Thanks Juan for this all too rare insight into the status of other language wikiversities. ABD puts up a defence for English Wikiversity which I'd support.
I thought you'd be interested in noticing a small corner on English Wikiversity where original research is taking place. There is my own, where I'm enjoying using the wiki to support and document a process of data collection to drafting, then peer review and then redrafting. I draw inspiration from wikinews for this. There is also the use of English Wikiversity by the university of Canberra, where I'm based, and UCNISS, a teaching and research institute based at the university Canberra. Their work is focused on sport and physical activity. I am employed by them to build their presence across social media like wikiversity. Unfortunately, I have encountered a few wikimedia foundation people who see this sort of activity as little more than "hosting", revealing a disturbing frame of view toward wikiversity purpose, along the lines of what ABD points out. I can only hope enough time will be given for these and other examples WITHIN English Wikiversity to mature and show something. On Jul 21, 2011 3:16 AM, "Abd ulRahman Lomax" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Juan, interesting. En.wv largely represents a view that education is > about people and what people do, not just about content. Education as pure > content is academically discredited in the world of education, there has come to > be much more concern about process, learning as process, a process that > continues, life-long, if people learn how to learn, which includes exploration > and investigation, not merely imbibing what has been predigested by someone > else. > > On En.wv, the forces toward reduction of education to content, which, then, of > course, must be "correct" and "approved," are active, but do not dominate. > > Wikiversity, at least en with which I'm familiar, is the only WMF wiki where > discussion of topics is actually encouraged. You can be blocked on Wikipedia for > trying to discuss an article topic on the Talk page there, and sometimes even > for trying to discuss in user space. > > One of the oddities I've seen is that, on Talk:Cold fusion it is actually > recommended that if you want to discuss the topic, you use a mailing list that > focuses on fringe and weird science, the vortex list, but attempts to link to > the Wikiversity resource, where discussion can actually help develop learning > resources, have been interdicted, on the argument that Wikiversity is > "self-published." > > Definnitely, there is work to do letting Wikipedians know about Wikiversity. It > would be ideal to suggest to Wikipedians that if they want to talk about and > learn about the topic intereactively, that Wikiversity is open for this, instead > of what usually happens: they are told to go away. > > In real universities, around the world, and for centuries, what might be called > "fringe" views are studied, developed, researched, and taught, as such. > Individual professors express their opinions and do original research, and > students do the same, in course work and for degree dissertations and papers. > > I can easily see a grading system as being possible, and overall neutrality > policy suggests that poor work should not be prominent, but it takes a lot of > work to design and implement some overall system. En.wikiversity is still in > very primitive condition.
_______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
