Wikiversity has had a number of problems over the years, some of which might be intractable. In this project, we'll discuss the advantages and disadvantages of how wikiversity is defined, managed, and hosted. If we could redesign Wikiversity "from scratch", what would it look like?
Just notes and comments for now:
Policies and scope
- Wikiversity uses a fairly radical interpretation of "anyone can edit", which is particularly problematic if resources here are to have active participation by young people.
- The scope in general was never very well defined from the start, and it has been hard to define ever since.
- Wikiversity more than many projects directly addresses what it means to educate effectively, or to be educational; but this isn't discussed in current policy as something measurable.
- At this time it may be useful to amend the Wikiversity research guidelines so as to explicitly exclude some types of fringe research if they disrupt Wikiversity or distract the community from its educational mission.
- Clarify the scope of research that threatens or compromises the reputation or public image of the Wikimedia Foundation or its various projects per unwelcome research.
- To what degree is the management "local", as opposed to being at the "foundation level"?
- As with all foundation projects, I would expect management to be entirely local, within the very limited boundaries set by the handful of foundation-wide policies and principles. Any intervention by people from other projects or from "the foundation" should be considered an emergency action, not relevant to long-term planning. –SJ+> 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- What's the "right mix" for management? What's the best balance between academic professionals, enthusiastic amateurs, developers, etc.?