Talk:Collaboratively Building Concepts

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"collaboratively building concepts"[edit source]

I like the idea of a project to focus on concepts. In a wiki that depends on volunteers who do what they want to do, it might be wise to facilitate a process by which Wikiversity participants are able to explore the concepts that they are most interested in. This is in contrast to goals such as trying to copy traditional curricula into wiki format. For example, we have War Seminar which could be explicitly oriented around an attempt to question traditional thinking and concepts about war. --JWSchmidt 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is what got me to go to grad school and think about everything I'm currently writing. There are so many concepts there worthy of deconstruction: defense, Zionism, terrorism, Human Rights, bantustan, suicide bomber, homicide bomber, Apartheid (holy crap, now that's a very hot word these days)Saidkassem 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the "counterparts" of globalization, such as nationalization, internationalization and localization and even ersonalization. --CQ 14:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that discussing and defining what and how we think about globalis/zation would bring up a rich array of issues around these topics. I think it might be best to start with a particularly 'hot' topic like globalis/zation (considering it has generated so much passionate debate particularly over the last ten years or so) and then start to explore other concepts as they arise from this discussion. In response to Said above - what about the obvious 'distinction' between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"? (And how would you go about building these concepts on one page? Or should we have to?) Cormaggio beep 17:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At one time I thought that the best way to get Wikiversity started would be to create Wikiversity learning projects for anything that was already a heavy-traffic topic at one of the other Wikimedia Foundation wikis. I became afraid of that idea because many of the high-traffic topics are rather wild, and I did not want Wikiversity to be swamped with people looking for a soap box. However, if we could identify groups of dedicated participants for a topic area, we could start moving into some high-profile and controversial areas. Wikiversity could run study groups and citation evaluation projects that would help find high quality and reliable sources for Wikipedia articles where there is more heat than light. --JWSchmidt 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you'd be interested in this turning into something. A citation evaluation project could be in order as well. Stay tuned, I'm doing more reading...Saidkassem 23:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After watching a documentary movie called "The Prophesy" [Teton Gravity Research (2003)] about the extreme sport of freestyle skiing and freeriding (snowboarding), I added Collaboratively Building Concepts/Extreme Sport to the mix. I was astonished by the feats accomplished by the twenty or so death-defyers on, what appeared to be impossible slopes. This may be one of those high-traffic topics JWS mentions, but I think there is much enthusiasm about it and certainly has its share of uncited statements at Wikipedia. What makes the so-called "adrenaline junkies" place themselves in such danger? What discipline, peer support (pressure?), upbringing, and other factors make these activities possible? What is the cause and effect relationship between youth culture and mass media predicated within the phenomenal growth if extreme sports? Food for thought. --CQ 14:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can safely say that identity is a complex thing - maybe this should be explored for itself (or perhaps it's too broad)? "Youth culture" and "mass media" would both be rich topics to explore in themselves - what about "beauty", or "cool"? We could go on endlessly here. :-) So, would it be an idea to start from a general topic or one more specific? What would work best? I would hypothesise the former, but of course I'm open to suggestions.. :-) Cormaggio beep 17:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maths concepts[edit source]

Not sure how useful this might be, but i use concept models when teaching maths. For example, I use those plastic models used to represent molecules to show the complexity of fractions for example, or the simplicity of times versus division... Maths is also taught after it is broken down into parts, and in so doing, it loses a lot of its life. I think concepts are more like static things, whereas I am interested in the processes. I try to teach maths by principle, with simultaneous concepts rather than linear construction. Is this in the ballpark or not...? --Fidocancan 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in this project[edit source]

  • Saidkassem - I would really encourage others to make bold edits so that the thinking that goes into this page can become a truly collaborative effort. I would like to see some cognitive linguists, especially, come in since it is their territory I have just waltzed into.
  • Cormaggio - interested in linking this project with the larger one of developing an understanding of Wikiversity itself.

How the Conceptualization exercise would work in the Wikiversity[edit source]

Hotwords[edit source]

In his essay "Is the Wikipedia neutral?", Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View"-- the guideline which stresses objective, unbiased, fair writing-- functions primarily as a "heat shield". Points of View and knowledge creation, by definition, don't go well together, so Wikipedia relies on "neutrality" as a convention to keep the collaborative process well oiled.

But this is not Wikipedia. This is Wikiversity, where the learning process takes precedent over the ability to present neat, ready-to-consume knowledge products. Quickly, if everything is designed just right, participants will begin to converge on "hotwords," and things indeed will become quite hot.

So, what are we to explore or learn from this? Perhaps we might begin by trying to define some of the suggested themes that follow - and see how our perceptions differ from other people's, and how this might help or hinder the building of a shared understanding of that theme/concept.

The above comments by Saidkassem were moved to the talk page. --McCormack 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second exercise: citations...[edit source]

As with college research papers, citing encyclopedias, dictionaries and other derivative sources are not allowed. (ambiguous) Do college research papers "not allow" such citations? Perhaps the statement should read "Unlike college research papers..." Orschstaffer (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]