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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > > >Hi Anil, > > >>Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the > >>list :-) > > >>Cheers > >>Wayne > > >>2009/10/20 aprasad <[email protected]> > > >>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 > >>><[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > >>>>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 > >>>>><[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > >>>>>>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 > >>>>>>><[email protected]> 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 or books in the case of Wikibooks . > > >>>>>>>>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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
