text:
Wikiversity talk:Some ideas about Wikiversity

search up mitcourseware (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb), see if you can use their stuff.

 * That link seems to be broken. Andrewa 17:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Working now. Andrewa 13:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion : provide not only sources, but source analysis for texts. For example, "John Doe wrote in his History of America, that George Washington chopped down a peach tree, but John Doe was not alive to see this and provided no eyewitness accounts"... even if eyewitness, discuss possible motivations for reporting untruths. For example, a history of say, Iraq, might note that some of the people that came over to the US and told the administration how horrible he was were working on separatist movements in that country, and in any other country that would be considered a bias... Exitil@aol.com. 205.188.116.23 15:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is taking a good direction. The real thing that I feel is needed is a rigorous section dealing with proofs to theorums, with the steps and assumptions involved. Some of the pages have excellent proofs, while others are sorely lacking. To me this seems a weak point of Wikipedia/versity. No one much likes proofs, however they are the basis for math. I am a university student, and able to contribute somthing (i will send up proofs of theorums that i have to do for class for studying)

I am greatly intersted in the potential of the Wikiversity project to be used by parents to tutor their children (in addition to the Wikiversity's stated goals). I am not sure how the Wikiversity project aims to approach child learning; but I think a collection of learning excercises, perhaps in level appropriate wikibooks, would be an enormous helps to parents like myself. Parents (and maybe educators) can benefit from books/courses on phonetic reading, basic math, writing, music, etc.

 * I think, as I believe most of users, that your idea is wonderful and it has been already spoken. Of course, if there is place for high qualified studies at the wikiversity, there should be also place for another levels. I encourage you to begin such a task creating a new page in the "Wikiversity" with such a goal. ¿Could the name be something like "Wikischool" ...? By the way, there is an open discussion about Wikiversity in the talk page of wikiversity, if you wish, you may place the next comments there so they are unified and easier to consult. --Javier Carro 23:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested too. Don't come here often, but i'm in the Wikipedia and I work for a university as a programmer for a learning environment called Dokeos (GNU GPL, ) -- Roan

Heck yeah, this is a great idea! It would fill a major gap on the Internet: examples and tutorials can be found aplenty for many subjects, but actual instructional courses are very few, and usually of limited scope. One-dimensional Tangent 16:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess Wikiversity is to fill in a space somewhere between Wikibooks and a conventional university. There are plenty of texts on the web and in libraries, and so the Wikiversity should not be duplicating by producing even more texts - if you want to produce a text, Wikibooks may be the place for you. Already, however, I see that we could be slipping into this trap. Perhaps we should be duplicating is some of the functions of a conventional university, but making this more accessible. So what do conventional universities do?

Firstly they provide the opportunity for discourse. There is a whole hierarchy starting from the informal ephemeral chat in the coffee bar to tutorials, lectures, the writing of student essays and academic papers and books. Then they provide support and encouragement, and again this can range from an informal 'thank you' in the course of a discussion to a formal conferring of a degree. Occasionally universities issue threats, but these should be avoided where possible - positive encouragement is usually the best way to keep people motivated. Many of these things may already exist on the net through irc and newsgroups and so on, but perhaps in a disjointed manner.

Then universities provide the opportunity for research. This can just mean more talking and writing. But it can also mean doing experiments. How much of this we should be doing? And when should we start doing it?

What level should Wikiversity be aimed at? Should it deal with knowledge at university level? Or should it be more inclusive than that. I looked at the mathematics pages, and there seems to be something for everyone there, from learning to count to postgraduate level. I think such comprehensiveness is stimulating, as it offers the opportunity for people somewhere in the middle to both teach and learn at the same time. --publunch 12:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Fine, but research is problematic. There may be an influx of cranks posing material as "research", which can be hard to justify it's existence. A seperate project for research may be appropriate. Dysprosia 01:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I think we've got plenty of other things to do before we start doing 'Research'.--publunch 11:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that someone has started using the philosophy department as a message board. Well, I think this kind of communication is VERY IMPORTANT. I think we need proper departmental message boards, and perhaps some central message boards for admin. I think this needs to be done fairly soon. How quickly can the technical people get this sort of thing done? --publunch 11:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * We already have the Staff lounge, and if it's important to have a seperate page for Wikiversity, then one has only to make one - you don't have to be a "technical person", just make a new page. To add something under "philosophy" may not be appropriate. Dysprosia 13:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea and has the potential to work well. It would be an idea to look at having "online" classrooms in IRC channels, being an experienced user of IRC I can say that it's easy to use: you can paste links in the channel (for learning purposes), everyone can click on the link there and then, and the discussion about the link takes place in real time. Online tutorials and exercises can be done this way, you have instant access to the teacher in the IRC channel.

The course content would be extremely flexible and easily modifed (pending review and approval, but the process could be decided in weeks not months). Having a Wikiversity would bring people from around the globe together in the spirit of learning and discourse. The course lengths could vary and initially it might be an idea to aim for short courses as a trial to see how they work out. It would be interesting how these courses would be advertised. There would be issues about if a qualification from Wikiversity is recognised anywhere, hence my earlier comment about conducting short courses as a trial period, we can get feedback from the "students" and teachers, look if the the infrastructure is working, if not, how to improve it etc. These are some initial thoughts and comments, I'll check back and see what people think. Rjwd 05:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is this idea different from Wikibooks? How will the courses not just devolve back into a second Wikibooks? Also, Wikibooks is not exactly thriving, do we really need to take away people from the project just yet? I personally believe that our most powerful efforts should be to get Wikibooks up to the level we would consider good, with regular traffic, and then try this idea. The other problem I see is that because of the limitations of the software, Wikiversity would always fall tragically short of the far-sighted vision of a classrooom-like atmosphere. While the software could be change, we must ask ourselves, is this really necessary? What will it actually contribute to the area of online education and how will it not just be Wikibooks 2 (i.e. not just textbooks in another form and name)?--Naryathegreat 17:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Accreditation
I think we need to make a painful decision about whether Wikiversity is to recognise (note I didn't say offer) any form of accreditation.

This has come up before in a number of forums and a number of Wikimedia projects, and there's a deep-seated philosophical objection to the idea from many contributors. But accreditation is an essential part of University life. The vast majority of the students in a University are candidates for some sort of degree, and the vast majority of their teachers have degrees in relevant areas.

Currently, the module page is inconsistent on this, and I'm in no hurry to fix this conflict. It explicitly says The Wikiversity project IS NOT:... An attempt at accreditation. But later, there's a suggestion of levels of degree, from Bachelors to WhD (which I may nickname a Woctorate).

There seem to be two issue here, that of internal accreditation and that of external accreditation. In fact these are the same. Wikimedia is famous enough for internal accreditations to carry external prestige, and external accreditations are going to carry some weight in any internal system however democratic it is planned to be.

I'm of two minds. At the WhD level there will need to be refereeing, it's a research degree, and also publication of the thesis. Once we have such a system, I can see all sorts of lesser research projects being suggested, and there's a case for this.

The essence of a University is its cadre of people who are each involved in both teaching and research, the theory being that teaching is an excellent way for the teachers themselves to learn (it keeps you honest with yourself). This cadre is heirarchical, with the college of PhDs at the apex. It's this college which takes ultimate responsibility for endorsing new members by passing their PhDs.

As I said above, I'm in no hurry to resolve this, but I think it does need some explicit discussion. Andrewa 18:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a totaly cool idea. Im in :) But do we have to say "Bachelors Degree" and "Masters Degree", whats that? -a
 * I'm fine with accreditation as long as they are given for recognition and honor, and not to signify an understanding of material or a certain topic; id est laureation. Wikiversity should, in my mind, resemble free study. Accreditation opposes this by being used--maybe unintentionally--as a form of restriction.

Assessment, Appraisal, Criticism and Feedback
Surely if accreditation is a meaningful goal - the discussion will have to be had, about the need to assess learning progress.

Serious students with a desire to learn always appreciate measured feedback (assessment) of their individual achievement. If this is done at appropriate intervals throughout a learning period it substantially assists learning development. This gives them encouragement and a framework of guidance. I have always looked at this in terms of Vygotsky's ‘zone of proximal development’ theories in my real world experience of Art & Design project based higher education. Students are capable of objectively assessing the achievement of themselves and their peers maturely. This takes practice and guidance in establishing a shared understanding of meaningful criteria to which they feel an individually committed ownership. Under these circumstances real synergy and personal development takes place far in advance of what the participants may have imagined was possible - ‘the joy of learning’. I have only the haziest notions of how we might provide structured encouragement to students pursuing these programmes conscientiously. But it should be relatively easy to collect evidence of engagement with the programme which can be appraised or assessed by self, peers or subject experts. Online seminar discussions of the material. Submitted work circulated and critically commented. Even a wiki archive of previous work - what a great resource - which can act as a benchmark and stimulus to each new generation of students.

I may add here that I am convinced believer in combinations of normative & formative feedback - assessment is feedback about achievement - no more no less. There are always two indices at work although even professional teachers don't always explicitly separate them out properly. Formative feedback is about helping the student define where they are, and what they have to do to reach their educational goals. And then how well they as individuals have done in progressing towards those goals - how much achievment and for how much effort [There is no comparison with others implicit in this] and it appears transparent, fair and helpful to the student when based on specific agreed criteria. This is educational hard work (the old tutorial).

Then there is the more normative appraisal (much maligned) of comparison to values external to the student. The achievement of their peers in competition, in collaboration, and measuring of achievement against ‘standards’ whether universal set tests, levels of professional competence, peer acclaim or whatever. Many individuals can push themselves to excel when guided towards picking meaningful external standards which they can measure their achievments against. This is powerful stuff but can also be educationally dangerous - creating disincentives, discouragement and unjustifed perceptions of failure, when misapplied, or misdirected. But ultimately for higher level work - we clamour for genuine positive peer review and criticism and thrive on it when our development is mature.

This surely is one of the time-honoured roles of the university in society. To be the forum for intelligent, measured, directed criticism feedback, appraisal and assessment of achievement and progress. Sounds like a wikiusp.

--TimMartin 21:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

School of Creative Writing and Literature Studies
Would someone mind looking over what I have done at the School of Creative Writing and Literature Studies? I'm not getting much from others in the school, so if somebody from the outside could take a look that would be great. I'm afraid of changing too much as I don't want to ruin the work of others. However, I think there needs to be better organization and I've reflected that as best as I can thus far. Also, I think I would like to change the name around from the current to "School of Literature Studies and Creative Writing". Thanks folks --Atrivedi 05:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Atrivedi. I'm new to the Wikiversity movement, but I've got a lot of ideas on how to restructure the School. First off, I want to say that I don't know how much of the work done to the page is yours so I don't want to offend when I say I think we should cut the majority of the courses from the page. This may seem counterintuitive, but I think we should let the school take shape organically as people become involved. Why don't we restructure the school into three or four departments: creative writing, technical (professional writing), literature, and rhetoric and composition. Then, why don't we only start to develop courses that we can currently support. We need to keep in mind that Wikiversity is not a traditional university. It's being conducted in a completely different medium, and it isn't bogged down by the rules and traditions of a formal university. Let's think of a new way to come at this. Also, let's remember that we should focus our courses around what learners are looking for. Let's start small and grow from there. Starting from a blank slate might be a good idea. I've been talking to user JustinLillich a little about this, and he seems open to the idea of a restructured school. What do you think? Thanks. -- Ztheday 17 Feb 2005
 * Continued

School of Classics
I really think a School of Classics would be nice. ancient Roman & Greek authors, architecture, philosophy and the like would be presented.

 * I agree that a School of Classics would be a great idea!  I think that eventually, if people ever come back and start caring again about this project (maybe it has moved or died and I'm just behind), there will definetly be interdisciplinary schools, etc.  Right now, in working on the School of Creative Writing and Literature Studies (not my name for it, someone else's), I've added some discussions on the most classic works (epic poems, etc.) but would gladly give them up in favor of the Classics department. --Atrivedi 21:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikiversity
When possible might it be acceptable to use wikipedia to defin certain topics or people?

Open-source Online Classroom Program
Might this product be useful to WikiUniversity? It's called Moodle. I found it during a websearch one day.

Here is what the Moodle homepage says, "Moodle is a course management system designed to help educators who want to create quality online courses. The software is used all over the world by universities, schools, companies and independent teachers. Moodle is open source and completely free to use."

URLs: http://moodle.org/ and http://moodle.com --balTHOMore

Bootstrapping Wikivarsity
Really Cool stuff :)

I have some suggestions for Bootstrapping the Wikivarsity without hurting Wikibooks. My suggestion is:
 * Use Wiki Contributions across Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia,Wiktionary,Wikibooks etc. as a measure of feedback and grading over a long duration which would lead to Diplomas,Degrees and Woktorates.
 * The Wikivarsity would consist of a ring of Admins or maybe Woktorates or both at the top with many layers upto the bottom similar to what has been suggested by Andrewa. Creation of this inital pyramid is discussed later...
 * Each layer would assign subtasks (requests for contributions to Wikis,Overall guidelines,etc) to lower layers.
 * The contributions of the lower layers would be judged by the higher layers for usefulness, accuracy, grasp of subject matter, breadth and depth of knowledge etc.
 * At any point of time whenever the candidate thinks he has contributed enough to prove that he deserves the degree/certification, he has to create a summary of all his contributions on his User Page and build a case to justify that he deserves certification. Demanding certification could be as simple as adding a specific Wiki Tag to ones own user page.
 * Anyone(collaborators,evaluators,competitors) can make comments about the value,authenticity,originality,plagiarism of the contrbutions on the discussion page in standard wiki style.
 * Out of all the enrolled candidates, those who satisfy certain prescribed criteria by the evaluators would be chosen for grant of the certificates/degrees/diplomas. Initially Jimbo Wales could play a deciding factor and gradually, when the process becomes widespread can be decentralised.

Note: Making contributions to Wikis is a highly educative process in itself and if the candidate makes wiki contributions in a sufficiently diverse set of areas in his chosen field of study and evolves it systematically, he can be guaranteed to be of a certain caliber.

SudarshanP 12:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some Initial Courses that could be offered

 * WikiMedia Certified Translation Professional: One of the best way to learn and digest a new language would be to translate English Wikis/Wikibooks etc into the traget language and possibly vice versa. Fulfilment criteria, translate n thouasand sentenses on Wikipedia with a minimum quality. Grades will be based on quality of translation. Also Barnstars for translation could improve grades.
 * WikiMedia Certified Technical Translator: Same as above. But will involve very specialised topics needing some fair subject knowledge as well.
 * WikiMedia Certified Sports Reporter: Cover Sports events for Wikipedia
 * WikiMedia Certified Scientific Writer: Nurture Scientific articles in Wikipedia.
 * WikiMedia Certified Educator:
 * WikiMedia Certified Recipie Writer
 * Add zillions more here...

These would be short term courses and very specific in nature. As time passes more advanced long term and generic courses could be created. These courses would help the individual to grow intellectually while at the same contributing massive amount of content to the wikis.

Maybe even wiki admins etc could opt for degrees and obtain a compact and demonstrable artifact and a little more spice to the resume.

It would serve as an endorsement of the value of their time spent on Wikipedia, so that he/she does not have to have to go to an employer and say, I edited a bazillion articles on wikipedia can u please have a look at each one of them and figure out how good I am. Instead he could say, I am a Certified Wikimedia this that etc. Of cource the certifications will have build a brand for themselves...

SudarshanP 12:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An alternative approach
Up until now it seems to me we've been focussing on building a University as it currently exists outside the WWW, but using a Wiki to do it.

I'd like to think a bit about doing something more radical. Green hat.

It seems to me that what a University does is teach. Everything else comes from this, including the granting of degrees. The degree is a licence to teach, and in the case of higher degrees, to award these licences.

So, I'd like to propose we focus on teaching at the outset. Set up some mechanism where those willing to teach can instruct those eager to study. No more, no less.

Then see what comes out of it. It's hard sometimes to predict what the WWW will do with an idea like this (just ask Micro$oft}. But whatever accreditations we eventually offer, I'd like to see them offered because they help the teaching, and I think that means in the light of our experience doing the teaching. This isn't an entirely new thought now that I examine it, I've raised before the question of    external and internal accreditation. So, again I've come around to thinking that the internal accreditation comes first. The difference is, I now want to see the teaching start before even going too far thinking about even internal accreditation.

One of the teaching tools should be Wikibooks, in fact many and perhaps even all of the teaching tools can be hosted in Wikibooks. Let's not set up anything that duplicates what we already have. On the other hand, Wikibooks has a clear and important goal and focus. I think Wikiversity has a different goal and focus, which we are still developing. Perhaps in time Wikibooks will become the Wikiversity library, just as any university library has a life of its own and serves both the registered students of the university and also others who come to learn without registering in a formal course. (Or at least that's how it works in Australia.)

That doesn't mean we necessarily need to register Wikiversity students, far from it. The Wikiversity tools and processes should be available to unregistered and not logged in users to the maximum practical, just as editing privileges in Wikipedia are made generally available. That's an important part of our ethos and tradition.

It doesn't even mean we need to register teachers! Perhaps even being a registered teacher, and having some greater priviledges than an anonymous teacher, is our first degree. Let's not call it a degree for the moment, but it may become one.

My alma mater, UNE, once offered a degree called Bachelor of Literature which was a second degree and took the place of an honours year for external students, who were not able to do the normal honours year because of their restricted subject choices as undergraduates. They have subsequently renamed this as a Master's degree, to fall more in line with other Universities, and as part of this they retrospectively awarded Master's degrees to all holders of the Bachelor of Literature. So we don't need to get it right at the start, although we should if we can. If we later decide to award retrospective degrees, there are precedents for this.

Questions:

What tools do we need?

How do you best use a Wiki for teaching?

Who would like to start? In what subjects?

Because, as soon as we have at one student and one teacher in some subject, we can get started. They can then tell us what tools they need.

Perhaps the first tool we need is a way for students and teachers to meet. I'll start that right here. I'm interested in learning Pure Mathematics (in which I have a Bachelor's degree already), especially Model Theory and Nonstandard Analysis, and Theology.

I'm a little more reserved about what I could teach. Drumming and stage lighting are two things I already do teach, but I'm not all that excited about doing either on the web. There are some excellent drumming sites already, as well. My highest academic qualifications are in Mathematical Logic, but that's a while ago, and possibly Audit methodology and practice in which I presented some internationally published papers and delivered a few guest lectures. Obviously elementary mathematics is another thing I could teach; Again there are some excellent Mathematics sites already. I have also taught various computing subjects at elementary level. Perhaps we could include links to these drumming and maths sites in our tools. I'm not sure I would want to put time into teaching elementary mathematics on the web. I know something about sailing, it having been a long and continuing interest, and have taught elementary sound engineering. Finally, having worked with it I'm knowledgable in some aspects of nuclear energy and could teach it at a layman's level, but I'm a bit fearful that many of those who want to learn in this area will find that some of what they think they already know I think is false.

There are probably other things I've forgotten.

I'm not sure how to best start teaching any of those on the web, but if anyone is interested in learning I'm interested in having a go, or at least talking about it. A bit fearful about what I might get into, but interested. It would need to be understood that the learning may be slow at first as we work out how to do it, and that working it out is at this stage an important part of the process.

And we may well have better teachers.

Enough for now I think. Other ideas? Andrewa 15:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response to Andrewa
What I agree with:
 * I totally agree with you that the primary focus of the Wikivarsity is (or should be) Teaching/Learning itself and not distribution of degrees.
 * Great. Andrewa 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * What tools do we need? I would say we definitely need tools, but don't overinvent. The most powerful tool is the Wikipedia itself. Not in the sense of how much knowledge is already there, but in the sense of how much knowledge is acquired in the process of creation of wiki content.
 * Agree with all of this. Well put. Andrewa 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me give an example. I have some background in cryptography. Say you are totally new. Now suppose, you want to learn and I want to teach... Both of us start writing a wikibook about cryptography. You would start pulling out info about the topic from various sources and I would keep overseeing your activities, giving you suggestions and confirm through the discussion pages that you really undertstand what you are creating and your job is not a copy paste job. For very high interaction we could occasionally use IRC. I could focus on your interpretation of the naunces and confirm that your understanding is right. Now suppose, I wanted to teach cryptography to my next student. I would ask him to go through the book you have created and empower him (through discussion) to find all mistakes you have created. As time passes, the book becomes too good to be rectified. Then we could start a new book or fork the book and start off with something. In short the activity of creating a wiki with partial knowledge is a much richer experience than blindly reading online reference material which what a Wikibook is.

 * There's a lot here and I like the ideas and vision very much. But one of the characteristics of good ideas is that most of them don't work. Certainly worth taking further, by discussion or having a go or both. Andrewa 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I disagree with:
 * However I am still of the opinion that some form of certification from Wikipedia would act as a strong motivator for systematic and long term involvement with the subject than plain curiosity. Otherwise I bet that most excitement could easily fizzle away in the first few weeks and the excitement would degenerate. Things should have a beginning, and an end. At the end one shold be able to say I finished doing this.
 * I agree, see Referees on the Meta or User:Andrewa/Wikipedia approval mechanism on English Wikipedia for some of my ideas on Wiki-based approval mechanisms which would IMO be applicable here too. Note the Meta article has several authors not just me, and is one of many on the general subject, all of them I think accessible by at most two wikilinks in succession (wikijumps?) from this page. I didn't mean to say or imply that certification was not a good thing, I think it is, both for material and contributors. It seems to be a dead duck on Wikipedia itself, however. People like the anarchy, and react strongly against any suggestion of any form of approval mechanism there. Andrewa 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not agree that the sole purpose of a degree is to prove that one can teach. In many situations, the degree is an endorsement of capability in a vague sense. We go to qualified doctors, engineers,lawyers etc. as degrees provides a lowest common denominator.
 * Agree. I didn't mean to say or imply that the sole purpose of a degree was as a teaching qualification. Andrewa 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * While an RHCE or MCSE or CCNA can prove to be a moron, Many people would prefer to deal with a certified person than one who does not have one and especially if he is not too knowledgeable about the subject and I doesn't want to spend ages figuring out the unknown person's true potential.
 * Again, agree. Andrewa 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Somethings I am prepared to teach though the "Wikibook creation by the student" methodology I described above
 * How the hell does a computer work?
 * Elementary Physics.
 * Digital Electronics.
 * Cryptography beyond the over-simplified notion of transforming a message into something that can be read only by a person with whom you already share a secret.
 * Nanotechnology for Dummies.
 * Computer Networks

Some Wiki books I want to create as a student
 * Relativity for Dummies.
 * Quantum Mechanics for Dummies.
 * All the math about Photogrammetry
 * Close Range Digital Photogrammetry aided by the use of Artificial intelligence.

Any takers?

SudarshanP 05:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can probably help with the relativity and cryptography Wikibooks, and I'm interested in other aspects of photogrammetry, see my (old) web page on fisheye perspective. Andrewa 23:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SudarshanP 02:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool!!!, I guess we suit each other fairly well. And guess even our ideas about wikiversity match in most ways... So I guess we can probably start on Relativity and Cryptography. U can be my mentor for Relativity and I can be your mentor for Cryptography. We will initially write two wiki books abt these topics... let us see how things go. As time passes, guess we could branch out into more topics. By the way sometimes I wonder if other guys on Wikibooks or Wikiversity would find our approach tolerable. The last thing I want in the world is writing half a book and realise these guys have begun to spray vfds all over the place.

The next steps
Starting on the Relativity and Cryptography texts is certainly one way forward. Two problems:

 * I haven't offered to teach Relativity. I just said I could help you write a text. You may well be ahead of me in your understanding, which may not be a problem in this environment (I'm serious, there are some radical possibilities here). But I think we need to investigate this a bit.
 * I haven't asked to learn Cryptography either! My contributions to the field to date have been some short articles on public-key systems in EDPACS, a professional newsletter of computer security and audit, back in the days when using RSA for encryption and digital signatures was a new idea.

Sorry if that's a bit of cold water. I agree that the way to start is to start. But neither of these would be high priority projects for me just now, so I'm concerned I won't do them justice. Andrewa 18:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Classification
I'd like to think a bit about how we might efficiently match up students and teachers, assuming we attract a few more someday. One question is classification of studies. A library classification system might help here, but both Library of Congress and Dewey seem to require registration and payment to use the finer levels, as would be necessary. Universal Decimal Classification looks worth a look for this and other reasons. Andrewa 18:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also had a quick look at Bliss, but it seems rather esoteric! Andrewa 18:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Scope of Wikiversity
I added a new section at the beginning and summarized some of what I read on that topic, moved other material to the History section, and changed the section names a bit.

I'm also creating an archive page for some of the 'visions' which I think are good, but perhaps too much like random lists to solicit much in the way of excitement or contribution. I tried to summarize this material, but y'all may want to look through the archive and reconstitute more of it.

Apologies if I've done any of this poorly-- I am fairly new to Wikipedia etiquette.

/archive of vision statements

JoeEdelman 00:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The new idea about the structured information storage
I would like to represent my idea about the structured information storage based on Wiki technology that, I think, can be used as an underlying tool for such an educational project as Wikiversity. It seems that Wikiversity for a time being cannot determine which way to go. The older ways of education seems to be ineffective and, as it is said, to create a complete course is much more difficult than to create an article in Wikipedia. My proposition is to create first the building blocks of knowledge (that I call the Pieces of Knowledge - POK) and then, using nesting create larger blocks out of these basic blocks, which in turn will be the modules of yet larger pieces of knowledge - lessons, courses, books, etc. I propose a systematic approach to this system called Odzilla. Please, take a look. Maybe it can boost a process in some way. --Catpad 07:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Purpose
Wikiversity appears to be a good idea, yet at the moment it's entirely too vague to be of any use. The goal, it appears, is to provide a free alternative to current universities, in the Wikimedia style. To further describe what Wikiversity should do, then, one must first examine what a "real" university provides, and what wikimedia as a whole does not currently provide. There are several main items in this.

1. Universities provide educational material.

2. Universities provide the organization of said material.

3. Universities provide instructors to explain the material, in the event that a person does not understand something completely.

4. Universities provide the promise that the instructors are competent enough to present and explain the material.

5. Universities provide certifications and transcripts which provide the promise to others that a holder of such a certification is competent in that area.

Wikimedia already provides (1), and through wikibooks provides (2). What wikimedia does not currently provide are (3), (4), and (5). These, then, are what people working on wikiversity should examine most closely, so that they might find practical solutions to the issues.

(3) is possibly the most difficult obstacle, in that it requires the active and frequent participation of not only the students in a course, but the instructor as well. The instructor needs some way of answering students' questions, and students likewise need a method of asking them. Perhaps a daily discussion page could be created, where each day of a course has its own page on which students and instructors could communicate. The main problem with this is the lack of real-time communication, which would slow the process severely. Some alternatives, or supplements perhaps, might be IRC chatrooms, etc. These provide real-time communication quite well.

The problem with using an IRC chatroom is simply the integration of this with wikiversity, and wikimedia. This may be easily accomplished provided that the people of wikimedia are willing to accept the integration of something so deviant from its traditional ways of presenting information. As a side note, multiple instructors for one course could collaborate to teach it - this would be very helpful in that real-time instructing (if provided) does tend to take quite a bit of a person's personal time away, with no monetary compensation. Even in the event that real-time communication were not implemented, more instructors working on a project would still help it to progress smoothly and efficiently.

(4) is an interesting task to accomplish, as it seems contradictory to the spirit of wikimedia as a whole. Certifications are looked down upon - at least in the sense that most are opposed to them being necessary for any part of wikimedia, as this would restrict the participants to those with degrees, rather than those with knowledge or potential for useful contribution. Some system needs to be devised in order to confirm the competence of a person to teach a course.

This problem may be self-correcting in that a person may be simply asked for their credentials; those who are satisfied with these credentials are free to take the course, while those who are not satisfied will avoid it, in favor of other teaching/learning methods. This would eliminate the need for restriction, with the only stipulation being that credentials are asked to be displayed. These credentials would also need some sort of verification, i.e. verification that the person is who he says he is, and that he has the credentials he says he has (in the event of formal credentials like degrees). In the case of informal credentials, no verification should be necessary.

(5) is another difficult problem to solve, as it requires some way of verifying that a person truly knows what he is certified to know. Tests are the most obvious and easy way to do this - but then, it is difficult to determine whether a person has done this test himself. The only feasible way to do this may be to actually have a videorecording of the person taking the test. Perhaps a better solution would be to have thesis papers for certification. This is already quite common in universities, and the person is not restricted from using external resources (in fact, it is encouraged and even required). There is little worry of academic dishonesty, as few people are willing to write an entire thesis paper (quite a task) for another; it is a considerably larger amount of work than simply taking a test for someone. The second aspect to this would be to have the thesis paper (or other means of testing knowledge) reviewed by someone who is recognized as competent enough to declare another to also be competent. In the event that the instructor has verified, recognized credentials, this is not a problem. In the case that he does not, however, there are still solutions available. A "non-accredited" award may be given, and the thesis paper (or other given material) may be archived or otherwise kept, in the hopes that someone with verified and recognized certifications might come along and review the material, thereby changing the award to the "accredited" status.

These are simply a few ideas for bringing the Wikiversity idea to fruition. If these problems can be solved, I believe that the project can begin to progress, and eventually mature into something that is recognized worldwide - whether or not it is seen as equivalent to traditional degrees.

 * I have no serious objection to the dream that it might be possible to create a copy of a conventional university in wiki format. I do think that anyone who is captivated by this particular dream should recognize that just because we can imagine something it does not mean that it makes a great deal of sense. I think it makes more sense to try to imagine a new kind of university, a true wikiversity, that will take advantage of the wiki user interface and the opportunities it provides for education, without trying to replicate all that is less desirable in conventional universities. Also, we need to be realistic about how wikis grow. No matter how seductive they are, grand dreams of creating a new university are meaningless without a way to make those dreams a reality. What we need now is a realistic starting place for wikiversity. I think what is needed now is a small set of what might be called "Wikimedia service courses". These would be natural extensions of existing Wikimedia projects that could become the first pages of wikiversity. These service courses would serve the research needs of existing Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia and Wikinews. Additional information about this practical way of launching wikiversity can be found at Moving Wikiversity forward and the discussion page for that article. --JWSurf 20:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikiversity:Namespaces

Like all wikis using the MediaWiki software, Wikiversity has built-in namespaces. The main namespace, where page names have no prefix, is for learning resources. There are several additional namespaces where page names all start with a prefix such as "Topic:" or "Wikiversity:". The other namespaces have special uses that are described in this page.

The main namespace is for all Wikiversity pages that deal directly with learning (the educational mission of Wikiversity). The main namespace contains pages that are about learning materials (example: Hunter-gatherers project), learning projects (example: Bibliography and Research Methods), and research activities (example: Bloom clock project).

The other namespaces have special uses that help Wikiversity participants facilitate and organize their collaborative content development efforts.

In addition to the namespaces that are found at Wikipedia, Wikiversity has "school" and "topic" namespaces. Like the "wikiversity" and "portal" namespaces, the "school" and "topic" namespaces are for meta-content; that is, Wikiversity content that is concerned with the management and organization of Wikiversity rather than being directly concerned with learning and the educational activities that take place in the main namespace. Pages in the "school" namespace are concerned with management and organization of large subject areas and large amounts Wikiversity main namespace content (example: School:Medicine). Wikiversity schools contain and organize groups of more narrowly-focused content development projects in the "Topic:" namespace. The content development projects in the "Topic:" namespace can be referred to as departments, centers, institutes, divisions or whatever is convenient (example: the Accounting Department). For more information see: Topics.

Content development projects. At Wikipedia, editors have found that it is useful to create a special type of meta-page called a WikiProject page. At Wikipedia such pages all exist with the project namespace and start with the prefix "Wikipedia:WikiProject:" (example). At Wikiversity, the pages in the "school" and "topic" namespaces can be thought of as special types of "WikiProject" pages that are concerned with creating and organizing learning resources for broad subject areas ("School:" projects) or more narrow academic topics ("Topic:" projects).

The concept of namespaces is similar to programming language namespaces and general namespaces.

Basic namespaces
The main namespace of Wikiversity is for education-oriented content (see Special:Allpages). It is the default namespace and page names for Wikiversity pages that are in the main namespace do not use a prefix. Wikiversity allows the creation of subpages for main namespace page, see: Subpages.101 problem - Not all English-speaking countries number courses starting at 101. "Foo 101" means nothing to some people. It is better to say "Introduction to Foo".

Wikiversity:
All pages in the Wikiversity project namespace start with the prefix Wikiversity:. The Wikiversity namespace is a namespace containing pages that provide information about Wikiversity. The page you are now reading is located in the Wikiversity project namespace. An example of another page in the Wikiversity namespace is Main Page. Other important pages in the project namespace are the policy pages. Note: the word "project" is used in many ways in the contexts of many different kinds of collaborative wiki projects. This entire website is the "Wikiversity project". Wikiversity also contains many collaborative "content development projects" in the "School:" and "Topic:" namespaces. In the main namespace, there are many learning projects where Wikiversity participants can engage in collaborative learning activities (see Figure 2). See also: Portal:Wikiversity.

Portal:
The portal namespace (prefix Portal:) is for reader-oriented directory/guide pages that help readers find Wikiversity content that is related to a specific subject. It also may contain links to encourage readers to contribute new content to Wikiversity (see, for example, Portal:Learning Projects. The "Portal:" namespace can be used together with categories. Wikiversity editors can create new categories to unite departments and projects as needed. Each category can have its own portal page in the "Portal:" namespace. Portals are particularly useful for areas of study that do not fit into the more conventional school>division>department hierarchy. Example of a portal: Portal:Science. See Portal.

School:
Pages in the School: namespace can serve as content development projects for broad subject areas in a similar fashion to Wikipedia "wikiprojects". The "School" namespace is for organization of the work of Wikiversity participants who are content producers, those who create learning resources and participate in learning projects. The names of Wikiversity school pages always start with the "School:" prefix. Example: the Wikiversity School of Biology organizes many topic pages such as Topic:Cell Biology. See: Schools.

School: contains community oriented pages for the improvement of resources under a major category.

Draft:
The Draft: namespace is for pages in development that are not yet ready for main space listing. Draft status may be self-selected by users or determined by respected community members. Resources with little content, low quality, or addressing fringe theories are likely to be placed in the draft namespace until they are more fully developed.

Topic:
The use of the Topic: namespace was discontinued in 2016, with content moved to either Portal: or main namespace pages.

Historically, pages in the Topic: namespace served as content development projects for narrow academic topics in a similar fashion to Wikipedia "wikiprojects". The "Topic" namespace was for organization of the work of Wikiversity participants who are content producers, those who create learning resources and participate in learning projects. The names of topic pages always started with the "Topic:" prefix. Example of a topic page: Topic:Cell biology.

Topic: pages were primarily used as "Departments", "Centers", "Divisions" or similar terms desired by those collaborating in that topic area. For example, under "School:Psychology" might have been "Topic:Social psychology" and "Topic:Clinical psychology". These specific content development pages in the "Topic:" namespace would then be referred to as the Department of Clinical Psychology or the Division of Social Psychology, depending on preference. See: Topics.

Topic: may be the equivalent to Wikipedia's taskforces. These are community oriented pages for the improvement of resources.

User:
The user namespace (prefix User:) is a namespace with pages for learning about Wikiversity participants and for sharing personal education experiences, for example containing bookmarks to favorite pages. If you see in the RecentChanges list that the user named "Jimbo" has updated some pages, this user name is a link not to Jimbo but to User:Jimbo. (See Special:Listusers).

File:
Pages in the File: namespace start with the prefix File:. The "File:" namespace holds image files, sound files, pdf files and other media files), one page for each file, with a link to the image or sound clip itself. See Special:ListFiles. There are three versions of links to images and sound files: Media example: A sound files Example. ; see Wedding-Day at Troldhaugen (Help with ogg audio play).See Help:Media.
 * 1) [[File:Foobar.jpg]] will insert the image directly into the page (not for sound files)
 * 2) [[Media:Foobar.jpg]] will make a text link to the image or type of file
 * File:Foobar.jpg will make a text link to the file's description page

Mediawiki:
The MediaWiki namespace (prefix MediaWiki:) is a namespace containing interface texts such as link labels and messages. They are used for adjusting the localisation (i.e. local version) of interface messages without waiting for a new LanguageXx.php file to get installed. Each label and message has a separate page. Pages in this namespace are protected by default. An automatically generated list of all interface messages is at Special:Allmessages.

Template:
The Template namespace (formerly part of the MediaWiki namespace) is used to define a standard text which can then be conveniently added within pages, either the text itself at the time of adding, or a reference to the text at the time of viewing the page. The latter way effectively changes all such occurrences of the standard text automatically by just editing the page where the text is defined. These are listed at Template messages and Navigational templates. The majority of this type is not protected.

Category:
The Category namespace contains categories of pages, with each displaying a list of pages in that category and optional additional text. Browse is a tool to help navigating the Category namespace, which if not well-coordinated leads to problems. But categories are a powerful way to organize effort, unify content, manage projects and maintain Wikiversity. See FAQ/Categorization for more information.

Help:
Pages in the help namespace provide information about how to edit Wikiversity webpages and participate within the Wikiversity community. See: Help:Contents. There are also some similar pages in the "Wikiversity:" namespace such as Glossary and others in the main namespace such as Introduction to Wikiversity. Wikiversity also has pages about how to edit other Wikimedia Foundation sister projects, see Wikipedia service-learning courses.

Collection:
Pages in the collection namespace operate similarly to English Wikipedia's books since both use the Book tool. Collections are bundles of resources on a given topic meant to be printed and shared in book form.

Talk:
Except for special pages, each namespace has an associated talk namespace. The talk namespaces are designated by adding talk: to the normal prefix. For example, the talk namespace associated with the main article namespace has the prefix Talk:, while the talk namespace associated with the user namespace has the prefix User talk:. Most of the pages in the talk namespaces are used to discuss changes to the corresponding page in the associated namespace. Pages in the user talk namespace are used to leave messages for a particular user. The user talk namespace is special in that, whenever a user's talk page is edited, that user will see a box saying "You have new messages" on every page that they view until they visit their talk page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikiversity:Namespaces


text:
User:Reswik

Hi, my main information page is Reswik on Wikipedia. This account is my Wikiversity id for doing research, policy, theory, and editing talk and work. I may use Doug (old) here for learning and teaching work, sometime. Doug

title: User:Reswik


text:
User talk:Reswik

Comments?

Thanks
Thanks for your addition to the "department" template and related editing! --JWSchmidt 16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Welcome - having fun with this department/area work inspite of having to change direction a few times due to the process being in the midst state of change. :) Reswik 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What does "droping of departments is underway" mean? --JWSchmidt 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, I meant about "dropping of departments" that some people have start moving naming of departments from "Subject/Topic: Department of X" to "Topic:X". I meant that a number of schools now have the topic usage in place.  "Topic" seemed awkward for the "Department" context.  But it is not awkward in the case of Topic:X as in Topic:Physics. That is all. No pages beind dropped. Just noticed that the toipc renaming was well underway :) Reswik 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "moving naming of departments from "Subject/Topic: Department of X" to "Topic:X""<-- just take care with the terminology. Names of pages for departments start with the "Topic:" prefix. A particular "topic" can still be called a department when discussing it on Wikiversity pages. The word "department" does not need to be in the name of the page. --JWSchmidt 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "Area Description" <-- do you object to using the term "division"? --JWSchmidt 16:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Division is a similar meaning as Department -- structural. Some universities use Division as a main subsection of a school -- like Division of Physical Sciences. Area is a more flexible. Was trying that. If we use anything structural, like "department" or "division" then I think those pages should actually be in a school or other structural sounding namespace.  If we use Topic namespace then some way of referring to Subjects as areas of study or subjects of study is perhaps a way to go -- more like a scholarly association or network than a department.  We could even call it the sociology association (or network) -- inviting different and flexible kinds of interaction from a dept naming. Reswik 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the "Topic:" namespace does not "sound" particularly "structural". It was an arbitrarily selected term that was meant to sound "neutral" and allow room for most small organizational units of Wikiversity. I think of it this way: Schools are large organizational units that are concerned with particular topic areas and academic subjects. "Division" was also an arbitrary choice; it is not better than "area", but it was what came to mind first when the choice had to be made. --JWSchmidt 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * This is not a strict distinction: It seems that there can be at least two kinds of structure that could be organized -- hierarchical and network based. Topic and area inviting network organization.  Brick-and-mortar terms such as school and division/department invite hierarchical organization. Just a thought: I wonder if it would interesting to restart and develop topic (department) pages using a topic/area/network approach? I might make up an alternate naming page/policy to suggest that. Depends on how much time it takes! Reswik 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that a network of categories and portals can provide all the additional flexibility that we need. --JWSchmidt 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree as I think more could be done to encourage creativity and networking. I reply similarly on your talk page. Reswik 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

portal network
History: the "School:" and "Topic:" namespaces were created in order to set up a hierarchical system of organizing the many pages of academic topics being imported from Wikibooks. I wanted an additional namespace that would be more flexible and allow topics that are hard to fit into conventional categories of academic topics. I requested that Sebmol setup the "Portal:" namespace and he did so. I hope you find that portals provide the kind of "network" flexibility that you want. In my estimation, with time, a network of portals and categories (similar to how it exists at Wikipedia) will become much more important to Wikiversity than the "School:" and "Topic:" system. --JWSchmidt 17:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Seems it could be so with portals. :) In thinking about the social theory and social research portals, various interdisciplinary connections are arising and yet depth of approach is likely in the interdiscip. pages and projects too. Thanks, Reswik 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity prefix
Hi and thanks for your edits on the logo page on meta. For your information, Wikiversity links can me made from any other wikimedia project using the prefix v: (as b: for wikibooks). guillom 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for tip. :) Reswik 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the advantage
(conceptual alt) Area -> Subject -> Topic -> Lesson or: (conceptual alt2) Area -> Field -> Topic -> Lesson

If we are going to change namespaces at this point, there has to be a clear reason for doing so. Are you saying that terms like "area", "subject" and "field" have clear advantages over "school"? Are you suggesting adding two more namespaces? --JWSchmidt 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I reply on your talk page. :) Reswik 23:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"School/Topic is a cognitively dissonant connection." <-- I do not understand wh anyone should be having problems understanding that a school concerns itself with certain academic topics. The problem was that people were making contadictory "turf claims" about what was a school.

 * The problem, which several have noted, is that "Topic" is being used to refer to Departments. This can be solved by adding another namespace. 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"School is quite variable in meaning and invites everybody to form a school" <-- I think this was the original intent. I am only concerned with trying to organize the relatively few schools that are listed at Wikibooks. Beyond that, I think the community will grdually sort out its own system.

"Area/Field have variability but could be defined ahead of time such that Area relates to the 10 or 20 or 30 largest study areas in the University" <-- Right now we are using portals for this high-level set of topic areas. I think portals can patch all problems with the school system that the community developed at Wikibooks.

If you want to introduce one or more new namespaces, craft a proposal. Since it is a big change for the wiki, I'd suggest posting a note about it to the Colloquium.--JWSchmidt 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, I'll make a simple proposal to add a new namespace to replace Topic. Reswik 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Schools
I think we should support a list of schools that looks something like the one that the Wikiversity community developed at Wikiboosk. --JWSchmidt 03:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Portals seem to be at the top of a structural hierarchy now" <-- Yes, I think these portals are the top of the hierarchy and should be on the "Browse" page.

"a space for networking categories" <-- Any category can have a portal.

"I thought creative cross-cutting of content in creative ways would happen in the portal namespace -- such as with develpling social research and social theory portals (which cut across humanities, social science, medicine, professions (law, architecture) etc." <-- Wikipedia participants are free to create new categories. Every category can have its contents describd and organized by a portal.

"major Portals being top of the structure hiearchy ..... are major schools needed on browse page?" <-- Why make people navigate by way of the portals if they can just spot what they are looking for in a list of major schools?

"the main space of the network playful major categories? Or are portals both structural top and network top? If so, that is an interesting approach and something to consider." <-- In my view, portals could have done everything that Wikiversity needs...that is, I view the "School:" and "Topic:" pages as specialized portals for conventional academic units of administration. The "Portal:" namespace can be used to organize everything that does not easily fit into conventional academic units of administration. --JWSchmidt 03:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"all sorts of schools (many of which will be departments) will be there on the browse page" <-- In my estimation, Wikiversity should not be bound by any particular conventional view about the distinction between a "school" and what is a department". That distinction depends on how much effort you put into you exploration of the subject. If a group of Wikiversity participants wants to create a "school of beetle studies", fine. Yes, most people in the world will think it is silly, but there are so many beetles and so much research has been done on them that it would probaly be very easy to form dozens of departments in a school of beetle studies. I would say, as long as you have a set of specialized departments that are organized unde rthe umbrella of a school, you have a school.

"there will be eventually a hundred and more schools (departments) up there" <-- If "up there" means on the Browse page, I hope not. In my view, the "Major schools" heading should be taken seriously. This is the first place people will go for a quick guide to Wikiversity content. It should not be cluttered. --JWSchmidt 04:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What I mean about 100s of schools on browse was: Per the wikibooks page, there will be at least 50 schools (major schools) up on browse. Some new or not universally accepted or known subjects/departments will think the wikibooks list doesn't seem to be an exhaustive list. So, there will probably be at least a 100 "major" schools eventually on browse. But, 100 is not a bit deal - 100s was exaggeration. Calling 50-100 schools "major" seems strange to ear when we had just a dozen divisions as top level schools a day or two ago. But those are over in portals now, so it is not strange in the current context. The new image on the browse page works better - to indicate that departments don't go under "major" schools (really, it is top level schools, which fit now under portals). Reswik 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Reswik 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mottos
Thanks for listing my ideas at the mottos contest. I appreciate your efforts. Mirwin 04:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Welcome. Thank you. :) Reswik 08:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Main page redesign
David, It seems you were correct, for several reasons, about waiting a few days to let the new main page design settle. The ability to edit the template needs to be there. And, the extra usability issues need to be checked. I moved the longish discussion we had today (which was very worth the while once I understood where you were coming from) and I created a link to this: Wikiversity talk:Main Page/Design. I thought the amount of text in the string might discourage further comments on the new design -- but people can readily access it if they want. Thanks again for you input, Reswik 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much for taking my concerns seriously. I'm about to upload a revised version of the page.  Please let me know what you think.  —David Levy 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You're welcome. Regarding the edits you made to the new design: I agree with a few and disagree with others. I did figure out how to use some of the templates. But, I could not recapture some of the elements you took out, so I reverted your edits. Elements that I think are useful or nice in this design are:  The center menu; The white background for all text blocks (key); The blue background in header; The brown background in titles.   Your version was too compact and not enough whitespace.  I'm not sure I like that direction. There must be something in between or perhaps another direction. I wonder about creating more space for a banner.  This is going to take work. Reswik 05:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * PS. I moved your version with a few of my edits to this alternate here: Main Page/Design 2. It is a distinct enough version that I think it is a fork. Reswik 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for preserving my version. I spent hours working on it (based upon the comments expressed thus far), and I would like to solicit feedback from the community.

 * I moved the menu to an obvious location that otherwise is completely empty. The background isn't white because the page isn't in the article namespace, but I believe that this can be corrected via simple CSS code (which I can't add because I'm not a sysop here).  I retained exactly the same shades of blue and brown; only the specific locations differ.  I actually attempted to include more whitespace than that, but I ran into some minor coding difficulty.  (There was either too much or too little.)

 * I await a response from the JAWS user, but I know for a fact that the headings need to contain  elements to be properly recognized. (This was what we failed to realize during the English Wikipedia main page redesign process.)  I managed to successfully integrate these into some of the design, and I was working on the rest when you reverted.  —David Levy 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * See the message I wrote at the top of Design (1)--in the page. I prefer the original arrangemetn of blue and brown. But, main point: The abscence of a sapce for a graphic is a flaw in this design. We need to save that right top space for that, I think. I think this is a fairly big issue for several reasons to discuss later. What do you think? Thanks for update and reply to more later. Time for bed for me. Reswik 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, the space below the header (where you wish to place the menu) would be a much better image location. Otherwise, the height would be extremely limited (because it would look bad to stretch the header very much).

 * Regarding the original arrangement of blue and brown, my version started out that way, but this resulted in an overwhelming amount of brown (because I eliminated the bi-color headings, which more than one user disliked). The logic behind my configuration is that readers tend to notice solid elements of the same color that they're already looking at.  If the left side of the page is predominantly blue and the right side is predominantly brown, they'll be more likely to concentrate on one and ignore the other.  By placing blue section headings below a brown header (and vice-versa), the users' eyes will naturally be drawn to both sides of the page.

 * I forgot to mention that I also increased some font sizes to 100%. For the sake of usability, I think that it's important for this to be the minimum.

 * As for the templates, I actually needed to create copies of my own (because I didn't want to edit the existing ones). This setup is far from ideal, and most of the code really should be integrated into the page proper (which I was unable to do).  Also, the editorial content needs to be transferred to templates (so that it can be edited without disturbing the main page).  This, of course, won't be important until a design is adopted.

 * I sincerely hope that we can wait enough time for my version to receive feedback from the community, as I did work very hard on it. —David Levy 06:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I was thinking there would be a reconciliation of your version and some of elements to keep from old version. But, try as I could I couldn't make a reconciliation of your version and some old design aspects in an hour or so. This synthesis can happen now or once it goes up or over time. Doesn't matter to me. Hopefully, someone else won't take the whole thing in another direction before this goes up. Plenty time for lots of directions to be explored. Anyway, I hoped for any remaining voting to be on the "old" new design version (which is more attractive at moment imho) and so I made the judgement call to put that back up top. I understand about time: I put in many hours on the current front page design and am sorry to see it supplanted so soon. About photo position -- I think the current one could work (that is on top of Design option 1 now) -- I replaced a note I had put there with a photo as place holder. Anyway, I just woke up to jot something and saw your note. Half awake - back to sleep soon.  Reply to more of your points tomorrow. Reswik 06:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Obviously, I prefer my version. ;)
 * In my opinion, placing the image in that position causes to header to become far too large. I'm tinkering with adding the photo to my version.
 * You saw the response from Graham87, who confirmed the existence of the  issue. He also cited a different problem that I forgot to mention: the presence of "hiddenStructure" markup!  I don't know how this CSS class managed to migrate over to Wikiversity, as lead developer Brion Vibber long ago determined that it's a very ugly (and unacceptable) hack that breaks things for many people (including users of some screen readers).  I don't remember which of the templates contains this code (and I can't seem to track it down now), but I removed it when I was compiling my version.  —David Levy 06:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm really gld you asked Graham to review. Thank goodness and he needs big thankyou. Good about the CSS catch too. I was going to ask you if you could fit the photo in your version. However, I kind of like a lot of white space... Perhaps I will go and stare at white space for a bit--It's too late to be up. Btw, I put in a joke title and subtitle. Please revert if you think the effort at a few laughs is inappropriate. Reswik 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Nah, your joke is funny! If we can't have a little bit of fun with a sample page, we're taking ourselves way too seriously.  :)  —David Levy 07:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * As you might have noticed, Graham has confirmed that my version is more compatible with JAWS. (As far as I know, the last remaining technical step is to incorporate and tags into the right-hand column.)  —David Levy 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey David, I think we should go with posting Design 2 when all usability issues are resolved on that. It is too much work to verify 2 designs. Then, we can revise Design 2 for aesthetic issues over time. I think that is very much within the scope of what people were indicating: Revise Design 1 (which you did per advice points) and post that. Ongoing polishing for aesthetic issues can be delt with still while the design is active. So, please post a message on the main talk page when you think all usability issues are resolved. Since I've been involved as well in developing the alt design, I think I will post a message tomorrow on the Request custodian action page to request a sysop verify our reasoning and post the new design when they see your ok about usability issues being resolved (and if no strong oppositional criticisms come up). Do you agree with the points in this comment? Reswik 02:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I do. I'm aware of two remaining bugs: the lack of and tags in the right-hand column (required for proper navigation within JAWS) and a slight image display glitch in IE.  I'll try to recruit a coding expert (most likely from Wikipedia) to address these issues.  I'll also move the editorial content over to templates.
 * You may have noticed that the English Wikipedia's main page lacks a standard header in most skins. This is accomplished via MediaWiki:Monobook.js, and I suggest that we arrange for a sysop to implement the necessary code here.  —David Levy 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the mediawiki link. I posted a note (here: Request custodian action) requesting a sysop to check the new design discussion and post Design 2 if they agree (once the usability issues are resolved, noting that you will make a post about that). Reswik 17:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Likewise, I posted a request for editing assistance at the English Wikipedia's village pump. Hopefully, someone there will know how to fix the remaining bugs.  —David Levy 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Design 2 is growing on me. My number one wish is for more white space at the top in the title (and the photo to be resized). My preference is for the top title box to be 2xs as tall but 1.95xs as tall would be fine too. ;) Reswik 17:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I prefer the current appearance, but I didn't mind your change from three menu items per line to two as much as Rayc evidently did. Whichever variation the community prefers is fine by me.  :)  —David Levy 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great the usability issues are being resolved, but I'm dissapointed that Template:MainPageBox's style seems to be removed. If anything that template should be fixed and used. I'm also dissapointed in the removal of icons. Every major wikipedia project (with the exception of the english one) use icons on their main page. I see no reason we can't say that " is to Community as is to Wikitionary and  is to Wikiversity". But, ces't la vie. - Trevor MacInnis 17:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Trevor, thanks for sharing your concerns. I don't think any design element is set. I think you should discuss revising the template with David. (Or just do it and reintroduce in Design 2 once it is up on main page -- with a bit of explanatory information and invite people to try it.) As it is now I can sort of use it... I did not remove it. Whatever is most effective template wise for most editors is perhaps best. I don't know if what kind of templates will work best. I think we should have some system for skins. I did not remove the icons and I am rather neutral about using that set of icons. I do prefer to see some sort of icons (as they would help navigation) but another differently styled set of icons might be better. Perhaps we can have an icon contest... :) Reswik 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Personally, I don't strongly oppose the use of icons in general, but I do oppose the use of these particular icons (which are a bit childish and seem rather disconnected from the sections' themes.) I'll note, however, that at Wikipedia, more users than not opposed the use of any icons for this purpose—even the sober ones that I proposed as a compromise.  I realize that this isn't Wikipedia, but it's reasonable to assume that a similar consensus would emerge here if we had enough users from which to draw a comparable sample.  (More users participated in the Wikipedia discussion than have registered accounts here.)  —David Levy 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, Is design 2 read yet to post? If not, how long do you think we should wait to resolve the remaining usability issues before posting? Reswik 02:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, no one at Wikipedia has responded to my requests for editing assistance. I'm going to seek help elsewhere and continue experimenting with the code to the best of my limited ability.
 * I can't specify a time frame, as we absolutely need to fix these problems before posting the new design. (Otherwise, we'll break part of the page in IE and JAWS, with the latter bug reducing accessibility for visually impaired users.)  —David Levy 05:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the update. I agree that these issues need to be fixed. Could it help to mention to the Wikipedia people a second time that the posting of our new front page design is *still* waiting on resolving these issues?  Reswik 13:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It actually will be the third time (as I've already tried posting such an update), but I'll give it a shot. :)  —David Levy 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Great. If nothing comes of this soon, I wonder if there is place to ask for help. Meta? A mediawiki project page (if this is what the issue is)? And, do you think it would help to post a call for help in the colloquium and the main talk page? Reswik 23:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, it appears that an anonymous editor responded to my third post. I still have a bit of testing to perform, but the two major bugs seem to have been fixed.  One of the changes introduced a very minor display bug (tiny border gaps in Firefox), but this is barely worth worrying about (and certainly not cause for further delay).  After I've verified that the code is sound, I'll update the design with the missing content and move the appropriate sections over to templates.  At that point, we should be ready to roll.  :)  —David Levy 23:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Wonderful! Great news. I just edited the browse and "What is Wikipedia" text blocks on Design 2 -- had a few ideas recently about how to integrate the new text at top of main page there. Please post a note on the Request custodian action page when Design 2 is ready to go up. (Oh, unless I'm in a design mood, I'm not going to start in right away with revisions on new design page(s) for the masthead/top page design. It will be good to wait a bit and see if people post any nostes of reaction to the new design.) Thanks again very much for all your work on this, Reswik 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Reswik! :)  —David Levy 00:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I sincerely apologize for failing to get back to you. I got tied up with a bunch of stuff at Wikipedia and in the real world, and I totally forgot that you were waiting for my go-ahead.  I'm glad to see that the new main page design made has made its debut.  Sorry again.  —David Levy 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey, it's ok. :) Do you have any remaining questions about usability of the new design? --Reswik 02:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I don't. I've now viewed the page in Safari for OS X, and everything seems to check out.  :)  —David Levy 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV vs. Confessions
I thought with your comments at Multiple points of view, you might like Confessions better than WV:NPOV TimNelson 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for heads up. I look forward to discussing NPOV, Confessions, etc. Reswik 17:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Now both Confessions and NPOV are merged into Disclosures. TimNelson 12:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Just pointing out that "Multiple points of view" has been moved to Multiple points of view - but you already knew that! Just explaining the strange "you have messages" sign.. :-) Cormaggio beep 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I mean to get back to that MPOV page and some of the Wikiversity policy discussions and whatnot at some point. Snowed with my research work for a bit... --Reswik

featured mainspace
I was wondering, the featured content will start being discussed. Is there any room for future addition to the mainpage for something like that?--Rayc | (Talk) 05:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes. In the new design, Main Page/Design 2, one could simply add a new box or sub-box in either of the columns -- as long as it was a shortish bit of text or a list of links and not a whole bunch of text. I don't know if we have too much room for featured pages and departments and such. I think the page is already getting long. A separate page for featured items might be good -- could even think of it as "page 2" in the online catalog. I'm hoping Design 2 is posted sometime soon. Reswik 11:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, I did some copyediting of the community and communication right sidebox on the main page today. Half of the items in that box are redundant with a similar left side box (minus the explanitory blurbs). It occurs to me that those boxes could be combined - with the left box having perhaps some explanitory material.  That would leave space on the right sidebar (with the community box mostly moved over to the left sidebar) for a featured learning project. The current photo space could be turned into a featured photo of a learning situation. Sound interesting? Perhaps we could move this idea to the colloquium --Reswik 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

main page question
"provides various communication media"What are these "various communication media"? --JWSchmidt 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * First, it seems quite limiting to state that Wikiversity is a website on the main page and other prominent pages. Wikiversity is a multidimensional social organization dedicated to learning, teaching, and probably research and services. Hence, Wikiversity is part network, part circle of communities (including an editor community and various learning communities), part collection of learning groups using various learning projects and more. To say that Wikiversity is a website is like saying that a university is a collection of buildings. But, even that "technological" description is not accurate as Wikiversity users work through other media and forums and may increasingly do so.
 * Regarding your question - Though Wikiversity is new, there are a variety of communication media and forums:
 * actual media and forums: listserv, irc, wikiversity website, pre-wikimania conferences (programming and a possible social science research pre-meeting conference mentioned at Wikimania 2006)
 * possible media and forums: email circles, class listservs, meetups, seminars, online conferences (perhaps through wikimedia website - perhaps elsewhere - mentioned as possibility at Wikimania 2006), various other online and offline media (newsgroups, blogs/blikis, offline hard/digital copies of learning materials and tools for use in needy communities).
 * Note: The "Ways to Communicate" subsection of the community portal, Community_Portal, lists some ways to communicate and probably will list more over time. It seems to me that media and forums on and offline will only expand as Wikiversity grows.
 * The seeds of these communication and meeting options could be edited and moved to a relevant discussion page that addresses types of communication and community forums. Wherever the statement is made that "Wikiversity is a website," I hope this is edited soon to reflect the idea that Wikiversity uses various communication media and that these and the variety forums for learning may grow over time. -- Reswik 02:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If we need to mention things like chat channels and Wikiversity as a multidimensional social organization we can do so without turning a factually correct sentence into a factually incorrect sentence. Wikiversity participants make use of a mailing list, an IRC chat channel and will no doubt have meetups. It is wrong to say that Wikiversity provides such communication media. In contrast, if you remove the website then all that is left of Wikiversity is an idea. The sentence, "Wikiversity provides various communication media and a wiki website where anyone can edit the pages," is factually wrong and misleading. Saying "Wikiversity is a website" in no way contradicts or deminishes the idea that "Wikiversity is a multidimensional social organization dedicated to learning, teaching, and probably research and services". Many people come to Wikiversity and do not understand that it is a wiki website, what a wiki is, or the fundamental idea that they can edit the pages. The desire to mention other aspects of Wikiversity is not a good reason reason to take the one sentence on the main page that mentions the essential facts about editing the wiki and change it to a sentence that is wrong and distracts readers from the points that the sentence is trying to make. --JWSchmidt 04:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Stating that a main medium of collaborative learning and teaching in Wikiversity is by using a wiki is a good point to feature. However, we have a significant difference of opinion. This is an important issue. The statement that Wikiversity is a website was actually factually incorrect. What I edited was more correct. The contention of that "Wikiversity is a website" should not be in what is an edited version of a mission statement at the top of the main page. The Wikimedia foundation and hence the Wikiversity organizational entity does provide a listserv.  Wikimedia does provide Wikimania -- an in-person media/forum.  Irc and listervers are noted as ways to participate on front page and community portal (hence the link there). Other media will be provided. This difference of opinion needs to be discussed further. I see you edited the main page statement. That moves towards describing Wikiversity as using wiki as a major process without using the limiting statement that it is a website. I think we need to further revise how we describe the vision, mission and practices of Wikiversity and that is underway on the Mission page. -- Reswik 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ps. By the way, I added these sentences to the top of the What is Wikiversity? page weeks ago because I didn't think the use of wiki was well explicated there: "The basic definition of a wiki is software that allows collaborative creation of online documents. Wikiversity combines wiki technology and culture with a variety of learning communities and projects." I think those sentences could be refined. So, I obviously do agree that we need to explain the use and importance wiki. But, it is an error in classification to say that an online "university" (or learning organization) is a website. Wikiversity provides and uses a website and various other online and offline media. This is an important distinction. It is an online community/network/learning organization (or network). More work needs to go into defining collectively that Wikiversity is a social organization for learning & teaching which uses online media, and wiki technology and culture primarily, at this point. Reswik 11:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

featured mainspace
Sorry, I didn't notice it on may main page! It wasn't on my talk page. Yes, I was thinking of someway for getting people from the main page to active projects. It's looks like browse is doing that now, and portal isn't that much visited--Rayc 04:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto
I think learning by doing would be an acceptable motto- it motivates me, and it describes wikiversity. It is mentioned a lot; was it ever proposed?--Hillgentleman 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the suggestion. This option could be suggested as an option in the learn and teach motto discussion section. -- Reswik 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Learning to learn a wiki way
Hi Doug, Cormaggio suggested that you might be interested in helping out with the Learning to learn a wiki way project. This project aims to discover effective methods of developing active learning projects. I've recently updated the Learning to learn a wiki way project page and kicked of the talk section. I've begun recruiting people by asking them why they are interested in the project and what they want from the project. Could you help out with invitations to your contacts. Mystictim 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I was reviewing this talk page and I am sorry to have overlooked your post. Been quite busy elsewhere. Thanks for the heads up about this. Sounds interesting. I'll check it out as time allows. --Reswik 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Research
Hey, I'm terribly intrigued by the research aspect of Wikiversity, particulary in creating a medium for bringing external research to the Wiki community. I figured you would be the best guy to talk to :). I'm a little apprehensive since Wikia has begun the same idea and seems to have progressed quite far with it (again, in external research). So here I have to ask, in essence are we trying to create the same service or do we have our own angle?

Personally, I envision researchers bringing their research to Wikiversity and publishing it as they would with any other Journal. As in all other Wikimedia, we would present broad topics within which the research is included (entitled Journals, for example Journal of Physics), and as Wikiversity Research continued to expand we would incorporate journals of further and further narrowed topics.

Work within each individual journal would be categorized by extent of their completeness, for example there would a be a section for research in progress wherein the work thus far would be presented and peers could assist the author with problems or establish connections between different research projects. A second section for completed research papers that have yet to be reviewed by peers and/or an editor of that particular journal. The final section would be of 'published' research papers, those that have been deemed by the peers and/or the editor of that specific journal as finalized products that can now be utilized by the academic community as knowledge. A fourth section that included Dissertations and Thesises (Thesi?, 'Thesis's?) would also be greatly useful, especially since currently they are mostly secluded to the universities in which they were produced.

Wikiversity Research would of course offer assistance and guidelines on how to conduct research, how to publish (both with Wikiversity and independent Journals), network with the portion of Wikiversity that is creating the section on Grants, and extensive interfacing between research (most coveted, bibliographies that actually link you to the various research papers listed in the bibliography).

As for format of research paper presentation, I believe it would be best to draw from the formats presented in all other Wikimedia, which is broad enough that it can be applied for all of our fields (physical sciences, social sciences, studies of literature and linguistics, mathematics, etc. etc.). This would behoove us in several ways, first it would allow a cohesive trans-Wikimedia format, and second it would let us avoid the narrowness of such subject-specific guidelines as APA or MLA. As Wikiversity Research advances, we can always have the experts in each field of academia provide subject-specific details to our formats, while adhereing to the overarching template. Although we may wish to simply retain a very generalized template, and forego the sub-specilizations of format for the sake of universality.

I must admit I'm not quite knowegeable about copyright law dealing with research papers and articles, but I certainly wouldn't mind authors publishing their research papers on Wikiversity as well as having the same works published by corporate journals. Ideally, it would be amazing if we could somehow begin to incorporate and offer already published work, but that seems quite impossible. I believe that is why I am so drawn to this particular aspect of the project, the academic world seems so fragmented. For any given topic, even something as narrow as Cell Molecular Biology, there are literally dozens of different journals, each requiring a subscription, each cointaining mainly exclusive articles and papers. The only feasible way to access this glut of knowledge is through a university, which is usually only available to students and faculty. I see the potential of Wikiversity Research to help bridge that chasm in academia, to bring together researchers from all arenas, at all stages of research, to collaborate, to learn from eachother, to help eachother, to publish, etc., etc.

Anyways, so I guess that's both my desires and some general ideas I have about the project. If I can help in any way, or you have any suggestions, I'd greatly appreciate it. So thanks for your time, I really didn't intend to write so much :P, and I can't wait to work with you. --Relex 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC) P.s. It might be better if you respond on this page...

 * Sorry for the delay in responding -- been rather busy elsewhere and will be so for awhile. There is a lot of potential in Wikiversity for all sorts of cross-linkages. But, we are just laying groundwork now. I think it could be helpful for research networking and initiatives to develop in multiple online spaces in the wikimedia world.

 * I don't know if we are to the point of developing journals or collections of articles yet. I think having conferences and then coallating conference proceedings would be one first step. See the post below this one (on my talk page) by Cormaggio for initial thoughts in this direction. At some point in the not too distant future, some of these topics may blossum into more widespread discussions. Keeping an eye on the research listserv and Cormaggio's talk page would be a good place to notice that. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, --Reswik 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More research :-)
Hi Doug, long time, eh? I just thought I'd stop by to mention a project that I think you might be interested in commenting on - or even participating in. Developing Wikiversity through action research is a broadly-conceived project (it's to feed into my dissertation, but it's also fundamentally about developing Wikiversity - obviously, collaboratively). Maybe you might have some ideas of your own.

I was also thinking about what we talked about at Wikimania - ie a Wikiversity conference. I was thinking of doing something like this in the coming Wikimania (if I can get funding to go) - do you think you might make it? (If you didn't know, it's gonna be in Taipei - details here.) Or, do you think it might be worth doing at another time? Do you think a virtual conference might be doable/useful? Or, at least, some sort of IRC meeting - perhaps, on a reasonably regular basis? Just thinking out loud here - but I think one or a few of these ideas could really serve to move things forward - as I think both of us envisaged. Let me know what you think.. :-) Cormaggio beep 19:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi Cormac :) A few thoughts: I think it would be good to explore various participatory methods in Wikiversity. That's one reason I outlined some ethnography content pages gere, and I look forward to getting back to those sometime. I'll check out the action research and related Wv pages sometime in the next few months, as time allows. Sort of snowed under now.

 * Regarding conferences: I wonder if yearly or bi-yearly online conference(s) might be good first steps for wikimedia research. Then, when a research community gets more interactive, that could be the basis for research pre-conferences for Wikimania 2008 or 2009 or whenever. However, if someone wants to dive in and organize a pre-conference without testing the water with an online conference, perhaps enough people would show up to make it successful. Perhaps this is a question to ask via individual emails and on the listserv: to see what people prefer. --Reswik 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Motto and slogan
(copied answer from Colloquium)

A bit belated this - but I think advertising on any other project than Wikiversity would be pretty pointless at this stage - we'd be starting from scratch. But yes, why haven't we advertised on Beta? In any case, I've re-added it to the sitenotice here. Cormaggio beep 12:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for mentioning the contests on Beta. This seems to have drawn some participation today.
 * I don't think that promoting would mean starting from scratch. We could ask people to help with the last round. On the other hand, I have refrained from promotion personally as I did not feel comfortable doing that but also, I assumed it was better for people drawn to Wikiversity or involved in WV somehow to participate in this process. It is true that a contest is a way to invite participation. But, I think it is key that people with some sort of involvement will think in more reflective way about the mission of this project, which is quite distinct from other wikimedia projects. So, while participation has been unfolding very slow in this round of the contest (until today), I won't promote unless others suggest we do so. --Reswik 04:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Slogan
Hi,

I am a custodian on the French Wikiversity and I wonder what we should do of the slogan Set learning free. Are we supposed to translate it by ourselves and use it or should we ask for a translation on beta or meta ? Thanks for your help. Julien1311 talk 17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I have not been sure how to reply to your question. Is it appropriate for each language version to have a separate decision process about mottos? A discussion on beta about this is perhaps best. --Reswik 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania workshop
Hi Doug, I just added my plans for a workshop for this year's Wikimania - I saw you on Recentchanges, and thought you might be interested. Thanks again for all your work on the Motto contest. :-) Cormaggio talk 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, I'll take a look this weekend. :) --Reswik 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again, the workshop raises interesting topics for discussion. Couple of thoughts as a first impression: I'm not sure if 20 min is enough time for discussion. On topic 1, I think any of the foci could be enough to discuss, e.g., only discuss "learning activity". Finally, I wonder if most people attending will have a grasp of these issues.
 * I wonder if doing actual learning activities together for 1/2 the period (on workstations in small groups) and then having a feedback summary from those groups and then having a round robind discussion might be another type of workshop format that could work?
 * Given time limits, I wonder if considering how WV interfaces with other Wikimedia projects might be something to approach in another session. --Reswik 01:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks - I've copied your comments, and replied at Talk:Wikiversity workshop at Wikimania 2007 - I'll see anything you add there. :-) Cormaggio talk 10:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ping
Hey Reswik. Just wondering if you are still around and see if you have any thoughts about how Wikiversity has progressed from its genesis (per our conversations here) and how it looks now. --CQ 17:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Doug has been renamed to User:Doug (old)
FYI, This happened because User:BewareofDoug requested usurption. We can rename User:Doug (old) to something else if you like. See WV:CHU. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Reswik