sounds like a MW WYSIWIG editor is still a pretty long way off:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WYSIWYG_editor
i am surprised the WM foundation doesn't seem to be pursuing this more
aggressively - it seems to me the single code innovation which could
have the greatest impact in terms of encouraging grass-roots engagement
with the various wikis
sounds like a MW WYSWIWIG editor is still a pretty long way off:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WYSIWYG_editor
i am surprised the WM foundation doesn't seem to be pursuing this more
aggressively - it seems to me the single code innovation which could
have the greatest impact in terms of encouraging grass-roots engagement
with the various wikis
Hi Alison,
Your email has alerted me to just how god-awful we are on Wikiversity at
giving an accurate and immediately accessible picture of what we do. Thanks!
(And I mean that.)
I read with horror many of the things you wrote. "Virtual offices"? "Looks
very formal" "Bringing the old to the new"? Wikiversity, in my opinion, is
the very opposite of formality and old-ness - it is an experiment to try to
imagine and construct a learning community (and system) from the bottom up.
However, what you've observed is completely valid - there *is* a fairly
formal structure in place (for better or worse), which is an attempt to
guide people to content and activity, but which sometimes gives people the
impression (you're not the first) that Wikiversity is set up like a
traditional university. And we have a very chaotic system of introductory
pages, including the mentioning of virtual offices, which I'm now going to
rewrite. ;-)
But I will counter: there is no distinction between either site in terms of
passion or 'radicality' (if that's a word). *Both* sites are attempting to
contribute something real and substantial to the world in the form of free
educational content. Both are productively chaotic. :-) Neither is (in
scope) any more new, old, formal or informal than the other - both work in
light of existing educational contexts and practices, and both are trying to
rethink and change those contexts and practices through a variety of means.
And both have inherent barriers to participation - wiki technology is by no
means ubiquitous or accessible to a huge proportion of the world's
population.
But there are many baby steps to take along the way, and we need to
construct our spaces around these issues, so that we encourage more people
to understand our message, and to join the movement. I'm going to work today
on addressing the issues you raise for Wikiversity - and I think we could
learn quite a bit from Wikieducator at how to present ourselves better.
Thanks again,
Cormac
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Alison Ruth <alisonruth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Leigh
>
> A quick and dirty analysis, but these questions intrigued me as I have
> seen Wikiverstiy many times, but never signed up.
>
> Differences?
> Superficially, the front page of both sites sets very different
> expectations and positions. Wikiversity is fairly monochromatic, all the
> headings are on blue backgrounds. It looks very formal. WikiEducator, on
> the other hand, uses a different colour for each heading. There seems to be
> a brighter environment at WikiEducator.
>
> WikiEducator also has a big invitation in the second heading on the left.
> "Join us today ~ You'll be glad you did". Under this is a link to create a
> user account. This is quite clever and potentially gets people in.
> Wikiversity has a link to request content. There's a barrier to
> participation.
>
> So a fundamental difference is between 'creating content' and 'requesting
> content', on top of the perceptual differences arising from colour and
> positioning of items on the page.
>
> Similarities?
> Both are actively attempting to create communities of learners. The
> process for doing that is different for each and without delving a lot
> deeper, I'm not sure I fully get what the similarities are.
>
> Strengths?
> WikiEducator is an invitation to be a part of something, to create and
> grow the community.
> Wikiversity is an invitation to learn about stuff.
>
> Weaknesses?
> WikiEducator is new, there seems to be more chaotic development.
> Wikiversity seems to be trying to emulate the traditional university setup
> (they even call user pages 'virtual offices').
>
> Why I use WikiEducator?
> I use WikiEducator because it's more community focused. It's attempting
> to create new ways of using technology to facilitate learning at a global
> level. Wikiversity seems to be more about bringing to old to the new,
> rather than bringing the new to the old. This latter is what I think is
> happening with WikiEducator. Wikiversity seems very formal, WikiEducator
> seems like a chaotic outpouring of a bunch of passionate learners and
> educators.
>
> Projects working closely?
> There is always room for projects such as these to work together, but as
> I'm not involved in Wikiversity and only recently come to WikiEducator, I
> would not want to try to work out how.
>
> Talks?
> Definitely talks should be started. There is probably the possibility of
> interlinking the projects and from what I can see, the tutorials
> WikiEducator has are potentially the reason it will be successful.
>
>
>
> HTH
> Alison
>
>
> On 18/03/2008, Leigh Blackall <leighblackall(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What are the differences between Wikiversity and Wikieducator?
> > What are the similarities?
> > What are the strengths and weaknesses of them both?
> > Why do you use one before the other?
> > Do you think the two projects should work more closely?
> > Should representatives from both projects meet in Wikimania this year to
> > discuss all of the above?
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Leigh Blackall
> > +64(0)21736539
> > skype - leigh_blackall
> > SL - Leroy Goalpost
> > http://learnonline.wordpress.com
> >
> >
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "WikiEducator" group.
> To post to this group, send email to wikieducator(a)googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> wikieducator-unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
What are the differences between Wikiversity and Wikieducator?
What are the similarities?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of them both?
Why do you use one before the other?
Do you think the two projects should work more closely?
Should representatives from both projects meet in Wikimania this year to
discuss all of the above?
--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com
Referring to Wikiversity's tutorial "Introduction to finite elements/Axial bar finite element solution" I'd like to know why, on calculation of matrix Kij, the element K33 is equal to 1/h3 (and so, taking all the elements equal to 1/h, K33=1) and afterwards, when the matrix Kij is written in numeric form, K33=2. Really, taking K33=1 det(K)=0 and when K33=2 det(K)=1. I think that the value of the the element K33 has been modified taking into account boundary conditions. Otherwise?
Thanks for your answers.
Marco Siracusano
marco.siracusano(a)fastwebnet.it
Referring to Wikiversity's tutorial "Introduction to finite elements/Axial bar finite element solution" I'd like to know why, on calculation of matrix Kij, the element K33 is equal to 1/h3 (and so, taking all the elements equal to 1/h, K33=1) and afterwards, when the matrix Kij is written in numeric form, K33=2. Really, taking K33=1 det(K)=0 and when K33=2 det(K)=1. I think that the value of the the element K33 has been modified taking into account boundary conditions. Otherwise?
Thanks for your answers.
Marco Siracusano
marco.siracusano(a)fastwebnet.it
Sad news :-(
I never worked with him as an editor on the projects themselves, but I
several times interacted with him on meta, where he has the habit to
edit without being loggued (making it pretty hard to find back his
comments). How, he used to sign his comments :-)
I found for you a message from the past, from Mirwin.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Worst_cases#Synopsis
It is a good message.
I wish you the best. Take care of yourself.
Anthere aka Florence Devouard
To All at Wikimedia/Wikepedia, I know that Mike was very involved in Wikipedia and I'm doing my best to notify all the lists that he had threaded to of his passing.
On Tuesday, February 26, 2008, Mike was walking and had a heart attack and passed away. To all of those who knew him online, I wanted to pass this information on.
Mike loved the online communities and I hope that those of you who corresponded with him will pass this information on to others.
Thank you,
Ray Irwin (Mike's Twin Brother.)