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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > > 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 <[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 tune > >>>>>>>>http://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<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 > > ... > > 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
