Leigh, Do not give up being so candid. And please do not consider your time spent with WE as too exhasting. You add great value, as I would like to think WE has also brought you great value and further insight into international efforts toward truely open education. Your knowledge on the matter I am sure now exceeds most of your network due to the "hands-on" experience you have had with WE...
The challenge I have is I agree with most of what you say. I also see WE moving toward what you aspire, not away from it. I see rubber hits the road activities that (I believe) will open WE up even further... time will tell on this... I certainly hope WE finds ways to attract people from all over the world and surrounds it all with language that will engage many people. I certainly hope that one individual, philanthropist, group, etc... will not be highlighted over another. For in the end this is what I see collaboration all about. Go Leigh Go... If not for WE I would not know you and that would be a big loss for me... Peter On Oct 28, 12:21 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for your perspective Anil, I hope more will share theirs on this, > however briefly if it is seen as a time wasting thread. It is helping me to > think things through on a bigger picture level, even though I have gone > ahead and edited the Wikipedia entry so it is consistent with other entries, > and see that other edits have followed. > > I am not apposed to mentioning Wayne as the founder - nor including > reference to COL, UNESCO and HF. I was apposed to the significance those > pieces of information had over and at the expense of any other information > about the project. > > To me, the idea of a single curriculum is of grave concern - and I always > took it as just careless language (haven spoken to Wayne personally about > it) and that it would be rectified sooner than it has. In countries where > colonisation is a very sensitive issue, such as Australia and New Zealand > (but certainly not limited to those as you know), such a statement of > singularity would be the very thing that prevents engagement. Indeed, it is > associations like this that is one of the reasons that most my network > (prior to participating in the Wikieducator project) has not followed me > into Wikieducator. This has troubled and perplexed me for a long time, > thinking it to be mere technical or usability issues. > > While I have come to appreciate some of the new connections that the > Wikieducator project has given me, I think my history in this email forum > shows a great many issues I have brought up that have exhausted a huge > amount of everyone's time in debating here, not the least my own. Almost all > of these issues have largely remained unresolved. The only good that I can > see coming out of argument is the opportunity to clarify the expression of a > position, but to what end? > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Anil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi friends, > > > There is nothing wrong in mentioning the founder in the very beginning > > of the topic, you can see thousands of such articles that are well > > read on www. Nothing that is man-made happens in the world without a > > sparkling thought in somebody's mind who has the initiative to trigger > > action for making it a reality. It is such initiators who become > > founders. Let us accept this fact and deliver the beauty and worth of > > mutual trust, recognition and consideration that are the crux of the > > very existence of human societies. . > > > Founders can bring in the support of very big institutions into the > > project. Neither it prevents any one from placing a reference or photo > > of the founder at the opening of the article about the project nor it > > any way reduces the importance of organizational partners.These are > > the ways societies express its gratitude to those who provide valuable > > social services. > > > ''WikiEducator is a community project working collaboratively with the > > Free Culture Movement towards a free version of the education > > curriculum by 2015'' is a well accepted vision statement of the > > project. We are all attracted to the project via that vision. I don't > > see any reason to dispute it now. Let us not disrupt the decorum for > > no reason. > > > Finally about the anxiety over the curriculum, I think, since it is a > > wiki project, there may not have any restrictions in thinking about > > different national curricula and connecting them to an international > > movement. Let us itry to see the faces of billions and billions of > > poor to whom the free and open educational material that we are > > developing would become godsend...then the trivial issues may > > disappear in void for we have no time to waste. > > > Anil > > > On Oct 28, 1:03 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Offense most certainly taken, and thank you Patricia, things are much > > > clearer now. I'm sorry you see my concerns as destructive and personally > > > motivated. For the record, I have made no such accusations of Wayne but > > > acknowledge that it is very difficult not to. As long as Wayne is the > > > central figure complete with thumbnail image, I suppose my criticism of > > the > > > message that is out there about Wikieducator (such as the Wikipedia page) > > > inevitably becomes personal. > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Patricia Schlicht <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >wrote: > > > > > ……Or could it be that I am completely out of touch with Wikieducator > > and > > > > need to… > > > > > No offense intended, Leigh, but I think you seriously need to find the > > true > > > > essence of the project again, so you don't only talk and completely > > > > overanalyze anything and everything, seeing things were there are none, > > > > making assumptions and coming to conclusions that are completely out of > > the > > > > sky. > > > > > You seem to become what Open Educational resources formerly gave a bad > > > > reputation. While your intentions might be well-intended, you are > > reaching > > > > the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. You don't raise issues, > > > > rather eye-brows and not the first time. > > > > > Your unfounded and completely ridiculous accusations of Wayne's > > intentions > > > > only goes to show that you have absolutely no idea what is involved or > > what > > > > the goal of the project is. It seems to me that you are only out to > > > > discredit the good that has been done and in such a way that the rest > > of us > > > > can only shake their head and credit it to your youth. > > > > > I think you are personally motivated and/or threatened which is why you > > > > want to ensure you get to ruin the project by inflicting nonsense into > > > > people's heads. There are 1000s of people out there who you slap in the > > face > > > > with often very negative comments. Ever thought about this? > > > > > WikiEducator is a fantastic project. Sure, there is lots to be done and > > > > many improvements to be made. There is no one here who wants to > > overpower > > > > anyone, Wayne not in particular. He would never do anything that isn't > > done > > > > with integrity. He is a person of high values which he honors. > > > > > Leigh, you are knowledgeable guy and your expertise is needed….as part > > of > > > > big team…what are you trying to do???! > > > > > My friend, seriously, I understand you got your fires burning, but I > > also > > > > think you are running in the wrong direction and have lost any > > objectivity > > > > in this matter. > > > > > ….or maybe this is one of your attempts to stir up controversy?...Not a > > > > very productive way of doing this, if that's the case. The key is > > *"...working > > > > collaboratively with everyone…", *so suggest changes instead of > > > > "badgering" the author. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Patricia > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Leigh Blackall > > > > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2008 8:02 PM > > > > *To:* [email protected] > > > > *Subject:* [WikiEducator] Re: Another Milestone > > > > > Thanks for the pointer to the Wikipedia page about Wikieducator Anil > > > > > I feel very unsettled by it - particularly: > > > > > 1. the celebration of an individual above all else (rather than > > simply > > > > in the history), > > > > 2. its strong references to COL, UNESCO and Hewlet Foundation (above > > > > other partners who can show a far greater contribution to the > > project than > > > > any of those), > > > > 3. and its quotation of that perplexing, even frightening line that > > > > SOME (one) wikieducator Users choose to use, to the detriment of the > > > > project: *"...working collaboratively with the free culture > > movement< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?mjhOCyYMeodIL6zBYQsCzAQsLCM0vMUN8H9...>towards > > a free version of the education curriculum. > > > > *" > > > > > Obviously, we are not talking about developing a single curriculum!.. > > are > > > > we? If we are, I'm out now. If we are not, then can we please > > systematically > > > > go through every piece of PR out there and correct it to something more > > > > acceptable: *"...working collaboratively with everyone towards the > > > > development free versions of education curricula for everyone.*" > > > > > As for the reference to central bodies like COL, UNESCO, A "free > > culture > > > > movement" and even Hewlet Foundation, I think these should not be > > included > > > > in an graphical box heading the article, and should merely be listed > > along > > > > with all other contributing organisations, as is consistant with other > > > > Wikipedia articles for similar projects like Wikiversity< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?2OqekQnC1P1JBUQsLCzAQsCzBYS03-7695p...>. > > > > > Could it be that Wikieducator PR is designed to sell the project to > > > > specific funding bodies at the expense of a balanced and accurate > > account of > > > > what Wikieducator really is? Seems to me that the Wikipedia entry is in > > need > > > > of some serious wikification< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?5AQsFELc3C3rbNEVvd79EVd7bVI07YeciaO...>! > > > > Or could it be that I am completely out of touch with Wikieducator and > > need > > > > to rethink my association to it? > > > > > Off to start an edit war in Wikipedia I suspect... > > > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:57 PM, NELLIE DEUTSCH < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Randy, > > > > What a wonderful date: Valentine's Day and my husband's birthday. > > > > > Warm wishes, > > > > Nellie Deutsch > > > > Doctoral Student > > > > Educational Leadership > > > > Curriculum and Instruction > > > >http://www.nelliemuller.com< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?1pd7aqbP0VwSOYqenPhOqejhO-r01gYY-nG...> > > > >http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?2OqekQnC1P1JBUQsLCzAQsCzBYS02B2vAoX...> > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
