text:
E-participation in the EuroDIG/Report

 * Title: How effective is direct remote interaction in EuroDIG?

This report was published by the Diplo Foundation on August 2011, the book of abstracts can be found here and the published version could be found here.

Summary
EuroDIG is the annual Internet governance regional meeting for all of Europe. It was established in 2008, with support from the Council of Europe and other stakeholders, following the commissioning of the Internet Governance Forum by the Secretary General of the United Nations in 2006. Its debates and messages have the purpose of being fed into the global forum.

Like similar Internet Governance meetings, EuroDIG has at the heart of its mission a commitment to raise awareness and be inclusive of all stakeholders. To attend that, following the example of the Internet Governance Forum, remote participation mechanisms were introduced in 2009. First seen as a tool to increase awareness of the issues and debates, their potential to improve inclusiveness was soon realized, and a greater effort to promote remote interaction has been supported since.

This report describes the evolution of remote participation in the EuroDIG and provides an assessment of the current situation, focusing on the issue of inclusiveness by direct remote interaction. It also provides steps to improve and put in greater perspective the effectiveness and reach of remote participation hubs, and outlines further directions to research the networks of people and organizations mobilized in the process.

Understanding the EuroDIG
The Internet Governance Forum is an annual meeting commissioned by the United Nations since 2006, following a mandate from the World Summit on the Information Society, with the objective of creating an international environment where the complex and intertwined issues related to the Internet could be openly discussed. Two of its founding principles are multistakeholderism and inclusiveness, meaning the forum should organize itself to be inclusive of all interested sectors of society, governments and corporations. Its mission, in turn, highlights the importance of raising awareness of the global population to the issues and discussions taking place there.

After the establishment of the forum, the idea of regional meetings for local coordination, and also in preparation to the forum, gained strength. It served both commitments of inclusiveness and raising awareness, since the global forum by itself could become a little isolated from local issues, and because local stakeholders might not have the resources to participate effectively in a larger and usually distant meeting. The regional meetings inherited those basic principles and missions of the forum, and are currently eight in number.

EuroDIG, the Europen Dialogue on Internet Governance, is the European annual regional meeting started in 2008, organized with support from the Council of Europe and other stakeholders.

Understanding remote participation
There are many ways in which participation in a meeting may take place remotely. The more intuitive one is direct output, that is, text, audio and, or, video of the meeting is made available through the Internet, ideally in real-time. On top of that, we can have direct interaction, where input from remote participants is fed into the meeting. Indirect internal participation is also possible, when remote participants whose input is being fed to the meeting interact among themselves. And finally we have indirect external participation, whereby communication takes place in media not specifically purposed for the meeting, such as blogs, microblogs and social networking tools, and not necessarily among people whose input is being directly fed to the meeting.

In this division, we can relate direct output and indirect external participation with the function of raising awareness, while direct interaction and indirect internal participation can be traced to inclusiveness of stakeholders. In the case of the EuroDIG, these were introduced incrementally, albeit in different moments, as we shall see in the next session.

Footprints: Evaluating direct interaction in previous EuroDIGs
Remote participation in the EuroDIG started during the second event, in 2009, with publicly available streaming of sessions and parallel on-line discussion in microblogs, blogs and wikis. More inclusive interaction, however, was first present during EuroDIG 2010, when remote participation hubs were first organized with support from Council of Europe offices.

Remote hubs are very local meetings where a hub coordinator, that is, someone experienced in Internet Governance issues and procedures, sets up a public space with Internet connectivity and invites people to gather and follow the sessions of the main meeting through live video streaming. Besides participating remotely, hubs are expected to conduct debates that bring forward perspectives particular to their location and there promote awareness of Internet Governance issues.

In 2010, they were stationed throughout Europe and nearby Asia in 10 different cities : Baku (Azerbaijan), Yerevan (Armenia), Sarajevo (Bosnia), Toulouse and Strasbourg (France), Tbilisi (Georgia), Chisinau (Moldova), Bucharest (Romania), Belgrade (Serbia) and Kiev (Ukraine). Communications software was made available for them to interact among themselves and with a moderator present in the meeting, who was in charge of bridging both discussion spaces.

These hubs followed the remote participation model from the Internet Governance Forum, with hub organizers locally responsible for coordination of session attendance and discussions, and remote moderators at the main event responsible to feed into it the hub's questions and comments.

The present report will focus on revisiting two readily available sources of information, in preparation to more detailed future research: transcripts from the sessions and a previous survey with remote hub organizers.

Digesting transcripts
Unfortunately, transcripts from said communications software — chat logs — were not saved or are not publicly accessible, preventing us from evaluating indirect internal participation. Only the transcripts of the meeting sessions are available, and even those were not carefully standardized or precise. Our focus, then, will be direct interaction of remote participants with the sessions taking place in Madrid.

Below are featured the respective quantities, plus the relevant excerpts, of remote interactions extracted from those transcripts. There are two sessions of uncertain remote participation, they are WS7, for which there is no transcript available, and the WrapUp , though during it some numbers on remote participation were reported.

Existing survey results
After EuroDIG 2010, the remote participation organisers sent a survey out to the hub coordinators, and their replies were summarized in a report, together with information from remote moderators.

The main results of this short report indicate a good, but not excellent, level of satisfaction from hub organizers with the experience of remote participation, both on the technical and the human side. More interestingly, it also includes numbers on the volume of remote participants and of questions asked by them, even if only for part of the sessions. The numbers for questions are sometimes at odds with the transcripts, as we shall see below.

Consolidated data
Presented here are data on remote interaction according to the transcripts and the report, as well as data on interaction with the audience, also sourced from the transcripts, which will be used as basis for comparison to evaluate the relative effectiveness of remote participation.

For the sake of completeness, and to offer a more concrete view of what we're calling interventions, we present all excerpts originating from remote participation found in the transcripts. Inspecting the text also gives a rough idea of the volume of questions reported by moderators that actually got conveyed to the meeting.

How present is not present?
But what conclusions can we draw from such incomplete and imprecise data? Well, first and foremost, that there is a need to standardize and create procedures to ensure data collection so the efficacy of remote participation can be better assessed. Still, a few important remarks can be made from looking at the information available.

For one, even if only for the sessions where we have data from remote moderators, the discrepancy between the number of questions reported by them and the number of questions that made it to the session — which can be accounted by inspecting the excerpts of the transcripts — is troubling. In effect, over a third of the questions seem to have never been conveyed to the session.

Second, if we take the sum of 185 participants in remote hubs, as reported by hub organizers, against the sum of 291 people attending the event , and compare the number of interventions per capita from each group, as counted in the transcript of events and excluding the Wrap-up session, then remote participants only managed to make one intervention for every five from the audience, approximately. Therefore, if we were to trust the data available, we could say that, in this sense, remote participation was five times less effective than attending the event.

All this points towards a situation where contributions from remote participants are significantly less likely to have an impact on the workshops and panels, and consequently on the messages from EuroDIG, that is, the resulting document that summarizes the output to be taken to the Internet Governance Forum.

Given the factual — and hardly avoidable — inequality of on site participation in the event, it would be fair to demand a stronger reinforcement of the inclusiveness aspect of remote participation, together with a more careful and complete reporting of what takes place in each session, both in the remote interfaces and on site. Of course, EuroDIG 2010 was the first to even include this aspect of remote inclusion, and the progress and results are admirable, but that should not be an excuse to be dutiful in its improvement, specially if it is deemed a necessary quality of the event.

Right here, right now
Currently, the process for the 2011 EuroDIG is underway. From its inception, the opportunity for remote participation has been greater, due to the possibility to contribute during planning meetings and in the composition of the agenda and program. The on-line process so far has included a survey on the priority of areas and topics for the event, direct interaction during the first and second planning meetings, a call for issues and workshop proposals, and a comment system on top of an agenda draft composed from previous input.

Though these initiatives contribute much to inclusiveness, it is still uncertain, however, the range and depth of improvements to be made during the event itself, such as measures that address the shortcomings discussed here.

On the data front, these could include training remote moderators and hub organizers to raise their care for consistent and detailed data collection, perfecting the software and mobilizing the technical team so that chat logs and attendance statistics are sharply recorded, advising the event organization to keep and publish on site attendance records on a session basis, require that session transcribers indicate clearly in the text whether an intervention originates from the panelists, the audience or has an element of remote participation. And, most importantly, make the data available publicly in an orderly fashion.

On the participation front, even from a conservative stance, hub organizers should more actively demand that their questions and observations be represented, and remote moderators should be careful not to let the flow of face-to-face discussion close the windows for them to intervene. Technologically, remote hubs could share video presence among themselves, and in the main meeting, where the remote moderator would first intervene and then pass the word to the remote participant.

...Connecting
Beyond making sure remote participants get represented during the event's preparation and sessions, it is also important, for the sake of both inclusiveness and awareness, to be mindful of each hub's connections within its country and with other stakeholders in general. Keeping that in mind, we propose a few questions that should be asked to hub organizers and, or, participants, to evaluate an individual hub's contribution to inclusiveness in his local context. These could be incorporated the survey sent out to hub organizers after the event, but would be ideally asked in advance of the event, perhaps during hub subscription.

These questions should allow a researcher to investigate whether a hub might be missing out some segment of local stakeholders, or population, as well as understand the local ties between stakeholders and their struggle for participation, specially in view of the selectiveness of those few who have the means to be be present in the event. The following are some sample questions that reflect this concern.

 * Regarding your country, can you tell which stakeholders (corporations, both for-profit and not; universities; government agencies; social movements; etc.) do you consider most important to Internet Governance issues there?
 * Can you tell whether those stakeholders were represented in the remote hub? Which ones?
 * Which regional stakeholders had strong ties to international ones? Could you describe those connections?
 * Was the hub in contact with other hubs directly? How so?

A more complete set of questions for both remote hub organizers and participants is being developed and is open to collaboration, it can be found on-line.

Messages
In conclusion, remote participation is a major instrument to effect EuroDIG's commitment to inclusiveness, and has been progressing steadily. There is still a lot of room for improvement, beginning with a more careful and complete recording of both the remote activities and those on site, so that more faithful and meaningful comparisons can be made to evaluate its effectiveness.

As it progresses, we must address the visible disadvantage of remote participants to those attending the event when it comes to bringing their points of view together. Again, having quality information is an enabler of these improvements.

Finally, since remote hubs are the primary means of direct interaction with the main event, we should look forward to more in-depth research on their relational structure, both in fostering possible collaborations among them and in terms of their position and connections within their local stakeholder environment.

This short report was made possible thanks to the invaluable assistance of Marília Maciel, the continuous support of Priyanthi Daluwatte and the advice from Gao Mosweu, it was concluded as part of the research implementation phase of Diplo Foundation's Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme 2010.

title: E-participation in the EuroDIG/Report


text:
User:Yongtao-Li/HW4.2

=Problem 4.2 "Obtain the weak form for the equations of heat conduction"=

Given
The equations of heat conduction

with the boundary conditions and The condition on the right is a convection condition.

Find
The weak form for the equations of heat conduction.

Solution
If we choose an arbitrary function w(x) and multiply the governing equation (4.2.1) and the convection boundary condition (4.2.3), we have

Do integrate by parts with equation (4.2.4), we have

$$ \left. {w\left( x \right)Ak\frac} \right|_0^{10} - \int_0^{10} {\fracAk\frac} dx + \int_0^{10} s dx = 0 $$

Then use the natural boundary condition (4.2.5), we have

where the weighting function satisfy

Therefore the weak form for the equations of heat conduction is to find T such that satisfy (4.2.2) and (4.2.6) with the constrain that satisfy (4.2.7).

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

title: User:Yongtao-Li/HW4.2


text:
User:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr/Books/recentchangescamp

 * University of Canberra/RCC2011
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Discussion About Open Space
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/WikiCulture
 * Wikis for education
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Printing books out of wikis
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/All about Appropedia
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/When will wikis supersede traditional Word Processing?
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Wikisource
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Wikis for fun
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/What key facilitation capacities help create successful wikis?
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Let's reverse-brainstorm: Why wikis don't work
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/The future of the Vocational Education and Training sector
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Open Educational Resources
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/All about Wikitravel
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Wikiversity for postgraduate education
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Wikimedia Australia session
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/The Bruce Declaration
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/Going forward: Future wiki conferences
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/RecentChangesCamp Expanded
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/RecentChangesCamp Expanded/San Francisco
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/RecentChangesCamp Expanded/Melbourne
 * University of Canberra/RCC2011/RecentChangesCamp Expanded/Hobart


text:
Talk:Psycholinguistics/A comparison of language processing in Chinese and English

Hi Minzhou,

Formatting
At first glance I would say that the first thing that jumps out at me is your formatting. I think your chapter would flow better if it was broken down into more sub-headings, instead of having giant blocks of text staring you in the face. Sub-headers are also great because they provide your reader with more context, i.e. they know what they're going to be learning about specifically. An example would be your English Grammar System. It would probably flow better if it was broken down into:

English Grammar System
 * A quick discussion of morphemes/phonemes, etc
 * Syntax

I think that is really important to keep in mind when re-formatting your chapter because text books DO use sub-headers all the time. This is because as a reader, if you see a giant block of text, you really do not want to read it. You can easily solve this problem by having sub-headers!

Your reference list also jumped out at me. The first thing was that you wrote Reference rather than References. That may be being nit-picky, but it's something that was really obvious to me. Another thing would be that your links should be integrated into the references section, instead of being stand alone. Just reference them like any normal reference: Wikipedia. (2011). Title page. Retrieved on February 23, 2011 from 'link'.

Errors
There are lots of little word errors throughout the paper as well. I would advise a thorough review of it, and maybe even a peer reviewer. One trick that helps you to recognize errors really quickly is to read the sentences backwards. Examples of errors are:
 * "English, as will as other Indo-European languages (e.g., French, German), is an alphabetic language"
 * "In spoken English, the phonemes are combined to create syllables. which are typically, a consonant-vowel-consonant combination (i.e., three phonemes), though there are variations." <- ''Another error with this sentence (aside from the lack of the capital W) is that you shouldn't start a sentence with "which"!
 * "More typically, words are altered by suffixes or prefixes when changing categories (e.g., noun and verb forms of a word typically differ Syntax constrains the sequential word order (word categories) by defining aspects like word order, subject-verb agreement (Liu, Li, Shu, Zhang & Chen, 2010)." <- This seems like it was two sentences, and you just forgot to put a period in between! This is really distracting as a reader because I feel like I'm reading one giant sentence that just doesn't make sense. Also, you have a parentheses that is never closed, and as a reader I'm wondering where the heck the closing part of the parentheses is!
 * "is very maturely in Western countries. In this type of studies" <- Should be "is very mature" or just "is mature", as well as "in these types of studies"!

Errors are tricky because if you've been writing for a while, or you read your own writing, it's easy to miss them! That's why a peer reviewer is really good, because they can point these issues out to you (I guess like I'm doing). One problem I find that I personally have is that when I am reading my own writing, I tend to leave words out and when I re-read, I mentally insert the words as I read along, so I don't pick up on the mistakes. Or I don't explain something in enough detail, because in my mind, I already know how it's supposed to work/sound but a general reader wouldn't be able to understand! These are traps that everyone falls into though, so don't feel badly!

Introduction
Your introduction is very short. As the reader I feel as though I'm unaware of what I will be reading. The introduction is supposed to be an area to set up your chapter: tell the reader what they're going to be learning, i.e. go into detail! It's okay to say that "This chapter focuses on light bulbs: when they were invented, who invented them, discovery of electricity, how they're made." It's okay to be concise, but this is just way too short.

Pictures
Your chapter could use some pictures. If you go to WikiCommons, you can probably find some pictures of English words and Chinese words which would maybe help the reader understand the difference between the two! It'd just be really nice to see some pictures, because they also help break up text.

Framework for Letter Grade
Based on the first glance, and from the Framework for Letter Grades provided by Dr. Newman, I would give you a B/C for the paper. This is because as I read through the framework, I marked your chapter as having these characteristics: used a variety of research (A), spelling/grammar mistakes begin to interfere with reading flow (B), generally good use of style manual - some inconsistencies (B), some inconsistency in the typed format (B), body contains research evidence (C), intro does not indicate purpose, seems irrelevant to paper (D).

Flow
After reading your chapter in depth, I felt like the flow for your chapter was kind of off. I felt as though there were some jumps, but other sentences logically progressed into one another. Transition sentences at the end of a paragraph would be a great help for this issue (i.e. set up what you're going to talk about in the next paragraph). Based on the framework, this is about a B: "logical flow is not always evident" (C), "some transitions between paragraphs and ideas" (B), "under use of transition statements and linking sentences" (B), and "general progression that builds on a central theme" (B). I found that this only really applied for your English Grammar System part though, and that the Chinese Grammar System did flow really well! I'd give you an A for that section. :)

However, a transition sentence to go between Chinese Grammar System and ERPs would be good. I felt a bit taken by surprise to be suddenly reading about ERPs! I also felt like the ERP section didn't connect well to the latter two paragraphs. You'd be better off to have a header of "English vs Chinese Semantic Processing" and then break it down into "how ERPs" work for a little blurb, then go into detail contrasting English to Chinese processing.

The Researches of English Semantic and Syntactic Processes
Firstly: this title is grammatically wrong. Researches just sounds very bizarre, though I know what you're getting at. I think you'd be better off having a header of: English Semantic and Syntactic Processes vs Chinese Semantic and Syntactic Processes through ERP studies. This would accurately convey everything you're saying, and then you could break it down into sub-headings of: Background of ERP, English Processing, Chinese Processing.

I didn't see a lot of syntactic processing in this section, you mostly focused on semantic. I'd also recommend maybe having some more sources. I know that you're not writing a chapter about Semantics/Syntax, but a little bit of background information or even just linking to the textbook chapters that DO discuss these things would be good to include! I think a compare and contrast would be good to have instead of splitting it into two headers though. Like, English language shows blah blah blah but this isn't seen in Chinese language processing, instead this is seen (random interesting contrasting fact)!

Errors
 * "These conditions are correct condition (has correct sentences), semantically incorrect condition (has sentences with semantic violations), syntactically incorrect condition (has sentences with syntactic violations) and combined correct condition (has sentences with both semantic and syntactic violations)." <-I feel like this sentence really needs a source.
 * "In auditory study of semantic and syntactic process, Friderici, Gunter, Hahne & Mauth (2003) noted that N400 was found in semantic violated condition." <- Friederici's name is incorrectly spelled. I only know this because I did the Syntax in the Brain chapter, and I had to spell her name like a thousand times.

The Researches of Chinese Semantic and Syntactic Processes
I feel like your sentences don't have enough citations. However, check with Dr. Newman or the TA because there's probably a way to cite the same reference only once in APA format. I'm just of the mentality that "if it's not my own ideas/thoughts/knowledge, cite it!" so I cite everything...

Errors:
 * "when there was a dragon actually came to his place, he was scared to death." <- This is grammatically wrong. It should be like "when a dragon actually came to his house".

Overall Conclusions
Firstly: I find this topic really interesting, so that's why I decided to review your chapter! I feel like I really learnt a lot about Chinese, and how it's different from English. I found that the portions of the chapter where you discussed Chinese were really in depth and very concise, clear, and flowed well but the parts about English language didn't flow as well for me. I understand that it's a broad topic, but there's probably a way to do it so that the English portions of the paper flow really well too!

There's a lot of little grammatical errors, but those are easily fixed. I pointed out the ones that I noticed and I hope that that's helpful. If you could have a friend re-read it, that'd be great too because the more people who read your chapter, the more feedback you can get. :)

Based on the grade rubric I would give you these grades:
 * Research: I would give you a B because you: "used a variety of different sources" (A), "most of the relevant authoritative sources were used" (A), "most viewpoints were supported well" (B) (I felt like the English portions could have used more sources), "not all major contrasting viewpoints were considered" (C) (I felt as though you didn't review a lot of different papers that may have found different/conflicting results. I know for the semantics/syntax section, there are a lot of papers that conflict in what they found!).
 * Logic/Organization: For the Chinese sections of the chapter I'd give you an A because it had: "logical flow" (A), "clear progression of ideas building on a central theme" (A), "clear transitions between paragraphs and ideas", "effect use of transition statements and linking statements" (A). For the English sections/ERP I'd give you a B because: "logical flow is not always evident" (C), "general progression that builds on a central theme" (B), "some transitions between paragraphs and ideas" (B), "under-use of transition sttements and linking sentences" (B).
 * Answers Questions/Makes Argument: I'd give you a B+ for this because you had 1/2 A's and 1/2 B's for the paper. I found this part tricky to grade though because you're not really arguing anything for these text book chapters, you're just laying out facts (in general, not specifically your paper). However I based this on: "makes the point" (A), "relevant to stated purpose" (A), "good evidence" (B) (I think more sources would be appropriate), "shows thought and analysis but lacks clear focus or pointedness" (B) (more specifically for the sections on English).
 * Writing: I would give you a B for this section. Again, a lot of the sections about Chinese language were superbly written but the English parts lacked. Also lots of little errors throughout the paper. I based this on: "consistent in tense and person" (A), "acknowledged all sources, contributors" (A), "spelling/grammar mistakes begin to interfere with reading flow" (B), "generally good use of style manual - some inconsistencies" (B), "some inconsistency in the typed format" (B) (The way you sourced references changed sometimes).
 * Structure: I'd give you a B- for this part... I just really found some parts difficult to read based on lack of headers/introduction. I based it on: "body contains research evidence" (A), "integration of ideas is less obvious, not as well connected" (B) (Transition sentences would fix this!), "intro does not indicate a purpose, seems irrelevant to paper" (C), "body generally connected intro" (C), "conclusion is very brief or missing" (F) (you just sort of ended your chapter, a concluding paragraph would fix this!)

Anyways, I hope that this helps! Sorry if it's really more in depth than you expected. Again, this was really interesting to learn about and I'm really glad I picked your chapter to review!

Alicataroo 23:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Language teaching/Fast ForWord

In terms of the research component of this chapter, I believe the author deserves an A. There was sufficient research conducted on the topic, which came from a vast amount of sources. All of the sources appear to be relevant sources, and the viewpoints from these sources are supported by either other sources found by the author.

For logic and organization, again, I believe the author deserves an A+. The flow of the chapter is ideal for learning about the topic. The only suggestion I can come up with to enhance the flow would be to tidy up the “How Does It Work?” section, there are quite a few examples that could be explained better, prior to being presented. Maybe a complete section labeled “Games” could help make the distinction easier.

For Analysis and Integration, I believe the author deserves an A-. There is evidence that the information portrayed in the chapter was critically analyzed and well thought out. Despite being analyzed and well integrated, there is however little evidence of the information being of an original thought or idea. I would suggest making an attempt to draw some personal conclusions on the topic and or other scenarios in which FastForword could be used.

In the Answers Question/Makes Argument section, I would give the author an A+. The chapter is extremely focused on the topic, and remains that way throughout. Every point made by the author is strong backed by evidence found within the reliable sources used by the author.

For Writing Style, the author again I believe deserves an A+. There are rarely any spelling or grammatical errors, and the chapter is presented in a logical and professional manner. The usage of references throughout the chapter also adds to the professional feel of the chapter.

In terms of Structure I think the chapter should be given an A. The introduction clearly states what the chapter will be about, and each section that follows adds to the information provided in the introduction. The only thing missing from the structure in my opinion is a conclusion. Although there is an adequate section on problems and criticisms, to complete the chapter there should have been a concluding section based on what had been learned or discussed in the preceding sections.

In my overall opinion, the chapter was written in a very professional and concise manner. All points are directly focused on the main topic, and are backed fully by relevant sources. The suggestions I offer would be to include some personal conclusions and ideas on the topics as well as to tidy up some of the larger sections. Including a conclusion section would also be beneficial for the reader.

title: Talk:Language teaching/Fast ForWord


text:
User talk:Kmshihabuddin

I just cant understand what this wikiversity for. I am a new user. Please someone help me.

title: User talk:Kmshihabuddin


text:
English Law

 Welcome A very warm welcome to the  Learning Project, which covers a subject more correctly known as English and Welsh law, and is one of the three legal systems in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It has evolved over several hundred years and now forms the core of a wide range of legal systems used in most Commonwealth countries.

This Learning Project focusses on English Law and covers topics of law at an undergraduate level but it is not a formal qualification. If you wish to practise as a solicitor or a barrister in England Wales you will have to enrol on a formal LLB degree or GDL course. The Project is designed to provide an informal learning experience, which may provide knowledge and skills that can be used elsewhere.

The project comprises a number of units, each of which covers a separate area of English Law. As tempting as it might be to compare this with the structure of a formal law degree, we don't allocate "credits" or "points" to any of the units. Each unit contains a number of smaller subunits and is designed to be studied alongside a relevant textbook from Wikibooks, one of the partner websites of Wikiversity. The links for the textbooks can be found at the start of each unit. Each unit outline will also list additional recommended texts, articles and other materials, which are not compulsory but intended for deeper independent study. Throughout each unit there will be opportunities in the form of quizzes and short essays to enable you to reflect on the material and see how much you understand. There is a large quiz at the end of the unit, which you can repeat as any times as you wish until you are confident of your understanding of the material. Additionally, there are a number of case studies and suggested essays to complement your studies as well as recommendations for further reading.

 Project summary
 * Project code: English Law
 * Prerequisites: None
 * Time investment: 1 calendar year
 * Assessment suggestions:
 * A series of quizzes in lieu of examinations on various aspects of English Law from the 12th century onwards including relevant case law: 40%
 * A series of detailed essays written as journal articles for peer-reviewing: 40%
 * A multi-part personal development portfolio: 20%
 * Portal: Humanities
 * School: Law
 * Level: Introductory—Advanced

 Content summary
 * In this Learning Project, participants will learn about the history and development of English Law from the 12th century to the modern era, with a particular focus on areas that are usually part of undergraduate law degrees, especially the compulsory ones required before a person can commence practising as a solicitor or a barrister.

 * One of the goals of this project is to utilise free materials, so the learner does not have to pay expensive subscriptions. This will be achieved by the use of a series of free textbooks (from Wikibooks), original source material for statutes and cases, a series of law reports at Wikiversity, the development of a WikiJournal of Law, quizzes and other freely available resources.

 * It will be noted that purely academic study is insufficient in preparing for legal practice and thus there will be suggested tools to enable some of these aspects. The limitations of online courses like this inhibit more active participation such as the classical skill of but there will be recommendations for overcoming these obstacles.

 Goals

 * Study and understand the origins of English Law;
 * Examine the current state of English Law, particularly in light of the withdrawal from the European Union;
 * Suggest tools and methods for participants to improve their practical skills.

 Subjects /Introduction/ /History/ ▪ /System/ ▪ /Skills/

 * Foundation
 * /Public Law/
 * /Criminal/ (Wikibook)
 * /Equity and Trusts/ (Wikibook)
 * /European Union/ (Wikibook)
 * Case guide
 * Brexit
 * /Property/ (Wikibook)
 * Obligations
 * /Contract/ (Wikibook)
 * /Tort/ (Wikibook)

 * Optional
 * /Admiralty/
 * /Commercial/
 * Sale of Goods
 * Services
 * /Company/ (Wikibook)
 * Private
 * Public
 * /Employment/
 * /Ethics/
 * /Family/
 * /Intellectual Property/
 * /Succession/

 * Supplemental
 * /Bibliography/
 * Authors
 * /Case List/
 * /Statute List/
 * Wikiversity Law Reports

 Learning materials

Sources
 * (1996—2009)
 * (1996—2009)
 * (1996—2009)

 * Texts
 * Wikibooks Law Series
 * Magna Carta at Wikisource
 * Bill of Rights 1689 at Wikisource

 Active participants

 Notes

title: English Law


text:
Talk:Introduction to ethics

Don't lie to the Nazis with MP60's strapped around their shoulder, got it. Lightylight 04:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Introduction to ethics


text:
User:Wikipelli

Wikipelli

title: User:Wikipelli


text:
Institutions and communities

 * "Communities are what people like you say people like me live in". John McTernan at User Generated Cities Forum, Renew Adelaide 2011.

How does an institution, a government agency, or a large organisation engage with community initiatives without over whelming, or distorting that initiative? And, how does a community initiative productively engage with institutions so that they may best benefit from what those institutions have to offer?

Institutions arrive with their "expertise" and resources. Community arrive with their local knowledge and understanding. How do these two perspectives converge for useful community initiatives? What are the roles of power, trust and conviviality (civility?)? Of culture, language and nuance? What are stories of successful institution/agency/organization collaborations with communities? What did each of them do to make the initiative successful? What did each gain? What did each give up for the shared goal(s)?

Let's explore these questions. Let's look for patterns, be they cautionary tales or heuristics & "rules of thumb" for success. We'll gather using a group interaction form called "Open Space" where each of us has the opportunity to convene small conversations around the issue of community and institutional collaboration. At the end of the day we will harvest and share what we learn and discover together. Maybe we'll plant seeds of additional learning or collaborative work.

Bring your question, story or challenge to think about together. Come to listen how other people talk about these issues. Come to recruit people to your cause. Come to present your work. Come to learn with and from each other.

Links and resources

 * Mike Gurstein. The Ethical Responsibility of Researchers in Community Informatics. gurstein.wordpress.com 2011-03-11
 * Ivan Illich. To Hell With Good Intentions. swaraj.org retrieved 2011-03-15
 * Peer Assist - An animation based on the peer assist methodology as outlined in the book Learning to Fly - Practical Knowledge Management from Leading and Learning Organisations by Chris Collison and Geoff Parcell (Capstone Publishing, 2001, 2004).

title: Institutions and communities


title: File:CORDIC.Background.2.A.pdf


title: File:CORDIC.Background.1.A.pdf


text:
Talk:Dignity/courageous examples of graceful responses

Truth and Reconciliation
There is a notorious episode in the history of Wikiversity that is still crying out for a sincere Truth and Reconciliation Process.

On October 19th, 2008, I wrote this:

When the requested Truth and Reconciliation Process did not materialize, I turned to satire and parody as the remedy of choice. It didn't repair the injustice, but it had a therapeutic effect for those sorely victimized by the corrupt exercise of raw political power. —Moulton 10:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)