From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikiversity Vision 2009 is a temporary project to coordinate and discuss development of Wikiversity during 2008. It sets out goals which we can set ourselves to reach by the end of the year.

Please sign your contributions to this page with --~~~~. Thank you.

Educational goals[edit source]

Pedagogy[edit source]

PLEs[edit source]

See also: Making Wikiversity a personal learning space (and my PLE :-)) ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 12:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas welcome! --McCormack 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Educational levels[edit source]

Identifying quality content[edit source]

  • A great problem with "Wikiversity 2007" was that quality content was so hard to find that it appeared to be non-existent. As one bureaucrat phrased it in early 2008, the actual practice of content creation on Wikiversity was "to create a page and forget about it" - or more to the point, "create a stub or less-than-half-developed page and forget about it". During Spring 2008, there have been ongoing efforts to identify quality content and make this more accessible to Wikiversity participants, so that a feeling emerges that Wikiversity is doing something worthwhile. Usually, valuable content has been "rediscovered" during the process of other reorganisational projects. At the current point of time, several dozen projects accounting for perhaps 25% of Wikiversity's total content have been tracked down and identified as valuable content in this way. It should greatly increase the community's confidence in content creation. --McCormack 07:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment seems to ignore the reality of how wikis function and grow. Many stubs are requests for further content development. The attitude that stubby and developing pages are not something worthwhile is toxic and not the wiki way. Wikiversity welcomes all good faith contributions....well, some of us do. --JWSchmidt 04:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/May 2008#Minimal requirements, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find McCormack's comment helpful—I'm thinking about how to focus on productive content in the projects I'm involved with. The Jade Knight 09:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the more that learning resources interlink the more unified Wikiversity will seem. That is one of the great strengths of Wikipeida is that its articles not only talk about that article's subject, but easily directs its readers to related material in the article. Something similar to link surfing. So if a learning resource is kind of based on another skill, hopefully you can link to another learning resource on Wikiversity that teaches that skill. --Devourer09 02:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is still confusion between wikiversity and wikibooks, particularly when textbooks are developed on wikibooks - there should be an easy way to identify them and link them to wikiversity content. I am pretty sure there are people developing textbooks on Wikibooks who don't know much about Wikiversity, and there are people who develop textbook-like stuff here.--Piotrus 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Featured[edit source]

  • There has been tremendous progress with identifying quality content using Wikiversity:Featured. This in turn has been reflected on the main page. Raising the profile of certain projects in this way has considerably motivated some of the content producers currently working on these projects. --McCormack 07:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Random[edit source]

  • The random link(s) in the left-hand sidebar (Mediawiki:sidebar) were a point of discussion and trial-and-error reform by a number of participants in Spring 2008. The original problems were that a purely random pages threw up mainly subpages and stubs, which created a bad impression of Wikiversity content. Ideally what was needed was a random link which only chose from the homepages of well-developed projects. However the Mediawiki software did not provide a good way to do this. Eventually the suggestions list at Wikiversity:Featured was used to produce a list of content (not just featured content, but drawing on slughtly-lower-quality or not-yet-featured content as well) from which a random page was chosen on every click. This works better than the equivalent kludge at Wikibooks, which as a browser-specific scripting problem. --McCormack 07:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More learning projects and ones with feedback[edit source]

I think we need more learning projects. I saw a psudo-namespace "Course:" run by a user that consisted of keeping track of how well users did on various resources and quizes. I think it's a good idea and we need to have something that allows someone to keep tabs on the grades, categorize them, and weigh them to use a mathematical device to create a grade.--Ipatrol 21:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matching Efforts to Resource Demand[edit source]

Finding courses without content is nobody's favorite pasttime, yet there seems to be a great deal of this to do, even once the quality content has been identified. So, what then is the best way to guide developer's hands towards those resources which are most in need of development? Obviously random pages are not going to arouse feelings of grandeur and raise morale. Instead, I'd like to see a synthesis made here of the statistics available and the the proposed "Wikiversity:Activity_bars" (maybe via bot?) to better guide our collaborators to where they're needed. Those pages with the most hits will get looked at, and if the right people look, they will be developed. - Gustable 05:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, but most users help with what they're interested in—this is where Departments need to step in and be helpful, herding people to where the most promising content is. We definitely need a way to handle these demoralizing empty pages in a way everyone can appreciate, however. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usability goals[edit source]

Main page[edit source]

Help:Contents[edit source]

Faculty structure[edit source]

Wikiversity:Browse[edit source]

after some years we wish wikiversity to grow up and have a greet scientific specialized content to begining in whats called continuous education courses with credited certificates also we wish wiki to be of scientific reality and action in scientific literatures all over the world also i wish from people work on wiki to make a prize for people have best scintific researches this my make wiki an unique with this researches over any sites and making it helpfull and important for researchers "giving reality for its science between scintific communication" --Ibrahim kh. rashad 05:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free culture studies[edit source]

  • I'm not yet familiar with the faculty structure, so this may already exist in some form or another, but I would like to propose a faculty/department (whatever) of free culture studies. This would include courses such as Composing free and open online educational resources, reading groups such as Free Culture (book), and research groups (such as User:Cormaggio's phd work), plus I'm sure much other, perhaps scattered learning projects. Such a faculty would, I'd suggest be in keeping with the overall WV mission, could become a honeypot for people being innovative in this area, and eventually a flagship program. Let me know initial thoughts and if promising how you would suggest it proceed. I'm really only familiar with bottom-up design around here. -- Jtneill - Talk 03:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of material spread around WV on this topic. I'd suggest (if it does not yet exist as a department/topic) that material should be drawn together at the department/topic level, and then categorised under (e.g.) a faculty of Wikimedia Studies, the faculty of Educational Science (where it already mostly is anyway) and the Non-formal Education Portal. With the new portal system I am developing, subsuming something into a particular portal would require no more than correctly categorising it. You should take a good look at Wikiversity:Browse/Concept. --McCormack 05:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation paths[edit source]

WYSIWYG[edit source]

  • Obtain a clear indication of strategic intent from WM Foundation with regard to WYSIWYG editing. i.e., is a waste of time to dream of such an innovation (and therefore best to help users to learn MW syntax markup), or is a functionality worth lobbying for and investing energy in testing? -- Jtneill - Talk 11:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both are needed. For an average user, only basic understanding of wiki markup is needed to perform the edits they want. Some people, however, may struggle even with that, especially younger users (like first graders or younger), who we are trying to attract. So a WYSIWYG set up would definitely be useful for basic things. Then we have users who would like to do more complicated things with wiki markup, but don't know how. Currently there is no way to learn more complicated wiki manipulation (like making templates, etc) unless you get a more experienced editor to teach you. So something like a resource to teach complex wiki markup would be useful; but if we could simplify the more complicated things enough to bring them within the grasp of the average user, we'd see a lot more getting done on WV. (sorry if that doesn't make sense, I'm having trouble translating thoughts to language today) --Luai lashire 16:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised that there is not a wysiwyg mediawiki extension. Perhaps if there is a quality one that would be useful, it could be something that could be enabled through preferences. --Remi 00:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See: strategy:Proposal:WYSIWYG default editor --fasten 13:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usability priorities[edit source]

  • Do you think learning manual wiki-markup is the largest obstacle to classes using Wikiversity? I'd estimate that creating an account and logging in is, in terms of time and probability of error, just as great an obstacle as wiki-markup, and once students actually find a nice table of symbols (tutorials!), they get going with editing quite fast. Advanced editing mostly involves things like templates and parsers, which no WYSIWYG editor could ever cope with anyway. What we should probably do is map out a list of things that classes need to go through, and estimate where the bottlenecks are. Quick and dirty list follows. --McCormack 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Creating an account and signing in (quite difficult)
        • Note: This step can be skipped because anonymous editing is possible. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think this is difficult at all- anyone with even a modicum of internet experience has most likely created an account somewhere before, and as far as account creation goes, wikiversity's sign-up is very quick and simple. The one thing I can think of that could cause a problem is locating the place to click in order to get an account, which could be remedied by placing a link to it in the navigation bar at left. --Luai lashire 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Introduction to basic wiki markup (moderate difficulty; easier if a good reference source is available)
        • This took me quite a while to get the hang of- I would say it's quite difficult unless you have a really good quality reference source available, which Wikiversity currently does not. It has a few resources that come close, but not close enough, and I had to look at several of them AND go to Wikipedia to look for more before I could even begin to figure out how to edit. --Luai lashire 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      3. Dealing with edit conflicts (occurs more frequently if a class are collaboratively authoring)
      4. Content policy issues, such as basic civility and not being tempted by amateur vandalism once the new environment is discovered.
      5. Using media (really difficult)
        • I would rate this at most moderately difficult; students I work with who are fairly novice seem quite comfortable with (and enjoy) embedding hosted videos in their blogs, etc. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, perhaps the really difficult bit is when it involves legally using media - i.e. attributing authorship and getting permissions right. --McCormack 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agree, people don't know much about copyright. :-( ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 12:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • But I think they learn pretty fast by making a mistake and having an experienced user remove inappropriate content, and explain on their talk page. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are remarkably optimistic about the supply of experienced users at WV to do things like categorisation and media permissions tagging ;-) But perhaps we shall have them one day. --McCormack 13:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, I'm thinking its not so much optimism as realism around the observation that categorising and fixing naive or vandalising stuff by others seems to pretty much be only performed by a small proportion of experienced users. (Perhaps if users weren't so focused on working out syntax every time they edited, they might get around more often to categorising?) -- Jtneill - Talk 13:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      6. Linking pages into the grand scheme of things (using categories, portals and the like; difficult)
        • I would rate this very difficult; it's taken me a long while to get to grips with namespaces, categories, etc. esp. on a new MW site. I think this is ultimately a task for more experienced users. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting. I would rate this as easy. While I admit it's often hard to figure out precisely which categories to put a page in, categories were relatively easy for me to adapt to, and after a bit of portal-hunting I often found places I thought were right to link to. If we introduce new users to categories as the Wikiversity version of tags, I think most people understand their use pretty quickly. Namespaces, however, are confusing- but that I think is because the namespace system is pretty messed up, as we are discussing above. Perhaps if we 1) fix the namespaces, and 2) create a page introducing new users to categorization and organizational structure on WV, we can address any issues people currently have with such things? --Luai lashire 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      7. Colour coding
        • Colour code the different sections of the code. This will make rummaging through the code faster. I understand that having this function will probably take up much processing power, so perhaps it can be introduced as an optional feature for logged in users? --Jestermeister 07:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homework templates[edit source]

There needs to be a way for students to upload their assignments easier. This could be templates or even a bot. Using the current upload process along with manual wiki-markup for displaying the homework is now too time consuming. ~~~~ Robert Elliott 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template[edit source]

Navigation/Sidebar[edit source]

Favourites[edit source]

Tagging resources by completion status[edit source]

Simplify Namespaces[edit source]

  • There was a huge discussion of namespace reform here which, due to its size, has been transferred to its own page at Namespace reform. Please feel welcome to contribute to the discussion. The results of the discussion, when consensus has been achieved, will be announced below. --McCormack 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: there was a lot of discussion of this in May 2008 by many participants. Discussion fizzled out in June 2008. There appears to be no consensus on anything - or can someone enlighten me? --McCormack 07:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology goals[edit source]

How about therefore making a prio list for 2008 of the Wikiversity:Technical needs ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 09:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if we can't get these into a SoC application, if they are high priority. Historybuff 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategies[edit source]

  • Make direct comparison with functions enabled by extensions implemented by WikiEducator, with strategic decisions about whether Wikiversity wishes to pursue any of these which are not currently implemented. -- -- Jtneill - Talk 11:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strategically, closer collaboration with WikiEducator could benefit both initiatives. I am constantly torn between which platform to use and always have to make a decision - later wishing I had some of the features available on the other one. Collaboration could occur at multiple levels - shared templates, gadgets, etc., federated search, shared discussions even at the strategic level considering the shared implied vision of libre knowledge and education for all. Ktucker 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WV vs. other WMF wiki projects[edit source]

Wikiversity vs. WikiEducator[edit source]

In order of priority, at the moment, the reasons for me are:
  1. The broader WM Foundation family of projects - e.g., esp. sister projects with Wiki Commons, Wikipedia, and WikiBooks
  2. More responsive and larger set of 'custodial'-type experts.
  3. Cleaner, simpler interface.
  4. The main downside at the moment for me in using WV compared to WE is that WE are a little bit more advanced towards providing multimedia embedding. (BTW - It kind of amuses me that we're talking about MediaWiki software here!). -- Jtneill - Talk 13:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MW interwiki default linking to WV?[edit source]

I was surprised to notice that interwiki linking to Wikiversity is NOT a MediaWiki default!? See mw:Help:Interwiki_linking#Default. How can we get this changed? -- Jtneill - Talk 01:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this means. I do believe we're on the Interwiki map, and I also think that all WMF projects use the same map. This may have changed in the last while, but that was the situation when I last tried to use interwiki linking. Historybuff 06:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that AFAIK the default installation of MediaWiki does not provide built-in shortcut links to Wikiversity, whereas it does for say wikipedia:. So, we should lobby to have wikiversity: in-built as a default shortcut in the MW software. -- Jtneill - Talk 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RSS functionality[edit source]

One of the current weaknesses of Wikiversity is that the feedback loop of participant activity (e.g., their blog reflections) can't easily be completed within WV. Implementation of an RSS parsing extension would allow custom feeds to be created and shown. WikiEducator have implemented this. I'm guessing this might be an unfortunately scary concept for WM to buy into (e.g., potential for undesirable and spam material to be shown, and related legal issues, etc.) But it needs to be negotiated, otherwise it is going to be difficult for Wikiversity to become a dynamic learning environment. Perhaps we can start gently with WMF by suggesting that only feeds from within WV would be allowed. This would at least allow the use of PLEs on user pages, with an aggregated feed shown on a course page. Thoughts? -- Jtneill - Talk 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think extensions can be added by community consensus, and if there are things that would help with this, then I can't see why we can't have them. The RSS feed thing did work at one point, but it might be suffering from Bitrot of some sort. We could devise a custom PLE structure as an extension, depending on the functionality we wanted to achieve. Historybuff 06:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This functionality is now available for testing on the sandbox server (link to be added). -- Jtneill - Talk 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia extensions[edit source]

(feel free to adjust, add, move, and add rationale/info/argument)

  1. Slideshare embedding - be able to embed a (flash?) slideshare presentation
  2. Youtube/Google Video embedding - be able to embed a flash video
  3. Google Calendar embedding
  4. Google Map embedding
There were added comments on the Sandbox Server to the extension requests, see here, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 12:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James, just a question: you know that videos can be used here or ? see e.g. commons:Category:Wikiproject videos - depending on copyright videos can be converted to that format and used also here, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok, interesting. I have started looking at this. I like the focus on .ogg. Do you know of any embedded .ogg files being used on wikiversity? Is there a category? -- Jtneill - Talk 12:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a category, but feel free to create Category:Video resources and add all .OGG video files to it. --McCormack 13:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. Stanford Open Source Lab. More on: Category:Video media - btw: on commons, see commons:Category:Video, commons:Category:Wikiproject videos - you can use them at any wikimedia project. So, if you would think of uploading ogg videos, please place them there. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, nice ideas, but I should say, that people will have a problem to create these multimedia. Like me and all of us. JWS made some embedade ogg videos for en.wv. But he is having Apple. We pore people having Windows as an OS, havent e.g. found a way how to make a screencasting video in ogg Theora format:(.--Juan 17:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. FreeMind embedding, for organizing ideas, knowledge adquisition and even links to wiki or non wiki pages. Could that be used/useful? --Esenabre 14:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPEG 3 movie files[edit source]

Why does Wikiversity not allow MPG4 files? This would be much easier for some people than OGG VIDEO. Robert Elliott 17:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the MPG4 file format might be covered by patents, or somehow considered non-free (perhaps it's using MP3 audio, which is covered by patents?). I don't know the filesizes for MPG4 vs other files, but it might be possible to accommodate these on the Sandbox server, if the admins are willing to host there? Historybuff 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification tools[edit source]

Create something like Wikiversity:Wikification (plus some user-friendlier titles), with information about various ways to wikify content in different formats, e.g.,

  1. Send2Wiki
  2. html import

-- Jtneill - Talk

Academia[edit source]

Create a file storage system for lectures in pdf format. Also creating libraries/academia/or a group for these files similar to School, where people can read the previous lectures and course material. --Tushant 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Open Document Content Types[edit source]

Wikiversity should support the uploading of Open Document file types. The use of these file types should be encouraged. -- -- wmciver UTC (or GMT/Zulu)-time used: Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 20:56:11

OOo 2.0 file can't be upload for this moment due to suspicious code that can be in the file.Crochet.david 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried OOo 3.0? It is the current revision. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 11:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but only the developer can open new upload format. In bugzilla, we can read that : The main issue is that OASIS files can contains malicious content. Letting these be uploaded without validation would be undesirable, and as of yet (AFAIK) there is no OASIS validation interface for MediaWiki.Crochet.david 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity goals[edit source]

Fliers[edit source]

Statistics[edit source]

Guided tours[edit source]

Sister projects interview[edit source]

Wikiversity outreach[edit source]

  • I like the name Wikiversity outreach and want to change the meaning of this project a little. It could become a project with the aim to find new users for Wikiversity and to organize activities that can attract people. We could make films (for YouTube for instance), cartoons, games and material of an academic level. We could organize fairs and discussions on several topics with the aim to get people interested in a wide range of topics.
  • Secondly, i like to put this project prominently at the front page of Wikiversity, so there is a bigger chance that people will join it.
  • The main aim of these two measures is to get a more active institution, which is able to reach out and won't stay passive.--Daanschr 08:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community goals[edit source]

Awards[edit source]

  • Working on it! Increase retention of participants and recognition of activity, especially by newcomers. See Wikiversity:Participants for a start. It could become "normal" to recognize newcomers when they achieve "very active" status for the first time, and when they reach 1000 edits, for example. Superficial, but better than complete silence. --McCormack 07:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annual awards - Create peer- (and participant-) review annual awards e.g., for most innovative new learning resources within major categories. 2008 could provide the inaugural awards. Get this promoted so its up there with the edublog awards. Among other things, this could also help build prestige for teachers needing to justify time spent on contributing to Wikiversity to their employers. -- Jtneill - Talk 13:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Being cautious, I'd suggest doing this within the existing barnstar system (but perhaps with some new and better barnstar templates). One can both overdo and underdo recognition, and at the moment we're definitely on the "under" side! --McCormack 06:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staffing/Functionaries[edit source]

Community Portal[edit source]

  • Working on it! Luai lashire is adopting this one. Helpers welcome. --McCormack 07:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get the Community Portal up and running again; currently it's almost completely stagnant, and it's not set up in such a way as to be easily editable by users with less knowledge of wiki markup. Frankly, it's daunting, and it's old, and doesn't do a good job of representing the community or alerting users to new developments. --Luai lashire 16:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a look at this and agree, but the trick will be persuading a Wikiversitarian to "adopt" these pages and maintain them as a long term project. I already have enough under my wing - but perhaps someone else could volunteer? --McCormack 06:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that would certainly help- especially for an initial clean-up phase- but it's my hope that we can get the Community Portal to the point where just about anyone who knows any wiki markup at all would be able to contribute a little. That way we could use it to make course-related announcements (like the ones up right now about the Bloom Clock or the French course), delete alerts that are too old, etc, and just continuously tweak things until they're right. Currently it's far too confusing for a new user to edit it at all. Cleaning it up should be our first priority I guess, but after that it needs to be made more usable. I don't know how to do that, myself. Perhaps if we start a Community Portal Learning Project modeled on the main page learning project, we could attract more interest and get some of this done. --Luai lashire 14:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The main page learning project attracted minimal interest - a few readers, but no real participants. I still ended up doing everything myself (but I can just about manage that). While I support your ideas for a Community Portal Learning Project, we must be realistic - great wiki efforts at the moment will mostly be individual efforts - only the combination of our efforts across different parts of the site will really be communal. If you are willing to adopt the Community Portal, you can count on myself and others to provide you with the knowledge, advice and support, but at the beginning, it's probably going to be an individual effort. Start by creating Community Portal/2.0, copy in the previous code, and then experiment at your leisure and as time allows! --McCormack 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Community Portal Layout 0.5 is suppose to be an updated version of the previous one, it does need a little tweeking - like the alignment with the text, though I need assistance with that, tried to fix the alignment problem on my own but I'm struggling with fixing the problem - I hope that this version will in use once finished. DarkMage 17:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks' attempts to improve its own Community Portal might provide some inspiration: June 2007, October 2007, and May 2008. --darklama 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participants lists[edit source]

  • checkY Done. New concept for Wikiversity:Participants oriented towards our needs. --McCormack 05:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please vote, discuss or express an opinion. Participants lists: it's been suggested before, but I'll add the suggestion to this page as well. The participants lists on portals, departments and most learning projects are a failed wikiversity idea and all these lists should be moved to the talk pages of their respective pages in the course of time. Currently I can't find where we previously discussed this, but the general problem is that all over Wikiversity, we have these "sign yourself up" lists where people signed themselves up years ago and rarely did anything, or did for a while and then moved on. The course participants lists from previous years are about the most useless piece of junk one can have, and they really make new visitors feel that nothing's happening or that the courses are somehow in the possession of much older users. Thoughts, anyone? --McCormack 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For my 3rd post I would say my second was to add my name to something that I would wish to lurk on (and sometime add to) and note that the presence of a name that I could follow and relate to was a useful feature .. my previous entry to this was on her off-wiki slideshow. Learning is about people.--Paulmartin42 15:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps these lists could be moved to /Participant subpages. This could then provide a kind of archival record of people who engaged at some point with each learning project. -- Jtneill - Talk 09:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's also a good idea, but don't forget that talk pages also serve as long term repositories. The main difference between talk page and subpage will become apparent if we manage to get subpage navigation activated - then the subpages would become much more visible - which might not be a good thing for these participants lists. The idea is to keep them, but to keep them out of the way. --McCormack 10:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually just had an idea for these lists in the projects I'm involved in—I was thinking of relabeling the lists to be more like a contact group or whatnot, and then creating an actual project community, with, say, community requirements of one sort or another. I'm thinking along the lines of having meetings to attend, but this could be simply a matter of making sure that those on the list are actively working on the project (by posting on the talk page, if nothing else). I haven't worked out the details yet (just got the idea tonight), but the general idea is to a) develop community, b) have listing criteria be objective, c) increase productivity. Thoughts? The Jade Knight 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and administration goals[edit source]

Vision statement[edit source]

Policy review[edit source]

Working on it! A number of people, and especially mikeu, have supported the idea of a wide ranging policy review and policy completion, particularly as policy has gaping holes in it. See Wikiversity:Policy. --McCormack 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of my main concerns is that it is not clear which policy pages are simply proposed, and which ones were actually adopted as official. If I am confused about this, there is no way that a new editor would have a clue. We also have to decide about fair use images. Do we adopt an EDP or do we delete all non-free images? (as required by wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy) --mikeu talk 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own impression of policy is that it is a garden full of really overgrown jungle weeds. Rather than "tender loving care", it needs "rodent kill" and a couple of heart transplants. I added in a link to the actually voting, which, while it shows what was officially decided, was also a poorly supported and rushed process which did not reach consensus in the majority of cases. The example of a soundly defeated policy (i.e. Ignore All Rules) being subsequently listed/tagged as "proposed" rather than "rejected" should suffice. Policy needs a recipe consisting of a bunch a bureaucrats, a lot of good judgment, and many cups of boldness. Just keep us informed about what you do ;-) --McCormack 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious content policy[edit source]

There is a working draft at Wikiversity:Draft policy on religious content, but there have been no major edits since April. The page needs review. --mikeu talk 13:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking[edit source]

Wikiversity:Blocking warrants discussion and possible revision in light of concerns raised particularly during September-October 2008 around appropriate usage and conduct on Wikiversity and the use/practice of blocking in dealing such issues. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions[edit source]

Create tools, guides, materials for helping WV users to seek and gain free access to previously restricted copyright teaching materials. In the beginning, this might simply be a WMF-approved proforma WV letter requesting that a copyright holder give permission for free usage of the content (e.g., an image, a presentation, a handout, etc.) as per WMF licensing requirements. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Use & Copyright Policy[edit source]

I've noticed that Wikiversity doesn't have any Image Use Policy, including a policy of copying materials from Copyrighted websites - this is a major problem and have caused problems on Wikipedia, which I don't want to see happening here on Wikiversity - Could something be set-up so that user's (or) new user's could abide by the Image Use Policy including a policy which won't allow user's to copy copyrighted material which isn't their work, if the owner's of the copyrighted work had granted permission to be place on this site, then by all means - but in my view we need a policy on this. DarkMage 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing contributors to protect their content[edit source]

I decided to use Wikiversity because I did not want my content locked up in our university's Blackboard system. I want to contribute it for other to use. This does not mean that I want others to change it. I remain uncomfortable with the lack of protections for my content. The notion that I have to ask people not to change the content I have developed for my course seems backward. wmciver UTC (or GMT/Zulu)-time used: Sunday, November 2, 2008 at 20:48:28 .

Is this about being able to rely on the page being as you last left it to show to students? I think the closest that Wikiversity might get is to allow particular revisions of a page to be marked as stable so that teachers, instructors and other people who need a reliable version of content can count on people seeing the stable version of the page if their not registered or didn't change their preferences. Would this address what your trying to achieve?
Wikiversity is also about being open to collaboration, working together to improve content for everyone's benefit, and Wikiversity's licensing policy reflects this goal. Wikiversity is unlikely to provide the ability to lock down or restrict who can contribute to what page because this would go against the goal of being open to collaboration by anyone. Right now the most reliable way to ensure that students see a particular version of a page is to link to the particular revision somewhere by including the revision id of the page as part of the URL (for example: --darklama 22:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity is not simply a "content hosting platform"; if you place content here, you may want to expect, or even desire, for it to be edited by others. If you simply want to place content to be read by your students, you're free to create your own wiki using the MediaWiki software. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 11:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do use MediaWiki in my own work and have used it on my own machines at times. This is not an appropriate response, however, to someone who is volunteering to contribute to this project. Organizational policies at my place of work and at the university where I am an adjunct professor present barriers to hosting a public MediaWiki for me. In the spirit of cooperation, I thought I would contribute to this project. I already participate in the Global Text Project and the Wikiversity on the surface seemed the best fit. I appreciate the potentials for collaboration, but if I understand Wikiversity's policies, the model is wrong or at best incomplete. If others feel that changes are warranted in a course designer's content, a comment and revision process should be used as in academic journals and conferences. Content developers will be reluctant to contribute here if they can't rely on the stability of their own content. Let author(s) know in a non-disruptive fashion what changes are suggested. What if the author disagrees though? What if they are qualified to disagree? Should we still mandate or allow unilateral changes? The version process above would mitigate some of these flaws, but it is too cumbersome. Those who truly support the idea of Wikiversity should not be responding with technical and policy responses. They should be building an environment that encourages contributions. I have a Ph.D in computer science. I am sure that I can figure out the tedious details of templates and revision links to satisfy the current Wikiversity policies here. But why should it be difficult or tedious? This type of compliance still would not address some of the anti-user-centred approaches to this whole project. What do you want the priorities to be? Content or technically-oriented policies that are not user-friendly? All of you might want to have a look at Donald Norman's books, which I use in my course. wmciver UTC (or GMT/Zulu)-time used: Monday, November 3, 2008 at 12:44:46

Well, the Wikimedia wikis host collaborations, using the wiki technology so that anyone can contribute (IOW, "anyone can edit"). You really don't need to use a wiki if you're only interested in posting something up for public viewing and use. We really can't host content that isn't open for others to edit, because the whole idea is to host collaborative creations. --SB_Johnny talk 14:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misunderstanding of my concerns. I value and support collaboration in my work. See my course. A number of modes of collaboration are possible. My concern has to do with modes of collaboration that are suitable for content that is being used in a class while it is being developed. My concern is also about developing an inclusive and flexible environment that allows for these different modes. The current approach seems to fail in these respects. I hope that I am wrong. wmciver Monday, November 3, 2008 at 18:18:36 UTC .
The ability to mark revisions as stable that I mentioned before, seem to me like it would allow material to be use in classes reliably while still being developed collaboratively. Perhaps you could clarify what modes of collaborations your referring to that you wish to prevent and wish to allow? --darklama 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)--darklama 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi wmciver! Wikiversity and other Wikimedia wiki's do indeed have "open content" as a standard. It appears you want collaboration but also to be able to fine tune the security to pages and what users can do. There is a well known hosted wiki solution out there that accomplishes that, and it is PBwiki, see the academic link. If you like MediaWiki, what Wikiversity uses, I suggest to see if your academy will host one, which you can configure to require registration to edit pages instead of like Wikiversity that accepts any IP without registration. Dzonatas 17:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For wmciver’s case. Wikiversity’s concept must be different from Wikipedia’s. In wikipedia most of the articles are written by amateurs who have paraphrased printed sources in traditional disciplines, e.g. the Humanities. When wiki authorities are bored by others’ meaningless editing or vandalism they lock the article and nobody can edit it. In Wikipedia, as the experts are few, the author of the article, who has not really written something original but has actually paraphrased from a printed encyclopedia, is not really interested whether somebody else will edit his paraphrase. Also, if your knowledge about the subject is limited, yes, you really appreciate editing, adding etc by others.

HOWEVER, Wikiversity should not be the same. Two environments miust be created: a free one and a protected environment. An expert in a field, who tries to open his thoughts and his material to others apart from his class at the University, can not tolerate silly editing and can not be checking everyday whether others have moved a sentence from here to there or have added something irrelevant or different to the concept of the specific course.

If wikiversity is looking for high quality material, must create a LOCKED/PROTECTED environment for those who are the experts and want to teach and develop a course in their own way. Parallel development of free/open or other protected/locked courses (forking) of course is welcome and is part of Wikiversity. A real expert in a field of course wants comments and opinions etc but not anybody touching an ORIGINAL material he/she has given great thought on and a lot of time to prepare for his students or even the greater public. Otherwise, NO high quality material will ever exist here, as is the case with a great part of Wikipedia (what is not paraphrased from the experts in print).

Let me add my own experience here. I am an expert on Hegel (German philosopher) which means PhD dis., articles, book chapters etc. I wanted to develop a course for Hegel, about Hegel, and Hegel’s ideas and take it out of the Univ. Blackboard system. I also wanted to bring my students here, so that they can discuss the content etc BUT NOT change the material I wanted to give them. The course was about Hegel NOT a comparison of Hegel with others. During the process, every so often silly intruders made “corrections” to the material although my intention about content stability was stated explicitly on the first course page. After a few weeks editing of others had become so annoying that I spent more time trying to find what others had changed rather than proceed with the material. I used the stability feature but as material changed overnight my students saw the new versions of others who had used the same feature for their content in the same course. I RAN AWAY FROM WIKIVERSITY (yes I know I am shouting).

Allow locked material for Wikiversity and you may be surprised to find out that a lot of young profs are willing to offer their expertise here but they do not like amateurs editing. Of course, you might say, this is not the right place for you. I agree and that is why I have decided to keep my material to my Univ. Blackboard. However, I am still an advocate of open content for others to learn. So long friends! Ariosto 15:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariosto: Please do not leave. Feel free to create and use page protection templates at Wikiversity. There are valid reasons for protecting some Wikiversity content fro editing so go ahead an make pages that only you can edit. Just realize that other people can make copies of those pages and edit those copies. --JWSchmidt 16:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion. I did check the link. However, editing is again left to the good will of the Wikiversity users with just a window warning. As I have become very skeptical I would be more comfortable with no “edit this page” tab on protected content if I desire so and custodians only ability to edit/remove pages if I do not follow the code of ethics. I do understand though that at present this is a huge step and against the original wiki philosophy. I’ll wait and see. Ariosto 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such protection would also prevent you from being able to edit the page as well. I imagine that wouldn't be helpful in the long run since than you would not be able to make corrections and expand upon the content either. --darklama 19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most logical thing for content that is not intended to be wiki content is simply to host it elsewhere on a private website. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 12:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively you could host what you wish to have more control over on a private website, and have a project on Wikiversity that makes use of or refers to material on the private website. Another option would be to maintain a stable/static version of content hosted here on a private website, making use only of changes that you like, as you are free to use, copy, modify and redistribute content from Wikiversity under the terms of the GFDL. If you use any media or images other licenses or terms of use might apply though, but they should also allow you to use, copy, modify and redistribute them. A third option would be to link to specific revisions that you like from your user page or somewhere within your userspace. All three options would allow for some form of collaboration to exist while providing some level of reliability without requiring pages be protected from editing. --darklama 13:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we want custodians in the business of protecting things in this manner. If you have content that's completed and requires no further editing for the purposes of your class, you could perhaps create a pdf copy and upload it. --SB_Johnny talk 13:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ariosto: "against the original wiki philosophy" <-- Wiki is a tool that makes possible collaborative webpage editing. There is nothing that says every Wikiversity webpage must be edited by anyone at any time. Wikiversity is very much a place for experimentation and discovery of new ways to use wiki technology to support learning. I agree that page protection templates are not optimal, but they are a tool that can be used right now while we make plans for a better solution. For example, we could potentially modify the software and have a namespace where the creators of pages can control who is able to edit a page and limit editing of a page to a select group of trusted collaborators. Please do not let all of the naysayers drive you away from Wikiversity. The software that Wikiversity uses was developed for Wikipedia and does not conform to the needs of educators. Wikiversity has several projects (example: Topic:Sandbox Server 0.5) for exploring ways to find software solutions that will empower educators and help them participate efficiently at at Wikiversity. Here at Wikiversity we are not locked into doing things "the Wikipedia way", or even the "Wikibooks way". Please do not be intimidated by anyone who argues with you and against your perfectly reasonable desire put limits on the editing of some Wikiversity pages. This website was created for you, not people whose vision of Wikiversity does not get past some lame and crippled reflection of Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 15:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Honestly I doubt you'd have problems with people insisting on editing when the template requests that they don't. Keep in mind that even the custodians are just contributors with tools, not professionals, and any "random browser" passing through might be able to provide feedback or volunteer some copy-editing. We don't have the wiki software set up to create multiple usergroups for varying levels of protection (and probably never will), but I think an "assumption of good faith" (and manners) will not lead to disappointment. --SB_Johnny talk 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think SB_Johnny is right on the mark, here: the software currently doesn't allow for this kind of selective page protection, and probably won't anytime soon. If you need the content 100% protected, you need to host it elsewhere. Otherwise, just ask people (using notes or a template) to respect your wishes, and you'll find that the vast majority of individuals will, I think. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be thinking about FlaggedRevs, I oppose as wikiversity is a free learning resource with constructive dialoge between students and teachers. The only thing I could imagine is installing FlaggedRevs and calling the reviewer and edior classes one class called "Professer." This could be granted upon request. Their namespace would go from "User" to "Professer" and they would be granted all the editor and reviewer permissions as well as the protect right. All the courses they wanted soul ownership of would go in a user subpage. Until the software is changed we could create a social construct that they are not to flag or protect pages outside of that space with the penalty for violation being "title stripping" (removing professor status) or blocking.--Ipatrol 03:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic goals[edit source]

Wikipedia[edit source]

Develop stronger links with, and active use of, materials on Wikipedia; see What shall we do with WP?. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offering learning Courses[edit source]

What i believe is to have such goals which welcomes every one to get in touch with wikievristy as offering various cources and certification and then get hired by wikipedia himself for some specific tasks.-Azamishaque 11:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a learning environment[edit source]

I do not know how viable this is, but I would strongly suggest creating some form of learning environment, where the real-life classroom is mimicked. I believe this would achieve several goals: First, it encourages older users, who are used to more traditional methods of learning, to get involved. I also believe that it establishes more credibility with such users. Second, it adds a more social element, in which there could be participation, attendance, examinations, projects and assignments. Students can interact with each other and informal learning can initiate through interaction with instructors and lecturers. Third, I believe that a real and honest assessment needs to be established. True, there are no certifications granted at the end of the course, but I need to know how much have I learned and how much have I improved. Fourth, perhaps several "students" have not been to a real university, and I think it could be exciting for them to "enroll" in classes, and select several courses and electives to complete a "degree". I believe that we need to foster a true learning environment.

To cite myself as an example. I wanted to "register" for the Spanish courses (my mother tongues are Arabic and English), and I did read the introduction and covered chapter one. Had I had any "classmates" I would have continued the course. I would feel obligated to finish the course. Otherwise, I could simply purchase a book, or an audiobook, or register in real-life classes to learn Spanish and learn properly. What makes Wikiversity so special that I should use it?

This could be Wikiversity's competitive advantage. I am not bossing around or barking orders, or playing mr. know it all, but I am just saying that these things would do help as a person, use Wikiversity more often.Chagfeh 16:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some merit in what you have to say. The Spanish course is a good example of a problematic course at Wikiversity—lots of content, but very little user-participation focused content, and, frankly, the Wikibook is more effective at conveying the information it presents. Other learning projects, while not at all traditional, are still heavily participatory, and are still effective in that regard. However, more traditional formats, I think, can also be helpful. The biggest problem with them is that Wikiversity is really having trouble reaching critical mass in certain areas right now—certainly this is true in the School of History, where efforts to establish more traditional "classroom-style" courses have largely failed. The two projects there which are currently the most successful includes one where participants are helping to write a textbook, and another which is currently designed as a simple focused learning experience (but which is similar to a textbook in certain regards). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 09:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit source]