[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       textbook-l
Subject:    Re: [Textbook-l] Power to dictate policy (Was: Game Guides)
From:       "Michael R. Irwin" <michael_irwin () verizon ! net>
Date:       2006-06-15 21:28:09
Message-ID: 4491D0E9.5030409 () verizon ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Cormac Lawler wrote:

>On 6/15/06, Michael R. Irwin <michael_irwin@verizon.net> wrote..:
>..about 3600 words
>
>
>I'm not going to respond to all of them, but can I just make a simple
>point or two..
>
>I don't envisage Wikiversity's content being moved to other wikis when
>it gets to a standard worthy of another project (ie a book). Far from
>it. This would be a terrible way of working. Rather, I see Wikiversity
>developing learning materials which can be used for a number of
>learning projects/activities - ie. a class/lesson plan with relevant
>learning material (eg. images, book extracts, audio exercises etc),
>which can be set out in any way that seems the best way to construct
>this material into a learning process/course, whatever you want to
>call it. Keep all this at Wikiversity - no question of moving it
>anywhere. If people want to do further research or reading, they can
>go to Wikibooks or Wikipedia (etc) - I don't see anything disastrous
>about that. Furthermore, if their learning compels them to do so (or
>if specified by their learning activity to do so), they can improve
>those articles/books, in order to consolidate their learning. But they
>will always come back to their learning materials on Wikiversity -
>this is the basis of their learning - what they do with that learning
>is anyone's guess.
>  
>
Unfortunately this is not what the proposal soon to be submitted to 
(according to the God-King) five supportive stacked Board members lines 
out for their consideration.    It really does not matter what you or I 
or anyone in the Wikiversity project thinks when we are operational  if 
it has been hard coded that there shall be no significant overlap with 
any other Wikimedia Foundation project.  Wikitexts to Wikibooks.  
Articles to Wikipedia.  FDL'd components useful to two projects and/or 
the public to Wikicommons,  Indexes of linked lists to Wikiscope, 
glossaries of technical terms to Wiktionary, etc.

If I understood Jimbo's explanation of where we are at the Board has 
been waiting for six months for the people who wish to participate in 
Wikiversity to tweak the proposal to resolve the concerns of a large  
group in the overall Wikimedia community who oppose Wikiversity entirely.

>Also, I don't see Wikiversity as being a junior subproject for other
>Wikimedia projects - on the contrary, I see it as a meta-project of
>them all. I see Wikiversity occupying a space for people to learn
>about how to contribute content to any project. I see a space for it
>to gather content from all other projects to put them to practical
>use. For example, Wikiversity and Wikibooks have been intertwined
>since the name "Wikiversity" was first suggested - even though
>Wikiversity was developed on Wikibooks, an early suggestion was to
>have Wikibooks as the repository of content for Wikiversity. This is
>far more the way I see their relationship, and applied to all other
>projects too. Obviously, it will take time to get to that stage, but
>that is my dream.
>  
>
Again it does not matter what even the appointed chairman of the 
activation committe thinks privately.   If the Board of Directors 
approves the existing proposal as written there will be an immense 
amount of strife between the large numbers of opponents that Jimbo has 
indicated are prevalent in the overall Wikimedia community as well as 
newcomers to all projects.

In medium sized or large organizations approved policies and established 
guidelines must be followed and the resulting messes cleaned up on an ad 
hoc basis or after the policies can be revised to something more 
appropriate and workable.

>Finally, I admit that the process of getting this proposal realised
>hasn't been as quick or even as ideal as I would have liked it to be.
>However, this is now the final stage, and I personally expect
>Wikiversity to be up and running by Wikimania, hopefully sooner.
>
>
>  
>
Alright, since you have begged the question I will ask it.  

What exactly is the delay in submittal since there has been no 
significant public comments (public --> not appointed to the activation 
committee)  for months and the only tweaks by members of the activation 
committee is creep towards top and external regulation of the learning 
groups materials?

Is the activation committee conflicted somehow regarding basic initial 
mission or policy guidelines?

Is there a project opponent such as Jimbo alleges are present in the 
existing Wikimedia community whose concerns must be addressed at the 
moment no matter how potentially detrimental they look to day to day 
internal organization and management by the Wikiversity participants 
localized or singular learning/study activities?

Are you busy preparing an overwhelming bullet chart presentation so you 
can fly into the next Board meeting in a 3 piece suit and wow them with 
Wikiversity's polished organizational skills?

Are members of the committee saturated and working as hard as possible 
to pre coordinate issues with the supervisory committee or the Board?

Are we timing activation to cooincide with Wikimania?   If so I will 
point out that there are a substantial number of people (potential 
particpant) that are web accessible but who do not have the cash, time, 
or inclination to participate in a Wikimania.   Further,  it would be 
better to have clear progress in place and the site looking active 
before a grand announcement at a Wikimania so any curious people who 
checked us out might be interested in sticking around and helping grow 
the project.

Jimbo says the hold up for the last six months has been no submittal or 
contact from the project.   Despite overwhelming support from the Board 
for Wikiversity the Board has chosen to refrain from micromanagement and 
are awaiting only submittal regarding minor comments made to the orginal 
proposal to act swiftly and decisively to authorize or provide further 
feedback.

What precisely besides an introductory letter or paragraph providing the 
URL of the revised proposal remains to be done that justifies several 
weeks delay?    Sorry I do not know when Wikimania is ...... is that 
several months delay?

regards,
lazyquasar




_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]