[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
So is WE categorization really just tagging - user keywords that are intended primarily for the user who applied them? The problem comes when there is an expectation (mine and others?) that there will be some consistency in categories while tags are explicitly user keywords. When these are all lumped together as categories they don't achieve the power of either. Are these the common use meanings for the terms category and tag? Are they the same or different? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Jim, sorry about the delay but I have been busy with personal business. Protecting original efforts and years of research is a serious question that WE and wiki's, in general, must come to terms with before they will truly benefit the communities they serve. Actually, much as gone on in this area, especially with projects such as the Open Knowledge Foundation (http://www.okfn.org) and Science Commons (http://sciencecommons.org) (the latter is part of Creative Commons). The point of what is called Open Data, is to allow data to be freely shared between researchers. This especially true with respect to the sciences where reproducibility is extremely important. For a good description read the about page in Science Commons (http:// sciencecommons.org/about) and look at the wikipedia article (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data) Best regards, John On Oct 20, 10:00 pm, jkelly952 jkelly...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Protecting original efforts and years of research is a serious question that WE and wiki's, in general, must come to terms with before they will truly benefit the communities they serve. One reason I use some jpeg images to display research information in my WE pages is to provide some protection (like:http://www.wikieducator.org/ADDITION_%28DECIMAL%29_-_SUMA_%28ADICION%... ). While most of my website k-12math.info is viewable HTML code, the research is kept in a MySQL database accessed only by a PHP program. The PHP program is to protect the information – having to watch 1,000's of pieces of information from being “spammed” on a daily bases is the last thing I want to do. I am hoping that Wiki architecture will undergo some modifications to allow approved information to be stored in protected areas – I am not sure the please don't edit this page approach will work. Jim Kellyhttp://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jkelly952 On Oct 20, 4:31 am, john stampe jwsta...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this. First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done). Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates probably should state not only the permissions but also very briefly why. For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need more than three templates. One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like You are free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes there. Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own needs. Cheers, Johnhttp://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWShttp://johnsearth.blogspot.com From: Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE? Hi Savithri, You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution! Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. Cheer Wayne 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh singh.savit...@gmail.com Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable Savithri 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusundera proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Sorry, for the delay but I have been busy with personal business. I think we are on the same wavelength here. It would be possible to design a single template with parameters specifying the different reasons for requesting users not to edit the page, for example: - Currently being used in a course (Typos and and syntax assistance permitted?) - Original research findings Typos and and layout assistance permitted?) - No edits whatsoever (i.e. excluding help with typos and syntax assistance?) Agreed. However, I think you could distinguish between two cases of the first item. One would be used in a current course (that is time limited) and that where local curriculum requirements are too be met (not time limited, unless regulations, etc. change). At least a theoretical difference, even though not sure about a difference in practice. History sensitive branching in the wiki is a little more complicated (i.e. if you want to keep the fork synchronised with the original source.) Where there are discrete sections which users want to reuse -- tansclusion may help (i.e. including part of a document in another by referencing it) -- see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion. Actually transclusions is not really what I was talking about, as I was considering more like forking the whole thing. However, transclusions are not a bad idea for branching a part of a project. John On Oct 21, 9:16 am, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi John, Apology for the delayed response -- too many emails today. It would be possible to design a single template with parameters specifying the different reasons for requesting users not to edit the page, for example: - Currently being used in a course (Typos and and syntax assistance permitted?) - Original research findings Typos and and layout assistance permitted?) - No edits whatsoever (i.e. excluding help with typos and syntax assistance?) Are there other reasons we may have missed? We can include standard suggestions /instructions in the template -- for example linking to a resource which explains how to remix content when the author does not want collaborative edits. In all cases users will be allowed to make a copy (with proper attribution) and customise according to their needs. History sensitive branching in the wiki is a little more complicated (i.e. if you want to keep the fork synchronised with the original source.) Where there are discrete sections which users want to reuse -- tansclusion may help (i.e. including part of a document in another by referencing it) -- see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion. This is fun figuring out educationally relevant tweaks for our wiki project. Cheers Wayne 2009/10/21 john stampe jwsta...@yahoo.com Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this. First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done). Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates probably should state not only the permissions but also very briefly why. For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need more than three templates. One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like You are free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes there. Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own needs. Cheers, John http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWS http://johnsearth.blogspot.com -- *From:* Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com *To:* wikieducator@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM *Subject:* [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE? Hi Savithri, You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution! Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. Cheer Wayne 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh singh.savit...@gmail.com Have been reading the interesting thread
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
we support and respect educator contributions in WE? Hi Savithri, You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution! Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. Cheer Wayne 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh singh.savit...@gmail.com Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable Savithri 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusunderaproper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation. On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes. Does this make sense? Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tunehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
My apologies to all for coming into this so late; my inbox this week looks like someone set off an email bomb! On the whole, I agree that some measure must be taken to inform readers and members of the authors' intent for collaboration. It gets me frustrated when I see that, despite the myriad possibilities of the wiki, we still seem to come so short of what it is we want to do. I almost think it requires a staff PHP/MySQL programmer to really attain. :P And then I get even more frustrated when I see how much there really is yet to do! If anybody has seen my to do list, well, it's already a year's worth of work on it, and I'm sure to add more by the end of that year. Anyway, my first question is whether the use of namespaces has been taken into consideration. Namespaces are used to inform the reader of many things, including how the page is meant to be used, who wrote the page, and what the page may be involved with. The Mediawiki namespace is for pages that control the behaviour of the wiki software, and are transcluded into the basic wiki structure. The WikiEducator namespace is for describing the purpose of the wiki and the way in which it achieves that purpose (about, guidelines, policies...). The Help namespace is for pages that assist readers and members in using and understanding the wiki (tutorials, glossary...). The User namespace identifies pages that are written by the user under which they are filed and suggests that only the author is invited to edit them. Do you think there is a way we could say the things we are talking about in this topic by using namespaces? Jesse http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jesse_Groppi skype: jesse.groppi On 20/10/2009 02:16, Wayne Mackintosh wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ or books in the case of Wikibooks http://www.en.wikibooks.org/ . Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example: * There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements. * There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials. * There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide collaboration and contributions from the community. So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions? Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see: http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_(3) http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_%283%29 ) -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and ownership of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit and change the resource without creating problems for the original authors resulting from their modifications? Clearly we need a mechanism to visually communicate the intent of the creator to prospective editors. We need a messaging system which says, for instance: * I need help and welcome WikiEducators to collaborate, edit and improve this resource, or * I have no problems if you copy this resource and modify for your own purposes -- but will appreciate if you don't make changes because I'm using this in my course, or * I don't mind editorial
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Valerie, In my experience in wikis, *none* of the categories are ever officially administered, and all of them are user inspired. Members are free to create whatever categories that please them, usually guided by a set of guidelines and watched over by a group of experts and helpers. The purpose of using categorisation in a hierarchy-like format (MW is not just top-down, it's also side to side) is not typically to place content on shelves but to allow members to browse, which is an essential tool. And just like tag categorisation, it creates relationships between content. As I see it, MediaWiki categorisation is really just a cloud of links, as Mr. Shirky described. I would love to have a tool that displays a category cloud on a page, however, I have found no extension that does it today. There are functions that do similar things, but not exactly. This concept also cannot be separated from another existing MW categorisation concept because they are in fact the same thing, only displayed differently. Jesse On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM, valerie vtay...@gmail.com wrote: I love the little 4 green squares icon for status. Very helpful. I just read Shirky's piece http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html Having a few formal categories for metadata and user tags might be a good way to go. I have been helping out on the http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:Categories Some of what are listed as Categories should be formal Categories and administered. The OER Metadata entries are a good start. http://www.wikieducator.org/Template:OER_Metadata Everything else should be user tags - any one can use what makes sense to them. These two things are mixed in together now. They need to be two separate things. Can that be handled in WE? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
I love the little 4 green squares icon for status. Very helpful. I just read Shirky's piece http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html Having a few formal categories for metadata and user tags might be a good way to go. I have been helping out on the http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:Categories Some of what are listed as Categories should be formal Categories and administered. The OER Metadata entries are a good start. http://www.wikieducator.org/Template:OER_Metadata Everything else should be user tags - any one can use what makes sense to them. These two things are mixed in together now. They need to be two separate things. Can that be handled in WE? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
There are a couple of good commercial models that demonstrate some very useful functionality. It may be a bit of a leap to see how these can be applied to OERs and WE pages, but I think you get the idea. Rating system with recognition and following for reviewers - if I like what this reviewer recommends, I can see what else they have recommended - http://www.yelp.com/ Social bookmarking (tagging) - labels and search functions for creating an aggregate view of all users' bookmarks, as well as a personal view for each user. - http://delicious.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
The other thing that I would like to see is a review and rating system within WikiEducator to help direct others to the strong content that is available for adoption with or without editing and customization. If people make copies of their own, it would be wonderful to track that fact, too. Show all the versions that were forked off from the original. Further information that this is important content. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ or books in the case of Wikibooks http://www.en.wikibooks.org/ . Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example: - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements. - There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials. - There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide collaboration and contributions from the community. So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions? Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see: http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_(3)) -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and ownership of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit and change the resource without creating problems for the original authors resulting from their modifications? Clearly we need a mechanism to visually communicate the intent of the creator to prospective editors. We need a messaging system which says, for instance: - I need help and welcome WikiEducators to collaborate, edit and improve this resource, or - I have no problems if you copy this resource and modify for your own purposes -- but will appreciate if you don't make changes because I'm using this in my course, or - I don't mind editorial improvements but don't want editors to make substantive changes to my OER --- suggestions and comments are welcome on the corresponding talk page. It seems to me that we need a template or content infobox which clearly communicates the intent of the original OER creator in terms of permissible contributions and/or restrictions with regard to community edits. Thoughts? Are there any other intents than those listed above? You gotta love the WikiEducator project -- we're figuring out solutions that work for education. We're pioneering the future that has already happened :-). Cheers Wayne -- Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D. Director, International Centre for Open Education, Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand. Board of Directors, OER Foundation. Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org Mobile +64 21 2436 380 Skype: WGMNZ1 Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg -- Warm regards Anil --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation. On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes. Does this make sense? Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ or books in the case of Wikibooks http://www.en.wikibooks.org/ . Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example: - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements. - There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials. - There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide collaboration and contributions from the community. So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions? Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see: http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_(3)http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_%283%29) -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and ownership of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit and change the resource without creating problems for the original authors resulting from their modifications? Clearly we need a mechanism to visually communicate the intent of the creator to prospective editors. We need a messaging system which says, for instance: - I need help and welcome WikiEducators to collaborate, edit and improve this resource, or - I have no problems if you copy this resource and modify for your own purposes -- but will appreciate if you don't make
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation. On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes. Does this make sense? Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ or books in the case of Wikibooks http://www.en.wikibooks.org/ . Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example: - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements. - There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials. - There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide collaboration and contributions from the community. So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions? Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see: http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_(3)http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_%283%29) -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and ownership of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation. On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes. Does this make sense? Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ or books in the case of Wikibooks http://www.en.wikibooks.org/ . Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example: - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements. - There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials. - There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide collaboration and contributions from the community. So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions?
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus page http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus under a proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation. On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes. Does this make sense? Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ or books in the case of Wikibooks http://www.en.wikibooks.org/ . Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example: - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements. - There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus page http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus under a proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation. On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes. Does this make sense? Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ or books in the case of Wikibooks http://www.en.wikibooks.org/ . Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example: - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable. Savithri 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus page http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus under a proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation. On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes. Does this make sense? Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Hi Savithri, You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution! Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. Cheer Wayne 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh singh.savit...@gmail.com Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable Savithri 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus page http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus under a proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation. On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes. Does this make sense? Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this. First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done). Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates probably should state not only the permissions but also very briefly why. For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need more than three templates. One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like You are free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes there. Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own needs. Cheers, John http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWS http://johnsearth.blogspot.com From: Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE? Hi Savithri, You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution! Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. Cheer Wayne 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh singh.savit...@gmail.com Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable Savithri 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus page http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus under a proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource. In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Protecting original efforts and years of research is a serious question that WE and wiki's, in general, must come to terms with before they will truly benefit the communities they serve. One reason I use some jpeg images to display research information in my WE pages is to provide some protection (like: http://www.wikieducator.org/ADDITION_%28DECIMAL%29_-_SUMA_%28ADICION%29_-_ADDITION_%28DECIMALE%29 ). While most of my website k-12math.info is viewable HTML code, the research is kept in a MySQL database accessed only by a PHP program. The PHP program is to protect the information – having to watch 1,000's of pieces of information from being “spammed” on a daily bases is the last thing I want to do. I am hoping that Wiki architecture will undergo some modifications to allow approved information to be stored in protected areas – I am not sure the please don't edit this page approach will work. Jim Kelly http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jkelly952 On Oct 20, 4:31 am, john stampe jwsta...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this. First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done). Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates probably should state not only the permissions but also very briefly why. For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need more than three templates. One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like You are free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes there. Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own needs. Cheers, Johnhttp://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWShttp://johnsearth.blogspot.com From: Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE? Hi Savithri, You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution! Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. Cheer Wayne 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh singh.savit...@gmail.com Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable Savithri 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusunder a proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Hi Everyone, Valid observation indeed. Also given that school curricular are relatively static even within long time windows,(..or at least in my country!) the need to protect resources designed round them cannot be overemphasized . Maybe a kind of status value to reflect resource states such as under development,completed or even abandoned, could be attached to a resource such that merciless editing is more encouraged at certain appropriate points than at others in the proposed template or info box. Conversely,this discussion has greatly reminded me of WE cute built-in features such as discussion forums and the community values which are invaluable in collaboration intensive projects and could explain the relatively low number of blocked users. Cheers Vincent On Oct 20, 10:16 am, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Everyone, WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials. Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ or books in the case of Wikibooks http://www.en.wikibooks.org/ . Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example: - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements. - There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials. - There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide collaboration and contributions from the community. So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions? Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see:http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_cat...)) -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and ownership of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit and change the resource without creating problems for the original authors resulting from their modifications? Clearly we need a mechanism to visually communicate the intent of the creator to prospective editors. We need a messaging system which says, for instance: - I need help and welcome WikiEducators to collaborate, edit and improve this resource, or - I have no problems if you copy this resource and modify for your own purposes -- but will appreciate if you don't make changes because I'm using this in my course, or - I don't mind editorial improvements but don't want editors to make substantive changes to my OER --- suggestions and comments are welcome on the corresponding talk page. It seems to me that we need a template or content infobox which clearly communicates the intent of the original OER creator in terms of permissible contributions and/or restrictions with regard to community edits. Thoughts? Are there any other intents than those listed above? You gotta love the WikiEducator project -- we're figuring out solutions that work for education. We're pioneering the future that has already happened :-). Cheers Wayne -- Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D. Director, International Centre for Open Education, Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand. Board of Directors, OER Foundation. Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator,www.wikieducator.org Mobile +64 21 2436 380 Skype: WGMNZ1 Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups WikiEducator
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
don't edit this page approach will work. Jim Kelly http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jkelly952 On Oct 20, 4:31 am, john stampe jwsta...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this. First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done). Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates probably should state not only the permissions but also very briefly why. For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need more than three templates. One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like You are free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes there. Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own needs. Cheers, Johnhttp:// www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWShttp://johnsearth.blogspot.com From: Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE? Hi Savithri, You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution! Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. Cheer Wayne 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh singh.savit...@gmail.com Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable Savithri 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusunder a proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a universal resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't
[WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
Hi John, Apology for the delayed response -- too many emails today. It would be possible to design a single template with parameters specifying the different reasons for requesting users not to edit the page, for example: - Currently being used in a course (Typos and and syntax assistance permitted?) - Original research findings Typos and and layout assistance permitted?) - No edits whatsoever (i.e. excluding help with typos and syntax assistance?) Are there other reasons we may have missed? We can include standard suggestions /instructions in the template -- for example linking to a resource which explains how to remix content when the author does not want collaborative edits. In all cases users will be allowed to make a copy (with proper attribution) and customise according to their needs. History sensitive branching in the wiki is a little more complicated (i.e. if you want to keep the fork synchronised with the original source.) Where there are discrete sections which users want to reuse -- tansclusion may help (i.e. including part of a document in another by referencing it) -- see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion. This is fun figuring out educationally relevant tweaks for our wiki project. Cheers Wayne 2009/10/21 john stampe jwsta...@yahoo.com Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this. First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done). Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates probably should state not only the permissions but also very briefly why. For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need more than three templates. One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like You are free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes there. Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own needs. Cheers, John http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWS http://johnsearth.blogspot.com -- *From:* Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com *To:* wikieducator@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM *Subject:* [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE? Hi Savithri, You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions. We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution! Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. Cheer Wayne 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh singh.savit...@gmail.com Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable Savithri 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com Hi Anil, Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-) Cheers Wayne 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr. Wayne, You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus page http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus under a proper sub title. On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anil, I see we're on the same page here :-) I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way. I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say please don't edit this page --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. Does this make sense? W 2009/10/20 aprasad aplett...@gmail.com Dear Dr.Wayne, I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can
