text:
User:Countrymike/The Political Economy of Information

The Political Economy of Information
This is a post-graduate course I am taking at the University of Auckland taught by Dr. Joe Atkinson. I am using this page as a kind of personal learning space to take notes and aggregate references.

Readings
Articles:

Dornfeld, Barry. (2003) Social Capital, Civic Space and the Digital Revolution: Emerging Strategies for Public Broadcasting. pp.215-225 in Michael P. McCauley, Eric E. Petersen, B. Lee Artz and Dee Dee Halleck (eds) Public Broadcasting and the Public Interest. New York. Available: http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pRJDOSIli08C&oi=fnd&pg=PA215&ots=w6NMXOlbQ7&sig=BH9BhLHtq1OebXNy4XDv6VYx0TQ Google book version has pages missing. Will get from library. Location: 	GENERAL LIBRARY Call Number: 	384.540973 M47 Status: 	Available

-

Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm by Yochai Benkler.

Wikipedia Articles:

 * Coase Theorem
 * The Problem of Social Cost

Books:

Baker, C. Edwin (2002) Media, Markets and Democracy.

Wikiworld - available from http://wikiworld.wordpress.com/

Media Concentration and Democracy (2007)
C. Edwin Baker

What are some examples of negative externalities in media production:

 * Blockbuster movies with extensive marketing tie-ins. Used to promote fast-food consumption, create wasteful products for kids often manufactured overseas in cheap markets, create waste for land-fills and problems with disposal.
 * Violent movies/tv - often argued to promote violence but this is debatable.

4 types of Democracy
elitist democracy considers that the complexity of contemporary politics requires the full-time dedication of elites or skilled experts rather than widespread popular involvement. In such a concept of democracy a free and independent press is necessary to expose or act as a deterrent to the corruption of these elites; but it is not necessarily required to promote intelligent political involvement or opportunities to reflect upon politics for the populace at large (Baker 2002: 130-133). Politics to the elite theorist of democracy is often the means towards establishing a commonality of interest among constituents, and it thereby devalues any consideration of conflicts of class, gender, or race. The most essential function of the press, besides its provision of the watchdog function, is to provide the elite the information necessary to resolve conflicts should they arise. Baker acknowledges though that this conception of democracy has minimal popular appeal and he spends few pages addressing it in any detail; mostly his interests lie in his descriptions of the next three types of democratic theory that he refers to as “participatory theories”.

Liberal pluralism, or interest-group democracy, recognizes that each person has his or her own interests and that people form groups which share their similar interests and with which they identify. The unique interests and values of individuals and groups will often conflict with those values held by other individuals and groups. Liberal pluralism is the recognition of the inevitability of diversity of opinions and of the vastly different values held by both individuals and groups in society but argues that a healthy democracy should provide the mechanisms “most likely to take into account and properly weigh all interests” (Baker 2002: 137). Such interests should have an effect on determining government policy as groups present their interests and lobby policy makers. Media in such an environment is expected to accommodate this marketplace of contested ideas and give voice to as many groups within the society as possible.

Republican democracy claims that the liberal pluralist approach ignores the idea that people, to varying degrees, may not be so narrowly self-interested, and may in fact be oriented towards a concern for others, and spend time working towards a conception of a  “common good.” Republican democratic theory suggests that peoples political participation is often motivated by concerns for justice and a better society for everyone and that the liberal emphasis on narrow self-interest is indicative of the extent to which politics is currently corrupt (Baker 2002: 140). The significant feature of the republican theory for Baker is the central notion of the public realm -- the discursive stage on which the formulation and exchange of ideas around the “common good” takes place. Just what shape or form this “common good” may take over time is something that republican theory admits is open to debate and so it is in this need to negotiate the position of this “good” for any particular historical era that the entry of media and media policy come into play.

Complex democracy is a term coined by Baker to describe a theoretical foundation for democracy that is a mixture and balance of both liberal pluralist and republican conceptions. Baker's premise acknowledges that both altruistic and selfless impulses are present in peoples social life and that a democracy can and should include processes by which they can “clarify both their individual preferences and their conception of more general common goods” (Baker 2002: 143). For this to happen pluralist groups require their own “public spheres” and media in which they can develop their own identities and strategies. Groups can then bargain with each other over conceptions and definitions of common goods. Each of the participatory democratic theories has a particular vision of how the media, particularly the press should operate within it for the functioning of a more perfect democracy. For liberal pluralists ownership of media at the group level is crucial as only their own media can be relied on to develop media relevant to their own needs (Baker 2002: 148). For republican democracy the press should be both inclusive of all and promote reflective and balanced coverage of issues in order to stimulate public discourse. Complex democracy aims to promote both bargaining power for groups as well as media entities that can support larger societal consideration of “common goods.”

Definitions and Concepts
see:
 * Externality
 * Public Good
 * Normative - Normative economics deals with questions of what sort of economic policies ought to be pursued, in order to achieve desired economic outcomes.
 * Rational Ignorance - Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so.

Seminar Topic
Under what conditions might public service broadcasting survive and prosper in the face of neo-liberal policy-making and multi-media convergence? Under what conditions is it more likely to wither and die?

Readings

 * James Curran - on the BBC

Definitions of Public Service Broadcasting
There is no standard definition of what public broadcasting is exactly, although a number of official bodies have attempted to pick out the key characteristics. Public service broadcasters generally transmit programming that aims to improve society by informing viewers. In contrast, the aim of commercial outlets is to provide popular shows that attract an audience—therefore leading to higher prices when advertising is sold. For this reason, the ideals of public broadcasting are often hard to reconcile with commercial goals.

The Broadcasting Research Unit lists the following as major goals or characteristics of a public broadcaster:

 * 1) Geographic universality — The stations' broadcasts are available nationwide, with no exception. This criterion is failed by Five in the UK, which a substantial minority of the population cannot receive. Generally, the "nationwide" criterion is satisfied by either having member stations across the country (as is the case with PBS in the United States) or, as is the case with most other public broadcasters around the world, the broadcaster owning sufficient transmitters to broadcast nationwide.
 * 2) Catering for all interests and tastes — as exemplified by the BBC's range of minority channels (BBC Two, BBC Radio 3, etc.).
 * 3) Catering for minorities — much as above, but with racial and linguistic minorities. (for example S4C in Wales, BBC Asian Network, Radio-Canada, Australia's SBS).
 * 4) Concern for national identity and community — this essentially means that the stations should in the most part commission programmes from within the country, which may be more expensive than importing shows from abroad.
 * 5) Detachment from vested interests and government — in other words, programming should be impartial, and the stations should not be subject to control by advertisers or government. Even when a station is removed from corporate and government interests, critics argue that it may nonetheless have a bias towards the values of certain groups (e.g., the middle class, leftist politics, etc.).
 * 6) One broadcasting system to be directly funded by the corpus of users — For example, the licence fee in the case of the BBC, or member stations asking for donations in the case of the US's PBS/NPR.
 * 7) Competition in good programming rather than numbers — quality is the prime concern with a true public service broadcaster. Of course, in practice, ratings wars are rarely concerned with quality, although that may depend on how you define the word "quality".
 * 8) Guidelines to liberate programme makers and not restrict them — in the UK, guidelines, and not laws, govern what a programme maker can and cannot do, although these guidelines can be backed up by hefty penalties.

Some of these definition points may not be acceptable everywhere. For example in the United States public broadcasting may see part of its mission to bring in foreign shows, e.g. shows from the CBC/Radio-Canada or the BBC, since such shows are not commonly aired by American commercial broadcasters.

An alternative model for implementing public service media exists, known as Citizen Media. As it relates to broadcasting, this generally means a radio or television outlet which has some sort of public access, that is, most or much of the programming is created by members of the public which receives the programming. This can be in the form of community radio, campus radio, and public access television, although the latter is not a form of over-the-air broadcasting, as it is only available on cable television systems.

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_broadcasting#Defining_public_broadcasting

Public Service Broadcasting (PSB)is broadcasting made, financed and controlled by the public, for the public. It is neither commercial nor state-owned, free from political interference and pressure from commercial forces. Through PSB, citizens are informed, educated and also entertained. When guaranteed with pluralism, programming diversity, editorial independence, appropriate funding, accountability and transparency, public service broadcasting can serve as a cornerstone of democracy.

UNESCO, http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1525&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Public service broadcasting, whether run by public organisations or privately-owned companies, differs from broadcasting for purely commercial or political reasons because of its specific remit, which is essentially to operate independently of those holding economic and political power. It provides the whole of society with information, culture, education and entertainment; it enhances social, political and cultural citizenship and promotes social cohesion. To that end, it is typically universal in terms of content and access; it guarantees editorial independence and impartiality; it provides a benchmark of quality; it offers a variety of programmes and services catering for the needs of all groups in society and it is publicly accountable. These principles apply, whatever changes may have to be introduced to meet the requirements of the twenty-first century.

Council of Europe, http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta04/EREC1641.htm

The 1986 Peacock Commisssion investigating funding of the BBC concluded that there was no 'simple dictionary definition' of public service broadcasting.

“The key aspects of public service broadcasting are typically considered to be the provision of universal coverage, application of broadcasting standards, promotion of national identity, democratic support and supplementary (i.e. non-commercial) programming.”

Tony Ryall, NZ Minister of State Owned Enterprises. 1990

http://executive.govt.nz/96-99/minister/ryall/tvnz/psb/index.htm

“The government has reasserted the importance of public service broadcasting as part of the push to develop New Zealand’s national identity,” Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey.

http://www.newfuture.govt.nz/media.html


text:
Biblical Survey (literal-normal)

Center of Biblical Survey

Welcome to the Center of Biblical Survey, a part of the Department of Biblical Studies. This department is intended to provide both a sweeping overview of scripture, and detailed, in-depth studies of the sixty-six books within. While not espousing any particular set of doctrines, the study will follow a literal-normal textual analysis of Scripture, as noted to the right.

Contributions to the department are both welcome and encouraged. Before creating or editing content, however, please read the section entitled "Contributing"

Topical Overview of Scripture

 * General Overview
 * Salvation
 * A Tale of Two Cities
 * Christ Through the Bible

Old Testament

 * 1) Study of Genesis
 * 2) Study of Exodus
 * 3) Study of Leviticus
 * 4) Study of Numbers
 * 5) Study of Deuteronomy
 * 6) Study of Joshua
 * 7) Study of Judges
 * 8) Study of Ruth
 * 9) Study of 1 Samuel
 * 10) Study of 2 Samuel
 * 11) Study of 1 Kings
 * 12) Study of 2 Kings
 * 13) Study of 1 Chronicles
 * 14) Study of 2 Chronicles
 * 15) Study of Ezra
 * 16) Study of Nehemiah
 * 17) Study of Esther
 * 18) Study of Job
 * 19) Study of Psalms
 * 20) Study of Proverbs
 * 21) Study of Ecclesiastes
 * 22) Study of Song of Solomon
 * 23) Study of Isaiah
 * 24) Study of Jeremiah
 * 25) Study of Lamentations
 * 26) Study of Ezekiel
 * 27) Study of Daniel
 * 28) Study of Hosea
 * 29) Study of Joel
 * 30) Study of Amos
 * 31) Study of Obadiah
 * 32) Study of Jonah
 * 33) Study of Micah
 * 34) Study of Nahum
 * 35) Study of Habakkuk
 * 36) Study of Zephaniah
 * 37) Study of Haggai
 * 38) Study of Zechariah
 * 39) Study of Malachi

New Testament

 * 1) Study of Matthew
 * 2) Study of Mark
 * 3) Study of Luke
 * 4) Study of John
 * 5) Study of Acts
 * 6) Study of Romans
 * 7) Study of 1 Corinthians
 * 8) Study of 2 Corinthians
 * 9) Study of Galatians
 * 10) Study of Ephesians
 * 11) Study of Philippians
 * 12) Study of Colossians
 * 13) Study of 1 Thessalonians
 * 14) Study of 2 Thessalonians
 * 15) Study of 1 Timothy
 * 16) Study of 2 Timothy
 * 17) Study of Titus
 * 18) Study of Philemon
 * 19) Study of Hebrews
 * 20) Study of James
 * 21) Study of 1 Peter
 * 22) Study of 2 Peter
 * 23) Study of 1 John
 * 24) Study of 2 John
 * 25) Study of 3 John
 * 26) Study of Jude
 * 27) Study of Revelation

Contributing
In the effort to produce a unified curriculum for study, a few editing guidelines/policies have been established. If you need to revise one of the policies, please discuss it on the guidelines' talk page to make sure it reflects consensus.

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

title: Biblical Survey (literal-normal)


text:
Assistant teacher course/Individual curriculum

Individual curriculum
The goal of this course phase is to inspire the participants and to allow them to be creative. There is no learning goal for this course phase, the purpose is just to allow discussion about individual curricula. Some of the ideas presented here may be too difficult for the participants and their pupils but may be interesting as medium-term goals. A participant who can imagine himself as a teacher for a specific topic may be motivated to pursue the topic.

A school can support individual curricula with projects, voluntary courses and elective subjects that match the areas of interest of the pupils.

Individual curriculum: Topics
The offer of an individual curriculum can be organized in cooperation with a group of mentors or a mentoring organization. Assistant teachers who decide to implement a junior mentoring program can also make individual curricula part of their own mentoring program.

An individual curriculum should contain a significant amount of interest-driven learning, to allow the pupil to experience learning as interesting and fun. This can be more important than the actual knowledge learned. On the other hand an individual curriculum shouldn't fail to connect with the official school curriculum or general education, so as not to appear detached from school education.


text:
Study of Genesis

Study of Genesis

Course Overview

 * Background of Genesis

 * Genesis 1 - 2 :: Creation

 * Genesis 3 :: The Fall of Man

 * Genesis 4 - 6:8 :: Effects of Sin

 * Genesis 6:9 - 9:17 :: Flood and the Noahic Covenant

 * Genesis 9:18 - 11:8 :: Rise of False Religion

 * Genesis 11:9 - 13:4 :: Separation of Abram from Babylon

 * Genesis 13:5 - 13:18 :: Separation of Abram from Lot

 * Genesis 14:1 - 15:21 :: Abram's Shield and Reward

 * Genesis 16:1 - 18:15 :: Ishmael vs Isaac

 * Genesis 18:16 - 19:38 :: Trying of Lot

 * Genesis 20:1 - 20:18 :: Embarrassing Family Stories

 * Genesis 21:1 - 21 :: Ishmael vs Isaac, Round Two

 * Genesis 22:1 - 19 :: The Binding of Issac

 * more..

Final Project
In order to receive credit (albeit imaginary credit ;-) for this course, you must write a short term paper on one of the following topics. (If you're auditing the course, of course you don't have to; however, you won't get that warm fuzzy feeling afterward.) The papers are to be about 1500 words in length, and will be posted on the course Project Page. See the Project page for details.

Project Topics:
 * (course unfinished - no project topics yet listed)

Supplemental Resources

 * Sermons Through the Bible - Pastor Joe Focht

Major Contributors to the Course

 * Opensourcejunkie

Feedback
I'm always open to feedback on the course, good bad or ugly. Let me know what improvements may be made by writing your opinions in the space below. Make sure to sign your post!

 * Opensourcejunkie, you are awesome. Not only is your name awesome, but this whole study is awesome!  Thanks opensourcejunkie.  --Opensourcejunkie 14:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * ignore this; I'm staging a subpage to be written: Study of Genesis/Genesis as a Myth

title: Study of Genesis


text:
BCP/Veronica arvensis

Veronica arvensis

title: BCP/Veronica arvensis


text:
BCP/Veronica arvensis/Logs

2008 Logs

 * --SB_Johnny | talk 12:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SB Johnny-LM 08:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --SB_Johnny | talk 09:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SBJ 09:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * SB Johnny-LM 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * --SB_Johnny | talk 19:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Logs

 * --SB_Johnny | talk 12:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --SB_Johnny | talk 11:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --SB_Johnny | talk 11:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

title: BCP/Veronica arvensis/Logs


text:
User talk:Opensourcejunkie

Welcome
Hello Opensourcejunkie, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat  16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Study of Genesis
Hey. Yeah, it was me who wrote the 'Notable Verses' section ^^. I thought it would automatically have logged me in from my wikipedia account, but afterwards I saw I had to create a new wikiversity account. I'm studying in Sutton, South London at the moment. Only A-levels so far but I definitely intend to go on to do it at uni. I do a lot of my own research cos often I find the A-level material isn't enough, heheh. I'm looking forward to working on the section with you. I found it two days ago, and made plans to edit it the following day. When I came back, it was suddenly filled in already! Actually hermeneutics is something that interests me quite a lot, as a Christian as well as a student. --Saz909 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yeah it's good to find something so open for editing! My computer broke last night, and so I'm unable to use it. After talking to my dad (he's a computers guy), apparently either it's the memory or the motherboard. He's given me some memory to try, but if it's the motherboard, I'm gonna have to get a whole new computer =S. So yeah, I'm gonna try and fix it on Monday when I get back to my place. I'm staying at my dad's for now (hence the computer). Tbh I don't have the money for a new one, so pray for me =P.

And yeah, good idea about getting a couple of my friends involved! We all ahve some really big exams coming up now, in May and April, so we're all a bit busy, including me. But afterwards we'll all be free and then I'm sure I can get some others on ^_^.

So yeah, I'm sorry if the updating seems a little slow from now until after the exams, but there's a good reason.

--Saz909 22:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

After a lot of effort... The computer works! Without the new RAM, it didn't fit. I'm now running Vista on 512 mb of RAM... no too good but hey. Getting some new RAM soon, and things'll be better ^^. More updates tomorrow. --Saz909 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Bible, English, King James, According to the documentary hypothesis
Hey, Pathoschild.

I'm an editor (opensourcejunkie) over at Wikiversity who just recently viewed a discussion concerning an old wikisource article entitled "Bible, English, King James, According to the documentary hypothesis". It had been suggested that it be moved from wikisource to wikiversity (since on ws it wasn't actually a source ;) From the digging I've done, it seems that the move never happened, and as the content may be a help to my current project, I'd like the chance to move it myself. I was planning to talk to the user who asked you to restore it last time, but only his IP address was recorded, so I couldn't contact him. If you know which user has the source code, or you're able to make it available to me, I would be much oblidged. Thanks a lot!

--71.185.207.58 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Opensourcejunkie

 * Hello. Please tell me what titles you'd like to use, and I'll import it to Wikiversity with full edit histories. — Pathoschild 23:11:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * For now, let's just place it under "Documentary Hypothesis research", until I (or someone else) is able to spruce it up to classroom material. I'll know what I'm dealing with better once the work is visible.  Thanks for helping us preserve this!
 * --Opensourcejunkie 00:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Done. — Pathoschild 03:35:39, 02 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Hey, Pc, I just wanted to thank you for moving the Documentary Hypothesis OR over to Wikiversity. It's quite an incredible resource!  Glad we could rescue it from the annals of deletion :-)

 * -- Opensourcejunkie 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)~

 * You're welcome. :) — Pathoschild 15:51:34, 07 April 2008 (UTC)

Using subpages
Hi and thank you for contributing so much material to Wikiversity. When you create new pages, could you perhaps try to make much greater use of subpages. E.g. if you are creating a page called "My Bible Course", then a subpage would have the title "My Bible Course/Jesus". See Learning_projects. Ask me if this isn't clear - and thanks! --McCormack 08:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again, and thanks for your reply. Glad to hear you know what you're doing! Basically when I see a lot of pages being created in the main namespace with very generic, short names, it signals a user who potentially doesn't know about subpages - hence you blipped on my radar! But as said, you seem to know what you're doing. See you around. --McCormack 09:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving subpages
Thanks for your question. I reckon you'll have to move them all individually. --McCormack 10:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious policies
Hi. Would you like to write a first draft of Draft policy on religious content for us? Some of us have been discussing the need for and possible content of such a policy for a while. My suggestion has been that as you are very interested in this area, and as you are a competent and committed wiki editor with an awareness of policy issues, that you might be a good person to write a first draft. Of course, the Draft policy on religious content would have to be a global policy for the whole site, covering all religions, including possible future ones and well as extinct ones. It would be very challenging to write such a thing. Are you up to the job? Obviously it would just be a first draft, but first drafts are important. --McCormack 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Wow. I'm honored that you'd think of me. I would love to be so intimately involved in the inception of such a thing, especially as I have a vested interest ;-). Now, as I've never written a wiki policy draft before, I could use a hand with some information: you mentioned that a dialogue has been going on about the potential policy; do you know where I can go to view what's already been discussed? do you know of any policy writing tutorials/faqs etc., either on here or another wikimedia project? If not I can probably wing it, but such a resource would be helpful. Thanks for this opportunity, McCormack! --Opensourcejunkie 13:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply. Shall we keep the thread here? If you reply, leave a note on my talk page telling me to look here. To answer your questions: the discussion has been rather inconsequential and disjointed so far, so you don't really need to look at it. As regards "how to write policy", I see you've been experimenting with a policy for one of your projects recently, and you could also simply read some other policies on other topics. See Policy - but I wouldn't call all those examples terribly good, and we may be having a general policy review anyway. The tendency on Wikipedia is for policies to bloat beyond imagination. A policy should generally describe what is acceptable content and what is not. It must observe the general principles of NPOV, and balance these with Wikiversity's educational mission, which may require carefully defined exceptions to NPOV. The policy should lay down a procedure for dealing with possible unacceptable content. Some questions which come to mind for religion: can an educational resource be about any religion whatsoever, and if not, how does one define which religions are acceptable? and can one find a definition of "educational neutrality" which covers religious neutrality? how does one stem messianic tendencies without damping editoral motivation? how does one deal with absolute truth claims made by religious adherents against the context of other policies such as verifiability, reliable sources and the like? Anyway, this is just a first draft, and will certainly be commented on, so don't worry, be bold and get going! --McCormack 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you've been most helpful; I'll get started on it on my next night off. As for today, I gotta go to bed :-)  ttys, --Opensourcejunkie 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: this isn't intended to exclude any other religion editors from contributing to policy formation. This just puts the ball into your court to start us off. The final result will be collaborative. --McCormack 13:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously :-) --Opensourcejunkie 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft Questions
Hey, I'm most of the way done the first draft, but I want to include a couple more things, not the least of which is a section on unacceptable content. Is there any system at present for marking potentially unacceptable content? I know Wikipedia has a series of templates; do we have anything comparable? I couldn't find anything on Policies. --Opensourcejunkie 11:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I suggest that to continue this draft, we look at some possible problem cases and see how policy would cope (or would have to be developed to cope) with them. A good policy on religious content will be difficult. (1) The Ásatrú religion, which seems to really exist, but has alleged controversial political associations - to what extent could WV be a platform for teaching the tenets of this religion (not informing about, which is what an encyclopedia does, but teaching). (2) Many of the world's "great" religions have had sects in the past which have engaged in practices which seriously offend against what we might call "universal moral values" (so far as they exist) - e.g. flagellation, cannibalism, suicide. The trend in American prisons to invent or rediscover such sects and then sue the prisons under freedom of religion laws is an example of the abuse of one legal rule to evade another. Surely, again, it is one thing to inform about, another to teach these religions. Would a simple disclosure box be adequate? (3) Hinduism, in its mainstream form, includes the caste system and arranged marriages - can we teach these things as well as informing about them? Surely teaching involves an element of persuasion, or at least an intent that the learner should accept the truth of what is being taught. Do you see this as an issue? Should we be setting up a gatekeeper system here for what can acceptably be taught? Or is a mere disclosure box adequate? --McCormack 12:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Hey, real quick b4 I reply to your post - I wanted to note that you didn't actually answer my initial question ;-) Although I admit such a technical issue is trivial in comparison to your reply :-).

 * Thanks for the feedback; I can definitely see your point. I was actually going to post a justification of the draft's (initial) neutral stance on the discussion page - I just haven't gotten around to it yet.  So, I'll post one here that I can later morph on over to the disc. page.

 * My reservation with a gatekeeper system is that it relies upon, as you noted, a "universal morality". Now I personally believe that there is, fundamentally, a universal morality among humans.  However finding one that every religion/sect outwardly agrees upon is, as far as I can tell, fairly intractable.  Even the much acclaimed commonality of "love" between religions is not universal; I once read about a tribe in South America that endorses hatred and individuality instead.  No, the fact that such a gatekeeper system is necessary demonstrates well that there are groups in disagreement with majority morality.

 * Thus in order to enforce such a system, we would have to exclude fringe viewpoints, and frankly I'm concerned that such exclusion will hinder the advancement of Wikiversity. Take for instance what JWSchmidt said on the discussion of scholarly ethics: "we know from our history that important ideas initially arising as minority points of view are sometimes eventually adopted by the vast majority once those ideas have a chance to be explored and understood. Many great ideas start out as fragile ideas that need to be protected. If we fully support the search for knowledge then scholars need to be given the freedom to explore and discuss unusual and unpopular ideas."

 * An obvious example would be evolution. If Wikiversity were around in the time of Darwin, would his Origin of Species have been accepted here?  "Universal morality" (at least in western culture) was predominantly Judeo-Christian; thus an anti-Creation (translated anti-God) work would likely have been discarded.  In the pursuit of unbridled knowledge, can we really afford to install such censure?  For all we know, society's morality may change in the upcoming years to include flagellation, suicide, or (God forbid) cannibalism.  (With the advent of Euthanasia, we may not be far from accepting suicide).

 * Thus I decided in the draft (and of course this is subject to change with the flow of consensus) to disallow any restrictions on the type of religion written about. The gatekeeper then lies downstream, at the requirement for scholarship (which will hopefully be objectively defined).  If a fringe religion/cult can write persuasively from a scholarly standpoint, then I cannot see how censuring it will further the goals of Wikiversity, let alone scholarship in general.  My opinion, anyway :-)

 * --Opensourcejunkie 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gatekeeping
On the whole WP is very tolerant as regards gatekeeping and accepts pretty well all the examples I gave above. However WP draws the line (for example) at religious articles of a "my latest guru" style - i.e. when a guy comes along and someone else (or perhaps the guy himself) declares him a religious leader of a new religion and decides to use Wikimedia projects to proclaim his message. Where would you stand on WV's acceptance of religious articles on religions and topics that WP refuses? --McCormack 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Has anyone ever told you that you reply incredibly quickly? It's uncanny!

 * To be completely honest, I'm not sure where I stand. Mostly that's because I only have a fuzzy, incomplete picture of what people perceive Wikiversity to be.  In my few travels to discussion pages, I have read analogies similar to the idea of a Greek philosopher on a hill, dialoguing with whomever comes to him.  Such a model of Wikiversity would allow for new ideas, unsubstantiated by third-party sources.  In the same quote I mentioned above, JWSchmidt continues, "Fragile new ideas are not subject to verifiability in the traditional way that Wikipedia editors verify sources and citations."  Some people seem to see Wikiversity as a place to foster and research new ideas that may or may not have verifiable reliable sources attached to them.

 * At other times people seem more concerned with Wikiversity's reputation with respect to the outside world, as well as the other Wikimedia projects. Allowing Joe Thinksalot to come onto Wikiversity and just reel off his opinions can certainly denigrate people's perception of our scholarship, and this is exactly what an open-gate policy (such as the one I've written) would allow.

 * I have a tentative idea as to my stance on the matter - may I emphasize tentative; my perception of Wikiversity is as "under construction" as much of its policies. To answer your question outright, I do not believe that Wikiversity should define its acceptance policies based on those of Wikipedia; we have different goals (we obviously breach policy by merely breaching NPOV and NOR).  That being said, we have similar goals in that we both want to produce high quality, scholarly content.  Thus I think that we can elicit many lessons from studying (and adapting) Wikipedia's policies.

 * Personally, I sway more toward the "philosopher on a hill" perception of allowing new ideas, both unverifiable and obscure. I mostly tend this way because academia tend that way; it's how knowledge advances (in our current system).  Yet in spite of the openness to new ideas, universities are able to maintain a high level of scholarship; in fact they define scholarship.  How are they able to balance openness to ideas with close mindedness toward unscholarly works?  I think that the key to organizing Wikiversity's policies lies in understanding Academia's policies.

 * Without claiming to understand completely academia's solution, I will make a stab at it.
 * Academic publishing is subject to peer review
 * Peer review is performed by people familiar with the subject area (i.e. people who study mathematics don't judge the scholarship of a psychological study)
 * Each subject area has a set of criteria that help to objectively judge a work's scholarship.

 * I suspect that if we mimic the solution provided above, we may be able to enforce scholarship on all the Joe Thinksalot's of Wikiversity. Here's one possible solution:
 * If a learning plan's scholarship is called into question, a "peer review template" is placed at the top of the page/section. (the template would automatically place the page in a "peer review" category to make it easier for reviewers to find)
 * The community at large (or perhaps one of the subject matter experts / "referees" mentioned at Review board) would then classify the type of work (e.g. religious primary source/OR), and analyse it according to a set of criteria developed for that specific classification.
 * If consensus thus deems the work "unscholarly", either in whole or in part, it will then be subject to removal or revision.

 * It's one approach at any rate. I suppose I present it to demonstrate that there are methods to ensure that self-proclaimed philosophers etc. can be forced to do scholarly work.  Those who do not conform their writings to provided standards will be frustrated away, leaving the good philosophers to generate new ideas, and thus further the quest for knowledge.  (Of course I believe that all the philosophical knowledge one could ever need can be found in scripture, but that's just me :-D ) --Opensourcejunkie 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would Darwin have been accepted by WV?
I hope so. One of the ideas I've been playing with (in a very formative sense) is that for science-related topics, there should be something like a fringe science percentage quota. For example, policy could state that no more than 10% of resources on a specific topic can be "fringe", and the fringe resources are tagged as such. The result of such a rule would be that if somebody wanted to add their latest fringe theory and the quota had been reached, they would have to add about 9 mainstream educational resources first. In other words, fringe theorists (who often know a lot about mainstream stuff as well) would be motivated to contribute primarily (boring) mainstream stuff. A rule like that would have allowed in Darwin. --McCormack 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What an innovative way to ensure quality! It attacks the issue from a direction that I never would have thought of.

 * How would that work from a technological standpoint? Would the author need to place the publication in a "fringe" category, upon which the quota was placed? --Opensourcejunkie 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * At the moment it's just an idea. But yes, it would depend on tagging (and therefore categorisation) of fringe material. A template would go onto any such resource, automatically categorising it. The idea behind this is complex. People want to post fringe material on Wikimedia projects because Wikimedia has a (good-ish) reputation and you can be seen there; but the reputation of Wikimedia projects turns on the mainstream stuff; by ensuring that fringe material remains on the edge and that the core is still strong, the fringe authors gain. --McCormack 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Defense of the Resurrection
Hey, you mind if I put upp a framework for a bit of that? Namely, I want to make a part about possible ways that Jesus rose without being divine, and the general Christian response to the theories.

I ask because you may well have plans for it already. We literally just finished the topic of the resurrection in class, so it'd be cool to use my kowledge there ^^

--Saz909 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates
WV's current template system is rather inadequate. In general, if you need a template, first search thoroughly on WV (and don't expect templates to be properly categorised). If you don't find the template you need, import it. --McCormack 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * *nods --Opensourcejunkie 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Computer
It's been at the repair bloke's now since Thursday. He's got the new motherboard in today, and hopefully putting it in tomorrow. Thanks for the offer of a laptop, but since my computer should be fixed soon, it'll be better if you keep it for now. End of school term on Thursday ^^. Which leaves me a bit more time to be doing edits. Sorry I havn't been on for a while, I have to catch up on coursework before term ends. --Saz909 17:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

religion and NPOV
I just has quick look at Draft policy on religious content and I think it is the direction I would tend to go in. Some people are "color blind" and I am "religion blind"....I have no practical experience/understanding of religious motivations, but I do not like the idea that we would have to exclude discussion of some religions or some types of religion-oriented discussions from Wikiversity. It seems like we should always be able to find a way to make a start on any topic....even if we cannot say everything that could be said. A small amount of self-censorship can be practical in an education-oriented environment. If discussion of a topic or point of view threatens to disrupt or destroy the learning environment then we have to be practical and limit what we say. I'm interested in the idea that by making our biases explicit we can increase awareness and help limit emotional disputes. Of course, we all have trouble identifying, categorizing and appreciating the impact of some biases so it is always a struggle to rely on disclosures of biases as a way to facilitate constructive discussion and learning. Maybe we need some good Wikiversity learning resources that deal with these issues of how to approach topics that tend to lead to endless disputes and clashes of world view. --JWSchmidt 06:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * "If discussion of a topic or point of view threatens to disrupt or destroy the learning environment then we have to be practical and limit what we say." --> Hmm, that might be a good first limitation to place on religious content. It's a form of censure put into place to ensure the freedom to learn.  I'll see what others think about it.

 * "Of course, we all have trouble identifying, categorizing and appreciating the impact of some biases so it is always a struggle to rely on disclosures of biases" --> I was reading somewhere that the disclosure actually refers to the resource, not the author (which is true, since this is collaborative work). Therefore if the original author does not notice his biases, the beauty of the wiki way is that other, more critical authors will, and they can add to the disclosures.

 * "Maybe we need some good Wikiversity learning resources that deal with these issues of how to approach topics that tend to lead to endless disputes and clashes of world view." --> Absolutely; this may have an even greater effect than formal policy (although policy is certainly needed to countermand those who who deliberately transgress scholarly ethics && common courtesy.

 * --Opensourcejunkie 12:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Policy is not a magic wand. A lesson to be learned from Wikipedia is that wiki participants sometimes work very hard to ignore/undermine/evade policy...how do we know when such evasion is motivated by a noble cause struggling to be recognized? I like to imagine that for Wikiversity the solution to conflicts over the application of policy can be heavy on the use of education rather than heavy on the use of punishment....but if there is disruptive content we will sometimes feel the need to delete first and then debate/discuss the deletion of the disruptive content and some people are going to go away mad because they cannot participate at Wikiversity without causing unwelcome disruption of the community. Can we find ways to limit the chances of that happening? I'm accept the idea of groups of wiki participants making decisions about the extent to which individual learning resources have adopted a limited point of view, but the potential problem is that the original authors of learning resources may not accept the labels that others apply to their learning resources, and sometimes this rejection of labels will be for good reason. I've seen this happen at Wikipedia..."group think" can trump reason. "More critical" does not always mean more correct. It is all too common for dominant religious groups to adopt biased and unfair views of a new religion...often without first having any deep understanding of the new religion. Xenophobia is a fundamental aspect of human dynamic. I accept the fact that conventional/majority views will tend to dominate decisions about Wiki content but I hope we can find ways to keep all of our points of view, even dominant religious and political views, open to scholarly and critical commentary and debate. If Wikibooks can have a "wikijunior" branch, maybe Wikiversity will need a "wikisenior" branch where "adult" and controversial topics can be discussed under a big flashing sign that says, "mature content, no children allowed". I'd like to explore ways to make that possible rather accept the idea that controversial topics are just too hot for Wikiversity to handle. I fantasize that some day we will be able to go to a notary public and have a wiki user account certified as being under the control of an adult. Until then, our online scholarly debates will suffer from self-censorship. --JWSchmidt 22:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * "I accept the fact that conventional/majority views will tend to dominate decisions about Wiki content but I hope we can find ways to keep all of our points of view...open to scholarly and critical commentary and debate" --> I think that you and I have similar goals here. I would much rather see potentially offensive (albeit scholarly) material demarcated rather than deleted.

 * Along those lines, McCormack and I were discussing (in passing) the problem of protecting children from potentially damaging material. For instance, a sex-ed class may be inappropriate for early ages, as would be a mass-suicide cult.  In trying to balance the need to protect children with the need to include fringe viewpoints, I thought that perhaps a simple warning template might do the trick:

 * Allowing "more critical" users to tag offensive pages would give them a viable recourse other than content deletion. That way, readers are at least aware that they read at their own risk.  (of course, such a template may attract children rather than repel them) --Opensourcejunkie 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Authority versus reason
Hi, Opensourcejunkie. I'd have liked to have helped you with this, and explored ideas for overcoming the deletionist/inclusivist dichotomy ("3rd way paths") - the very tentative "fringe quota" and "EdPOV" ideas being first steps. However I have previously had discussions with JWSchmidt and attempted to find 3rd way solutions (on quite other issues) with him, and I know that the way he reacts to 3rd way solutions is such that it would damage my commitment and involvement with Wikiversity as a whole - I therefore cannot and will not engage in this discussion if you appeal to him as an Authority. It is my wish to move Wikiversity forward, to make it a child-friendly environment where learners are actually able to find learning resources (i.e. reduce chaos), in which freedom of expression is balanced with the requirements of criminal and civil law, and where people can expect to find useful educational stuff. Such a move forward will not occur unless there are compromises and 3rd ways, with tough, courageous and imaginative decisions. I do not know what these decisions will be, but I am sure that such decisions will have to be taken if the project is to succeed. Of course any gatekeeper criteria will be unfair, but to have no criteria at all is morally worse and intellectual cowardice. We do not need people who are "religion-blind"; we need people who have the courage to open their eyes to all the terrors that religion has produced and think how we can set the path of Wikiversity so that it does not repeat those terrors. The current state of Draft policy on religious content is that it really needs a lot of work, and I'd have liked to prod you forwards with difficult questions (e.g. Is a tiny disclosure tag really a universal entry ticket? And are people always sufficiently aware of their POV to write a disclosure tag?) My methodology here is perhaps irritatingly Socratic, but it is opposed to Authority, and Authority will not help us. --McCormack 07:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * "I therefore cannot and will not engage in this discussion if you appeal to [JWSchmidt] as an Authority." --> My intention in appealing to JWS was not to present him as an authority, but rather to generate interesting discussion on the policy so that it can move forward. Granted, the fact that we share similar viewpoints may have been an ulterior motive. :-|

 * At any rate, I'm sorry; I didn't know you two had a history. And I guess now that you and I have a history; who could have guessed that we'd have completely opposite viewpoints on this issue.  Do you regret asking me to write the draft?

 * I guess in some ways, we form a nice dichotomy ourselves; if the draft had been written without either viewpoint represented, then the results would yield an unbalanced policy. That is precisely why we can't afford to lose your voice in the discussion; my opinion alone is not enough.  There are surely holes in my argument that you can see (such as the effect that unbridled knowledge will have on children), just as there'll be holes in your reasoning that I can fill.  So please, JWSchmidt or not, don't leave.

 * Of course, I still think I'm right (thank God policy isn't up to me alone ;-), so I don't know how much help I'll be in drafting a revision to the draft. However, you seem to have a pretty good idea of what you're looking for (yeah, you are a bit socratic ;-), so why don't you draft up the necessary changes?  After all, we are editing a wiki :-D

 * Hope you haven't given up on me Socrates,
 * --Opensourcejunkie 12:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * "now that you and I have a history" - I don't think it's that bad! When I asked you to try the draft, I knew you had different perspectives from myself, but I also reckoned I detected someone who could think and who knew more about the issues than myself, so I reckoned it would be a good idea to give you a try! I didn't give up lightly on JWSchmidt, so don't think I will give up on you either without some effort ;-) If you want to push through a policy with Authority, then look for some people who support you "blind"-ly. If you want me on board, then thinking caps on and let's try and cook up something different to the usual solutions. I realise it's terribly frustrating when someone plays Socrates with you, but I'm hoping it'll generate some ideas. I have a lot of "questions" about religious policies in my head, but not a lot of solutions (yet). For example, if we accept the current policy of disclosures, then someone simply has to add a disclosure "Nazi apologist" at the top in order to justify educating (not just informing) about Nazism. I have some difficulty with the Invent-A-Guru articles, and we do actually get those ones. I think a lot of people (perhaps even you?) don't actually want Invent-A-Guru articles, but can't see how to get rid of them without endangering the existence of content which they do want, so they run into the safety of zero-deletionism (delete nothing). Anyway, if you'd like to play intellectual cat-and-mouse with Socrates, I'm still here. --McCormack 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Aight Socrates, I'm in :-). As far as I can see, we have two major problems to deal with:
 * Nazi apologists (and other distasteful viewpoints), and
 * Invent-A-Guru's

 * Thus, I suggest we deal with these two issues independently, to find a solution that works well for all sides of the issues. --Opensourcejunkie 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nazi apologists, etc.
Now let be clear - I am not in any way a fan of Nazi's, Neonazi's, or any other form of fascism, for that matter. There is some truth to what you assert in that I would much rather not see Nazism taught in our school. (this applies to a number of other distasteful fringes, but Nazism works well so I'll refer to it here) And yes, my "retreat" into zero-deletionism is due in part to the fact that I fear an exclusivist policy would endanger other, allegedly more desirable viewpoints.

Coming clean
Now, I've got a hidden motivation that I haven't yet told you, because if I do, it demonstrates that I have a vested interest in the outcome of the debate. Still, I think that if I unveil my motivations, it may help you understand some of my concerns about a gatekeeper policy. Basically, even though I'm part of a mainstream religion (Evangelical Christianity), there is a chance that my religion could be classified as a "hate group" in upcoming years.

Recently, there has bee a semi-global push by the homosexual agenda to call any criticism of homosexuality "hate speach". Laws have been passed in Europe and in Canada that are a step in this direction; a similar bill was passed in the United States Senate, but defeated in the House. In Sweden, a pastor was sentenced to a month in prison for speaking out against homosexuality, although his appeal overturned the ruling.

Now, I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong; more importantly I believe that scripture clearly teaches it. Thus if (when?) society begins to see such criticism as illegal hate speech, I do still intend to speak out against it, whatever the repercussions. It would be great if Wikiversity would be a place where such open dialog and debate could take place. (Of course, if it isn't I'll certainly respect the rules and policies provided)

My point is this: if we base our acceptable content on the mood of society, we may be incorrectly excluding some important viewpoints. Let's face it - your perception of what's morally acceptable is in many ways based on the society in which you were raised, as is mine. There may be, even today, fringe "hate" groups that have important viewpoints, the exclusion of which might hinder our advancement.

The value of a Nazi apologist
Even though I have a very pointed hatred toward many Nazi doctrines, I still think that Nazi educational documents have value here on WV. I was reading on one of the policy disc. pages that even if Wikiversity allows non-NPOV content, it will still probably reach a more universal version of NPOV in that lessons teaching one POV will be countered by lessons teaching an opposing POV. In the case of Nazi doctrine, someone who opposes Nazism would, if he finds a Nazi learning resource, likely write an opposing resource, and link them. Thus all POVs will be represented, simply in a more global sense.

Now the reason I find this important is as follows: it demonstrates an interesting strategy in fighting propoganda. Propoganda has historically thrived when the people did not have access to all relevant points of view (Nazism in Germany, War propaganda in U.S.) Thus I propose that the best way to fight propoganda is to allow all points of view - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and to link them.

The alternative strategy, to filter which POVs are acceptable for our students, is (IMO) degenerative. (1) we're thinking for our students, instead of having them critically evaluate each learning resource's arguments, and (2) more importantly, we're forming our own sort of propaganda, based on (at best) our current society's accepted moral standards.

So, if we do install censure (at least censure based on U.M.), I suspect that it will turn around and bite us in our backs (specifically mine :-), when society's morals redefine themselves, and our policy.

The danger of a Nazi apologist
The danger of a Nazi apologist is fairly obvious. If (A) there are no opposing resources yet written, (B) there are no opposing resources yet linked, or (C) a student is unwilling (or somehow unable) to read alternate resources, then students (children and adult alike) will be susceptible to (what we perceive to be) dangerous resources.

So, a single Nazi apologist on Wikiversity could (inadvertently?) cause a number of terrorist attacks, school shootings etc. across the globe. Wikiversity thus has the moral dilemma of restricting education for the sake of restricting negative outcomes of education. (A little learning is a dangerous thing?)

Well, I'd like to point out that any POVs that find their way to Wikiversity are almost guaranteed to pre-exist on the internet proper. Thus, we cannot stop negative information from harming students; we can only stop negative information from harming the reputation of Wikiversity (an important endeavor).

I suppose then that the breaking point for this issue will lie in determining which is more important: defeating propaganda by allowing MPOV, or permitting a level of propaganda to ensure the safety of WV students and its reputation. What are your thoughts? --Opensourcejunkie 12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw.
Btw, I created a template to mark potentially offensive material (discussed above under JWSchmidt's post). I doubt this will effectively guard students from questionable material, but it will at least alert them to it. What are your thoughts on that? --Opensourcejunkie 12:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Invent-A-Guru's
I guess I'm not as worried about Invent-a-Guru's as you are. Perhaps I simply haven't seen the damage they can do.

I suppose I feel that if they can produce scholarly arguments, then they are not only acceptable on WV, but desirable. What exactly is it that makes them so dangerous/undesirable to a school setting? (I can definitely see how they'd adversely affect the quality of an encyclopaedia, but in a learning community, I think they would generate all sorts of interesting discussion) --Opensourcejunkie 12:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi again, and thanks for your very lengthy and detailed replies, which I regret I cannot do justice to at the moment. My main wiki efforts at the moment are directed towards the new main page and accompanying pre-tertiary portals - i.e. a bunch of major ease-of-use projects. This is huge, and I'll only get it done if I concentrate rather narrow-mindedly on that project! The temptation to get involved here is great, but it'll have to wait. --McCormack 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Just a quick comment about invent-a-guru pages: they do no direct harm, but collectively they damage the reputation of Wikiversity as a serious learning resource (rather like fringe science ideas). A few of them show we are open; many of them show we are silly. Playing Socrates: how would you factor into a policy the collective contribution of articles of certain types to the reputation of WV? (And no, I don't have the solution... (yet)!) --McCormack 09:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Heh; I'm glad you're busy too; I had to go awol for a bit (family stuff). If the poliucy draft goes on the back burner for a while, that'll give me a change to put some more into Genesis too, so take your time.  :-)

 * Your post reminded me of an article I read on Wikipedia, and a quote that apparently stuck with me. "That Wikipedia is chock full of useless arcana (and did you know, by the way, that the article on "Debate" is shorter than the piece that weighs the relative merits of the 1978 and 2003 versions of Battlestar Galactica?) isn't a knock against it: Since it can grow infinitely, the silly articles aren't depriving the serious ones of space." (Criticism of Wikiopedia)

 * The quote was in response to the criticism that Wikipedia has a systemic bias of coverage i.e. it has more articles about pop culture and the like than it does about more "important" stuff. The criticism is similar to the (potential) criticism that Wikiversity would receive if the fringe material severely outweighed the more mainstream stuff.

 * Thus coming from a technical standpoint, even if we are inundated with fringe material, it wouldn't really compromise the development of mainstream material. As quoted in the aforementioned article, "Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an on-line encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come."

 * Of course, the other side of the coin is that Wikipedia's reputation still suffers from the systemic bias criticism, so Wikiversity's probably would too. Nonetheless Wikipedia has become an incredible resource, even in the inclusion of the fringe.  For instance, I'm really glad that Wikipedia has an episode list of (just about) every show I would want to watch online; it helps me search for the episodes more efficiently.  If this "pop-culture" material would have been deleted, Wikipedia would have become less useful to me, simply because people wanted to improve its reputation.

 * So for Wikipedia, the struggle is between usefulness and reputation; the same may very well be true with Wikiversity. If we include Invent-a-Guru's and they flood our Schools of Philosophy and Religion, our reputation probably will suffer.  However, (assuming appropriate categorization etc.) our mission of educating (may) be advanced in that their viewpoints will generate educational discussion - usefulness vs. reputation. --Opensourcejunkie 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * (allow me to reply to my own post :-) Now that I think about it, there is one flaw in my reasoning above.  Wikipedia has a notability policy which sifts out all the ridiculously obscure articles.  Because of it, the material likely to be useful to others is allowed on, but the material that is obviously unimportant (unhelpful) is not.

 * Because of that, I'm a bit conflicted over whether or not obscure material is helpful to Wikiversity. I feel that fringe (obscure) original research will be educationally helpful, allowing new ideas to develop.  However, an Invent-a-Guru who wants to teach about his religion may be providing content that is simply not important enough to permit inclusion.

 * To make a ridiculously obscure example, if I wanted to make a history learning resource about what happened to me on Sunday, April 06, that isn't educationally helpful to other individuals (Wikiversity could revert to a blog!) Perhaps this draft needs a notability section/clause that applies only to NPOV and tertiary content, which would limit the sorts of things written about.  This would still allow obscure OR && IR, the educationally helpful aspects of Invent-a-Guru's.  What do you think? --Opensourcejunkie 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note
I saw in the prayer requests section you called me 'he'. I thought it might be a good idea to tell you I'm not a he, but a she =P. Made me laugh! --Saz909 20:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bible, English, King James
I see that you requested the import of Bible, English, King James, According to the documentary hypothesis and related pages. Could you please add all these to a category so that we can keep track of which pages are part of this series? I'm not sure what name is best to describe it... --mikeu talk 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Genesis Revisions
Hi OpenSourceJunkie (Nate?),

I read your study on Genesis with interest and would like to collaborate but I would like to make the study more scholarly, before I started editing I wanted to run my biases by you. I suggest:

 * Redefine the goal of the course. Though the syllabus page says this is a verse by verse study of the bible that is not what the Genesis studies are doing.  I would think a verse by verse study would look similar to a commentary.  The Genesis studies are more high level then that.  Maybe call it survey course or an issues in the text course.  I think a verse by verse study (writing a commentary) is too ambitious, especially if you actually want to cover all of scripture.

 * Identify the issues you raise (and I think others raise as well) and perhaps separate them into various sections:

- Bible & science this would look at various issues the text raises about the implications of the Bible and Science and some of the approaches to each other.

- What's going on in the text, this would focus primarily on things like translation issues, structure of the text etc., repetition of Hebrew words.

- Interpreting in view of the larger cannon For example the comments about Breath of life that end with "Thus we are positionally sinless in God's eyes, allowing His Spirit to indwell us once more." While this maybe theologically sound, this did not come from the Genesis text alone.

I would like to separate the issues because people who agree in one area may disagree about issues in other areas. A Jewish student might agree about the text, and disagree about creationism and cannon.

I'd like to add other sources for what's going on in the text, some which are not Christian, though they are consider the text as normal literature, though not inerrant.
 * Present other points of view. There are any number of attempts to describe in scientific terms what is going on in the Genesis creation and flood accounts.  I think if the course references one it should ideally reference other accounts, even if you disagree and refute them.

"Biblical literalism is the adherence to an explicit and literal sense of the Bible.[1] In its purest form such a belief would deny the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible, however the phrase "biblical literalist" is often a term used (sometimes pejoratively) to refer to those who subscribe to biblical inerrancy."
 * I suggest that we define what Literal-normal means. What you have presently confused me.  I traced your guidelines through to Biblical literalism in Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is trying for NPOV and you are not trying for NPOV! Wikipedia's opening paragraph is:

I would guess you disagree with the notion that the bible has no figures of speech, and that you would agree Jesus often uses parables. So what POV are you trying for? I guess that you are writing from the POV of inerrancy, you seem to me to take the text as normal literature and as authoratative. If so use the Chicago Statement (perhaps with some explanation) on Biblical inerrancy: "WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support."

Anyway let me know what you think, Θεόφιλε (Theophilus)

 * Hey, sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this - it's been a while since I've been on Wikiversity. Unfortunately, I don't have a link to your own talk page (have you registered an account with WV?), so I couldn't respond there.  But I do like much of the feedback && recommendations you've provided.  Allow me a bit of time to respond to them (I can't at this point).

 * Thanks for the post!

 * --Opensourcejunkie 22:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay, so first off, I see where you're coming from with the verse-by-verse issue - I suppose that calling it verse-by-verse could make it seem like we're going one verse at a time. However, the assertion that commentaries go strictly one verse at a time isn't quite accurate - for example, Walvoord & Zuck take blocks of related scripture, and exposit them together.  This is quite similar to my (few) attempts thus far, although certainly not in equivalent detail.

 * Mostly what I was searching for was a way to express that the studies would follow scripture in the order it comes to us - as opposed to taking bits and pieces of scripture from many places, and pasting them together topically (as in systematic theology) So if you can think of a better term than "verse-by-verse, then by all means change it, or let me know so I can change it.  last thing we need is confusing categorizations! :-)

 * "a verse by verse study (writing a commentary) is too ambitious" - absolutely. the scope of this project is ridiculous, especially for only one person.  Oh well, maybe it'll be completed in a hundred years, maybe not (or maybe Christ will return ;) - at least we have a framework for others to contribute.

 * I liked your note on the separation of issues - as it stands, the study of Genesis muddles the interpretation of the immediate passage with interpretation of the Canon as a whole, with no real delineating factor. If we were to impose a separation, I think that it would have to be a separation within the confines of the scripture supersection (ex: "Genesis 2:8 - 17 :: Garden of Eden"), because my goal in this is to traverse scripture, passage by passage - thus the passage separation must be pre-eminent.  Another advantage of this approach is that placing these categorizations within a passage block allows each block to have different categorizations.  Because different passages raise different issues, each passage needs to be dealt with in a custom manner (for instance, not every passage in scripture, or even genesis, will require a section for "Bible & science")

 * As for the following,
 * "Present other points of view."
 * "I'd like to add other sources for what's going on in the text, some which are not Christian"
 * absolutely! The only constraint on the course is that it is written from a literal-normal perspective.  This constraint exists simply to keep the course on-track - puttingadditional points of view can certainly be helpful & instructive, so long as it doesn't detract from the course (one way that presenting alternate opinions can detract from a course is by providing so many, the reader gets bogged down in perspectives that he/she did not come to study.  Thus I'd say feel free to add additional viewpoints insofar as they help illustrate the issues/strengths/weaknesses of the literal-normal viewpoint.  alternate viewpoints within the literal-normal perspective are even more necessary && should be encouraged.
 * as for more sources - go for it. I'm only operating with the ones I currently own, so the study could definitely benefit from any additional sources you could provide.

 * Finally, I agree that the Literal-Normal definition needs a lot of work. I simply drafted a quick page, so I could have a bias to write from (WV has depressingly few biases documented).

 * I'm not entirely sure why the link to Wikipedia was confusing - it defines somewhat acceptably (although pejoratively) what Biblical Literalism is. The fact that WP is NPOV and my WV content is not should be irrelevant - I often link to WP as an alternative resource in my POV content.  The only reason I linked to WP from the literal-normal page was to provide an alternative resource to describe the Literal-Normal perspective.

 * At any rate, thank you for providing the Chicago definition - I find it quite helpful, and I think I'll add it to the literal-normal page. And yeah, you pretty much got me pegged with the POV of inerrancy, given a normal interpretation.

 * Thanks again for all the feedback, and please - feel free to edit. if you and I get in any conflicts, we can just stage a revert war, and duke it out! ;-)  cya 'round,
 * --Opensourcejunkie 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

hey, back
Hey, I went AWOL for a pretty long period of time - life got pretty busy over the summer. Hopefully I'll be able to edit again with some fervour :)

--Opensourcejunkie 22:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi. I noticed you went missing. Nice to see you back again. --McCormack 04:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologetics wiki
Hi mate,

You seem to be interested in apologetics and open source wikis, so I thought you might be interested in Apologetics wiki which is a wiki for apologetics.

portal TOC
Hi, after a long absence I am back.

I suggest adding something I would like, a portal table of contents to the templates and the existing pages to make it easier to get around. An example of this in Wikipedia is found at this link for the Software development process. Θεόφιλε 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Biblical Studies status
Hi I have left several comments in the Biblical Studies area looking for some feedback on a more academic approach to the topic. The current "literal normative" stance seems to have frozen participation since the last edits tend to be in 2008. I am wondering what your opinion is on the future development of Biblical Studies and how you would react to a more academic approach. --Bill A 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Synoptic Gospels seminar
Hi I have been leaving posts in Discussion pages on the Biblical Studies page looking for a way to move forward. Biblical Studies seems to have been active in 2008 and then stalled. I think that part of that stall is due to the "policy" of having material conform to a "literal normative" outlook which tends to reduce academic inquiry. I am planning on starting a Department Project on the Synoptic Gospels which will definitely not consider the text of the gospels involved to be "inerrant" but before starting that I am leaving this message on the discussion page of all noted "active participants". It could be that I should set up the seminar/discussion somewhere else in Wikiversity and I need some direction. --Bill A 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Opensourcejunkie


text:
User:Baba

I am currently a PhD student at Urban Design Laboratory, Graduate School of Engineering, Tokyo University.

 * School:Urban studies and planning
 * URBN 301 Topic:Urban Community
 * URBN 314 Topic:Urban Design

title: User:Baba


text:
User talk:Baba

Welcome
Hello Baba, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat  17:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Baba


text:
User talk:Ashbloem

Welcome
Hello Ashbloem, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat  17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ashbloem


text:
User talk:Gelniska~enwikiversity

Welcome
Hello Gelniska, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may
 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit;
 * Explore our learning projects;
 * Browse our portals, schools, and research activities;
 * Read and help develop our community policies；or
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold, and see you around Wikiversity! Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat  17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Gelniska. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Gelniska~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gelniska~enwikiversity


text:
User:Shirleyom

About me
My name is Shirley. I am 16 years old and I am a girl. I am from Ghana in West Africa and I live in Ghana in West Africa. I can speak a little bit of the French Language. I also know some little bits of the Spanish Language vocabulary. This is a little about me.

My Current Occupation
Currently, I'm a student. You can even tell that by my age.

My Goals or Ambitions
My basic goal which is not my first goal but basic because it needs to be accomplished before I can go on to my first goal and accomplish that also is being able to be admitted into college and then graduate.

My first goal is to become a Junior Computer Scientist. My second goal is to become a very knowledgeable in Computer Science. My third goal is to gain every knowledge in Computer Science. My fourth goal is to attain all the necessary heights in the field of Computer Science.

With all these goals that I have listed above, it can be told that I am here to study the course of Computer Science on Wikiversity as a first course or subject in Wikiversity before any other course or subject in Wikiversity. :)

My Hobbies and Interests
I love to read any book, provided the book is interesting to my taste, to browse the internet using my one and only loving Windows Vista Home Basic OS version laptop, and interacting with people around the world through social networking websites, so that's all that I like or interest me. :)

I am studying

 * Computer Science

I am a member of

 * The School of Computer Science

title: User:Shirleyom


text: File:Cubinoid Stardust.ogg

title: File:Cubinoid Stardust.ogg


text: File:Robert Hall falling.ogg

title: File:Robert Hall falling.ogg


text: File:Robert Hall wind.ogg

title: File:Robert Hall wind.ogg


text: File:Robert Hall floating.ogg

title: File:Robert Hall floating.ogg


text:
User talk:Shirleyom

Hey Shirley, welcome to wikiversity.--Juan 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shirleyom


text: File:Cubinoid Joy joy joy.ogg

title: File:Cubinoid Joy joy joy.ogg


text: File:Cubinoid Joy1.ogg

title: File:Cubinoid Joy1.ogg


text: File:Cubinoid Joy3.ogg

title: File:Cubinoid Joy3.ogg


text: File:Cubinoid Joy 2.ogg

title: File:Cubinoid Joy 2.ogg


text:
User:Blackwatch21

Visit me on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blackwatch21

title: User:Blackwatch21


text:
Template:WN BW21

Visit me on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blackwatch21

title: Template:WN BW21


text:
User talk:Blackwatch21

Please send me a message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blackwatch21

title: User talk:Blackwatch21


text:
File:Peter LW starwars script.pdf

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to format a movie script

title: File:Peter LW starwars script.pdf


text:
File:Xvat0x Seduced by the Dark Side 3.pdf

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to format a movie script


text:
File:Mike305 Storyboard adj frame.png

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to do thumbnail storyboarding

title: File:Mike305 Storyboard adj frame.png


text:
File:Mike305 Storyboard adj.jpg

Used with the WikiU Film School Lesson on how to do thumbnail storyboarding

title: File:Mike305 Storyboard adj.jpg


text: Category:TESOL Materials

title: Category:TESOL Materials


text:
User:Candyangel43

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em; width:100%" Literature
 * colspan="1" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; border:15px solid Steelblue; background-color:Thistle;" |

Introduction: I am a Masters Degree Student (Literature), with a B.A. in Humanities and World Religions, currently researching theories;  Signifying and Double Consciousness (Baldwin, Larsen, Packer & Bambara) within; 1.) African American Literature, specifically 1930's to present.  Political Theory and Religious Philosophy in; 2.) Early Americana Walt Whitman poetry verses the Transendentalist Amos Bronson and his daughter Louisa May Alcott (Little Women). Political and Cold War interpertation Theory in; 3.) Modern Pulp Fiction in the Short Story collection of T.C. Boyle, "Greasy Lake." Future plans:  Would like to form a reading/discussion group for anyone interested in the genre of fiction. Specifically modern or comic book form (pulp), Boyle's, Road to Wellville and Greasy Lake or if interested, included readings/discussions of historical problems addressed by modern African American Women in Literature (fiction).  May include Americana if others are drawn in this subject. *Note: Reading/Discussion group not designed to address the techniques for individuals on "how to write" a fictional piece, but will include; traditional structure of the short story as well as a modern approach to story telling, and poetry. The diverse style from ryhming schemes to free verse as exemplified by Walt Whitman.   Expectations:  None as yet, but am hopeful :) If interested please do not hesitate to email me regarding your thoughts on a reading/discussion group, please also include your interests! Many Thanks to Wiki users, Countrymike, Carmiggo & Mileu for guiding me around the site.

*Genre*
Female African American Authors Nella Larsen-(Novelist)-"Quicksand" ZZ Packer-(Short Story Collection, "Drinking Coffee Elsewhere")-"Brownies" Toni Cade Bambara-(Short Story)-"The Lesson" American Classics *in progress Amos Bronson (Transcendentalist) Walt Whitman (Poetry) Louisa May Alcott (Short Story Fiction & Transcendentalist)

American Modernist Authors *in progress T.C. Boyle (Pulp Fi ction)

title: User:Candyangel43


text:
User:Trekphiler

Boxing
{| style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; background:#F5FFFA; border: #99B3FF solid 1px; clear: right"

title: User:Trekphiler


text: User talk:Pwntpwnt

title: User talk:Pwntpwnt


text:
User:Megercliff

Megercliff is a username for Frederick Martin; I am a teacher at the Meeting School, a small Quaker independent high school located on a farm in the Monadnock region of New Hampshire, USA. We have a progressive and experiential educational philosophy; we consider all of life to be educational, so many of our learning experiences take place in meetings of our face-to-face social community, outdoors --on the farm or in the woods-- or otherwise away from computers. I teach history, topics in social studies, peace studies, and writing. I have an A.B. in Religion and an M.Ed in experiential education.

I am here on Wikiversity mainly to work on a learning project called Peak oil, energy, and society. Check it out!

title: User:Megercliff


text: Template:Clean

title: Template:Clean


text:
Introductory Classical Mechanics/Position, Velocity, Speed and Acceleration

Position
The position of any object is the place where we can find it at any constant time.Position is normally defined in terms of co-ordinates of axes.It is a point in space in which an event occurs.Displacement is defined as the shortest distance between two points of positions.It is important to distinguish between displacement, which can be viewed as the distance "as the crow flies" to an object's current location, and distance, which does not take into account direction and is simply what an "odometer" type measurement would read. This key difference is illustrated in the picture below.

Velocity and speed
When dealing with speed (s) and velocity (v), it is necessary to exercise caution. Although both are calculated through similar processes, an object's speed is not always its velocity.

As with acceleration, there are two types of velocity, each with its own definition. Instantaneous velocity (Vinst) is the velocity of an object at a specific time. Average velocity (vavg) is the change of position (Δx) in relation to the change in time (Δt). The formula for this is Vavg=Δx/Δt. Instantaneous velocity is the limit when Δt approach zero, which is the same as the derivative of position with respect to time.

Velocity and speed measure slightly different things. Velocity is a vector, meaning it has both a magnitude and a direction, while speed is a scalar, with only a magnitude. For example, when talking about the speed of a car, one would be able to simply say that the car is going 50 km/h. However, when using velocity, we must specify the direction that the car is moving. Another important distinction is that, since velocity has a direction, it can "counteract" itself, because it is measured from displacement, not distance (as speed is measured). This is illustrated in the following example: A baseball player is running to a base 30 meters away, at a speed of 10 m/s. They overshoot the base by 10 meters, turn around, and head back to the base, all at an average speed of 10 m/s. However, when we look at the velocity, the person's overall displacement was only 30 meters (as the last 20 meters cancelled out), in 5 total seconds of running (3 for the run, 1 running past the base, and 1 running back to the base), making the average velocity only 30/5 = 6 meters per second, even though the runner's speed was 10 m/s.

Acceleration
Acceleration is defined as the change in velocity over the change in time. For example, if a car is at a light that has just turned green, and after 5 seconds, the car was going 15 m/s (around 35 miles per hour), the car's acceleration would be given by Δv/Δt, or 15/5, which works out to be 3. In the SI system of measurement, acceleration is defined in terms of m/s2. There are two types of acceleration, average and instantaneous. Mathematically, average acceleration is denoted as aavg and instantaneous acceleration is ainst. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, a question about acceleration usually refers to aavg. Instantaneous acceleration is defined as the derivative of speed (or velocity) with respect to time.

Force and Newton's Laws of Motion
An extremely important aspect of acceleration is that it is fundamentally connected with one of the most important aspects of classical mechanics: force. All 3 of Newton's laws of motion reference forces. The first law states:

\sum \mathbf{F} = 0\; \Rightarrow\; \frac{\mathrm{d} \mathbf{v} }{\mathrm{d}t} = 0. $$ This means that if we treat every force acting on an object as a vector and add all of the vectors together, if the net force is 0, then there will be no acceleration of the object, and the object's velocity will be constant. The reverse is also true: the only way an object's velocity will not be constant is if it is acted upon by a force.

The second law of motion helps us see the relation between force and motion, by stating:
 * $$\mathbf{F} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{p}}{\mathrm{d}t} = \frac{\mathrm{d}(m\mathbf v)}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$

This is more commonly written in the form:
 * $$\mathbf{F} = m\,\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{v}}{\mathrm{d}t} = m\mathbf{a},$$

In other words, the force on an object is proportional to the acceleration that that object experiences. In fact, the coefficient of this proportionality is the mass of the object, meaning that force is determined in terms of kg x m/s2, which is usually referred to in "Newtons" of force.

Finally, Newton's third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. We are accustomed to this in our everyday lives. If you push on a wall, the wall pushes back at you. Another common example is that, while the explosion of a bullet propels it out the barrel of the gun, it, at the same time, propels the gun back towards the shooter, creating recoil.


text: Category:New Dynamic English

title: Category:New Dynamic English


text:
Economics hall of fame

Hall of Fame
The Wikiversity School of Economics ranking of the best 50 Top Economists you should not miss in your life! Write here the name of an economist you think should not be missed and a brief explanation for your choice. We will collect all the proposals and by the end of 2007 we will write the first names to be inserted in the hall of fame.
 * Candidates:
 * 1. TORSTEN PERSSON (Sweden, Stockholm University). Motivation: for the usage of new approaches in the Political Economy.
 * 2. JORGEN WEIBULL (Sweden, Stockholm University). Motivation: for his outstanding mathematical skills he applied in the economic analysis.
 * 3. JOSEPH STIGLITZ (U.S.A, Columbia University). Motivation: for his remarkable contributions in Public Economics.
 * 4. ROBERT ENGLE (U.S.A, University of California, San Diego). Motivation: for his contribution of ARCH models.
 * 5. ROBERT MUNDELL (U.S.A, Columbia University), Motivation: For his work on Optimum Currency Area theory and Supply-Side Economics.
 * 6 MHAIRI ELLIOT (England, Walton Learning Centre). Motivation: Her outstanding contributions to the teaching of economics to students in Milton Keynes.
 * 7. John Maynard Keynes
 * 8. Milton Friedman
 * 9. Franco Modigliani
 * 10. Edmund Phelps
 * 11. Robert Lucas
 * 12. Adam Smith
 * 13. John B. Taylor
 * 14. Robert Solow
 * 15. William Phillips
 * 16. Amartya Sen, Motivation: For his outstanding work in development & welfare economics.
 * 17. Arthur Lewis, Motivation: For his contribution to development thinking and policy.
 * 18. Steve Levitt (University of Chicago), Motivation: for his remarkable contributions to empirical and every-day economics.
 * 19. Celso Furtado (CEPAL), Motivation: For his formulation about the common characteristics of latin america economies.
 * 20. Richard Cantillon, Motivation: One of the first economists created some of the first principles of economics
 * 21. Friedrich Hayek, Motivation: One of the founders of the Austrian School of Economics
 * 22. Ludwig von Mises, Motivation: One of the founders of the Austrian School of Economics
 * 23. John Kenneth Galbraith, Motivation: An alternative view on Economics
 * 24. Tim Harford, Motivation: For bringing economic analysis to the masses.
 * 25. Karl Marx, Motivation: For introducing a new and radical approach to politcal economy and how it can benefit all
 * 26. Frederick Engels, Motivation: Providing Marx with some of his key ideas on how the economy should be run for the benefit of all
 * 27. David Ricardo, free-market pioneer
 * 28. John Stuart Mill, early textbook author & distributor of Ricardian & Smithian economic thought
 * 29. Thomas Malthus
 * 30. Jerememy Bentham: "the greatest good for the greatest number of people"

title: Economics hall of fame


text:
Talk:Study of Genesis

Fluid Start
I started setting up the Genesis study, initially intending to place an overview of the book on the main page. However now that I think about it, it might be worth having a lesson dedicated solely to an overview, to keep the main page free of too much content. Any objections? If not, I'll move it the next time I'm on.

--Opensourcejunkie 12:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

for the millions of people viewing this page, the overview lesson has been created ;)

--Opensourcejunkie 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Would you mind if I joined you in this project? You can look at my user page and contributions to see what I've done in this area. 202.178.112.22 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Feel free to join, but unfortunately under your IP there is no contribution :-( Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat  20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I meant my username on Wikipedia - I didn't realise this is a separate thing. Where can I find out more about how it works? 202.178.112.22 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again, what is your username then on Wikipedia ? So people can check.
 * How what works ? This is like wikipedia: a wiki - you can contribute anytime. If you want you can also write to User:Opensourcejunkie who contributed much to this. Erkan Yilmaz Wikiversity:Chat  16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I would love to have help on this project! With Genesis I had hoped to complete it myself, so that it could be an example of how I want to develop these studies.  But, I'm flexible; if you have a heart for Genesis then I'd be glad to have you on board.  Conversely, if you have another book of the Bible that you'd like to make your own, you can design a study through it instead.  Let me know what you decide, and also check out the editing guidelines I drafted.  Glad to have you on board! --Opensourcejunkie 06:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I was reading the above posts, and I think I understand what you were asking. Since Wikiversity is a different project from Wikipedia, it has a different set of usernames.  Hence you can't use your wikipedia username on wikiversity; you have to create a new one.  Then it might be a good idea to link your wikiversity user page back to your wikipedia user page, so people know that the two users are the same person.  (see my user page for an example) --Opensourcejunkie 06:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked out your contributions on wikipedia, and I noticed that you did a lot of editing without a username. if you don't have a username, feel free to create one by clicking "log in/create account" in the upper-right hand corner.  of course, you could be just like me, and forget to log in sometimes ;) --Opensourcejunkie 12:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark's Gospel
Hey! I'd like to jump on board the bandwagon as well ^^. I've already added some notable verses, I'm not sure how people feel about that but we can always change it later. By the way, since I also started editing accidentally without an IP, I think it might look to other people that I'm the person above (202.178.112.22). To clarify, I'm not. It just seems to be chance that they started talking without an account about this at the same time I did.

I've made an account now, so I guess all that should clear up now. --Saz909 16:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on the note of anyone having a passion for a paticular book, I would say mine is Mark's Gospel. Anyone have any objections if I make plans for a course there? --Saz909 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not! I had hoped someone would start a gospel soon :)  Have at it.  Before you do, though, check out the editing guidelines I whipped up to achieve some level of consistency between the courses.  If any of the guidelines need tweaking, let me know!

 * thanks for your interest && help,
 * --Opensourcejunkie 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Study of Genesis