I might have missed? makiaea 20:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An Idea

I almost hate to suggest this, but I wonder if it's time for a sort of governing body of Wikiversity. I agree it sounds sort of stupid, and I realize the idea is to move away from the traditional format, however, I feel like there's no direction. There's no vision, it seems, and I feel that perhaps forming even a temporary leadership body to the entire Wikiversity might not be a terrible idea. Although it maybe, but I wanted to share it. Atrivedi

People do need to be told the difference between a book and a university course. It needs to be made clear that these things are not text books, that is covered by other wikis. One of the main problems, is that as of yet, there are no examples. Abc123.

Faculty Patrons

please add here

Wikiversity's collapse

Sadly, I think that the Wikimedia community has finally taken on a project too big for itself. This project has collapsed. There is little or no activity, and it is stalled as a Wikibooks module (that's how it operates technically anyway). I feel like its time to either end this project, or rethink it entirely. I think it has lost direction and is simply drawing away from Wikibooks in its present form.--Naryathegreat|(talk) 21:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe the same to be true of the traditional University. Downchuck 05:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity will find its feet. What is really needs is students, and it takes a while for ideas to spread. The other thing, is that people are expecting a completed site straight away. Apart from the fact that Wikiversity will never be "completed", everyone is more than happy to benefit from free things - but few people seem to be contributing. Until everyone starts to contribute just a little bit, it will be hard to see significant changes in the university.Abc123.

I wouldn't give up on this so easily. I know a few folks who would most likely be interested in a project like this, myself included. In my opinion, wikiversity has the potential to be very successful. It is a brilliant idea. One of its failures at the moment is that nobody seems to know it exists. I've been looking things up on wikipedia on an almost daily basis for months now, and I'd never even heard of wikiversity until earlier today. When I asked a few of my online friends (who also use wikipedia regularly) if they had heard of the wikiversity project they told me that they didn't know anything about it, or indeed any of wikipedia's "sister" sites. I myself would love to become a student of some of the subjects offered here in wikiversity, and I urge the people involved not to give up on it. I feel it is only a matter of time before more people, students and teachers alike, become interested in this project and help to develop it. --Strummer 02:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree! I for one think Wikiversity is an AMAZING resource, but it was difficult to find. Like Strummer, I have been using Wikipedia for a long time and just recently discovered Wikiversity last night. I've been hooked since! I think it's a brilliant idea and has the potential to do truly brilliant things for the world. --Endless Melee 12:00pm July 13, 2006

I also agree! I just found out about this program an hour ago and I'm incredibly excited about it. I really am excited that I have a place not only to hone my skills as a teacher but also as a writer. I think we just need to find a way to get the name out there so people will want to come and learn. I really don't think we should focus all to much on becoming an "accredited university" so much as just offering great, free, and accessible information to the public. I wonder how long it took the wikipedia to get to the point its at. I imagine it took a bit of time for it to get off the ground at first, but look where it is now! Now just imagine seamless integration of the Wikipedia and the Wikiversity and all the other wikimedia out there with not only articles and wikibooks, but lessons on how to put this information to use. To me the possibilities are exhilarating. --Jechasteen 23:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A Great Idea

Sure there isn't much content as I have been surfing around looking at Wikiversity project. But here is the thing imagine a world that is no longer bound by credentialism, and the high price of a university education! A place where access to a higher education is free, to me however stalled it is a begining. - Marlin --66.82.9.65 12:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rethinking the project

I have a lot ideas for a revisioning of the project. It would give it a very different focus and way of doing things, but I think it would work really well. My question is though, is something that drastic needed here? There's a lot of not very optimistic comments on this page, but I'm just wondering how accurate it all is. Is the project really stalled? Or just slow going? If it is stalled, I'd love to start trying to share my ideas here. Zach (talk) 23:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity sounds like a very ambitious idea. But I don't think it'll kick-off without people actually being able to "graduate" from it.

there are plenty of "self taught" people who would be happy for some quality, free textbooks.

Other classes

It is great that wikiversity has an academic focus, orienting itself around different subjects like a university has departments, but it was cool if there was just one section that had eclectic topics like might be offered at the learning annex, classes teaching you how to cook, sew, and beat the legend of zelda.

Funny you should bring Zelda up, I'd been thinking about that of late. Not about playing the games themselves, but imagine taking a course about the storylines and timeline theories and endings and mangas and whatnot, just as you would with any literary work. Could be fascinating.

The other ideas could also be taught very easily with illustrations and maybe even a (live?) video feed to give Graham Kerr a run for his money!

As for gaming, I doubt you could teach that better than a FAQ/Walkthrough does, unless you used webcams or a modified emulator with netplay support or something so you could watch what the player was doing wrong. But it's an interesting idea that will no doubt develop given time.

I envision great things for Wikiversity, but I'm too busy with my real-world university study to start or participate in a course myself. But that doesn't mean I'm powerless, I will be here to give WV a good kick in the backside every few months to make sure it gets off the ground! Master Thief Garrett 06:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Provisional Opening

It seems what this project lacks most is intiative. I've been building up the School of History and am considering opening that department for business by offering an experimental course on a topic that I am familiar with, and seeing whether people enroll. It will be a first attempt at Wikiversity style course and will provie some imitatable model that others can imitate and expand on. The topic is The Great War and Versailles.

--Polizano 15:42, 17 June 2005 (EST)

Preparing courses (for Wikiversity) and writing content (as for Wikibooks) are two entirely different kinds of creative effort. Although I am new to the Wiki family, I would venture to suggest that Wikiversity isn't working because potential contributers are assuming they have to provide textbook-type content as well as pedagogical support material -- study guides, PowerPoints, quizzes, etc. Let Wikibooks provide the content and Wikiversity provide the curricular material.

Initiative?

I've had this idea in my head for a while but someone should see if there are any problems with this approach. I've always held that the best way to remember something or "prove" that you've learned something is if you are able to teach it to someone else. Now, I will be taking courses (Psych, Communications, Political Science, Computer Science) next year at a university, and I thought Wikiversity could be a very useful tool, not just for myself but for others. I wouldn't know about books but class material from real lectures could be posted as soon as I take them. I don't know if there is copyright information that is to be considered, not only for the information but also the "style" of teaching that certain professors use. I plan to remain anonymous throughout this process and plan to do the posting very thoroughly, mainly for my own sake. Another factor is that I am also a student, NOT a professor or an authority on the subject. I merely wish to transfer the knowledge I gain at university and by doing so, use wikiversity as a study tool. Also I'll help others who wish to gain this information without the big bucks of a college education. I personally think information should be free. Any complaints?

That's pretty much what it's all about. As long as you are prett y confident you are making sense, then you can't be too far away from the truth! One thing to note though: Be sure not to reproduce Wikipedia or Wikibooks material in Wikiversity. You don't want to just double up on material already written. Abc123.

Questions

I really love the idea of Wikiversity, I've been trying to use online resources like MIT Open Courseware that just doesn't cut it due to the lack of a book and discussion boards for most subjects. Are there any active classes going on? Or a list of classes looking for TAs, or people looking for certain classes? I'd be happy to run a class on programing or math, if people can live with me being somewhat incommunicado for September. I appologize if this is the wrong place for this, I'm not sure where the right page is.

On a related note- one thing that struck me about the idea of classes here is the books. They're a little sparse for textbooks. I don't mean missing subjects, I mean they tend to have few, if any examples. Proofs are hard to come by (for the math ones) and are very terse. You pretty much need to have some pre-existing knowledge to understand them. Is this a design decision of the books, or just a reflection of the writing talent/time required ot make them better. Writing a good textbook is not an easy undertaking, but its a necessity for something like a wikiversity. --Javariel 21:28, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is a reflection of the state of Wikiversity, rather than the design. First, many editors tend to try to cover a large section of material themselves. This leads to minimal content over a large area. Of course, it would make more sense to focus on a small area and do that well, before moving onto the next secion, but that is very difficult to do in practice. The other thing to remember, is that technically, Wikiversity is not the place for text books, that's Wikibooks. Wikiversity should encourage research and critical thinking, and show students where to find information. I believe that rhese two difficulties have led to the current status of Wikiversity. Abc123.

The other thing to remember is that only contributions will improve the site. If you think something is lacking, it is really up to you to improve it, or else more and more people will think that Wikiversity is failing. Good luck! Abc123.

I would like to recommend looking at the aduni.org course materials as grounds for a first set of computer science courses. I helped teach some of those courses back when they were first offered, and would be glad to help others transfer and use the materials effectively. Sj 10:57, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

We have no courses running at present. "The Great War and the Treaty of Versailles" is being planned as a test-bed course. The other courses probably would welcome more help, just look at their sections or the editing history to see who is "in charge". And you're certainly welcome to write and teach a course yourself, the more the merrier! As for the month of September you could perhaps find a substitute to teach for that month. It will all work out I'm sure. :)

The books here are intended to be comprehensive textbooks on any given subject, and indeed to accompany and accent the Wikiversity classes, but there's only so much you can do in your spare time. Certainly some more contributors would help but right now Wikipedia's getting all the attention.

Overall, just go ahead! The moment we have something actually underway things will get going, but until that time Wikiversity is just fluffy ideas and dreams. We need some action. :) Master Thief Garrett 21:44, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, both of you. I'm moving in September (new job in Seattle), so I've decided to forgo teaching until then, I'm not able to really estimate the amount of time I need yet. After I'm settled, I will give it a go, I just need to decide with what. In the meantime, I plan on following the WWI course when it starts and work on some wikibooks as a way to contribute until then. --Gabe Sechan July 6, 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Academic Journals

Have their been any discussions about access to Academic Journals? Some of the most rewarding classes I've taken have involved a professor assembling a dozen or more essays from various journals into a reading packet. While books are easily available at low prices (with fast shipping), journals are closely guarded secrets of the Illuminati. I'm still a student, and this isn't so much a personal concern, as a concern for those who don't have easy access to a University library system.

Um, that's a great idea of course, but the cost involved in setting up such a deal... it would be absolutely ruinous I would imagine. Especially considering the fact that we don't have a set roll. Thousands upon thousands of users could (potentially) sign up and access journals through us so any licensing fees would be unfair in their eyes. So we'll just have to make do I'm afraid. Garrett^Talk 08:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There are increasing numbers of journals with free online content. For example, PubMed Central is an online archive of life sciences journal with free access to the full text of articles (note: some journals delay free access to recently published articles). Also, it is now possible to start new peer-reviewed academic journals in wiki format. Wikiversity could start its own wiki journals. --JWSurf 12:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK, that's a good idea. Yes there are some around but I've found very few. Unfortunately some publishers offer free back issues of their magazines/journals then change their minds, for example the Viking Heritage Magazine has taken down the PDFs of their back issues --that's strange, I can still access the orphaned download page and its files. Hm.

That's interesting about that Journals wiki, I was just going to host everything I wrote here, but I'll certainly take a look at that. Sounds very interesting. I just hope something actually gets done, it's hard work to write a journal... Garrett^Talk 22:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Well they say if you want something done right you've got to do it yourself! There are big gaps in the subjects covered at the [academia.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page Academic Publishing Wiki] so I've begun turning some of my old university essays into journal articles to pad things out!

As for Wikiversity starting journals, for now I think it would be better to keep everything at the Academic Publishing Wiki. They (we?) are working on guidelines for journal creation and improvement, and it would make more sense to let everything be under their jurisdiction for now.

Any more help with creating journal content over there would be greatly appreciated, even if you've just got an essay or two to wikify. Garrett^Talk 22:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose one negative about academic journals is that they are purely individual, rather than wiki orientated. It would be original thought. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, but may conflict with what a wiki is. Anyone with a better understanding of wiki conventions have an opinion? Abc123.

Actually I already have plans for some truly wiki journal articles. A topic will be selected, some point(s) it has to illustrate will be identified (although those too could adapt), and it will grow organically from there with the community controlling its growth and focus. Five years ago the idea of a from-scratch encyclopedia was laughable, so why should journals be different? Garrett^Talk 23:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. It just seems to me that an academic journal's purpose is to put forward/explain new ideas and research. That wouldn't fit with Wikibooks. Then again, the more I think about it, if there was a pure Wikijournal site, the rules could be a little different. Abc123

My initial response is that writing journal articles in true wiki format would be difficult to control (in the scientific sense of the word). It would likely require one person or entity to carry out experiments in a single controlled environment. Just sayin'. - RealGrouchy 03:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Enrollment

One of the things you should consider doing is making it really, really easy to enroll. I would like to enroll in the School of Economics. I searched for about an hour for a way to do this, but never did find a way.

Put a link right near the top of the Wikiversity home page; >>>ENROLMENT<<<. I'm not saying there isn't a way, but I didn't find it. Make it simple for simple people like me. Wilbur Wilson wilsonw@harbornet.com

There's no such thing as enrolling into Wikiversity. There are no timetabled classes, or even classes etc. Abc123

The problem is that no classes are running except The Great War and Versailles. THAT is why you can't find anywhere to sign up, because nothing's running yet. Garrett^Talk 05:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sister Project

Hi - I'm posting via my IP (I'm User:Manning Bartlett from the 'pedia). I think the Wikiversity is one of the coolest things I've seen. The problem is - I'd never heard of it until I stumbled in by accident. If this thing was a sister project (as per Wiktionary, Wikinews, etc) you'd have a lot more interest/traffic. Have you approached Jimbo?

We already are a sister project (we were spawned on Meta), but we haven't got anything to show for our work yet (a single class running is not very impressive) so until such time as we get going we're going to be invisible I suppose. Hmmm... Garrett^Talk 00:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well there you go. The Wikiversity is not listed as a sister project in anyplace **obvious** (like on Wikipedia's main page). A real shame. - Manning (User:Manning Bartlett at the 'pedia).

In a sense Wikiversity is a sister project, but it's obviously not a fully-fledged one with its own users, admins, wiki and domain name. Instead it is hosted at Wikibooks. Personally, I'm doubtful we will separate from Wikibooks ever, as the projects have so much in common. But there seems a reasonable consensus that we need to grow a lot before separation will even be considered.

Unfortunately, as the discussion above suggests, there's a chicken and egg situation here. We won't grow very fast until we are more visible, and we won't be more visible until we grow. That's a shame perhaps, but it's not hopeless. It's just possible we are still growing, slowly. But the graph is so noisy it's a bit hard to tell. Andrewa 09:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

My vote is to wait before we show ourselves to the world. We need to have a few example courses, from which others can set an example. There needs to be an emphasis that Wikiversity is not intended to reproduce material from other sources, but aid in learning that material. I think once we get a few example courses - there will be more cohesion, a greater sense of purpose, and then we can open Wikiversity up to the powers that be for "Sisterhood". Abc123.

Classes without teachers?

A friend and I have been planning a group-based teach-yourself style of a "course". We've been floundering around trying to find an acceptable way for online collaboration between ourselves and others that we either recruit or stumble across our page. When I found wikiversity, I thought this might be a good place to do that. I'm still really new to it and have little to no idea as to how to actually start up a normal class let-alone one that might not fit within the normal vision for this site.

In theory, this methodology would rely more heavily on blogging and open discussion rather than official reference material (but will likely link to wikibooks and other more official course material). Is this idea compatible enough with the wikiversity vision? If so, I'll need some instructions on how to get started. jhouse

Sounds fine. As for getting started, um, we haven't really laid anything out. What I think you need to do is first create a hubt with info about the class, a class list, etc. like Wikiversity:The Great War and Versailles has.

You should also start a series of pages for each "subject". Merely supply that "day"'s study topic etc. at the top and let people edit and discuss.

Any other questions? Ask away. :) Garrett^Talk 01:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've created an initial attempt jhouse. Comments Are Welcome - Relativity Study Group

Mapping real world->wiki learning

I've been giving some thought lately on what helped to learn in the real world, and how that could be ported to the wiki world. The idea being that any successful way of teaching via wiki ought to support as many of them as possible, in addition to any wiki-specific methods we can come up with. Comments on the feasibility and additions to the list are welcome. Especially ways to use the wiki that don't work in normal school, lets find a way to use our unique points to an advantage.

How I found I learned in school, in no particular order:

1. Textbook. Obviously here we have a wiki book

1. Lectures. Should be more informational, dive down into a subtopic of a book. Example heavy. Almost a second wikibook on the topic, in small 1 hour chunks. Audio, video, or slideshow a helpful addition here?
2. Office hours. Hard to wiki-ize, as the point of office hours is being able to talk to an authority on the subject. Perhaps IRC sessions, with transcripts wiki-ized? FOr that matter, IRC lectures may be useful too.
3. Homework. Assignments uploaded to wiki, and commented on by teachers. Need some system where people can upload to unique pages so they don't overwrite each other.
4. newsgroups (hey, my school had them and they helped)- a wiki forum, policed to keep it on topic. Hopefully students and teachers will comment on questions
5. discussion with/working with other students- harder to do, provide ways for people studying the material to talk and collaborate. The wikiboard idea will help, so will the idea below. A page where you can people currently studying a topic can post their emails to discuss issues out of band may help too.

In addition, I was thinking of things a wiki can do uniquely

1. Large projects. Make a project that to an equivalent level student would take 100s of hours, but is breakable into parts. Let people do parts via wiki, and work together to complete the whole thing. For example, a programming course for novices could have them write a large program- a web browser maybe. We could design the framework and break it down into chunks, and the students could write the individual chunks. The large project would need to be retired ocassionally, so it doesn't degrade to people copying the old version.

After additional thought- the last idea isn't just for large projects. In place of/in addition to homework, you could sprinkle smaller, less ambitious projects throughout.

Breaking it down to what needs to be done, there are 3 roles- student, teacher, course designer.

Course designer: writes wikibook, writes lectures, designs homework or big projects. Requires full knowledge of the subject and great organizational and teaching skills. Almost needs to be 1 person or a small, tight group, to keep everything focused. If the school itself (such as the school of math, or school of CS) has a goal for each course, the course designer needs to be in sych with the overall designer.

Teacher: runs office hours, looks over homework and advises student, monitors newsgroup, monitors and advises on large projects. Requires a lot of knowledge of the subject and good teaching skills. Can be a large number of people, although pairing people up to a teacher may be helpful. Does not need to be the one designing anything although they may refine things, they are meant to help teach established material.

student: responsible for learning it all :)

The distinction between course designer and teacher is important- a designer needs most of the skills of a teacher, and its own subset. By separating the two roles, you can have the designer move on and design more material, rather than merely rehash things. Once the base material is completed, its much easier to plug someone in to continue teaching it.

I know some of these require a lot of teacher interaction that may seem counter to a normal wiki. This is on purpose. I have taught internet courses before (I TAed them in college), and I found the hardest part was keeping people working, even when they were paying for the class. The reason for this interaction is to keep students involved and on track. Without something to do so, we'll see a lot of people read one or two lessons, and never come back. If the true goal is to teach the subject, we want them engaged.

--Gabe Sechan 21:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable collection of requirements. My college experience had some teachers as the book writer/lecture planner with potentially little teaching ability, and the TA's grading homework and trying to give real-world explanations. Of course, TA's are really just students a bit further than those in the class.

I think the question really becomes "How do we develop a culture such that past students help out new students in ways similar to how they were helped?". I think it's a tough thing to develop that kind of culture on a website, especially when there's an attendence problem. jhouse

Classes at MIT traditionally have a one-hour lecture a few times a week with up to a few hundred people in it, and then a one-hour recitation section, where you meet with a TA and 20-30 other students and ask questions and grind through problems. At least one class has put the lecture up on the web instead, in video format. This precludes the ability to interrupt and ask questions, but that's what recitation section is for, anyway. It also makes it more convenient to see lecture and easier to catch up if you miss one. In some classes, the lectures and the textbook are very different - almost complementary. In others, they present the same material, and you can choose how you'd like it presented.

As for communication channels, it's probably best to concentrate content. That is, you shouldn't have a newsgroup, an e-mail list, and a wiki talk page all for the same class. There should be one synchronous channel (IRC would work, certainly, and transcripts would be great, for future reference, and for those who miss class), and one asynchronous channel. (I'd have to think about which might be best, but a LiquidThreads-enabled wiki might be nice. And experience will tell.)

In the short term, a good goal might be to actually partner with existing academic institutions. I'm there are professors and TAs out there who would be able to make good use of Wikiversity content or collaboration mechanisms. My guess is that there's just a lot of work to do before there's enough quality content to fill an entire class. -- Beland 02:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

My friend Jason House (jhouse) and I (Gonzo) have started to put together a study group for Relativity (study group course on relativity), and we have a very simple plan: get a group of people together to focus on a topic, choose a book, and attempt to explain the book to each other via Wikiversity. In order to actually learn you have to read the book, contribute to the wikipage, read peoples' feedback, rinse and repeat. Jason and I call each other reguarly, and that of course would also be an option for future endeavors. We may have chosen this format because there was no existing format, but there is so little involvement right now that things have to stay simple (KISS).

The above essay mapping traditional training/educational processes is an excellent beginning. I think it is important to keep in mind that initially the wikiversity will probably be serving nontraditional adult students (possibly with a lot of exposure or previous experience now formalizing their complete understanding of a subject or brushing up for more advanced impending work or in pursuit of specific goals) and traditional students augmenting their studies in traditional environments. We need to acknowledge and service the special requirements of interacting asynchronously, sporadically, on demand, on topic, with each individual student by allowing other students to firm up their understanding by helping less advanced students. Personally I would not count on professional experts as teachers or instructors. People with these qualifications have busy lives and careers. When they get overloaded typically they will choose to impact volunteer activities at wikiversity rather than their family or professional career. Thus in this forum and format they also will be drop in unreliable non realtime assets. However, do not despair, every bit of time they manage to squeeze into their busy schedules can serve future students the second the student finds the correct link to the correct question or discussion regarding a matter he/she is studying or reviewing. Development will be sporadic. Delivery of properly mapped and structured material can be instantaneous to new study groups that are now ready by self selection (link mapping, quiz perequisites, browsing, etc.) for the specific material. Notice that most of the material we need is already availalbe online, is being mapped by wikibooks, wikipedia, etc. Our true challenge is to find presentation and format methods suited to the online tools available and supportable by the selected technology infrastructure. It may be appropriate to explore the recent advances in peer to peer browser technology under development by the originator of freenet or mnet, gnunet, BOINC, oceanstore, and other low end grid components to enable each participant to help scale the delivery infrastructure as they participate. Lazyquasar 19:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on the project

First of all, I've noticed that the German version of Wikiversity seems to have its own wiki already at de.wikiversity.org. Since this would seem to indicate it's an official Wikimedia-supported project, perhaps we should make some noises at m:Requests for new languages to get an equivalent wiki for en.wikiversity.org? I've added a request at m:Requests for new languages#Requests for new Wikiversity languages, but we need at least 5 people to take on the project, help build it up, and administer it. Be aware that if the wiki becomes inactive, it may get shut down, so there may be an advantage in leaving it here.

Secondly, we seem to be suffering again from another case of badly-defined scope. Some of the existent 'schools' seem more like a book than a structured course. Books are generally an integral part of courses, but we really don't want to be duplicating the role of Wikibooks on another project, else we'll end up having endless debates as to what goes where.

What I think might be a good idea is to clearly separate the two by introducing official course textbooks for each course. The textbooks would be hosted at Wikibooks (obviously), while the Wikiversity project would be confined to things like:

• Course syllabus (The scope of the course, and what topics it intends to cover. This should be kept brief to avoid duplicating the material in course textbooks.)
• Course structure (How is the learning divided up into sessions/classes/lectures/etc.)
• Links to official course textbooks (It's important that this is made highly visible, to ensure that newbie Wikiversity editors don't end up duplicating the functionality of the textbook)
• Details of practical experiments or other things which might be inappropriate for a theory textbook (We want to keep the existing Wikibooks generic enough that they can be used as either a course text, or as an independent book for other interested parties.)
• Anything else? (suggestions wanted)

New technology. There is a lot of interest in the free/open source community at large as well as academia in scalable peer based grid components. There are ways to structure study groups such that a lot of the information should remain on the student's private network but be made available to trusted associates. Many of these students are going to be working on potentially lucrative proprietary implementations of the technology or material they are studying. They naturally would like this material protected and available only legitimate members of their virtual organization doing the R&D or considering startup or other commerical exploitation. Lazyquasar 19:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The first thing to do when designing a new Wikiversity school ought to be writing the syllabus. Without this, it will be difficult to tell where one school ends, and the next begins.

I disagree. First thing is to find some students to achieve consensus on what they intend to study and how they would like to go about it. Lazyquasar 19:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a prominent paragraph on the main Wikiversity page that discusses what a Wikiversity student is. In my view, a Wikiversity student should be an active Wikiversity editor. Wikiversity students and teachers should be collaborators in Wikimedia projects. These could be existing projects (such as Wikipedia) or new learning projects within Wikiversity oriented around the needs of particular students. New learning projects could start as new student-created pages attached to existing courses or as new student-created learning project pages where students describe their learning goals. --JWSurf 16:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

For some courses there are already extensive Wikibooks on the subject (e.g. Physics), so we ought to take this into account. For courses which don't have such a textbook (please check thoroughly. I'm constantly finding many great texts hidden away at Wikibooks), I'd suggest beginning by writing such a text. Be sure to include textbook theory modules on everything covered in the course syllabus. This may require you to expand on existing Wikibooks to make them compliant, but it's easier than starting from scratch.

Comments? - Aya ^T C 18:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think it is premature to transwiki Wikiversity over to another server yet, as I don't see much activity here. Certainly not substantial course work. Most of the discussion about what is going to happen with Wikiversity is also happening on Meta, which is IMHO the completely wrong place to put it, as comments like yours here on Wikibooks are not getting to the full audience that may be involved in setting up the project on a seperate server. Better integration between Wikibooks and a future English Wikiversity can and should happen, and in particular a Wikibook should be completed and available as a textbook before Wikiversity gets "turned on".

This is an "official Wikimedia Project" so far as any can be that isn't on its own server. To call it a crazy new user project run amock is depreciating the efforts of many users who have tried to contribute to this project so far. That the German effort is better organized than the English one is more a surprise, but that doesn't mean we have to follow lock-step in their lead either. --Rob Horning 05:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Just When I Thought I Was Out...

...you folks manage to pull me back in! I'm going to do my best to start putting the energy back into the School of Literature and English Studies and see if I can't get some courses better designed. I had started some creative writing courses and even had one guy who sent me some poetry! I've added writers/poets to some of the classes I have in the Grad. area. I was out, but I'm excited again, seeing how others seem to be excited and working as well! Atrivedi

Protection

Despite claims to the contrary, Wikiversity was certainly not protected at the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Perhaps it was advised by one member of that foundation, but other Board members were not consulted. I am disgusted this approach would be taken with no consensus from the community.

Wikiversity has been running for a long time on Wikibooks and I see no agreement whatsoever for it to be suddenly shut down like this.

Protection is a defense against vandalism, not a way of expressing one person's point of view on whether or not a sub-project of Wikibooks should exist. Please remove the misleading statements about protection and explain why you ever thought the Foundation would propose such an awful measure on a popular set of pages like Wikiversity. Angela 03:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in that not all the board members were consulted. I apologize for this accidentally misleading use of language, and I have re-worded the page accordingly. You have evidently not been following the discussions on Meta, but to be fair, it's difficult to find anything on that site, so a bit of background might help.

I also believe the Wikiversity project has great potential, which is why I made a request in m:Requests for new languages (now at m:Talk:Requests for new languages#Requests for new Wikiversity languages) to get it its own wiki at en.wikiversity.org (similar to one existent at de.wikiversity.org). If you read that section, you will find that I was refused due it being decided that the project was not official, which kinda annoyed me.

Having ascertained its status, I then came to the conclusion that the Wikiversity project was in violation of Wikibooks policy as decided by its community (we are not a free-content provider for pet-projects not approved by the Foundation AND more fundamentally, we are trying to build open-content textbooks, not university courses), so I inquired on #wikimedia whether I should perhaps delete the content, or protect it. According to policy, I'm not allowed to post the logs from #wikimedia, but to be fair, you were logged onto this channel at the time, so you may have the logs yourself, but I assume I'm allowed to summarize the conversations. One of the Foundation members suggested that protecting it would be okay, so I made the edits and protected the page. I still felt that I'd get complaints, so I posted the URL into the channel to get a second opinion. When the founding member expressed his support, I left it at that.

If you really wish to help the project, I suspect you would do more good to propose this as a new official Wikimedia project in the appropriate place, rather than complaining about myself executing policy as decided by the Foundation and the community. I will support any proposal for this project subsequently made by anybody here; in fact part of my reasoning for this protection was to persuade somebody to make it official. I was concerned that the project might never become authorized, and the poor editors here would have been wasting their time.

The point is, this content should never have been put here in the first place. In the interim, you are also free to transwiki the project to a non-Wikimedia server if that is more suitable. - Aya ^T C 04:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the IRC logs and I see no evidence of Anthere saying the page should be protected. The only mention of the word protection from her was "but protect information" - which I take to mean protect as in "keep safe" rather than deleting it, not as in lock the page and state all further pages are candidates for speedy deletion. Angela 04:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct interpretation. Sorry I was unclear in what I said, which could lead to a misunderstanding. Anthere

Ah. Sorry. Seems this was all a misunderstanding. The word 'protect' has a very specific interpretation in the context of wiki pages. I also got the impression that Jimbo's comment was made rather half-heartedly. Perhaps it's best if I ignore the conversations in the IRC channel, especially considering most of the Wikibooks community are not a party to them. I should also have been more careful considering English is not Anthere's first language (although I assure you her English is far superior to my French). I suppose at the end of the day, the opinions of individual members of the Foundation should be considered equal to those of any other members of the community. Without a clear policy on who can make policy, it's difficult to tell whose opinions matter. Hopefully this is something I can tighten up on as time progresses, to prevent other admins from making similar mistakes in the future. I'd also appreciate it if you kept the discussions here, rather than posting them on mailing lists, since not all of the community follows the mailing lists. I shall re-word the page once more. - Aya ^T C 18:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. There's absolutely no justification for protecting this page and adding an ex cathedra announcement like this. Wikibooks is a wiki, and policies and decisions are made in consensus. Please unprotect it immediately.--Eloquence 04:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. It seems as if many people have a problem with this, so I will unprotect the page. I still stick by what I've said above. I really hope someone can help make this project official. - Aya ^T C 04:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

See the section: #Wikiversity Re-launch (below).

Changes to Wikiversity page

As you can see from the top of the page, I have re-worded my concerns. I would like to ask the community how they see this project evolving conceptually. - Aya ^T C 19:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

CS school organization

I'm asking this here, because there was no reaction on the talk page for the school of CS. Who is deciding the breakdown of classes and schools? It seems a little arbitrary to me. For example, programming is broken into a minimum of 2 schools- CS and Infomatics. I've been programming for 10 years and never even heard of the term infomatics. While I can understand wanting to concentrate on theory rather than particular APIs (and agree with the point, in fact), I think that breaking down the subject with an artificial barrier like that is counterproductive. You'll end up having to duplicate large sections of courses, and confusing the users. In addition, a lot of the existing framework for those courses that have it are falling into the encyclopedia problem again. It doesn't read like a course, it reads like an encyclopedia entry or textbook.

In addition to the setup found at School of CS, we have the CS Course Catalog with an entirely separate breakdown. One which, IMO, goes too far the other way- not enough theory, too much a "learn programming in 40 days" type deal.

So who decides the breakdown? I don't want to just delete something that has obviously had a lot of work put into it. On the other hand, we currently have 2 competing projects, neither of which is seeing a lot of activity. And we have my ideas at [[Talk:Wikiversity:School_of_Computer_Science#Organization_comments]] that I honestly think gets a good mix of the two. THis is a case where I think we need some organization and forethought. I'm willing to put in time to design a general CS outline and start on courses, but we do *not* need 3 competing efforts.

I think I'll start working on a rough draft of how I think the course outline should be on my user page (I'll add a link here when its done). In the meantime, what do other community members think? Especially those who worked on either fo the two other effort.

--Gabe Sechan 21:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

My rough draft can be found here.

--Gabe Sechan 22:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

It looks excellent to me - I'd wholly support replacing whatever is there with that. Ambi 02:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Your draft looks good. It obviously needs some more work to begin with, so I'd be happy to help organize and actually start the CS courses; if you need any help, drop me a message :-) --Dionyziz 12:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is the Link

Where is the link to Wikiversity on the Wikibooks sidebar? School's out for the summer? I would suggest adding a second line to Wikibooks main page under Welcome to Wikibooks something like, Who's your teacher: Wikiversity - Athrash | {Talk) 07:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If you care to read the text at the top of the page Wikiversity, and earlier comments on this page, you will notice there is currently some debate as to whether this project will continue to be hosted on this site. In the interim, I felt it wise not to blatently advertise such a contraversial page. - Aya ^T C 17:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't mean it, I was about to rev up Gospel 101 under Wikiversity:School of Theology, but I will wait the outcome. - Athrash | {Talk) 04:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, wouldn't the substantial or finished Wikibook be the course book, and the assignments reside on the School page(s), whereby school and book are in the same project namespace, simple link not transwiki. That arrangement obviously takes time to develop. Example, for now, Gospel 101 Verses for the Week could put the Theology students into the New Testament of Christianity The Book. - Athrash | {Talk) 00:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You are free to develop textbooks (such as Christianity), which would be appropriate in such a 'school'. This is in fact the whole point of this website. What I object to is using a textbook site to develop university courses, which are beyond the scope of this site. - Aya ^T C 19:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Research papers

How would you guys feel in terms of adding scientific papers to wikibooks, with categories such as "topic", "university of origin", "authors"...keywords and such ? Anthere 07:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean...:

1. Have a library-like list of published journal articles? It's unmaintainable without database software designed for it.
2. Provide copies of said articles? That's not very legal.
3. allow readers to post their own articles? Original Research is not welcome here, but try the Academic Publishing Wiki.
4. Something completely obvious but I overlooked due to it being 1 AM over here?

Well, it'll be one of those. Choose one! :) Either way there will no doubt be a home for it. Garrett^Talk 13:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Question on VFD and content changes

Question on the VFD voting. Ignoring the question of what exactly should happen and where- lets say its transikied somewhere (I don't think anyone is voting for straight up deletion, after all). I'm working on some new content to add. If I add it now, will it get transwikied with the rest if the project gets transwikied? Or will it fall into the void? If its the second, I'll just make the content on my user pages as a sandbox for now.

Also, some of the content is a change to existing content, and may get reverted depending on other opinion. When a transwiki occurs, does all history get transwikied as well, or does history get lost? --Gabe Sechan 22:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The idea is that everything at a certain cut-off date would be transwikied, and anything added after that would no doubt be frowned upon but probably moved as well.

As for where yours should go, unless you're intending for others to read and edit it you could consider building it off-wiki (on your computer) until a new home is organised.

You see, we don't actually move the actual page reversions as there's no way to do that. The so-called transwiki is just a manual cut-n-paste, with the page history copied onto the talk page as in this example.

So if you post it now someone's just going to have to manually move it. Not to say you shouldn't contribute, nono, but the less content involved in this already enormous move the better.

Hope that explains everything, and if not ask away! :) Garrett^Talk 02:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I'll write it in a sandbox for syntax testing until this is all decided. And I'll hold off on things that may be reverted as well, since we wouldn't be actually able to revert easily. Thanks. --Gabe Sechan 04:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed "About" page

Based on some of the comments on the vfd page, I've made a proposed about page specifying what the goals of wikiversity are, and why it differs from wikibooks. I basicly ripped off wikibook's format and changed the content a bit, so it may not be 100%. Comments welcome. --Gabe Sechan 07:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to tell us where it was. :) Looking good so far... maybe needs some more details but I can't think of anything at the moment. Garrett^Talk 09:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oopsie. Well, I see you found it anyway, sorry about that. If you think of anything, let me know. --Gabe Sechan 09:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking lack of objection as consensus, since I have limited time before losing net access for a few weeks. I'm putting this on the meta page as well, to help address concerns about the project. --Gabe Sechan 07:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity Re-launch

I'm sort of "forcing the hand" of the foundation on this point, but I am "relaunching" the new project proposal on Meta for this project. This includes a timeline for when this project can become active as an independent wiki, with specific steps that must happen, as required by Wikimedia Foundation policies. I think there is a tremendous amount of support for this project, so I don't see it rejected out of hand. Based on the participants and comments here it appears as though there are also going to be a number of contributors that will keep the project alive.

As far as organization issues are concerned (including the basic charter of the project), please keep that discussion on Meta. In terms of editing issues on Wikibooks or content organization of stuff that is already here, just keep doing what you are doing and expand what is presently here. All contributions to Wikiversity that happen right now will be preserved and carried over to the new project, where ever it may end up. PLEASE DON'T STOP CONTRIBUTING Something is going to happen with Wikiversity, and on the whole it will be positive for the entire community as well. It will just be a painful few months for all involved, unfortunately. --Rob Horning 14:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Importance of Schools

Another one of my (in)famous ideas on how this project should run- has anyone given any thought to the importance of schools? From a quick looks, it seems like most or all schools are pretty much a collection of links to courses. Has any thought gone into making the school itself a method of teaching and community building? I remember back in college, the people in my year were some of the best resources I had for learning and help with material. Since its logical that someone interested in one course of a school may be interested in learning more, this seems to be a good spot to draw people in at. I think I've already mentioned that I believe community building around courses will be important to teaching courses. If we can start it at a higher level, we ccan keep more people around and draw them into helping on the lower level courses. --Gabe Sechan 07:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

"community building" is important....maybe each "school" needs a page where students can describe what they hope to learn....this might start a feedback loop to grow the school in the right direction. We should link to wikiversity from places like this wikicity. --JWSurf 13:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Math support?

My friend and I are trying to start up a math intensive study group course on relativity. We've both taken a look at the math support on wikibooks and were appalled at how tough it is to do equations that are readable. To copy a single sentence from the special relativity page:

Most generally, this matrix looks like $L(v)=\left({\begin{matrix}a&b\\c&d\end{matrix}}\right)$ and transforms $\left({\begin{matrix}t\\x\end{matrix}}\right)$ to $\left({\begin{matrix}t^{\prime }\\x^{\prime }\end{matrix}}\right)$ via $\left({\begin{matrix}t'\\x'\end{matrix}}\right)=\left({\begin{matrix}a&b\\c&d\end{matrix}}\right)\left({\begin{matrix}t\\x\end{matrix}}\right)$.

This was created by typing:

Most generally, this matrix looks like <math>L(v) =\left(\begin{matrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{matrix}\right)</math> and transforms <math>\left(\begin{matrix}t \\ x\end{matrix}\right)</math> to <math>\left(\begin{matrix}t^\prime \\ x^\prime\end{matrix}\right)</math> via <math>\left(\begin{matrix}t' \\ x'\end{matrix}\right) = \left(\begin{matrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{matrix}\right)\left(\begin{matrix}t \\ x\end{matrix}\right) </math>.

That seems impossibly complex for a casual discussion. Does anyone know of any ways to make this easier on the students in the course?

I'm not having much success finding what kind of plugins are used by wikiversity/wikibooks. I did find a math plugin online that used latex format for math. Is that possibly true for wikiversity? If so, is there a latex editor that anyone recommends? Jhouse

I'm going to take a look at having a friend of mine convert Scientific Notebook into this format...maybe it will be easy...In the meantime I finished chapter 1 of "Tensors, Differential Forms and Variational Principles" Gonzo

You can try Lyx to generate the LaTeX using a WYSIWYG interface. An alternative is to format it as ASCII art:

      [a b
L(v) = c d]

You can also format the LaTeX itself on multiple lines to make it easier to read: $L(v)=\left({\begin{matrix}a&b\\c&d\end{matrix}}\right)$ Or you could use some kind of template solution. MShonle 23:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions are good, but I'm really really hoping for some nice wysiwig editor or something. Between my friends and I, we've tried downloading a number of equation editors and haven't found any that generate compatible output. Some output looks close (Tex, LaTex) but none match. The editors we got use the array keyword instead and possibly have a few other quirks...

I remember looking around for good WYSIWYG LaTeX editors, but I haven't really seen too many. TexMacs works pretty well, but it isn't really LaTeX. However, for online discussions like these, I would recommend staying away from LaTex, even if it requires more non-standard notation, ala Mathematica. For instance, you could just represent a matrix as {{a,b},{c,d}}. It may not be as pretty, but it should do the trick. Subscripts could be either a[0], or a_0. Summation can be sum(a[k],1,n) or something like that.

Notation always varies, and it is generally made to best suite the medium. There is no reason we have to be constrained to notation, that was meant for being written out by hand. The important thing is to stay relatively consistent.

---

72.245.93.22 04:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat. Consistent nomenclature starts to lock us into talking to ourselves more effectively than the rest of the world. This is poor preparation for the real world. The important thing is to get started studying, translating, and exchanging information. Most serious students will have specific goals and milestones and if they do not experience progress towards their personal goals participation will inevitably fall off. Indeed. This seems to be a problem across the board with the wikiversity concept.

Regarding the equation editor ... as we get to serious topics and problem sets we will have pages and pages of calculations. It was not uncommon for me when as an undergraduate with a heavy 400 level course load to turn in over a hundred pages of detailed equations a week between physics and engineering classes. Good scanning printers are now available from Wallmart and elsewhere in the U.S. for under $100. If we cannot find a good mathml or svg editor then perhaps we can scan pages of calculation and upload png files. A graphics editor such as GIMP should allow us to cut & paste to insert corrections, questions or alternate mathematical opinions or proofs. IMO this is a critical issue. If we cannot do the math, then it is not physics. This means ultimately our serious students should be able to start on a problem with a few fundamentals or previous results and then manually/personally do the math to generate the desired results or conclusions. It may be that modern keyboarding is not up to this ... we may need to work on paper and then use computers to augment or communicate results. Lazyquasar 18:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity Vote

Voting has started for a new Wikimedia sister project proposal called Wikiversity. This is a request for anybody that is interested to cast a vote either in support or opposition to this new project proposal. The results of this vote will determine if this project will be started on its own seperate group of wikis as a Wikimedia sister project, together with approval from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Discussion about this proposal should take place on the Wikiversity discussion page.

P.S. I know that if you are active with the Wikiversity community that you perhaps already know this, but this notice is for the few stragglers that may have missed my "spamming" all of the Wikimedia projects in the past 24 hours. I've been throwing up notices about this vote everywhere I can, and it appears as though it is getting a very good response from the vote. Those who are opposed to the creation of Wikiversity are also voicing their concerns, which is a good thing as well. At least news of this vote is making the rounds in may places, and others are starting to pick up the ball and try to make announcements as well. The voting page has now been translated into five languages (+1 being English). The response from the "international" community has been quite impressive in particular. As of when I posted this message, the voting is 34 in favor, 10 opposed. Your vote is needed now to determine the future of this project. --Rob Horning 20:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Stubs, Stubs, Stubs

When I look around at the "departments" of Wikiversity, I find a ton of stubs, such as the course Acc 1000. Perhaps there are some fully developed courses, but I failed to find them. I suggest using categories to indicate the stage of development for each course, e.g. "category:Wikiversity courses - being taught now", "category:Wikiversity courses - fully developed", and "category:Wikiversity courses - being developed". --LA2 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Another stub: I don't understand the point of

• Wikiversity:School_of_Computer_Security/Class_Room

when

• Wikiversity:School_of_Computer_Security

doesn't exist. --DavidCary 02:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikieversity active at the moment?

Hi! Does it makes sense to work at this site while the vote is running? There doesn't seem to be any activity at the moment!

Sure it does. When we win (notice the lack of an if :), the more content we have to publicize, the better. It helps make the doubters realize their mistakes.--Gabe Sechan 22:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to work on wikiversity. I think we need to make a section of the main page that invites people to describe what they would like to learn about. I agree with the idea that wikiversity should work on community building and the development of collaborations between learners and teachers. Since wikiversity is getting the boot from wikibooks, I have been reluctant to work in this name space. I recently tried to summarize some of the recent discussions of the wikiversity project here. --JWSurf 23:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity Vote on Meta

This is just a general notice to thank everybody who has participated with Wikiversity up until now. It looks likly that Wikiversity will become an independent Wikimedia sister project, and the results of the vote have been submitted to the Wikimedia Foundation board where there will shortly be a formal decision to see if this project will get a green light or not. --Rob Horning 15:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that a lot is going to change, likely in the next few days pending board approval, but a voting status should probably be updated on the Wikiversity-related pages in Meta, Wikipedia, and Wikibooks. Also, http://wikiversity.org has an outdated Proposals of new projects link. --J. J. (on Wikipedia) 19:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Decision on Wikiversity?

Has there been a decision on whether or not Wikiversity will be an offical project? Just wondering. Gflores 21:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

While waiting to hear from the board, I am going ahead with the Wikiversity Core Courses Initiative. --JWSurf 16:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have high hopes that the board will approve, as I know at least Anthere is a fan of the project. If you're interested in adding content, I'd say go ahead and do so. Even if the answer ends up being no, I promise people will find some way to save the content. --Gabe Sechan 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is how to save the content: most of the stuff at Wikiversity are textbook modules. Even the example Wikiversity:Forms:Circle is a textbook module. I oppose the creation of Wikiversity as a wiki separate from Wikibooks (essay at MetaWikipedia:No to Wikiversity). --Kernigh 18:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Your essay is a joke. You honestly think books and classes are essentially the same thing. You gloss over the interaction between professors and students (and students and students) as irrelevant. It's like calling basketball and soccer essentially the same (except for all of those differences). --MateoP 20:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Alterations to the Wikiversity proposal requested by the Board: Current status. --JWSurf 01:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

In reply to MateoP (You gloss over the interaction between professors and students (and students and students) as irrelevant.) - this interaction is not irrelevant. I do think that the books at Wikibooks and the classes at Wikiversity (which are mostly lectures, list of participants, and external links) are "essentially the same" - why I wrote MetaWikipedia:No to Wikiversity. If Wikiversity was a forum where users had discussions, then I would believe that Wikiversity was different from Wikibooks. --Kernigh 01:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with MateoP (though I would phrase it differently.) The problem with so much of the web-based learning is that it IS just a book or lecture put to hardcopy. The concept we need to be directing ourselves is how do we make this interactive. Think about what you gained from college. Maybe the courses were good... maybe the content was good... but you definitely remember the people and networks you formed. That is what we need here to make it work. Not the largest cyber-keg party... but the ability for people to interact, exchange ideas, and form relationships. This ability to interact and exchange ideas will be what sets us apart from the traditional web course... that ability to form an "academic community."--Mfinney 04:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets not limit ourselves to wikibooks not yet made

As much as I love wikibooks, I think we need a more stable base to start this joint. I suggest using any and all open textbooks right now.

The perfect ideal of course, is to use wikibooks in conjunction with wikiversity. But that ideal has a problem in itself. Wikibooks are living books, they are moving targets. The wikiversity will be required to change their lectures and keep up with wikibooks. What if chapter 1 gets split into 2 chapters? Then wikiversity will have lectures for chapter 5 which really are for chapter 6.

Of course, this problem will be corrected through time. Wikibooks probably won't go through major changes after they stabalize. But using an unstable wikibook as a base learning material would be inefficient at best.

I suggest using whatever materials possible to get the wikiversity on the road before working in the ideal. I'd hate for this project to stall. --Dragontamer

No to online courses?

Does the new recommendations mean that we can't do online courses. I'm putting together a course here: Interventionism in Latin America During the Cold War: US and USSR and want to know if I should stop. I'm not clear with what their recommendations mean. If there are no online courses, does this mean that "wikiversity" would basically just be a place for people to come together and research to improve other wiki articles? If it is "no online courses" could someone direct me to another place where I can hold my course (like the education wiki maybe?).. Thanks. --MateoP 16:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the Board that it does not make sense to try to make conventional university courses the priority at Wikiversity. I think that the Board is looking for innovative e-learning that takes full advantage of the wiki format. If not conventional courses, then what? One suggestion had been that Wikiversity produce and archive "teaching materials" that could be shared globally. A second suggestion is that Wikiversity could be a learning community where various "learning projects" would exist. In my view, learning in Wikiversity should center around editing wiki documents (webpages). Learning would be through hands-on participation in Wikiversity projects. Initially, Wikiversity projects could center on "services" provided for other existing WikiMedia projects, particularly Wikipedia. Wikiversity could be a place for teaching Wikipedia editors how to find sources and evaluate references to include in Wikipedia articles so that all of the content of Wikipedia becomes verifiable. Currently, there are efforts towards this end within Wikipedia, but they need help. Wikiversity could archive all of the research performed by Wikipedia editors and Wikiversity researchers as they search for reliable sources to support what is said in Wikipedia articles. Only the best sources and conclusions from this Wikiversity background research would be transferred over to actual Wikipedia articles while the bulk of the sources (and probably BIG ARGUMENTS over their relative importance) would remain available at Wikiversity where it could continue be built upon in the future. The advantage for Wikiversity in starting with "service courses" for other wiki projects would be that it would provide a large pool of Wikiversity participants. Once Wikiversity learned how to form and facilitate useful learning communities for other wiki projects such as Wikiversity, then it would naturally expand in other directions starting from its initial foundation of "service courses". In particular, I think that there will be a place in Wikiversity for the study of topics like Interventionism in Latin America During the Cold War: US and USSR, but there is no reason that such e-learning projects could not start with an effort to make sure that Wikipedia has good coverage of Latin America. Eventually there could be links from Wikipedia articles about Latin America to the Wikiversity project called Interventionism in Latin America During the Cold War: US and USSR and those links would probably provide the main source of Wikiversity participants for the project. You could add "work to improve Wikipedia articles" to your list of "Ideas or proposed study tasks". --JWSurf 23:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in teaching people how to find sources. What i am interested in is teaching and learning about topics such as this, and then using what is learned to improve wikimedia articles (i put in my course outline that editing Wikipedia and Wikibook articles would be part of assignments). So does this fit into where Wikiversity seems to be heading? Of course I want discussion about the topic to be an essential part of the course, not just jumping into article editing. --MateoP 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you teach any subject it is a good idea to explaining the sources that you rely upon. If you give someone a fish, you feed them for a day. If you teach someone to fish, you feed them for life. If you do not show someone how to find and evaluate sources, then all you are doing is force feeding them one POV about a topic. Anyhow, the idea of orienting Wikiversity "courses" around existing wiki projects such as Wikipedia is probably what the Board is looking for. See this article about modifications to the Wikiversity proposal for a central place to discuss modifications that will satisfy the Board. --JWSurf 21:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide Vancouver University

Worldwide Vancouver University http://www.WorldwideUniversity.edu would be glad to collaborate in the Wikiversity concept. First, however, Wikipedia needs to remove the slanderous and ignorant remarks posted about this nearly-four-decades-old non-profit entity.

—the preceding comment is by 64.59.144.24 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 January 2006

I don't exactly know what to do about Wikipedia; I don't frequent the site. But when I looked at it, it obviously doesn't follow the "neutral point of view" policy, so I marked it as such. Other than that, I'm unsure what to do. --Dragontamer 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just give the textbooks for each class

I think that the best thing this site could do is to list a bunch of textbooks for each course. For the intro to psychology, you might list The Essentials of Understanding Psychology by Robert Feldman. This is the best way to start Wikiversity.

If thats all you want, check out MIT Open Courseware. Their lectures, notes, and other materials are spotty, but they always have the book names. --Gabe Sechan 21:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The site looks great, but I noticed there was no psychology or art history degrees. Are there any other sites that are similar to MIT open courseware? Erudite 18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this idea and have an additional suggestion. I think it would be powerful to have a suggested syllibi for each course that outlines course objectives, topics of study, a suggested timeline, and recommended reading materials (from wikipedia, wikibooks, textbooks, articles, etc.). For a start, it would allow online learners to skip or supplement the material gathering phase of online research by pointing out good resources and defining terms and ideas of a certain course topic. --Jcorrales 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Prewritten Proposal to Teachers

I know that a lot of students wouldn't want to take the time to write up a snippet of information about Wikiversity to send their teachers. Why not make a prewritten "30-seconds-to-read" letter that overviews the project and recommends that he or she write or help create a course? This way, students would be able to just highlight the text, paste it in an email, and send it to their teachers. Foxjwill 23:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! Do not ask the stacked board for permission, just do it. You might also challenge the students/teachers to write up their extra credit homework in the appropriately placed course (creating a new course title or section if necessary) and then send the link to the public work to teachers, mentors, parents or peers requesting review, comment or grading. Of course it would help to have a stable name space and basic policy in place such that we appear to be a going concern when an instructor or peer show up to look the work over. The rumor that poor first impressions can be killers that are hard to overcome is well documented in various business marketing, management and pop pyschology sources. user:lazyquasar

New here at Wikibooks/Wikiversity

I was wondering, do you guys have a school for political science, history, etc? Wikizach 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look here: Wikiversity:Wikiversity_Schools. Look under Social Sciences, you should find them there. Hope this helps! If not, leave a message on my talk page and I can help further.--Mfinney 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Formation of an Advisory Board/Group

We are developing well as a project, but I see several things beginning to occur:

• We have some definite conflict with the Wikibooks folks and this could be problematic down the road if it continues.

• We need a core group of folks to organize and begin bringing stuff together.

• We need a support structure for those who are new to help them gain momentum.

In the early stages of any project (while this has been going on for awhile) there should be some core group to assist with the development and management of the process. Much like Esperanza seems to be a positive influence on Wikipedia, we should look seriously at something similar. Something like that would be a great asset to the development of this project. Just my thoughts... anyone have something similar?--Mfinney 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love to participate in discussions on this topic, based on my experience with the same concept [2] albeit in a much smaller fashion. I do not think we can look only at the web pages - we need to be thinking about the full needs of students and instructors. Gstefans

Computer Science

Hello i am french an i try to develop the french computer science département of the wikiversité fr:Wikiversité:Département informatique. I am looking for some people wanting to finish the books of the english school of computer science. I can not speak english very well but i can give all the contents of the books, with a lot of samples and exercises. Who wants to work with me ? A computer science studient or a cteacher will be wellcomed.Merrheim 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Publicidad para tu web

Se les agradece a todos los wikiversitarios, a publicar algún(os) logotipo(s) para los webmasters, para que puedan dar a conocer este proyecto y así vaya creciendo la Wikiversidad, pueden ser banners 468x60 más que todos... Muchas gracias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.242.97.41 (talk • contribs) .

The preceeding comment was posted as a random page on Wikibooks, but it does bring up an interesting point. Here is a rough translation (please improve if you speak Spanish natively). --Rob Horning 01:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To all Wikiversitarians that know anything about the project Wikiversity: Is is possible to have some 468x60 banners for advertisement? Thank you very much.

Naming standards for courses

I've been doing some plowing through Wikibooks and I've come across some module titles that are really more Wikiversity course oriented modules rather than a book. The goal I have is to index all Wikibooks (which is not as easy of a task as I first thought!). Since these are course outlines rather than a book, I've been leaving these off of the book index. The distinction isn't exactly clear, but there are some differences. These are indexed through the various schools of Wikiversity, so the content isn't exactly lost.

If Wikiversity were on its own domain (hint, hint... yeah, I'm working on that too), it wouldn't be a problem either, but for now Wikiversity and Wikibooks are sharing domain space. I am proposing at least for now that a seperate pseudonamespace like Course:, Subject:, or Wikiclass: be used for these pages. Any other thoughts here with regular Wikiversity users? --Rob Horning 15:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with globe-and-crown logo

This logo was on the Wikiversity page, but now it is not.

I thought of restoring it, but instead I marked it as "missing essential source information" at Wikimedia Commons - it appears to be tagged with the wrong license. I am reluctant to restore a wrongly-licensed image to the Wikiversity page, so I will not. --Kernigh 06:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily as big of a deal as it is being made out to be. The originator (aka the person who made the image) is User:Zephram Stark, who has also been a significant contributor to both Wikibooks and Wikiversity. That his major work is currently up for a VfD right now is certainly not endearing him to Wikibooks at the moment, however. He has also been quite active on Wikipedia, and indeed brought some of his "enemies" to Wikibooks as well.

From what I can tell, you are correct that it should be GFDL'd and not just granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, and that is an interesting dilemma for the foundation to consider if they should accept as a major project logo something that has been GFDL'd. In this case, however, the logo hasn't been formally accepted by participants or anything seriou, just that it is a logo that has been created for the project. The real solution to this would be to create alternative logos for Wikiversity and try to hold a contest for it. It would be fun to move on to less serious stuff like trying to decide the logo for Wikiversity. --Rob Horning 17:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That proposed logo and all of my contributions are my gifts to the project. If you find them useful, please use them. If you don't find them useful, I won't take it personally should you choose to delete them. The only issue I have is when someone uses their position or influence to suppress something that could be useful to a majority of other people. There are two editors who are doing that at Wikipedia. One of them has followed me here. His login at Wikipedia is JW1805. I regret that he is causing trouble here, but I don't know what I can do about it. --Zephram Stark 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have updated and clarified the legalities of the licensing issue at Wikipedia commons for Wikiversity-logo-zs.png. Unless there are any other concerns, I will restore the proposed logo to the Module page. --Zephram Stark 03:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark's accusations are neither here nor there. It appears that this user has already been banned from both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. My problem with this logo is that is doesn't seem to have anything to do with Wikiversity. It looks like some sort of cross between the UN logo and the United Federation of Planets logo, with Royalist iconography (what on earth does a crown have to do with Wikiversity?) Are we endorsing the divine right of kings here? --M Connell 20:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

LMAO. I think you just gave yourself away. I didn't say anything about your "M Connell" login, but you seemed to have taken it personally anyway. If there was any way to assume good faith, I would, but I honestly think you are here merely to cause trouble. I'm going to restore the proposed logo so that people can consider it and hopefully come up with some alternate ideas and we can have a vote. Why don't you propose one, M Connell? --Zephram Stark 04:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Grading and certification

Grading

An important part of the traditional classroom experience is grading assignments. You often don't know how well you're really understanding or not understanding material until you turn in an assignment and get some feedback. It would seem useful to have a mechanism for confidential submission of assignments, so people can't just copy off the students who finish first. (For assignments where that sort of thing matters.) This could be just done by e-mail, or some improvements to the wiki software might enable it. There's also the question of whether or not grades would be made public. There are some privacy and also some legal concerns there. -- Beland 02:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

We could have it on a Special: page. That way it's like your Watchlist, only you can see the contents. Whereas email exclusivity has problems, such as losing the email. Garrett^Talk 05:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think tools supporting personal assessment will be critical to success. Personally I am not much interested in some self appointed authority's opinion of my understanding of the material. Rather I am interested in the universe's response when I attempt to field some new space related technology or product. I agree that expert evaluation will become needed and necessary to achieve accreditation (a critical long term goal, I myself and past employers have both placed a premium value on my B.S. in Engineering Physics from an accredited institution, I think we are self delusional if we think people wish to undertake serious study with no assurance that they will ever be able to use the material for personal goals or gain) but I think that over reliance on external evaluation is one of the major pitfalls that has been impacting the quality of educational resources in the U.S. With external evaluation there is a tendency for students to learn to game the system to get high marks now with good intentions of understanding the material later. This allows poor students to graduate with high marks and incompetence in critical fields in the U.S. This has large negative impacts on the student and society as resources are misapplied and wasted and errrors in the field are required to wash out or imprison incompetents who have unintentionally, negligently or fraudulently damaged others. External grading is necessary but not sufficient to achieve our goal of improving education via the free online elearning strategy. Lazyquasar 19:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Grading and formats

I just saw Wikiversity. Great concept but we certainly need a grading scheme. Given a grading scheme it would not be too hard to define what a degree consists of. The only problem I can see from the very open Wikiversity attitude is that I see no difference between a student and a teacher - can a student make up all the questions and then answer them :-?

It is very difficult to get teachers involved in this kind of thing - I've been trying a more modest effort for several years and it is moving much more slowly than I would like. But surely this is also to some extent a question of permissible formats: Can I easily upload all sorts of formats into Wikiversity or do I need to retype everything in a specified wiki format? I would think that there are a lot of very well structured latex books and slides which could be made available... Also, I believe that students have a need to see things on paper so one needs to be able to print everything easily - e.g. an entire course...

Finally, I have found it important to be able to write/enter/upload graphics and quiz questions in the form of programming code (read fig/xfig, R, gnuplot etc) which automatically generates html, postscript, pdf, png etc, depending on the required output. I do not think it is enough to merely look at the content on web pages. Can one do this in Wikiversity?

Gstefans 18:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki format is a limited subset of HTML with a few tools added by users. You can upload text and others will help you standardize the format. A method of standardized testing is something I have been arguing for since before the project began. Wikiversity is nothing more than a name without it. Additional functionality in the core code is required to enable real testing. That could come in one or both of two forms: expanded programming privileges granted to teachers within their specific testing areas, or a standardized testing form that would allow teachers to plug in questions or provide a testing bank of questions for a randomized test. I'm sure you realize that this would not entirely prevent fraud, so no certification could be given based on these tests alone. However, just as in physical universities, tests can be a measure of progress with some safeguards when combined with mid-terms and finals taken at a controlled testing facility. --Zephram Stark 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Certification

Unless a student plans on always working for himself, knowledge of a discipline won't do him any good without proof that he has that knowledge and can put it to good use. In my opinion, proof should not come from the "good name" of the school, but from some objective measure.

The classes that I have taught for the last twenty years are centered around achieving a quantifiable goal of some practical knowledge upon completion. The level of knowledge, speed and skill is then demonstrated through third-party testing, available to anyone, whether they take the course or not, to generate an unbiased comparison of the student's abilities compared with those of people working in the industry or graduating from other schools. Taking a particular class from a particular school is largely irrelevant to whether or not a student is qualified to do the job. Hence, certification of a particular level of competency should not be tied to a school or a course, but to a demonstrable skill level in an unbiased environment. --Zephram Stark 06:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you need a certification to apply knowledge? While I see this as a great bonus to Wikiversity if a certification could actually happen, I see this as both an unattainable and unnecessary goal. Again, it would be great, but it just seems like it would be too much trouble to get actual certifications. --Dragontamer

Now that some time is passed, do you still see it as an unnecessary goal? Without standardized certification, we will not get students. Without students, we have no school. Certification is a huge undertaking, but proof and quantification of learning is a going to be a necessary requirement for almost any student. --Zephram Stark 16:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be a free university. Accreditation is nearly impossible. And unnecessary. Any students who participate in wikiversity would be doing so for their only personal knowledge only. No, you're wrong when you say knowledge of a discipline will do no good without proof; knowledge is worthy of having for its own sake. --MateoP 20:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The effort to gain knowledge for its own sake is a commendable endeavour, but it would be useless if people don't trust that the knowledge you have gained is complete and relavent. I would not like to gain knowledge that I was unable to use because no one either believed I had it, or didn't trust it. Wikiversity may not require formal accreditation status, but if Wikiversity can construct a course, and a good way to test their students, the Wikiversity will be able to carry its own academic clout regardless of if its accredited.

The accumulation of knowledge is what Wikipedia is about, the application and improvement of that knowledge is what a learning is about. Wikiversity should be able to increase the populations understanding, and in doing that the population can then improve on Wikipedia. --Ciaran Mooney 11:41, 11 Feburary 2006 (GMT)

Testing by Employers

The instructor developing the course could also create a standardized certification testing method. One way to keep Certification free and unbiased is to have a potential employer sponsor the testing. An established firm that would like to hire a person based on a standardized skill level could offer to conduct the testing for that area in order to draw in potential employees and to verify their expertise. A representative of the established firm would submit a request to the Wikiversity Testing Department for a certification exam and procedures bundle (available online by password). The representative would sign a non-disclosure form and a promissory agreement to make the names, log-ins, and scores of those desiring certification available to the Wikiversity Testing Department after exams are finished. Those demonstrating a particular skill level in the exam would have an official certification thumbnail placed on their user:page that leads to a printable version when clicked. The graphic would include a disclaimer with the name of the established firm that conducted the physical testing. --Zephram Stark 06:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Examination Institutions

One problem with online certification is that there is no way to know wich person took the examination. And what materials he/she had at the time of it. That takes out credibility in the certification. One way to avoid this is by use of Examination Institution. The purpose of the institutions would be to exam the student and verify their documents. Some institutions (non profit org, goverment, etc) can do this for free. But others should be allowed to charge a small fee (like $20 per exam). That way they can cover the expenses on the examination (paying a person to give the exam, paper, usage of room, etc.). At the end of the test the result could then be send to a central database that will hold the student record. --Ricardo Santos March 29, 2006

I second this proposal. There is no online way of examination which will retain the integrity of such a certification. I further

propose that no other online assignments' marks be taken into account when grading a candidate, since this would also degrade the

integrity of any Wikiversity certification, since there is no way of verifying that the online assignment was indeed handed in by the

candidate under consideration. --Huibrecht 15:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Any update on the ongoing efforts in this direction of taking examination for grading purpose? --Pinakinathc May 20, 2020

Family Trees

It would be a cool feature to begin a massive family tree.

Abuse

I don't know too much about Wikiversity, but I restored the page to a previous version because someone, (non-registered), mutilated it with a bunch of links to beastiality.

Student

How can i become a wikiversity student?

• Look through the course listings. Find a topic that is as close as possible to what you are interested in. Start interacting with people who have similar interests. Help get the project launched. --JWSurf 16:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity in Wikibooks

I must confess that I am unaware what is happening with the Wikiversity proposal. Whatever the result, however, I understand that textbooks for university students will remain on wikibooks. I therefore think Wikibooks should be ensuring that its own Wikiversity section looks like a textbook repository. This would mean rearranging the Wikiversity portal page, and transferring bits related to the Wikiversity proposal to the Wikibooks: namespace. I don't think this would take too much, nor do I think it would detract from the proposal, whilst it would have the benefit of emphasising that university textbooks are very much part of Wikibooks' offering. Before making this change, I note my ideas here first to allow for comment, Jguk 23:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, there should be a good deal of cooperation between Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Many Wikiversity participants will be looking for online textbooks. Some Wikiversity participants will engage in scholarly projects that will very useful to the development of online textbooks. What is important is creating ways for constructive interactions between the two projects. It will not be constructive for anyone to patrol Wikiversity in order to make sure that it does not contain anything like a textbook or to patrol Wikibooks and make sure that it does not contain anything that looks like a Wikiversity learning project. --JWSurf 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I imagine a Wikiversity section will remain in wikibooks and will host university level textbooks. No doubt, assuming a separate Wikiversity project proceeds, there would be links between the wikibooks wikiversity section and wikiversity.org. Are there any objections to changing what we now have on wikibooks, so that the wikiversity section of wikibooks looks like how it will be after a new wikiversity.org project is set up, with the all the non-textbook related content (eg policy discussion pages) moved to the Wikibooks namespace (where other Wikibooks policy is discussed)? Jguk 06:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Some similar concepts

• http://www.freecurricula.org/ (PD textbooks! 7 at the moment)
• http://www.theassayer.org/ (seems more like wikisource...not always free)
• http://textbookrevolution.org/ (some are only free-as-in-beer

--pfctdayelise 09:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Needed to Correct Horseshit or Large Error on Front Page

• Publish your course notes (note that we're talking to instructors here, not their students), lesson plans, topical essays, or reference works for others to review, modify or fork.

Either above or under the above I attempted to add a bullet and found the page protected, any admin is requested to add the bullet while any interested can debate with me here why we want "students" to become "participants" at Wikiversity by "participating" in any way they please. Modifying electronic bytes to improve the product is cheap and easy way to help people learn something and is what Wikiversity is all about.

• Publish your course notes (note that we're talking to students here, not their instructors), lesson plans, topical essays, or reference works for others to review, modify or fork.

and

• Publish your course notes (note that we're talking to participant here, not their parasites or naysayers), lesson plans, topical essays, or reference works for others to review, modify or fork.

or simplify the entire bullet list by changing the damaging sabotage in the original bullet to:

* Publish your course notes, lesson plans, topical essays, or reference works for others to review, modify or fork.

The entire point of Wikiversity is to start with whatever participation we get and evolve towards effective materials and participants. Participants means however someone wants to use the site. Students, mentors, professors, teachers, cub scout leaders, self improvement clubs, entrepreneurial cliques, whatever. Discouraging student participation is a very bad idea on the front page.

Thanks Lazyquasar

Okay, first... calm down. The warning about the page being protected says, "This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it" (my emphasis). You are a registered user, so you can edit it if you just log in. Now, secondly: I'm the one who added the phrase "note that we're talking to instructors here, not their students" to the instructions/suggestions. Calling that "sabotage" is a gross exaggeration. My concern was simply that one can easily argue that instructors who develop their own course notes hold the copyright to those notes. Thus, there may be legal issues involved if students post class notes without their instructor's permission. I have modified the statement to better reflect those concerns. - dcljr 08:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already calmed down as you know if you have checked your discussion page. Now secondly, copyright is exactly the issue. Perhaps we have a terminology problem. Obviously handouts or large volumes of verbatim repetition of the instructors materials will requirement their permission as they hold copyright. The copyright to a student's "course notes" or "notebook" created by them as they assemble paraphrased materials to study from obviously belongs to the student and is well within their rights as copyright holders to publish. Implying that we do not want participation from students donating their materials for coordination and group study between particpants improving the material as they interact socially to the wiki is diametrically opposed to the consensus or agreement to disagree that emerged during the Wikiversity proprosal development over the last year. The issue of being a site for educational professionals only was raised and dismissed in favor of broad participation of any interested in improving local content via the wiki while studying via group interaction or self study of the materials made available via the wiki. "(students might want to get the permission of their instructors first)" is better than outright patronizing of students but should be relocated to the submittal screen notice if required and corrected to "please do not illegally post copyrighted materials of others, permission to release the copyrighted materials under the FDL is required from the owners of the copyright". I believe it has some similar already. "Personally created student notebooks with short specific quotes and appropriate citations in accordance with fair use provisions of copyright law are materials belonging to the student and may be posted." This should be run by our copyright experts and improved and approved if there is concern about people's use or interpretation of "notebook" or "course materials". In any future changes please do not imply that some of our partipants interactions are presumed inferior or inappropriate and not welcome. All participants are welcome to post their own materials for "merciless editing" until an offical coordinated policy says otherwise. user:lazyquasar

Move to Wikibooks namespace

The project/discussion pages on Wikiversity are not really pages of textbooks. I therefore intend to start moving these over to the more appropriate Wikibooks namespace - so that project pages starting Wikiversity: will instead start with Wikibooks:Wikiversity/ . I do not intend to move the textbook pages that begin with "Wikiversity". If anyone has comments before the move, please do so here. Thanks, Jguk 09:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not really understand all of the implications of the different namespaces you are refering to above. I have been assured by Mr. Wales that the Board is supportive of getting Wikiversity started soon and by the members of the "activation committee" appointed by the "Special Projects Committee" that action will be forthcoming soon to finalize the initial Wikiversity project scope and wiki assets. Rather than shuffling the materials at this time it might be advantageous to wait and allow Wikiversity people to transwiki or fork all the appropriate Wikiversity specific materials. The Wikiversity project really does not need the further confusion of materials shifting around at this time. Interest has waned dramatically over the last six months as the project has been stalled in limbo and this further confusion could be very detrimental to the new attempts to launch a successful project. Lazyquasar 03:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am more mindful that the Wikibooks project, which has hosted this proposal, which in strictness it really wasn't obliged to do, should get back to normal and showcase the textbook content within Wikiversity as a full integral part of its own. If we knew a date for a Wikiversity project to start that was near, we could plan around it - but there have been so many delays with Wikiversity, which suggests we should not wait. I also think that having all Wikversity project pages labelled up as Wikibooks:Wikiversity would help with the move - currently some but not all of the pages beginning with Wikiversity: are project pages - identifying the difference should be useful. However, I do think it is time for the Wikibooks project to regularise itself, and that remains the motivation behind this proposed tidy-up, Jguk 07:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been treating Wikiversity as a seperate namespace for some time, and I don't know why this was even proposed. Please don't go moving Wikiversity content elsewhere other than to something tied directly to Wikiversity itself. If Wikiversity is to remain on Wikibooks (that would require some more work and policy changes) I would hope that it would become a seperate namespace. For now, please leave the Wikiversity pages in place, especially if they have a Wikiversity prefix. I find it unfortunate that Wikiversity participants are more comfortable adding content to Meta now than Wikibooks, for what should be project content, like meta:Wikiversity community. There is obviously a very hostle attitude right now toward Wikiversity participants if content like this is even made on Meta. --Rob Horning 14:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Robert, that the Wikiversity content on Wikibooks should be left alone until it is transwikied (which is imminent). I'm not sure I agree about the hostility, though - I think the content on Meta is of a different kind to here (planning, policy and process, as opposed to actual educational content). I do feel I should have worked more on content of interest here on Wikibooks - I think I've simply been waiting for the separate domain all this time. Maybe this attitude hasn't helped.. Cormaggio 16:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Small Spelling Mistake

Just wanted to point out that under the "Some Ideas for Effective Initial Participation" section, the emboldened "edit mercilously" should be spelled "edit mercilessly". Just thought I'd point it out, seeing as how it's on the main page and everything. :)

See comments on blog

I've blogged a bit on the missing piece in Wikiversity at http://twofish.wordpress.com/

I lot of my comments are based on what happened in the "beta prototype" for an online university at http://www.gnacademy.org/

The thing that someone (probably Wikiversity) can and should provide is a lot of learning support services. Academic advising. Career counselling. Research help. Financial aid.

I'm a high school student that wants to be a high-energy particle physicist. How do I do this?

University departments are evil....

And I think we need to get rid of them from wikiversity. University departments exist to allocate budgets and exercise administrative lines of power. Since we don't have a budget and there is no administrative line of power, there is no need for them here. The problem with departments is that they draw lines that prevent people from interacting.

Roadrunner 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Fredrik 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that we need departments at wikiversity at the same way we need folders in our computer. If I am looking for something I can find it quickly. Why you say that they prevent people from interacting? vitalij 08:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that learning projects will be an important type of community group within WIkiversity. We will need many ways to organize and categorize learning groups and help Wikiversity participants find the specific Wikiversity learning communities that match their personal learning goals. A listing of conventional university schhools, departments and courses could be useful to help guide Wikiversity participants to Wikiversity projects and activities. Even if conventional university departments are too restrictive, that does not mean that Wikiversity departments would have to adopt the negative aspects of bricks-and-mortar schools. Wikiversity departments can be fluid and supportive of inter-disciplinary communication......everything is only a hyperlink away. Do we really have to call them "wikidepartments" in order to get people to think in the wiki way? --JWSurf 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly can't imagine a point where we would be restrictive based on the names of our departments. There's tons of overlap and certainly we should encourage the overlap in this arena. And while I agree University departments traditionally discourage this behaviour, I have to agree that vitalij is right in that we've got to help people find what they are looking for. Atrivedi

Intro to CG course request for help

I've started writting an intro to computer graphics course, but i have realized that i would be duplicating a lot of work. I am basing it on this: CPSC 324 (a now closed class, with outdated material, i'm only trying to match what it covers.) I think i'm going to change what's already in the course to just use chapters from this offsite manual for the blender sections: mostly up to date blender manual for classrooms That just leaves the gimp, YafRay, and OpenGL. Anyone feel like helping to get it complete? (I have no idea on opengl, and little on programming.)--V2os 05:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Project launch

The following (1-5) was posted by Anthere to the Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:03:33):

1) there will be a domain at beta.wikiversity.org, where all new languages may contribute and start working on translation of guidelines etc...

2) those languages with at least 10 active participants can request a separate domain name. As of today, I presume the english language has at least 10 people interested, so you guys may bug Brion to ask for en.wikiversity.org. I am not sure if it is the case for any other language.

3) All sites will be flagged "beta" in the same way that wikinews has been for at least 6 months.

4) During these 6 months, guidelines should be developped, *in particular* with regards to collaborative research. We would hope that these guidelines are as much as possible developped on the beta site (in particular collaborative research), so that all languages share a common goal and a few common non negociable rules.

5) At the end of these 6 months period, the project will be reviewed, in particular so that the issue of collaborative research is qualified, and if possible to define whether the beta stage is over. Reviewal will be done by Spc.

---

The English language Wikiversity is now online. --JWSurf 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

---

We need to get a wikiversity:language registration page active both here and at the beta.wikiversity.org to assist people with getting their language versions started. See point two of the project launch message just above. Anyone with admin priveleges please put the link above on the front page here at wikibooks. Also a good idea to put links to the various languages and beta on this front page. Thanks. lazyquasar 70.110.37.107 07:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)