I think this is an interesting discussion. The question for me is
whether Wikiversity can really develop a meaningful role. From browsing
around wikiversity's content, my feeling is that its learning material
is probably not well used. I'd be delighted to learn that particular
courses do indeed have audiences because this would indicate that
wikiversity has found its niche. Wikipedia, by contrast, is certainly
valued and is enormously successful so must have 'hit the spot'. Is
wikiversity still looking for its raison d'etre?
Can wikiversity be the 'Open access' university that people will
naturally turn to if they want to learn about a topic systematically
without enrolling in a conventional university? (I think of the way the
Open University in the UK has become a high quality alternative to
conventional universities for those who cannot afford the fees or time
that latter demand.)
By extension, what can wikiversity offer for people who want to engage
in *research* and how can wikiversity offer this in a way that other
vehicles don't? The discussions going on about the ways the 'wiki'
approach can offer valuable opportunities and new ways of working are
very interesting and very relevant. But can wikiversity be a suitable
vehicle? Would it need resources that go beyond what can be offered by
the enthusiastic volunteer? Might it not need paid staff and a formal
organisational structure and governance to set standards and protocols
that go beyond the capabilities of a few committed volunteers?
Wikipedia has been successful but is this not because of the basic
simplicity of its concept? By contrast, is a university with a research
function not a whole different ball game?
I'd love to see the research side of WV develop. What is the trick to
gain a critical mass and go from strength to strength in practice?
Myself and a few others have recently started a learning project that
falls in between teaching/learning and research. We chose wikiversity
because it is open, non-proprietary and global. The project is 'The
Science Behind Parkinson's disease':
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s I
would like to think that this is the sort of thing that can find a valid
place within wikiversity and could develop as a high quality valued
resource for people who find themselves, in this instance, living with
Parkinson's and want to know more about the condition. It seems to me
that other similar projects could be developed for other medical
conditions such as other neurological conditions or even other diseases
such as cancer and diabetes where people want to follow the research as
it happens. Wikiversity would be a natural place for these.
So in summary, I want wikiversity to discover its role and capture the
imagination of potential users and contributors on a larger scale than
now. Research, and a combination of research and learning, ought
clearly be central to its mission.
John Telford
-------- Original Message --------
To: Mailing list for Wikiversity <wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
From: Joe Corneli <holtzermann17(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:26:36 +0000
Subject: [Wikiversity-l] wiki research hub
Dear Wikiversity-ans:
There has been some considerable discussion in wiki-research-l about
creating a new Wiki Studies journal and/or a new place to do research
the wiki way.
One question is, why do we need a new place to do research, couldn't
we just use Wikiversity for that? For now, Wikiversity seems to focus
on education and specifically-educational research, but might it make
sense to broaden the scope to include original research more
generally?
If you could have a look at the skeleton of the proposal here and add
your input (or via this thread), I would appreciate it!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Research_Hub
Thanks,
Joe
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l