Hi Everyone, Protection of pages is a topical issue :-). Apology for the long post -- but this is an important community value in open education.
Clearly there are well-founded academic reasons for restricting modifications, particularly in the area of original research. That said, I think there are better social and technical solutions to respond to this challenge. I'm not comfortable with protecting wiki pages for the following reasons: - It goes against the core values of our community and our commitment to the essential freedoms - There are technological alternatives to address this need - Excluding opportunities for increased productivity in our community *Core values * A key value of WikiEducator is rooted in the freedom to help your neighbour. Our community motto says: Just try it -- our community will support you. WikiEducators should have the freedom to help a colleague, for example fixing a typo or assisting someone who may be struggling with the layout of a more complicated syntax. This is what makes our community special -- the willingness of so many to gift time for the social good of education. Moreover, the notion of protecting pages is a slippery slope when we think about human rights in a modern democracy. (Not unlike digital rights management). Protecting pages could be interpreted as an assumption of guilt -- that is we assume that another educator is potentially guilty of editing a page when they shouldn't -- so we lock the page before they can prove their innocence ;-(. Assuming guilt before proving innocence is not a world I want to live in. I think that we should remain true to our values of respecting freedom -- including the freedom of educators to say "this is a course I'm teaching -- please don't change the page" or this "is original research and I would like to keep the original in tact" We are a respectful community and my experience with WE these past three years has been exactly that. We're a top 100K website generating in the region of 9 million hits per month. In the past three years -- there have not been more than a dozen instances of vandalism -- which is pretty amazing considering the traffic of WikiEducator. *Technological alternatives to address this need* The Mediawiki software does have the tools to assist educators in monitoring their pages. The history page documents every page edit and using the Watch feature -- Mediawiki will send an email notifying primary authors of any changes. That said -- I do see the need for teachers to be able to host a static instance of their OER. Good news here -- under the OERFs current bid from the Hewlett Foundation we will be building import <==> export capability between WikiEducator and the Connexions platform. Therefore it will be possible for WikiEducators to host a static instance of their content and lock down editing without compromising our core values. This feature will also be very useful for teachers wanting to revise their course materials during a live session of their course ( in the case where a static version is required). We will be able to host a static version on Connexions while working on the dynamic version in WikiEducator. We are also keen to implement an educational adaption of the Flagged Revisions extension for Mediawiki (http://tinyurl.com/2n8uef) -- This would enable us to implement peer review approaches, where the default preference for users could be set to only view the latest peer reviewed version of the content -- while editors can continue working on the draft version of the OER. *Excluding opportunities for increased productivity in our community * As an open self-organising community -- we don't know how future productivity will evolve or what new innovations may emerge from our peer collaboration models. We should remain open to improvement --- and I share President Obama views in relation to open source content and the American Graduation Initiative -- "We don't know where this experiment will lead, and that is exactly why we ought to try it." Cheers Wayne 2009/10/21 jkelly952 <[email protected]> > > 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 » > > > -- 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
