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 <[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 <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" 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]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
