Wikiversity and Wikibooks: can we answer the perennial question?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

wish list

Fwd: PDF generation on the...

Cormac Lawler

14 Nov 2007 14 Nov '07

5:20 a.m.

Hi, I want to raise an important (and very frequently-asked) question: How do Wikiversity and Wikibooks relate to eachother (and within this: do they overlap unnecessarily, and how might they be aligned most productively)? I'm asking this as an *international* question (ie as it relates to present and future projects), although perhaps, in asking this, we could ask: in what ways might different language communities deal differently with these definitions and distinctions? (And yes, I also realise this is several questions, and that there are a few more to come. :-)) The context of this is that there are some Wikibooks communities that seem to want to hold off on creating a new Wikiversity, as well as there being some people who want to clarify the distinction between the projects before setting up new ones. On the former, in some cases (or at least, in the Dutch, from what I gather), this has had the practical outcome that these communities have extended the scope of the Wikibooks project from what other Wikibooks projects are doing - in hosting lesson plans and pedagogic guidance for using these textbooks in class. (This latter seems to be more suited to Wikiversity in my mind at least - is this also the same for you, and/or is it a problem?) But the larger question is: can different languages define differently what Wikiversity and Wikibooks do, or can a Wikiversity be effectively subsumed in Wikibooks (or even the other way around)? Put another way: what does Wikiversity do (or intend to do) that Wikibooks can never do, as presently defined? So, the 'international' dimension here comes down to whether it is possible - or useful - to define how Wikiversity and Wikibooks would relate _in_all_languages. If it is possible and/or useful, then it might be timely to actively construct such a map of how the two projects relate (eg how much overlap is ok, what the scope of each is, and how they can share resources etc), and set out a framework for how different languages can be set up, defined and organised around various activities. I'd really welcome any comments on anything here that sparks your imagination, or that speaks to your experience. Thanks, Cormac [[:v:en:User:Cormaggio]]

Show replies by date

Andrew Whitworth

14 Nov 14 Nov

7:05 a.m.

...

I want to raise an important (and very frequently-asked) question: How do Wikiversity and Wikibooks relate to eachother (and within this: do they overlap unnecessarily, and how might they be aligned most productively)? I'm asking this as an *international* question (ie as it relates to present and future projects), although perhaps, in asking this, we could ask: in what ways might different language communities deal differently with these definitions and distinctions? (And yes, I also realise this is several questions, and that there are a few more to come. :-))

This is a question that does seem to come up too frequently still. While I think that it is a good subject to try and tackle, I'd be skeptical that we would come to any firm conclusions now that could be spread uniformly to all languages. The idea about expanding Wikibooks to encompass what Wikiversity would have become is an interesting one, although "wikiversity" sounds to me like more of a generalized learning resource then "wikibooks" does. That is, I think it is more intuitive that Wikiversity could be expanded to include textbooks then I do that Wikibooks could be expanded to include all sorts of "learning resources". The difference between the projects comes down to a division of the types of instructional materials that are allowed at each project. Both wikiversity and wikibooks only allow instructional materials, which sets them apart from nearly all other wikimedia projects. The division is that wikibooks only allows instructional material that is "book-like", while wikiversity allows more general forms of instructional materals. From another perspective, Wikibooks is more rigidly structured, while Wikiversity is more free-form. Both approaches have their own potential benefits. Trying to expand Wikibooks to cover free-form materials loses some of the structure and organization that is inherent to Wikibooks. Once CentralAuth (Single-User Login) becomes a reality (if that ever happens) I think there will be many more opportunities for synergy and collaboration between the two projects. I think that in general, trying to expand Wikibooks to prevent the need for a separate Wikiversity project is a bad idea and shortsighted. I also don't think it's a good idea for different language projects to stray too far from one another in their definitions, but then again there isn't enough communication between different languages to help keep the projects synchronized. We don't have enough translators to do anything like that. --Whiteknight _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

Cormac Lawler

7:36 a.m.

New subject: Wikiversity and Wikibooks: can we answer the perennial question?

Thanks for a great start on this discussion Andrew. :-) Just a very brief comment for now... On 11/13/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <beginquote> The idea about expanding Wikibooks to encompass what Wikiversity would have become is an interesting one, although "wikiversity" sounds to me like more of a generalized learning resource then "wikibooks" does. That is, I think it is more intuitive that Wikiversity could be expanded to include textbooks then I do that Wikibooks could be expanded to include all sorts of "learning resources". <endquote> It's interesting that there was an initial idea to have a "WikiUniversity" project, for which the textbook project would be its library. (See [1] and [2].) Then the textbook project took over and Wikiversity became a component, albeit an uneasy one. :-) Cormac [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Archive_2#Visions [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity/Old

Peter van Londen

8:12 a.m.

New subject: Wikiversity and Wikibooks: can we answer the perennial question?

Hi, I am a representative of the Wikibooks and Wikimedia-NL community. In fact I have seen the presentations from Cormac and met him on the Dutch conference. I guess this discussion is a follow-up on that. My view is the following, stated also on the conference and not changed as a result from those discussions. The Dutch Wikibooks is a rather small project compared to the EN:WB and for instance DE:WB (and WV's as well). There is nothing shortsighted about not wanting to split op communities. If we would split up the Dutch Wikibooks in WB and WV (that is what would happen) both projects would be at serious risk for starting vegetating, because of lack of attention. Besides WV-NL would have to be set-up again with own policies and even for filling the wikiversity and help namespaces at WV, which is a shame as there will be a huge overlap anyhow (resources wasted). The reason not to want to start WV in Dutch is therefore purely practical. Besides that I have an own view on MediaWiki as vehicle for E-learning: it is not really fitting that purpose. Using Moodle for that would be much better. I know the consensus is to use MediaWiki (that is sort of "own" software) for Wikimedia-projects, but in fact I see no reason why we could not use a better and different software. As presented by Cormac using Wikibooks as a repository for learning resources which can be used in Wikiversity is a view I agree with. But that is not a reason to not host Wikibooks within Wikiversity or the other way round. Then there is another factor which I consider and that is that Wikiversity is, in my opinion, not yet finished: do we really have consensus on what this project can do? For instance if I look at the featured project on Wikiversity which is: Filmmaking, I really don't see why this is not an instruction book and could be hosted on Wikibooks as well. I always thought that Wikiversity would be more interactive, following courses with the help of an instructor, it doesn't seem to be like that though. So in short: I would welcome to start with Wikiversity within the Wikibooks project, having a separate entree (a redirect from nl.wikiversity.org) but not splitting up the community. At least not until we are bigger and until the idea behind Wikiversity stands. kind regards Peter van Londen/Londenp 2007/11/14, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Cormac Lawler

8:14 p.m.

New subject: Wikiversity and Wikibooks: can we answer the perennial question?

On 11/14/07, Peter van Londen <londenp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

So in short: I would welcome to start with Wikiversity within the Wikibooks project, having a separate entree (a redirect from nl.wikiversity.org) but not splitting up the community. At least not until we are bigger and until the idea behind Wikiversity stands.

Thanks very much Peter. :-) However, I'd like to counter the argument that creating a Wikiversity will automatically involve splitting the existing Wikibooks community - because it is entirely possible (and I've seen this myself) that creating a new project with a substantially different goal will attract a *new community* of people. People are inspired differently by the name Wikiversity than with Wikibooks (and vice versa) - some people might not be motivated to contribute in one, but they will be in the other. And of course, some people will move between both projects, cross-pollinating initiatives, and looking for ways to collaborate and share (which should always be the goal, in my opinion). So the argument that a split will *necessarily* be dividing both projects too thinly does not hold true for me (even though it might do in certain ways and circumstances). I think the key to this is, as you say yourself, definition of the project(s). Wikiversity is understood differently by many of its contributors - and I really don't know what many people 'around the edges' understand of it. :-) (And that example you bring up - Filmmaking - is not, for me, the be-all-and-end-all of Wikiversity learning resources - but rather reflects *one* example of creating educational resources.) So, this is what I'm trying to raise here - how are we to define each project in relation (or contrast) to each other? (Restating a previous question: what can Wikiversity do that Wikibooks never can?) And should we be thinking of "not splitting projects", "splitting and collaborating", or "merging into a larger goal"? Cormac

Peter van Londen

9:43 p.m.

New subject: Wikiversity and Wikibooks: can we answer the perennial question?

Hi 2007/11/14, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On 11/14/07, Peter van Londen <londenp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

So in short: I would welcome to start with Wikiversity within the

Wikibooks

project, having a separate entree (a redirect from nl.wikiversity.org)

but

not splitting up the community. At least not until we are bigger and

until

the idea behind Wikiversity stands.

Indeed not necessarily but why run the risk? I am open to start up a Wikiversity in Dutch language, just to attract people to the Dutch educational projects, being Wikibooks and Wikiversity (and being less educational the Wikipedia). I did propose that before this discussion in the Dutch-WB "educators room" in having within Wikibooks four departments being Wikibooks, Wikijunior, Cookbook and Wikiversity. I really think Wikiversity would attract people we would not count on in the first place and maybe then when we have them on board we can think of splitting up the projects. The other Dutch projects like Wikiquote, Wikisource and Wikinews have there vegetating periodes now and then or are run by one or two enthusiasts. I would hate for Wikibooks and Wikiversity to go the same way. Another idea is: stop with wikibooks and wikiversity at all, as the names do not cover the intention of the projects anyhow. Wikilearning or Wikieducate would fit better for both but seem to be taken by other communities, but that is what we are doing with both projects. So yes I agree with you that Wikibooks would be better a part of Wikiversity then the other way around, but this is not what happened as WB started first. I think the key to this is, as you say yourself, definition of the

...

project(s). Wikiversity is understood differently by many of its contributors - and I really don't know what many people 'around the edges' understand of it. :-) (And that example you bring up - Filmmaking - is not, for me, the be-all-and-end-all of Wikiversity learning resources - but rather reflects *one* example of creating educational resources.) So, this is what I'm trying to raise here - how are we to define each project in relation (or contrast) to each other? (Restating a previous question: what can Wikiversity do that Wikibooks never can?) And should we be thinking of "not splitting projects", "splitting and collaborating", or "merging into a larger goal"?

Merging into a larger goal would be my idea. About defining the projects, this is mainly a thing done by the first group, being in most cases the English communities. But you can not expect that people from other languages/countries would not have a different view. This can be based on experiences with different educational systems then the Anglo-Saxon systems. So how much you would want to get other languages to adopt the definitions made by the first group you can not impose this upon other language communities. You can try to find a common base, but then you should be prepared that your definition has to be changed to fit to the ideas of different languages. In fact exactly then when you think you are done with the process. I reacted on your mail, but I also have read the mail from Teemu and I find his ideas also interesting. Wikiversity for creating educational programs and Wikibooks for the content as a clear distinction is quite convincing to me. Peter/Londenp

Andrew Whitworth

15 Nov 15 Nov

6:20 a.m.

New subject: Wikiversity and Wikibooks: can we answer the perennial question?

...

...And should we be thinking of "not splitting projects", "splitting and collaborating", or "merging into a larger goal"?

I know that there is at least a few people on wikibooks who feel that the definition of that project should be expanded beyond the limiting "for textbooks". We have recently formalized a change to say that wikibooks allows "textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals." This is a welcome expansion for many people, but it certainly is an encroachment on Wikiversities areas of expertise. There are a few people who advocate an even larger expansion. It's been my personal belief that one of the strengths of Wikibooks is the focus and the specialization. I worry that an expansion will compromise our position as a leading source for open-content ebooks. At the very least, expansion into other areas will dilute our "brand". Also, the more Wikibooks has, the less Wikiversity can or the more overlap between us. Enough expansion, and a project merger will not only become desirable, but maybe also a necessity. I think Wikibooks does better to focus on it's core competency: books. This way, we can build a strong reputation as a good ebook resource. At the same time, that focus affords more freedom to Wikiversity to do more and try more. Wikiversity resources that are books should be moved to wikibooks, just like wikibooks modules that arent books can be moved to wikiversity. In this way, we help each other to grow. --Andrew Whitworth _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct

Andrew Whitworth

2:29 a.m.

New subject: Wikiversity and Wikibooks: can we answer the perennial question?

...

The Dutch Wikibooks is a rather small project compared to the EN:WB and for instance DE:WB (and WV's as well)... The reason not to want to start WV in Dutch is therefore purely practical.

There is some difference between not wanting to do it "now", and not wanting to do it "ever". If you take steps to make wikibooks more inclusive, and thus prevent wikiversity from ever separating from it, that is what I consider to be short sighted. However, if you keep Wikibooks "pure" in the sense that you only include books and not all sorts of other wikiversity-like materials, and allow wikibooks to grow into a strong pillar, then a separate wikiversity project makes an excellent compliment to that.

...

As presented by Cormac using Wikibooks as a repository for learning resources which can be used in Wikiversity is a view I agree with. But that is not a reason to not host Wikibooks within Wikiversity or the other way round.

Exactly right. the two projects are symbiotic, and can really help to build each other up. I don't feel that they should be merged, because they do have different goals.

...

For instance if I look at the featured project on Wikiversity which is: Filmmaking, I really don't see why this is not an instruction book and could be hosted on Wikibooks as well.

That does sort of bring up a good point, that many people tend to gravitate towards the rigid book structure of wikibooks, even in wikiversity. Because of the "features" of mediawiki, I think that many materials do tend to evolve into book-like shapes over time. This even happens at Wikipedia, where collections of related articles tend to rely on each other heavily. Such collections of articles have been used in the past as a starting point to new books (with varying degrees of success). I think that MediaWiki encourages the organization of content into books, and so it doesnt surprise me that some of the better WV courses appear very book-like. If anything, this is really a software limitation that works against Wikiversity, and I think the most important aspect of this all is whether or not WV can overcome that limitation. Because if time shows that Wikiversity is adept at making books, albeit in a slightly different manner, there might be a strong case to be made for a merger between the two projects.

...

So long as you keep an open mind about it, that's perfectly fine. Like I said, time will tell all things. --Andrew Whitworth _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL1006269…

6029

days inactive

6030

days old

textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

7 comments

3 participants

tags (0)

participants (3)

Andrew Whitworth
Cormac Lawler
Peter van Londen