[Foundation-l] Vote to create Wikiversity Vote

Mon Nov 7 11:48:52 UTC 2005

On 11/1/05, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/1/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> > This is a reminder/formal notice that the voting period for the creation
> > of Wikiversity is now over, and that the proposal to create Wikiversity
> > as a new Wikimedia sister project is now being submitted to the
> > Wikimedia Foundation board for a formal review..[snip]
>
>
> I'd just like to thank you Robert for all the work you've put into
> this proposal, timetable, vote etc. I've been meaning to write up a
> proposal to the community on this, as Wikiversity is something that
> really energises me at the moment (mentally at least). (My lack of)
> time at the moment forbids me from going into everything I'd like to
> say about Wikiversity, but I'd liek to make some brief points.
>
> It is clear that many people are afraid that the idea is too
> half-baked or not ready enough to be started. This is currently true -
> Wikiversity exists as many different ideas in many people's heads,
> with plenty of enthusiasm but not much to actually to show for it. But
> my counter argument to this is: *every* wiki project has developed
> from a similar position. Every wiki is an idea which is generated and
> created through the combined energy of its participants - you only
> have to look at the various listings of people at the vote or on the
> proposed projects page or on the meta Wikiversity talk page amongst
> others, to see that there is so much energy there waiting to be
> tapped, and rearing to go. That, surely, is the main thing. I think
> the crucial point is that Wikiversity, if created now, will not (in
> the main) be ready to actually go live as a learning centre *just
> yet*. It needs to have a creation period, it needs to be widely known
> about to generate a learner base - and *then* it can flourish. Just
> don't expect results yet (though some courses could be created quite
> quickly - and who's to say that we need to constuct whole courses in
> the first place? What about single lesson plans? What about
> collections of flash cards? etc.)
>
> Another major concern is resources - both human and electronic (ie.
> financial). I don't know about the latter part (and I'd really like
> someone to tell us how much it would cost in server/work hours terms
> to set up a new project in comparison to what it would cost to set up
> a new language project on any other WMF project - hence crossposting
> to wikitech). But on the human resources side - i think, on the
> contrary, this will be an excellent opportunity for the projects to
> cross-pollinate (Wikipedia and Wikibooks especially) and draw in a
> huge sector of people that may have erstwhile have remained on the
> periphery of especially Wikipedia. I have a hunch that not only could
> we get a whole lot more poeple involved in setting up this project,
> but we could also get some major funding. UNESCO's ecucation for all
> campaign comes to mind - and I'd appreciate any other suggestions.
>
> That's all time permits me to say for now, but suffice to say that i
> have been reading around Wikiversity for a few months now and, for
> one, am highly motivated to get this off the ground. I know of quiet a
> few more and I know that it could really take off. So if we could have
> some very clear technical issues that need to be dealt with, I think
> that's where we should be focussing our attention, rather than the
> fact that it isn't ready/finished yet - because it just needs a bit of
> time, space, and a steady stream of energy that i know exists.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Cormac / Cormaggio

For my part I think Wikiversity is a great idea, but I don't see where it
benefits from being part of Wikimedia. Wikimedia is primarily a media
company, and a university and a media company are only loosely tied with one
another. Yes, books need to be used by a university, but a) most
universities don't make all their own books, and b) Wikibooks can handle
that part of the project without being part of the university (but merely
working hand-in-hand with the university).

If there is enough support for this project to be at all successful it would
be no problem to start it up as its own organization separate from the
Wikimedia Foundation. That doesn't mean it would compete with the WMF, in
fact the two would likely co-exist quite amicably.

The only way I really think it'd be reasonable to expect Wikiversity to work
as a Wikimedia project would be if this came from the top down, as a board
mandate. Even then, for Wikiversity and Wikipedia both to truly be
successful they would probably have to be run as separate legal and/or
economic entities. For Wikiversity to be successful it's going to require a
lot of money. This is not to say donations, it very well could be
self-sustaining, but I bet a lot of Wikipedians are going to want to know
that their donations are going to Wikipedia and not to subsidize a
university. Furthermore, there would probably be legal implications that
would necessitate forming a separate entity, especially if the university
ever wants to be accredited (which I think it should).

Maybe I'm just looking too far into the future. Or maybe I'm seeing this as
a bigger project than it really is. But that's just the way I think. I think
you've got to set your goals high and plan out the full path too those goals
early on - not to have everything written in stone but at least to have a
rough draft of what the future has in store.

Anthony