I should make it clear that what I've expressed are my personal views,
explaining the stands I've taken over the last four years or so. These views
are not always popular, but do enjoy some substantial (and growing) support. I
was blocked for almost two years, as a result of what might superficially be
called the Ottava wars. (There were really deeper issues and forces involved.)
I'm very involved with other activities, including being, effectively, sole
parent to a 12 year old girl, serving as a coach in the Landmark Self
Expression and Leadership Program, starting up a nonprofit to facilitate
recommended basic research into "the scientific fiasco of the century," as it
was called in the 1990s (by a skeptic, and I say that he didn't know the half
of it)
However, I intend to continue involvement with Wikiversity, where I have
expertise and interest; in general, as well, I'm highly interested in
encouraging the use of Wikiversity for what it's truly good for, the
development of educational resources. Some WV resources are very poor, badly
organized, highly incomplete, the place is littered with incomplete projects.
However, it's an open space with enormous potential.
Joe, you are very welcome, as I said. I wrote, here, precisely so that you
would not think that what you encountered was typical of Wikiversity. It's not.
Because we are open to immediate editing from any WMF global account, we get a
lot of Wikipedians showing up who may expect Wikiversity to follow Wikipedia
standards. We try to educate them in our different approach. Sometimes when
they realize the implications, they get excited. Other times they are so
attached to the Wikipedia Way that they are upset. What? Fringe views being
advocated? Horrors!
Actually, though, there is much less of that on Wikiversity than one might
think. What there really is on
Wikiversity is freedom.
It's been abused at times. Some have used Wikiversity as a platform from which
to attack Wikipedians. As a custodian and scholar, I stood firmly against that.
We cannot expect stewards to stand by while one of the wikis is used to attack
others. However, *studying* what happens on Wikipedia is legitimate. Hence we
need "ethical standards," governing such study, and we need predictable,
reliable enforcement.
If we don't develop our own standards, others will impose standards on us.
Wikiverity took an enormous hit when we saw Jimbo Wales descend from the
heavens and intervene, deleting, desysopping, and blocking. That incident on
Wikiversity, and a similar one just after it on Commons, led to Jimbo
surrendering his intrusive Founder tools. It's just what happened. From my
point of view, he was neither right nor wrong, or, perhaps, a bit of both. From
my point of view, Jimbo has a tiger by the tail. That can be an "interesting"
place to be.
In any case, one of the founders of Wikiversity remains blocked, because he
never got over what had happened to him, with the influx of Wikipedians. I
invited him back many times, but he was unwilling to give up the story, the
litany of Horrible Things that had happened, and How could that Horrible Person
still be a Bureaucrat?
We do not create the future by trying to fix the past.
My conclusion is that no one person can transform the projects. It must be a
community effort, but it starts with communication that is deeper than the
snarky sound bites that become standard wiki fare.
One more thing. when I was new to Wikversity, I attended a major alternative
education conference, and talked up Wikiversity. While a lot of interest was
expressed, it would have taken follow up to convert this into an expanded user
base. And then Stuff started to happen on Wikiversity, and I realized that it
was not yet a safe place. It could be safe. Right now, it's safe because little
is happening but the routine usage of the project. No protective structures
have been created. It will take a critical mass of users who see the need, for
that to happen.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (413) 584-3151 business (413) 695-7114 cell
I'm so excited I can't wait for Now.
>________________________________
> From: Joe Corneli <[email protected]>
>To: Abd ulRahman Lomax <[email protected]>; Mailing list for Wikiversity
><[email protected]>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 1:47 PM
>Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] rebooting the discussion of solved problem pages
>on Wikiversity
>
>
>On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Abd ulRahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Back to the immediate topic, suppose there is a group of students who want
>> to learn math. Perhaps they can find a teacher, but suppose now that there
>> is no teacher. Suppose that everyone one of us is such a student, that there
>> are no experts. This, in fact, is the position of real scientists. The
>> "student/teacher" model is for children, and it doesn't necessarily work
>> well even there, and definitely not for deep education, where it's necessary
>> for the student to discover and build understanding out of their own
>> experience. Otherwise "education" becomes simply filling a data storage unit
>> with data, without understanding how to *create* the data (and understanding
>> its limitations). Skilled teachers will lead their students through this
>> process, not just expect them to be baby birds, mouths open to be filled
>> with the wisdom of the teacher.
>
>This is something that we talk a lot about on Yet One Other Website
>(peeragogy.org).
>
>I am sincerely interested to think about how wikiversity does or does
>not fit together with other efforts. It certainly can't be insular...
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
