text:
Energy methods in elasticity

Energy Methods/Variational Principles
Examples:
 * Principle of Virtual Work.
 * Principle of Minimum Potential Energy.
 * Principle of Minimum Complementary Energy.
 * Hu-Washizu Variational Principle.
 * Hellinger-Reissner Variational Principle.

Why ?
 * Powerful way of approaching problems in linear elasticity.
 * Can be used to derive the governing equations and boundary  conditions for special classes of problems.
 * Used as the basis of approximate solutions of elasticity problem, e.g., finite element method.
 * Can be used to obtain rigorous bounds on the stiffness of elastic structures/solids.

Functional
A functional is basically a function of some other functions. Let $$u(x)$$ be the displacement. Then the local strain energy density $$U[u(x)]$$ is a functional.

The Minimization Problem
Find $$u(x)$$ such that

U[u(x)] = \int_{x_0}^{x_1} F(x,u,u') dx $$ is a minimum.

Variation
Suppose

U[u(x) + \delta u(x)] \ge U[u(x)] ~\forall~ |\delta u(x)| < h ~\text{and}~ x \in (x_0, x_1) $$ and equality holds only when $$\delta u(x) = 0\,$$. Then $$\delta u\,$$ is the variation of $$u\,$$.

Necessary Condition : Euler Equation
A necessary condition that $$u(x)$$ minimizes $$U[u(x)]$$ is that the Euler equation

\frac{\partial F}{\partial u} - \frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial u^{'}} \right) = 0 $$ is satisfied and

\left.\frac{\partial F }{\partial u^{'}} \right|_{x_0} = 0 \text{or,} \eta(x_0) = 0 $$ and,

\left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial u^{'}} \right|_{x_1} = 0 \text{or,} \eta(x_1) = 0 $$ where

\delta u(x) = \epsilon \eta(x) $$ and $$\epsilon$$ is small and $$\eta(x)$$ is arbitrary.

Imposed BCs
The imposed BCs are the conditions

\eta(x_0) = 0~\text{and}~ \eta(x_1) = 0 $$ These are automatically satisfied.

Natural BCs
The natural BCs are the conditions

\left.\frac{\partial }{\partial u'} {F}\right|_{x_0} = 0 ~\text{and} \left.\frac{\partial }{\partial u'} {F}\right|_{x_1} = 0 $$

Stationary Functions
Any $$u(x)$$ that satisfies the necessary conditions make the functional $$U[u(x)]$$ stationary and is said to be a stationary function of the functional.

Taking Variations
Suppose that $$U$$ is a functional with

U[u(x)] = \int_{x_0}^{x_1} F(x,u,u') dx $$ Suppose that $$\delta u$$ is a small variation of $$u$$ that satisfies

\left|\delta u(x)\right| \ll 1 ~; \left|\delta u'(x)\right| \ll 1 ~\forall~ x \in (x_0,x_1) $$

Then the variation of $$F$$ is

\delta F = F(x,u+\delta u,u'+\delta u') -F(x,u,u')\, $$ or,

\delta F = \frac{\partial F}{\partial u}~\delta u + \frac{\partial F }{\partial u^'}~ \delta u' $$

The variation of $$U$$ is

\delta U = \int_{x_0}^{x_1} \delta F dx $$ or,

\delta U = \left.\frac{\partial F}{\partial u'} ~ \delta u \right|_{x_0}^{x_1} + \int_{x_0}^{x_1} \left[ \frac{\partial F }{\partial u} ~\delta u - \frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac{\partial F }{\partial u'} \right)\delta u\right] dx $$

Assuming that $$\delta U = 0\,$$ is a necessary condition to minimize $$U[u(x)]\,$$, we get the same necessary conditions as before.

Lagrange Multipliers
If there are additional constraints on minimization, we usually use Lagrange Multipliers.

Suppose the additional constraint is that $$x + u + u' = C$$. Then, we define a function,

\tilde{F}(x,u,u',\lambda) = F(x,u,u') - \lambda\left[x + u + u' - C\right] $$ where $$\lambda$$ is the Lagrange multiplier.

Then,

\frac{\partial \tilde{F} }{\partial \lambda} = 0 $$ Then, the values that minimize the function subject to the given constraint are given by the equations

\frac{\partial \tilde{F}}{\partial \lambda} = 0 ; \frac{\partial \tilde{F}}{\partial u } = 0 ; \frac{\partial \tilde{F}}{\partial u'} = 0 $$

More on Strain Energy Density
Recall that the strain energy density is defined as

U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}) = \int_0^{\varepsilon} \boldsymbol{\sigma}:d\boldsymbol{\varepsilon} $$ If the strain energy density is path independent, then it acts as a potential for stress, i.e.,

\sigma_{ij} = \frac{\partial U(\varepsilon) }{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}} $$ For adiabatic processes, $$U$$ is equal to the change in internal energy per unit volume.

For isothermal processes, $$U$$ is equal to the Helmholtz free energy per unit volume.

The natural state of a body is defined as the state in which the body is in stable thermal equilibrium with no external loads and zero stress and strain.

When we apply energy methods in linear elasticity, we implicitly assume that a body returns to its natural state after loads are removed. This implies that the Gibbs condition is satisfied :

U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}) \ge 0 \text{with} U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}) = 0 \text{iff} \boldsymbol{\varepsilon} = 0 $$

The Principle of Virtual Work
This principle is used in the derivation of several minimization principles and states that:

If $$\sigma^{(1)}_{ij}$$ is a state of stress satisfying equilibrium

\boldsymbol{\nabla}\bullet{\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{(1)}} + \mathbf{f}^{(1)} = 0\text{on}~ B $$ and the traction boundary condition

\widehat{\mathbf{n}}{}\bullet\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{(1)} = \mathbf{t}^{(1)} \text{on}~ \partial B $$ Also, if $$u^{(2)}$$ is a displacement field on $$B$$ such that the strain field $$\varepsilon^{(2)}_{ij}$$ is given by

\varepsilon^{(2)} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\boldsymbol{\nabla}u^{(2)} + (\boldsymbol{\nabla}u^{(2)})^T\right) $$ then

\int_{B} f_i^{(1)} u_i^{(2)}~ dV + \int_{\partial B} t_i^{(1)} u_i^{(2)}~ dA = \int_{B} \sigma_{ij}^{(1)} \varepsilon_{ij}^{(2)}~ dV $$

The converse also holds - and is usually more interesting because it gives us a different way of thinking about equilibrium.

Example
If there are jump discontinuities in a body, then what does equilibrium imply ?

Suppose that $$\boldsymbol{\sigma}$$ has a jump discontinuity across a body along the surface $$S$$ with normal $$\hat{\mathbf{m}}$$ because the materials on the two sides are different.

We define the equilibrium state to be one that satisfies the principle of virtual work for all displacement fields.

Now, if the spin tensor is zero, then

\sigma_{ij}^{(1)} \varepsilon_{ij}^{(2)} = (\sigma_{ij}^{(1)} u_i^{(2)})_{,j} - \sigma_{ij,j}^{(1)} u_i^{(2)} $$ If we use the above, and apply the divergence theorem to the virtual work equation we get

\int_{B} \left(\sigma^{(1)}_{ji,j} + f_i^{(1)} \right) u_i^{(2)}~ dV + \int_{\partial B} \left(t_i^{(1)} - \sigma_{ij}^{(1)} n_j\right) u_i^{(2)}~ dA = 0 $$ For the stress jump to satisfy this equation, we must have

\int_{B} \left(\sigma^{(1)}_{ji,j} + f_i^{(1)} \right) u_i^{(2)}~ dV + \int_{\partial B} \left(t_i^{(1)} - \sigma_{ij}^{(1)} n_j\right) u_i^{(2)}~ dA + \int_S (\sigma_{ij}^{+} m_j^{+} - \sigma_{ij}^{-} m_j^{-}) u_i^{(2)} dS = 0 $$ Hence, equilibrium is satisfied when

\sigma_{ij}^{+} m_j^{+} - \sigma_{ij}^{-} m_j^{-} = 0\text{on} S $$ which means that even though a jump can exist in the stresses, the tractions have to be continuous across the discontinuity.

Energy as a Functional
The work done by external forces on a body $$B$$ can be represented as a functional

W[\mathbf{u}] = \int_{\partial B} \left(\int_0^{\mathbf{u}} \mathbf{t}\bullet d\mathbf{u}\right) dA + \int_B \left(\int_0^{\mathbf{u}} \mathbf{f}\bullet d\mathbf{u}\right) dV $$ Taking the variation of $$W$$, we get

\delta W = \int_{\partial B}\frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{u}} \left[ \left(\int_0^{\mathbf{u}} \mathbf{t}\bullet d\mathbf{u}\right)\right] dA + \int_B \frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{u}} \left[ \left(\int_0^{\mathbf{u}} \mathbf{f}\bullet d\mathbf{u}\right)\right] dV $$ In index notation,

\delta W = \int_{\partial B}\frac{\partial }{\partial u_j} \left[ \left(\int_0^{\mathbf{u}} t_i~du_i\right)\right]\delta u_j ~ dA + \int_B \frac{\partial }{\partial u_j} \left[ \left(\int_0^{\mathbf{u}} f_i~du_i\right)\right]\delta u_j ~ dV $$ Noting that the external forces and body forces are not functions of $$\mathbf{u}$$, the above equation reduces to

\delta W = \int_{\partial B} t_j~\delta u_j ~ dA + \int_Bf_j~ \delta u_j ~ dV $$ The above expression is called the external virtual work.

If we apply the principle of virtual work, with

\mathbf{t} = \mathbf{t}^{(1)} ~; \mathbf{f} = \mathbf{f}^{(1)} ~; \boldsymbol{\sigma} = \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{(1)} ~; \delta\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{u}^{(2)} ~; \delta\boldsymbol{\varepsilon} = \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}^{(2)} $$ we get

\delta W = \int_B \boldsymbol{\sigma} : \delta\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}~dV $$ or,

\delta W = \int_B \frac{\partial U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon})}{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}} \delta\varepsilon_{ij}~dV $$ This is the expression for the internal virtual work.

Thus, another form of the principle of virtual work is

\int_B \frac{\partial U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon})}{\partial \varepsilon_{ij}} \delta\varepsilon_{ij}~dV = \int_{\partial B} t_j~\delta u_j ~ dA + \int_Bf_j~ \delta u_j ~ dV $$

Doing the reverse operation, it can be shown that

W[\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}(\mathbf{x})] = \int_R U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon})~dV $$ which relates the strain energy density ($$U$$) to the functional $$W$$ that represents the work done by external forces.

Energy Minimization Principles
Developed and explored by Green (1839), Haughton(1849), Kirchhoff (1850), Love (1906), Trefftz (1928) and others.

The Principle of Stationary Potential Energy
This principle states that:
 * Among all possible kinematically admissible displacement fields
 * the potential energy functional is rendered stationary
 * by only those that are actual displacement fields.

The Principle of Minimum Potential Energy
This principle states that
 * If the prescribed traction and body force fields are independent of the deformation
 * then the actual displacement field makes the potential energy functional an absolute minimum.

Kinematically Admissible Displacement Fields
Consider a body $$B$$ with a boundary $$\partial B$$ with an applied body force field $$\tilde{\mathbf{f}}$$.

Suppose that displacement BCs $$\mathbf{u} = \tilde{\mathbf{u}}$$ are prescribed on the part of the boundary $$\partial B^u$$.

Suppose also that traction BCs $$\widehat{\mathbf{n}}{}\bullet\boldsymbol{\sigma} = \tilde{\mathbf{t}}$$ are applied on the portion of the boundary $$\partial B^t$$.

A displacement field $$(\mathbf{v})$$ is kinematically admissible if
 * $$\mathbf{v}$$ satisfies the displacement boundary conditions  $$\mathbf{v} = \tilde{\mathbf{u}}$$ on $$\partial B^u$$.
 * $$\mathbf{v}$$ is continuously differentiable, i.e.,  $$\mathbf{v} \in C^3(\mathbb{R})$$ and $$|\boldsymbol{\nabla}{\mathbf{v}}| << 1$$.

Potential Energy Functional
The potential energy functional associated with the kinematically admissible displacement field $$\mathbf{v}$$ is defined as

\Pi[\mathbf{v},\boldsymbol{\varepsilon},\boldsymbol{\sigma}] = \int_B U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon})~dV - \int_B \tilde{\mathbf{f}}\bullet\mathbf{v}~dV - \int_{\partial B^t} \tilde{\mathbf{t}}\bullet\mathbf{v}~dA $$ or,

\Pi[\mathbf{v}] = \frac{1}{2}\int_B \boldsymbol{\nabla}{\mathbf{v}}:\mathbf{C}:\boldsymbol{\nabla}{\mathbf{v}}~dV - \int_B \tilde{\mathbf{f}}\bullet\mathbf{v}~dV - \int_{\partial B^t} \tilde{\mathbf{t}}\bullet\mathbf{v}~dA $$ In index notation,

\Pi[\mathbf{v}] = \frac{1}{2}\int_B C_{ijkl}~v_{k,l}~v_{i,j}~dV - \int_B \tilde{f}_i~v_i~dV - \int_{\partial B^t} \tilde{t}_i~v_i~dA $$

Stationary Points and Minimum of the Potential Energy Functional
What do we mean when we say that we "render the potential energy functional stationary" or "minimum"? Note that the potential energy is a functional of a vector field.

Suppose that the actual displacement field (one that satisfies equilibrium, compatibility and the boundary conditions) is $$\mathbf{u}$$.

Let $$\mathbf{v}$$ be a kinematically admissible variation of $$\mathbf{u}$$, i.e.,

\mathbf{v} = \mathbf{u} + k~\delta\mathbf{u} $$ where $$k$$ is a constant.

Then $$\delta\mathbf{u}$$ must be a displacement field that is continuously differentiable and satisfies the boundary conditions

\delta\mathbf{u} = 0 \text{on} \partial B^u $$ The potential energy functional for $$\mathbf{v}$$ is
 * $$\begin{align}

\Pi[\mathbf{u} + k~\delta\mathbf{u}] = & \frac{1}{2}\int_B \boldsymbol{\nabla}{(\mathbf{u} + k~\delta\mathbf{u})}:\mathbf{C}: \boldsymbol{\nabla}{(\mathbf{u}+k~\delta\mathbf{u})}~dV \\ &- \int_B \tilde{\mathbf{f}}\bullet(\mathbf{u}+k~\delta\mathbf{u})~dV - \int_{\partial B^t} \tilde{\mathbf{t}}\bullet(\mathbf{u}+k~\delta\mathbf{u})~dA \end{align}$$ In index notation,
 * $$\begin{align}

\Pi[\mathbf{u} + k~\delta\mathbf{u}] = & \frac{1}{2}\int_B C_{ijkl}(u_{i,j}+k~\delta u_{i,j}) (u_{k,l}+k~\delta u_{k,l})~dV \\ &- \int_B \tilde{f}_i(u_i+k~\delta u_i)~dV - \int_{\partial B^t} \tilde{t}_i(u_i+k~\delta u_i)~dA \end{align}$$ Expanding and rearranging,
 * $$\begin{align}

\Pi[\mathbf{u} + k~\delta\mathbf{u}] = & \frac{1}{2}\int_B C_{ijkl}~u_{i,j}~u_{k,l}~dV - \int_B \tilde{f}_i~u_i~dV - \int_{\partial B^t} \tilde{t}_i~u_i~dA \\ & + k\left[\frac{1}{2}\int_B C_{ijkl}~u_{i,j}~\delta u_{k,l}~dV + \frac{1}{2}\int_B C_{ijkl}~\delta u_{i,j}~u_{k,l}~dV \right]\text{(1)} \qquad \\ & - k\left[\int_B \tilde{f}_i~\delta u_i~dV + \int_{\partial B^t} \tilde{t}_i~\delta u_i~dA\right] \\ & + \frac{k^2}{2}\int_B C_{ijkl}~\delta u_{i,j}~\delta u_{k,l}~dV \end{align}$$ Using the symmetry of the stiffness tensor, we can simplify the above expression and write it it terms of variations of $$\Pi$$. Thus,

\Pi[\mathbf{u} + k~\delta\mathbf{u}] = \Pi[\mathbf{u}] + k~\delta\Pi[\mathbf{u},\delta\mathbf{u}] + \frac{1}{2} k^2~\delta^2\Pi(\mathbf{u},\delta\mathbf{u}) $$ You can check that the first and second variations of $$\Pi$$ turn out to be equal to the expanded terms in equation (1).

Stationary Point
If

\delta\Pi(\mathbf{u},\delta\mathbf{u}) = 0 $$ for all admissible variations $$\delta\mathbf{u}$$, then $$\mathbf{u}$$ is a { stationary point} of the functional $$\Pi$$.

Minimum
If

\delta^2\Pi(\mathbf{u},\delta\mathbf{u}) > 0 $$ for all admissible variations $$\delta\mathbf{u}$$, then $$\mathbf{u}$$ is makes the functional $$\Pi$$ a minimum.

Observations on Uniqueness and Existence of Solutions

 * The potential energy functional is a global minimum if and only   if the displacement field satisfies traction BCs, equilibrium and   the displacement BCs.
 * Thus, if the potential energy functional actually has a global mininum, then a solution exists and must be unique.
 * Displacement boundary value problems do not face the problem  of rigid body motions. Therefore, a global minimum always  exists for such problems and is unique.
 * Traction boundary value problems may not have unique solutions, nor might solutions always exist unless the external loads are  in static equilibrium.

Example: Approximate Solutions of Torsion Problems
Suppose that we have a cylindrical body of length $$L$$ and an arbitrary cross-section that is subject to equal and opposite torques at the two ends. The displacement field is given by

u_1 = -\alpha x_2 x_3 ~; u_2 = \alpha x_1 x_3 ~; u_3 = \alpha \psi(x_1,x_2) $$

The traction-free boundary conditions on the lateral surfaces can be given as

\widehat{\mathbf{n}}{}\bullet\boldsymbol{\sigma} = 0 $$

The torque BC at the ends can be replaced with displacement BCs

\text{on}~ x_3 = 0~; ~ u_1 = u_2 = 0 ~, u_3 = \alpha\psi(x_1,x_2) $$ and

\text{on}~ x_3 = L~; ~ u_1 = -\alpha L x_2 ~, u_2 = \alpha L x_1 ~, u_3 = \alpha\psi(x_1,x_2) $$

Thus, we change the problem from a purely traction boundary value problem to one in which the twist per unit length ($$\alpha$$) is prescribed instead of the applied torque ($$T$$).

The modified problem is one with zero body force and zero tractions. Therefore, the potential energy functional reduces to

\Pi[\mathbf{v},\boldsymbol{\varepsilon},\boldsymbol{\sigma}] = \int_B U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon})~dV $$

The stresses and strains for the torsion problem are given by
 * $$\begin{align}

\sigma_{13} = \mu\alpha(\psi_{,1}-x_2) & & \sigma_{23} = \mu\alpha(\psi_{,2}+x_1) \\ \varepsilon_{13} = \frac{\alpha}{2}(\psi_{,1}-x_2) &&\varepsilon_{23} = \frac{\alpha}{2}(\psi_{,2}+x_1) \end{align}$$

Therefore, the internal energy is

U(\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}) = \frac{1}{2}\sigma_{ij}\varepsilon_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \mu\alpha^2 \left[(\psi_{,1} - x_2)^2 + (\psi_{,2} + x_1)^2\right] $$

The potential energy per unit length ($$\bar{\Pi}$$) is

\bar{\Pi}[\psi(x_1,x_2)] = \frac{1}{2} \mu\alpha^2 \int_{\mathcal{S}} \left[(\psi_{,1} - x_2)^2 + (\psi_{,2} + x_1)^2\right] dA $$

According to the principle of minimum potential energy, the actual warping function is the one that makes $$\bar{\Pi}$$ an absolute minimum.

Suppose we are given a warping function of the form

\psi = A x_1^2 + B x_1 x_2 + C x_2^2 $$

Then, the potential energy per unit length is
 * $$\begin{align}

\bar{\Pi}[\psi(x_1,x_2)] = \frac{1}{2} \mu\alpha^2 &\left[ \int_{\mathcal{S}} \left[4A^2 + (B+1)^2\right] x_1^2~dA + \int_{\mathcal{S}} \left[4C^2 + (B-1)^2\right] x_2^2~dA +\right. \\ &\left.\int_{\mathcal{S}} 4\left[A(B-1) + C(B+1)\right] x_1~x_2~dA\right] \end{align}$$

If $$x_1$$ and $$x_2$$ are the principal axes of inertia, then we have

I_1 = \int_{\mathcal{S}} x_1^2~dA ~; I_2 = \int_{\mathcal{S}} x_2^2~dA ~; I_{12} = \int_{\mathcal{S}} x_1~x_2~dA = 0 $$ Hence,
 * $$\begin{align}

\bar{\Pi}[\psi(x_1,x_2)] = & \frac{1}{2} \mu\alpha^2 \left[ \left[4A^2 + (B+1)^2\right] I_1 + \left[4C^2 + (B-1)^2\right] I_2 \right] \end{align}$$ The stationary points of the potential energy functional are given by
 * $$\begin{align}

\frac{\partial \bar{\Pi}}{\partial A} & = 4\mu\alpha^2~I_2~A = 0 \\ \frac{\partial \bar{\Pi}}{\partial B} & = \mu\alpha^2\left[(B+1)I_2+(B-1)I_1\right] = 0 \\ \frac{\partial \bar{\Pi}}{\partial C} & = 4\mu\alpha^2~I_2~A = 0 \end{align}$$ Thus, we have,

A = 0 ~; B = \frac{I_1-I_2}{I_1+I_2} ~; C = 0 \, $$ Thus the best approximation to the warping function is

\psi =\frac{I_1-I_2}{I_1+I_2} x_1 x_2 \, $$ The above technique is called the Rayleigh-Ritz method.

An important observation that should be made at this stage is about the approximate nature of the solution.

For cross-sections in which $$I_1 = I_2\,$$, (e.g., circular or square sections) the best approximation for $$\psi$$ is $$\psi = 0$$. This gives us the exact result for circular cross-sections.

However, for square cross-sections we have an error of nearly 20%.

Related Content
Introduction to Elasticity

title: Energy methods in elasticity


text:
Talk:System administration

Subpages
I'm not sure how sub-pages for this "topic" should be (lesson namespace or wha?), but i could start filling in some info and then it could always be moved to sub-pages later on. --212.130.183.202 07:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Wikiversity's policy is be bold. If you have content, put it in, and we'll figure out where it goes later. Maybe we could co-ordinate a bit, and devide this topic up a little. Let me know what you think. Historybuff 04:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a great plan. --212.130.183.202 08:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting
How about a troubleshooting sub-section? Something where you can look-up a symptom, like an event-id or a BSOD stop code and then possible causes will get added to them. --212.130.183.202 12:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a better place for that or do i just make a troubleshooting headline and start typing? --212.130.183.202 07:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think adding a section and starting typing is perfect. The page is getting a bit long, so we should starting thinking about dividing it up into logical subtopics, but if you have something to write, write away. Historybuff 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is great way to start.  I also think it would be great to start some nested subpages for different common computer configurations.  Basically grow a tree from generic troubleshooting considerations and tips to more specific detail for specific configurations. Mirwin 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:System administration


text:
User:Kaegwyn

I am trying to learn Japanese. I would like to meet another Wikiversity user who is also using this site to learn Japanese.

title: User:Kaegwyn


text:
File talk:Onionpersona1.jpg

TWFred 08:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a mistake.

Administrator, please remove. I thought I was going to take a shortcut, but it's better to do without. My apologies. I just uploaded them, and immediately regret it.

My apologies again. Even if Onion didn't mind, it would still be wrong. Sorry.

title: File talk:Onionpersona1.jpg


text:
Wikiversity:Free education and free school?

Wikiversity for Free Education and Free School: a New Initiative for Global Capacity Building?

Please add comments to the discussion page.

Teemu Leinonen, Tere Vadén & Juha Suoranta

Draft - v.0.8

2.8.2007

Introduction
Wikiversity is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. The project was launched in June 2006 after an extensive online discussion with xxx on the mission, vision and objectives of the project. According to the approved project proposal

Wikiversity is a network of communities - some local, some global. It is their repository of free, multilingual materials. Wikiversity is an effort to improve the tools which help groups of remote collaborators and their interested communities to create and share an understanding about a subject or event. Wikiversity aims to support them in sharing their learning with their outside worlds. It is an effort to encourage new routines, which, by using new ICT tools, may be more inclusive of a global audience - one that wishes to participate, to some degree.

The construction and remix (link) of materials is led by people who may be experts or learners. Furthermore the Wikiversity community defines Wikiversity to be "a sustainable centre for the creation, use and reuse, and dissemination of free learning materials and events". It's goals are:

 * To Collaborate in the creation and hosting of a range of free, multilingual learning materials; for all age groups, in all languages.
 * To Host learning communities whose projects share an understanding about these materials,and
 * To Complement and develop existing Wikimedia projects in partnership with universities globally.

Wikimedia Foundation is most well known from the Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia online - project. The mission of the Foundation is:

 * "To empower and engage people around the world in collecting and developing unbiased educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to share it immediately and globally. In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation works to provide for an infrastructure and an organizational philosophy that will support and assist to develop global, multilingual and multidisciplinary projects.

The Foundation will make and keep the educational content from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission&oldid=573270)

The vision of the Foundation is formulated as follows:

 * "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." (http://wikimediafoundation.org)

In practice Wikimedia Foundation works for to develop and to promote globally available, free - as in freedom, as well as price - resources to everyone in their own language. However, according to the mission statement the focus is on "neutral educational content". In this sense all the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are also educational projects.

Wikipedia and Wikiversity are just two projects sponsored by the Foundation. For instance, Wiktionary is a project to create free dictionaries and thesauri in every language. Wikibooks aims to build a collection of free e-book resources, including textbooks, manuals, language courses, and public domain books. Wikispecies is an open, wiki-based project to gather central database of all the species of the world; and Wikinews is providing a free alternative news service. (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects). Each of the projects are, in their own way, working on to realize the Foundations dream: offer everyone an access and means to share knowledge and to increase the accessibility of educational content for all.

Wiki-projects are such that they take their form over a time. Wiki-projects are, first of all, communities that are responsible in building their own culture and way of operating. When a wiki-project is started it is hard to know what it finally will become. Wiki-projects do not develop independently, but progress in a social context which is invariably defined by language. Because of the free nature - anyone may join - the context of every wiki-project is always changing, depending on the socio-cultural-demographic of the community members.

In the time of writing this Wikiversity is still taking its form. It looks like communities are not yet exactly sure what architecture and routines offer the greatest utility. Some parts of the Wikiversity are already becoming real online learning communities, one kind of educational entity. One may even see some promising signs of it's routines becoming institutionalized; each article is basically a peer reviewed document by peers without (known) credentials. The slogans used within the Wikiversity project promises a lot: "Universities Working Together" and "set learning free".

There is a chance that Wikiversity will become an important part of an online education institution - one which  offers an introduction to free lifelong learning. This philosophy of lifelong education is shared between all members of all projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is the foundation stone of Wikiversity.

In this paper we will firstly introduce three metaphors of learning that are common in the Western way of thinking about learning. These are acquisition, participation and knowledge creation. The friction between these metaphors strongly affects the ways in which we go about instituting educational routines. After this we will present the history and practical implementation of free adult education and free school movement and an idea of activist university. The free adult education will be presented as seen in the Scandinavian tradition. The ideas and implementations of the free school and empowering education is be based on number of radical pedagogical thinkers around the world such as Paulo Freire (1993), Henry Giroux (2007), bell hooks (1994), Ivan Illich (1971) and Peter McLaren (2005), among many others. And the activist university, in its turn, is a concept originally introduced by Bertell Ollman.

Based on the three metaphors of learning and three traditions of education we will present several ideas and recommendations for the future direction for the Wikiversity. Our argument is based on the belief, that without forgetting the basics, Wikiversity – as well as the other wiki-projects – should aim for the highest possible potential intrinsic in their unique combination of free content, volunteer co-operation and massive distribution of labour. We should not be content to replicate or even to replace existing resources or functions. The Wikiversity should be a build on two-fold foundation: (1) the Wikipedia project's success factors forcing genuinely new forms and results in education and learning and (2) tradition of free and liberal educational philosophy and practice.

Three Metaphors of Learning
In the article, "On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one," Sfard (1998) points out that there are basically two metaphors that are dominating our way of thinking about learning. These are learning as acquisition and learning as participation.

In the acquisition metaphor the human mind is seen as a container of knowledge and learning is a process where the learner (or her teachers) is filling the container with knowledge (Paavola et al. 2004). The historical root of the acquisition metaphor can be located to the era when documented information was a scarcity: production and reproduction of written documents was expensive. On the other hand, also the trend of considering education primarily in the context of for profit activity has strengthened the acquisition metaphor. Many people have been taught that to reach learning you must pay for someone who will give you the knowledge you need. Implementations relying on the acquisition metaphor include standardized certification courses with standard materials and tests. In a farmer family learning arrangement the acquisition metaphor would mean that the parents are selling for their children a guidebook with tricks and tips how to run the farm.

The participation metaphor of learning emphasizes participation in various cultural practices and shared learning activities (Paavola et al. 2004). In this metaphor knowledge and learning are situated in people's life-worlds, in their socio-cultural contexts. In this metaphor, knowledge is accessible only by the cultural mediation taking place in socio-cultural activities. The practical educational implementations of the participation metaphor are often such as dialogues among the learning community and learning by doing. The traditional way of learning your parents way of living and their occupation is a good example of the participatory metaphor. With the farmer family example it means that a child crowing on a farm will at first first follow what her parents are doing, later work with them in the fields, and at some point - in time having her own children - will master the tasks individually.

A third metaphor that could supplement the first two, called the knowledge-creation metaphor of learning, has been proposed by Paavola et al. (2004). The model is partly based on the works of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Engeström (1987) and Bereiter (2002). All of them have emphasised creation of conceptual and material cultural knowledge artifacts in communities. The knowledge artifacts are artifacts that are part of the community's or even the whole human-kind's collective knowledge. In the case of learning, the focus is on creating knowledge, to make more knowledge artifacts. Because the situation and context where learning takes place is always different the knowledge artifacts created by the learner are always new. They are new for the learner as she did not have them before. We may see that the knowledge-creation metaphor has a connection to the acquisition and the participation metaphors. In a good learning situation you acquire knowledge but also participate in the process of creating knowledge. With the example of the farmer family it would mean that children would learn farming with their family in the fields, but would also have access to different kind of materials related to farming. Furthermore, based on the acquisition and participation the new generation would try to create new knowledge in the context of their own farm, by asking what practices in their father and mother's way of doing are such that are good to keep and what new ways of farming could be implemented from the materials available. During the learning process they potentially would also participate in the process of creating collective knowledge.

As a platform for learning, Wikiveristy has potential to cover all the three bases. When it comes to the acquisition metaphor, the free/libre nature of Wikiversity content guarantees access and removes scarcity. This in itself is a great benefit, and promises to equalize and democratize learning when technological and ideological barriers of access are removed. The second metaphor, participation, is the forte of Wikipedia, and could prove to be a similar boon for Wikiversity. Arguably, with millions of people editing Wikipedia articles and hundreds of thousands discussing them, Wikipedia has become the largest and most vibrant non-governmental project of democratic enlightenment. When Immanuel Kant in 1784 answered the question "What is enlightenment?", by insisting on the public and authority-independent use of reason, he formulated an ideal that has in various forms guided Western and liberal notions of education up to Jürgen Habermas' (1981) theories of ideal communication. The participation in creating free educational content provides a forum for interactive and dialogical public use of reason that is a value in itself in addition to creating free content.

However, the greatest unique potential of the Wikiversity lies in actively creating knowledge artifacts, or 'works'. Think of a typical class in a typical school. There is a textbook and a teacher that goes through the topics in the book, and the students try to acquire the information covered. If the teacher is good, she is able to contextualize the topic and involves the students in critically assessing and evaluating the information. This may lead to dialogue and learning by doing. Typically the process would stop here, until the students were to use their acquired knowledge in the "real world" outside the school. However, with free/libre content and massively distributer volunteer co-operation, arrangements like the Wikiversity can provide a setting in which the students (and the teacher) possibly together with other students create a new knowledge artifact (be it a refined version of the textbook, or a contextualised course based on the textbook, or practical examples to illustrate the phenomena discussed through audio, video, etc.). This radical proliferation of knowledge artifacts has the potential of unleashing an unprecedented collective educational process. The Wikiversity should be prepared for this proliferation by not assuming too strict or limiting policies on either the type or nature of contents. (Footnote: For instance, it can be argued that a deletionist policy together with a strict NOR policy in the context of Wikipedia limits the possibilities of emergent collective knowledge production. Consequently, these and related policies should be carefully considered in the case of the Wikiversity.) This emphasis on conceptual artifacts is also pointed out by Jerome Bruner who maintains that externalization as collective cultural activity is vital in all shared learning processes; by externalization he refers to the importance of producing works (or oeuvres) which create a sense belonging, sustain group solidarity and help make a community of mutual learners: works as externalization of the shared learning projects "give pride, identity, and a sense of continuity to those who participate." In addition they "promote a sense of the division of labor." (Bruner 1996, 22–23.)

Crucially, the knowledge creation process includes both the tangible and intangible processes through which the participants learn. In a famous example from cognitive science, John Haugeland (1998, 234-5) describes the way in which a skill is embedded in the complete whole of “agent plus environment”. Think of the way in which a person can find her way by car from one city to another. It is quite likely that the ability to find one's way is dependent on the physical existence of the road system. The cognitive skill and the needed information are coded in the physical environment that in this sense makes possible the “intelligent” behaviour of finding one's way. If the road system did not exist, one could not find one's way to the desired place even if the means, say a helicopter, were available. “Finding one's way” as a cognitive skill is a property of the agent plus the environment. Changes in either one will change the skill.

To take an example closer to home, think about the different way in which reliability is created in the Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. In Britannica, the reliability of the content is a function of the authority of the writers and the process through which the experts are selected and peer-reviewed. In the case of Wikipedia, the "history" and "discuss" buttons on each page provide a perspective to the genealogy of the article. Reliability grows through interaction and revision, not through authority. Consequently, the nature of the content is cognitively different. Many users of the Wikipedia know that information is not reliable in the same way as information in the Britannica or, say, in the Citizendium, but are still able to use it to their benefit.

The action of learning-by-consulting-the-Britannica and learning-by-consulting-the-Wikipedia are different, and potentially result in different cognitive skills and knowledge artifacts (such as Wikipedia forks, hypertexts, mash-ups, etc.). Let us think Wikipedia and Wikiversity and the kind as storages of gradually evolving and developing information: their beauty – or to be more blunt, the wet dream of a constructivist – lies in the very possibility of tracking the changes of a given article or topic from the archives, just push the history tab on the screen. "The value of this technique will increase over the years as Wikipedia gets older" (Lichtenstein 2007).

This is the potential that the Wikiveristy has to be aware of and nurture: learning-by-using-the-Wikiversity may be a knowledge creating act sui generis, and should not be brought down by the limitations and conventions of conventional education. This matter is most urgent in the case of free/libre nature of the Wikiversity; a topic to which we return, below.

Free and Liberal Adult Education and Free School Movement
The participation metaphor of learning mentioned above also captures some of the essential parts of free and liberal adult education. Free and liberal adult education is the first and foremost participatory activity. It is goal-oriented and collaborative, and it aims at social as well as individual transformation.

Free and liberal adult education is always based on and embedded in understanding social circumstances and local realities. Thus it has a straight connection to people's everyday lives and it stems from their need to solve practical problems by finding solutions together. Three common characteristics for free and liberal adult education are as follows: (1) the diversity of curricula, (2) voluntary nature of participation and (3) learner-based study methods. Free and liberal education is often open-ended; that is, it has no ready-made goals, only a problem-based starting point. Thus it has nothing to do with formal curricula "from above" as in formal schooling systems. The other thing separating free and liberal adult education from formal schooling is voluntary participation; people are not forced to join their forces in adult education. Voluntary participation implies study methods which respect participants' experience and ideas. The most common study method has been study circle; in it adults share their worldviews and lived experiences, and build insights in democratic dialogue.

Historically free and liberal adult education has occurred in many places. Among these are folk high schools, workers' educational centers and civic centers. Also public libraries, museums and the free press can be seen as forms of liberal adult education. Free and liberal adult education is also often linked with social movements in their task of tackling burning social or ecological issues of the time.

In Nordic countries free and liberal adult education has played important role in the socio-economical and cultural development of the nations. The liberal adult education movement's ideological father was N.F.S. Grundtvig (1783-1872), Danish teacher, poet and philosopher who found the first Folk High School in Denmark in 1844. Originally Grundtvig wanted to reform the existing higher education in Denmark which he saw educating only scholars who didn't have any connection to the everyday life of ordinary people. He claimed that the university did not anymore serve the society. In the Folk High School the aim was to educate people for active participation in society and popular life. The focus of studies was on practical skills, history and national poetry. Studies were a combination of practical science and humanities with emphasis on wisdom and equality. The "Grundtvigian" educational thinking took over fast in other Nordic countries where number of Folk High Schools, "workers educational centers" and "adult education centers" were found in later 1800's and early 1900's. In 1960's the free and liberal education's significance for socio-economical development, cultural life and people's well being was recognized and the institutions started to receive state subsidies. Still today taking voluntary studies in free and liberal adult education institutions is very popular in Nordic countries. For instance in Finland in 2004, about 1 million adults (total population of 5.2 million) took some studies in one of the liberal adult education institutions. 70% of the participants were women. 51% of the studies were in the field of art and culture, including handicraft (20%) and music (14%) as the most popular study subjects. Other popular subjects of studies were humanities, education, social and healthcare and sports. (Koulutuksen arviointineuvosto/ Tapio Vaherva 2004, Tilastokeskus).

Free school movement is a "second cousin" of free and liberal adult education, for they share many, if not all, of their characteristics such as open-ended curriculum, situatedness in everyday life, and problem-based and dialogical study methods. Free school movement has its root in the critique of national, "closed" schooling systems. In the critique they were seen as central "ideological state apparatuses" with national political bias and direction, and sometimes, as in the Nordic countries, a comprehensive national curriculum. In other words schooling was defined as politically directed social institution with a western emphasis in the contents of learning. According to critics, like Ivan Illich, schooling is harnessed on the wagons of economical utility, and it is directed by the control of learning contents. This control is called as national and supranational educational policies. In the era of economic globalization the main aim seemed to have been the production of prolonged exchange value of a well-educated citizens. Teachers and students are defined as state-subjects and their learning means merely "having" more knowledge and more production and consumption power.

On the contrary in free school movement education was not defined as state-governed "thing" located in places like schools. Instead it was maintained that education was naturally evolving activity which belonged to people, not to governments. Furthermore education's aim was not to improve people's capacity to buy more, or to be more efficient in serving some corporation, but to enhance people's individual, social and spiritual faculties, and increase their capabilities to self-direction and self-government. One of the early critics of the state-led schooling system, Ivan Illich, imagined a world in his book Deschooling Society (1971), in which learning was expanded across people's everyday lives: to the streets and small study corners where one could watch a film or listen to a record, and have an educative conversation with others. This idea breaks with the old dichotomy between teachers and students and creates a space where former teachers become students and former students as teachers: no one is seen as passive, empty vessel but as active creators capable of sharing and absorbing their lived experience as well as gradually learning how to assess external information. Already in 1971, llich talks about "learning webs," where people are exchanging teaching and learning based on their needs. In Illich own words:

 * "The current search for new educational funnels must be reversed into the search for their institutional inverse: educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each one to transform each moment of his living into one of learning, sharing and caring." (Illich 1971)

 * "A good educational system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and, finally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known." (Illich 1971)

From the Illich's dream, with three corner stones of a good education system, the access to available resources at any time is becoming real because of the Internet, the Web, Wikimedia Foundation and other online free/libre content initiatives. We may assume that in a several years, learning materials in most basic study subjects, in number of language will be available online for all and for free. At the same time, blogs, citizen journalism, camera phones, etc. are furnishing us all to present issues to the public, just like in Illich's third purpose of a good education system. The second purpose - to have free and open marketplace where people can find other people interested to study something together - is not yet happening online.

Many people see free and liberal adult education and free school movement as an attempt to bypass the state control on education. This is not necessarily the case. The state's role in free and liberal eduction system is to guarantee equality - to make free and liberal education available and accessible for all. The practical implementation of this can be state-run free and liberal schools and adult education institutions, in a similar way as the state is providing library services for all. The whole free and liberal education system - including libraries, free press, schools, higher education, and adult education institutions - should work together to ensure that everyone will have access to the free and liberal education system.

In those parts of the world where free and liberal education eco-system is strong, the free and liberal online education initiative - such as the Wikimedia Foundation's projects - often complement the existing system. However, in many parts of the world the free and liberal education system is very weak or totally non-existing. In these the online free and liberal education projects, such as Wikimedia Foundation's projects, may have an important role to play. They may offer people the change to participate in free and liberal education, and also show governments the power of free and liberal education and its relation to people's well-being. It is possible, in turn, that this drives general education reforms in many parts of the developing world.

We may see that today's free and liberal adult education is increasingly taking place on the World Wide Web, especially when seen as a wider social movement. In his book In the Net: An Internet Guide for Activists, Jim Walch provides a list of 12 categories of ICT for social action. These categories include, to name but a few; creating and enhancing interaction, breaking the censorship of silence, bypassing hierarchy, linking the periphery, distributing knowledge and renegotiation of social contracts (Walch 1999, 145). All of the above-mentioned categories are closely related to free and liberal adult education. In a way they represent adult education in the time of the Web.

Activist University
For relative long time, both free and liberal adult education and free school movement have tried to deconstruct the pedagogical myth, so common and persistent in the western national educational systems, which divides the world of teaching and learning and intelligence into two. Using French philosopher Jacques Ranciére's words, the pedagogical myth claims "that there is an inferior intelligence and a superior one."

"The former registers perceptions by chance, retains them, interprets and repeats them empirically, within the closed circle of habit and need. This is the the intelligence of the young child and a common man. The superior intelligence knows things by reason, proceeds by method, from the simple to the complex, from the the part to the whole. It is this intelligence that allows the master to transmit his knowledge by adapting it to the intellectual capacities of the student and allows him to verify that the student has satisfactorily understood what he learned." (Ranciére 1991, p. 7.)

The name Wikiversity, with the "-versity" ending, makes reference to "university". The oldest form of University is the classical academy with the virtues of community, criticism and dialogue aiming to wisdom. However, we are not sure if these virtues of classical academy serve the future needs of Wikiversity for, after all, academia was and is built on the idea of intellectual exclusion and professionally covered expertise, and protected by the distance between – using Ranciére's (1991) words – "knowing minds" and "ignorant ones", that is, those who know and transmit, and those who listen and receive. This distinction as such does not hold in the world of Wikiversity. Moreover, the old ideal does not take into account the circumstances under which wiki-projects work – wide distribution, free digital content, volunteer participation – which give them their unique potentials, if also set limitations.

Besides these principles of classical academy there have been initiatives, although rare, over the years for an "activist university." One of them, stated by Bertell Ollman, starts from the idea that the university should contribute to the community and plot its "dependence (both as an institution and as a function) on the state and on the capitalist class". This would enable the university to stay true to its critical function to do autonomous research by involving the entire university community in a shared, collective, cooperative and multidisciplinary research projects.

The explicit aim of these autonomous projects would be to produce, in Ollman's words, "giant reports of findings," and through them "to develop a better dialogue between people in the university and those in the larger community, workers and employers alike. And, like in all dialogues, learning would go both ways. People in the community would learn that the university and those of us in the university are concerned with their whole lives. And people in the university would learn... Well, a lot more than the answers to the questionnaires we pass out." Activist research would activate all persons in the university: everyone from students to faculty and administrators would get involved in some way.

Ollman suggests a special task force which would produce "a wind, a hurricane, that would shake the whole university, that would get every group, department, class in the university looking for ways they could get involved", to bring the university together and to create "a positive education experience for everyone involved". And, more than that, Ollman continues his idea further in the context of The City University of New York (CUNY): "why should research be an individual and small group activity? Let 150,000 people take to their pencils and wits together about something worthwhile. Put mass scholarship into motion. Let's create the first activist university." This, according to Ollman, would be "an education worth giving and getting" and serve as an example to universities all over the world.

These ideas are echoed in the recent debates concerning the role and function of certain human sciences such as sociology. In the conversation it has been argued that sociology, as it has been known inside the walls of academia, must be changed. It needs to take its public responsibility seriously: "at the heart of sociology must lie a concern for society" (Burawoy 2006, 1). In the same vein builders of Wikiversity need to take to their hearts a concern for the world: the social challenges and issues people find problematic in their everyday life. Wikiversity should become the "active university".

Quite surprisingly these ideas are also discussed in the context of corporations human resource development field and in the context of organizational learning. In knowledge intensive industries and business organizations, companies that are able to involve all of their personnel and also their customers and partners in a shared, collective, cooperative and multidisciplinary research and innovation projects are more rewarding than others. Indeed, various forms of social software and the ideas of open innovation (see von Hippel 2005, Thrift 2006) are put forward as hallmarks of an "active enterprise": a company that is - in collaboration with its customers and partners - recognizing real needs of the people and able to find products and services that will fullfill the needs.

The fact that the world outside the universities see the value of "active people" should result as an "activity university," an institution that is educating and nurturing active people. For the traditional universities it will be very difficult to change, whereas new initiatives, such as Wikiversity, may form their operations with very little existing cultural and economical restrictions.

The Wiki Potential for Education
The digital world has seen the first germs of new media forms that are having radical social, political and economic consequences. Wikis have offered ways to jointly produce content just as blogs, online forums and other (so called) social softwares have offered new ways in which to communicate. Due to their utility, digital information and communication tools have become abundant. In public (WWW) spaces, they provide for a global economy of share-and-share-alike, and lighter governance.

With their use, all kinds of social behaviour can been discovered very easily. We are presented with an overwhelming amount of information or programming. The emphasis of influential Media is changing from hubs of one way (broadcast) media to hubs of two way (narrowcast) media. Wikimedia's great conflation is a harbinger of this change. This broadening awareness is leading democratic eyes to try and improve on the ways in which they communicate, and then collaborate, and then leave a memory. It is driving completely new forms of social and civil organisation.

Perhaps the best illustration is the change in old ideas about research institutions. Researchers beaver away in disciplinary groups, who avoid their outside worlds, until it comes to reporting their findings. When they do, their papers and programmes are presented to peers, often in a language many will not understand, at a (National) conference which is largely ignored due to their overwhelming number. In brief, researchers are rewarded for the number of papers accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, not for answering people asking similar questions about their abstracts. The are rewarded for pushing media, not pulling it.

Consequently, an increasing amount of attention is being paid to the differences in the conditions and modes of operation between the traditional media's economies and the “new media economy”. A whole school of writers has argued that, in addition to the old economy, there is another economy, variously called the amateur economy, sharing economy, social-production economy, non-commercial economy, p2p economy, and even the gift economy.

The problem for these thinkers is their belief that the “new economy” works on principles of its own, and that any attempt to force it into the mould of the first economy would be disastrous. I would argue that this hasn't been the case so far, as proved (E.g.) by Google introducing ads around its search results. Ultimately, to remain relevant, every group needs to advertise to their outside worlds. There is always a pull (to conference and journals) and push (through advertising). The real question is how both may be minimized.

Discussion about the ownership of information and its copyright can been largely eradicated through the acceptance of the concept of the [public domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain]. Knowledge is exchanged freely.

The acquisition model of learning is connected to the old kind of National educational systems, where knowledge is commodified and delivered in closed (disciplinary) systems. This can not, by definition, be the model for the Wikiversity, as the content in the Wikiversity, like all members of the Open CourseWare Consortium, is given freely.

In the participation-model of an Open University, information and knowledge do not possess exchange value. Value is created through communicating its understanding. The situation is comparable to the GNU/Linux operating system which is available gratis, and thus does not carry exchange value, but does have tremendous value when its use is communicated to a potential user. In the participatory model students are sometimes teachers and the teachers sometime students. Learning by doing, collaborating and creating content - sometimes asynchronously, sometimes synchronously - are the key elements.

However, the freedom of the participatory model is easily corrupted. One advertisement in the corner of a page can turn the mode of an autonomous and voluntary co-operative into a war between factions. A useful illustration may be made using Wikipedia, where the community has discussed various ways to finance activities (including advertising, see e.g.,: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Wikipedians_against_advertisements). Everyone hates advertising (and its subversive forms like product placement) but without it we would rarely find out about related events [like this conference http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/openlearn2007/conference.php].

It is clear from those kinds of discussion that the manner of financing radically affects the kind of activities undertaken. Sponsorships for events or an article may be acceptable. Banner ads are an anathema in academic circles. Regardless, until the types of revenue generating opportunities are agreed upon by members of Wikiversity, sustainability is a pipe dream. And until members have agreed upon a manner of rewarding members for their contribution, the skills and knowledge required to get an education in a globalizing world are stillborn.

Learning by doing and life long learning in non-conventional educational contexts supports ideas of education as a (global) commons, not as a separate activity run by (national) specialists or experts. Illich's dream of a "deschooling society" refers to this type of education - one which supports the growth of native skills already possessed by the learners. When learning centers on the development of native skills instead of the transfer or delivery of knowledge, from experts to novices, it is possible to see that learners are sometime teachers, and vice versa. This is the forte of a free Wikiversity over other virtual learning environments.

Building trust in a community of co-learners and co-teachers is the essential challenge for a vibrant cultural life. Agreeing upon the ways in which revenue may be raised and contributions may be rewarded is the essential challenge for a comfortable economic life.

Recommendations for the Wikiversity Community
Free and liberal adult education, free school movement and active university all emphasizes community, democracy and groups' ownership of their operations. They also see people as active participants in the community with responsibility on their own development, as well as their community’s development and well-being. In each of them people may have and may take also different roles and responsibilities and start to take responsibility on them. They emphasises the idea of "being bold" in the community. This way many wiki-projects and communities work very much the same way. However, there are several issues on which the free and liberal adult education and free school movement differs from the existing wiki-project. The difference is in their focus. In classical free and liberal education in the center there are the people, whereas in a wiki-project the focus is on the wiki-site and its content. To become a Free Wikiversity - the way free adult education and free schools operates - the "center of gravity" should move from the content to the people.

In the following we are presenting five recommendations for the Wikiversity community, building them from the bases of free and liberal education's tradition.

Wikiversity should have clear "study offering". In the spirit of the free education the "study offering" should be fully designed and defined by the community members. The study offering should reflect the needs of the community, and the members of the community should have a right to propose "study projects". To have study offering, all the study projects offered by the Wikiversity should meet some minimum requirement of structure. Each of them should provide teachers/leaders, schedule, registration, syllabus, objectives, means of evaluation and feedback. This would require also some general scheduling for the Wikiversity, such as semesters and fixed starting and finishing dates. Even if education is free and liberal it requires a certain level of commitment from the participants. People must be committed to spend their time and to commit to the objectives of the "study projects".

Wikiversity community should be active in recognizing groups that would most benefit of it and encourage them to utilize Wikiversity. Wikiversity should be proactive in this by promoting itself among groups with low socio-cultural-economical and political freedoms in local and global context. In tradition of free and liberal education the focus has been on those who have less favorable combination of circumstances in the life and in the society. Free and liberal eduction considers itself as a mean for people to reach better social, cultural, and economical position. Similar way as free and liberal education has served the social change in the 20 century's national states, such as in Nordic countries, Wikiversity could server the social change in the 21 century's globalized world. Wikiversity should aim to find solutions to the challenges of its time, similar way as the free and liberal education was part of the solution to build more equal, fear and free societies.

Wikiversity should have an organization that is serving the study offering. It could mean some new roles, which the community members should be free to take depending on what they are doing in the different study programs offered on Wikiversity. One should be able to be a student, teacher, researcher or administrator in different situations. One should be able to have multiple roles in different activities taking place in the Wikiversity: be a teacher in one study program, student in another one and administrator in a third. Democracy and flexibility are some of the core ideas behind the free and liberal education. In free schools each student, teacher and parent have an equal right to speak in the school meetings. If there are competing proposals for decisions each will also have one vote. Flexibility in free and liberal education means that teacher is open to see himself as a learner, too. Students may also take a role of being a teacher. To enrich the learning experience a free school may also use some of the parents as teachers in some situations.

Wikiversity should focus on people and less on content. As pointed out earlier, probably the most fundamental change for the wiki-community. with the strong vision and commitment on content production – is that in the Wikiversity the focus should be more on people and communication, and less on content and wiki-site. From the wiki-platform it would require more advanced communication tools. Wiki discussion pages and IRC are good, but not enough. Integration of free/libre VoIP online conference tools to the wiki-platform would open it for such a group work we people are "hard-coded." The VoIP online conference tool could also result as much higher level of belonging and group cohesion. In free and liberal education one of the most common form of learning is a "study circle". Study circle is a form of learning where a small group of people meet to discuss about topics they are interested in to learn about. The focus in a study circle is to explore and inquiry the topics, not simply socializing. Often study circles are using some reference materials, such as a text book or audio/visual material, to simulate the discussion. The aim of the study circle is to improve the participants understanding of the topics discusses.

Wikiversity's main library should be the content found from the other Wiki-project sites. The change of focus from the content to people would also clear up the relationship of Wikiversity with the other projects of the Foundation. In the Wikiversity's study projects the "neutral education content" found from the Wikibooks, Wikipedia and Wikispecies would be the primary learning materials. The other Foundation projects would in practice be the "library" of the Wikiversity. In some more advantaged studies in the Wikiversity, student could also contribute their study results to other projects of the Foundation. An important part of free and liberal education ecosystem is free press/media and libraries offering access to different kind of reference materials. People involved in free and liberal adult education are often also the heavy users of public libraries. Some free and liberal education institutions also maintain their own libraries and have publications to support their study offering.

Discussion
Wikiversity does not exist and cannot be studied or developed without social context. Thus our focus as developers and theorist of Wikiversity should be, besides the technologies and their uses, in the often gritty realities of the people of the world. If our goal is to get an equal access to Wikiversity, then we need to study not only access to free and liberal education system, free information and communication but also peoples' real life situations. How do they spend their time? At hard, exploitative labor, or in a Caribbean cruises? And what they need to do in order to survive? How do they spend their possible leisure time? Studying, consuming, exercising...? These questions bring us to the very fountains of critique of current political economies known as economic globalization boosted with constant advertising and consumerist ideals.

In our search for truly open and enhancing Wikiversity, we would also need to reach beyond the boundaries of traditional definitions of intelligence as aptitude for school subjects and skills. Here we are inclined to think as Howard Gardner who maintains that for a fuller view it is not enough to link literacies and facility to a certain kind of problem-solving. Rather the goal is to educate people "who not only can analyze but also will do the right thing; individuals who will be admirable not only as thinkers or creators but also as human beings. We endorse Emerson's aphorism: 'Character is higher than intellect'." (Gardner 2000, 248.)

In addition, if and when these questions have been solved (and the task is not small) – then at least the following questions succeed. How to solve the problem of western cultural bias, or to protect other than western local knowledges and forms of wisdom? And how free is Wikiversity after all? Who makes the decisions: nerds, "experts," or laymen – and how to draw the lines between them?


text:
Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/December 2006/Control on staff

Control on staff
Well, today i was looking around our sister project: Wikipedia, and i noticed that te sysops were currupt and a fair amount of members wanted to get rid of most of them. So i reccomend that Wikiversity institute a "Demotion" page, were members can request for any admins wh are not doing their job to be demoted. (P.S. All our current admins seem good, i mean for in the future) Heltec  talk
 * Heltec, it is easy to be good when no hard decisions have to be made. Wikipedia is a huge organization, so it has to make hard decisions on a daily basis. Some admins on Wikipedia even got deaththreats with a description of their real life adresses. Wikiversity is a small organization that didn't even started yet. I don't agree with you that common users should get too much power in demoting admins. The result of this could be that the most politically active users will determine the policy and will chase away many users who are important for the quality of the contents of learning materials and articles.--Daanschr 12:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you happen to have a link to discussion about this on Wikipedia (I presume you meant the English one)? sebmol ? 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * w:WP:RECALL. It's been debated quite heavily on Wikipedia (I mean enwiki unless I indicate otherwise) and eventually rejected as too bureaucratic, although there is still w:Category:Administrators open to recall, which is purely political, rather than practical, and has not once been used for anything other than gloating about what a great administrator you are for subjecting yourself to potential recall. I personally am a strong proponent of lax standards for acheiving adminship (every wiki can use as many admins as it can get!) but that removing adminship status, through recalling or reconfirming, should be equally as easy. On enwiki, we've alternatively made our adminship promotion process ridiculously gruelling and made it equally as dificult to get rid of "corrupt" (or, more commonly, incompetent, lazy, uncivil, and ignorant) admins--only the ArbCom has the authority to revoke a user's adminship status. As the custodianship process on Wikiversity is relatively simple, I would certainly like to propose some form of reconfirmation process, either following some form of timetable (as is done on Wikisource, for example) or at the request of users in good standing. This is sort of an issue that, at the moment, is not particularly pressing on Wikiversity but someday may be. AmiDaniel 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To some extent, this can be codified a little bit later. I might raise a little point that we have to be quite careful when the time comes to do this - we do not want to place ourselves in a situation where we need to overextend the regulatory and compensatory capabilities of the Wiki. --HappyCamper 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True to almost all points. Maby make a 75% vote requirement? That would make it less "Bureaucratish". Heltec  talk
 * The fact is, any system that will be proposed will have its strengths and weaknesses. My inclination is that Wikiversity is too young for us to know which sort of custodian will be most complementary to its cause. --HappyCamper 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And that I could easily agree with. With only 12 admins (or custodians, whatever--it'll take me a while to get used to the new lingo :D), it may be much easier to simply approach complaints of admin abuse on a case by case basis. Wikiversity is still very young, and it may at this point be quite difficult to determine what will work best in the long run, so attempting to "codify" now may prove quite frivolous. So I'll retract my pseudoproposal above and instead recommend that complaints of abusive admins simply be channeled to the Colloquium for community review for now. We can draft an all-out system later on. AmiDaniel 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like desision, We can "Codify" it later, but for now it is probably best to just leave it to open discussion. Heltec  talk

 * That's what I think would be healthiest for now - in my opinion, I don't think Wikiversity has built up a "critical mass" of content to sustain online learning communities yet. That's what we really need at the moment. --HappyCamper 00:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. Let's try to focus on content rather than administrivia. AmiDaniel 00:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I favor a system in which custodianship is "easy come, easy go". If the community trusts a user and   a user is willing to do custodial work then that user should become a custodian. If a custodian does something that hurts the community, there should be a system for getting the custodian to understand the problem and change their behavior. We have Custodian feedback, but it has not been used. If a custodian is no longer trusted by the community, then it should be easy to revoke custodianship. Maybe we should put a note at Wikiversity talk:Custodian feedback reminding us to create a "Demotion" page as soon as there is a serious complaint about a custodian posted at Custodian feedback. --JWSchmidt 02:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see how an admin could be corrupt. Everything is logged and open to public viewing, and if an admin does something wrong or against policy, another admin can just correct it.  The only way that corruption could stand is if all the admins let it.  And corrupt is such a nebulous term.  That doesn't mean that admins can't become uncivil and tedious (there are a few over on enwikipedia I can think of). As to recall, I would say make it penalty based, instead of a voting process.  Voting would just lead to endless trolling. If a custodian violates a policy, bring it to the attention of a bureaucrat, and if it become very bad, they can be desysoped. --Rayc 05:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I mentioned above--admins don't tend to be "corrupt," but rather incompetent and ignorant. I agree with you that voting is evil, so I certainly don't think we should have a structured reconfirmation vote or the like; rather, we just need to ensure that forums for potential "admin abuse," such as Custodian feedback and the Colloquium stay open such that problems with administrators can be addressed. Unfortunately, Bureaucrats do not have the technical ability to desysop anyone--users can only be desysopped by stewards, so bringing complaints to them is frivolous and gives the cabalist illusion that there's some higher power structure making all of our decisions. For now, let's just deal with problems of admin abuse on a case-by-case basis, of which we've yet to have a single case :). AmiDaniel 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * It may be important that wikiversity remain as much as possible as one community. If wikiversity breaks up into compartments, then strange things may happen.--Hillgentleman|User talk 05:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I thought that Bureaucrats had the power to both make and take away the admin power. Seems strange that it's only a one way function.--Rayc 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It used to be that crats could give and take away sysop and crat permissions, but changes were made some time ago after someone apparently went mad on enwiki and started desysopping everyone (I was a very young Wikipedian at the time and not aware of it). I choose not to question, as everytime I do, I get called bad names :). For now, the Bureaucrat giveth only whilst the Steward both giveth and taketh away :D. AmiDaniel 07:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What seems like "administrivia" to one person might seem like sensible planning for the future to another person. Anyone who is concerned about having a system in place to deal with custodian problems should take a look at Custodianship. --JWSchmidt 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What information is that link intended to provide? --HappyCamper 17:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he wanted to point out a proposal for a process to handle problems with custodians. sebmol ? 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to (belatedly) pitch in and say that I think that we most definitely need feedback processes - both about content, and people (in general, not just custodians). Would it make most sense to start a single Request for comment page, or should it be broken into 'categories' (as it were)? I think that without feedback processes about the way we're working we won't be able to continue to learn and to make Wikiversity a truly beneficial and inclusive place for people to participate. I'm not sure how (if at all) this is different from the idea of having feedback available for all learning resources that the 'user' (ie teacher who uses them in class, self-study student etc.) can tell us how useful (or not) the material was for them. I think this could easily be an automatic subpage of all pages (eg. Introduction to research/feedback). Should these forms of feeback be the same, and if not, how should they be differentiated? Cormaggio talk 12:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I have a suggestion: let's put a rough draft of an idea out and see what happens. Suppose we pick a random custodian, and have this custodian look at another custodian's actions, etc...It doesn't need to be a surgical analysis, but something useful. Even asking if they feel contributing to Wikiversity lately feels fulfilling might be a revealing question. Imagine it like a routine, regular doctor's checkup. Once that's done, that custodian picks another custodian, and "passes the torch along". And this continues indefinitely. We might even make a little icon for this, so others know if they have had their "checkup". The idea is to reduce (and ultimately) eliminate the stigma associated with getting "negative feedback". It would be nice to institutionalise from the beginning of this project that there are no such things as "mistakes" - they are meant to be made, otherwise, there would be no learning, and no wisdom sharing. --HappyCamper 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * My experience on enwiki has shown dispute resolution to be unfortunately quite ineffective (or, at best, ridiculously slow) at resolving disputes--typically, only those that go before the ArbCom are resolved. Dispute resolution only works if there are competent participants who are willing to compromise--which is very rare--or if there's someone with a big stick to enforce decisions. Nonetheless, I do think having some venue such as RfC would be a good idea--if anything, just to give the illusion that there's some sanity in how we settle disputes :D. We may, however, consider deviating from the enwiki model as far as we possibly can and pursue ideas such as enforcing resolutions where consensus is reached, but one or two refuse to budge. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

 * This is an important point. The sturdiness of people to stick with their views was one of my main presumptions when i founded the WikiProject to improve debating on Wikipedia. I have a few solutions for this problem within the context of the disputes on the contents of articles. The most important solution is that people have to defend their views by showing evidence in sources. Of course this will not take away all disputes. Sources can contradict eachother for instance. A second solution is to organize debates which should make clear which views exist on an issue. There is no need to make a choice between views. The content of the debate should become more important then the article that is written on a subject. What should be kept from Wikipedia is the inclusiveness. Next to Usenet, Wikipedia is one of the less censured websites on the internet (this is my experience). Conflicts arises between users but hardly ever between a user and the authorities of Wikipedia. I am in favour of organization, but only in a decentralized fashion. The organization could be in the first place aimed at facilitating, but may not interphere in the contents of learning material or articles.--Daanschr 12:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm weary about importing experience from en.wikipedia to here wholesale - Wikiversity is not a place to fix the problems on Wikipedia. The justification for guidelines can be inspired from it, but it has to be shown that it is inherently beneficial to this project. Dispute resolution on Wikis as a sole mediator of disputes in general does not work because a Wiki is not a piece of technology designed to facilitate it - the burden of properly resolving disputes will remain, regardless of the approach or official policy in place. Disputes do not resolve themselves nicely, because a well-meaning user of a public Wiki does not intend to participate for the purpose of being instructed on how to behave. This is why compromise is not spontaneous. Additionally, when we attempt to regulate these users with say, probation, the Wiki has taken on the role of being a babysitter, which of course it was never meant to do. I agree with some of the points given above, some I do not. Debates are a good idea, but so long as the conversations remain cohesive. When a debate invites too much concurrency (as in too many things happening at once), nothing lucid comes about quickly. I am not sure what qualifies as decentralized administration. Granted, I'm a bit heartend that you mentioned about this "illusion" -- if I might carefully venture a daring statement: written policies are dead, they do not live. It's the people carrying out policies that live, and matter. Written policy is symbolic of a functioning enterprise. This is the opinion I hold as of this edit; but as usual, I might revisit and revise these ideas in a month or so. :-) I must say, that I am bit reluctant to leave this thread, but I'm trying to distance myself from the Colloquium for a while, for I have yet to add the materials to Wikiversity that I intended to from the beginning...we shall see. --HappyCamper 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You are right in many respects. When i made my contribution on 1 december, i doubted wether i would give (so much) attention to the WikiProject i started on Wikipedia.
 * Wikiversity has another goal than Wikipedia, but more importantly it has another culture. I think that the culture of an organization is at least as important as the rules. I think expertise and commitment to a project are more important than the rules. What is needed for regulation will present itself in time.
 * I wanted to introduce the debating system on Wikipedia, but it could be something for Wikiversity as well. One of the main projects of Wikiversity is introducing interlingual debate. That is where i would like to give a contribution. I wanted to solve a lack of lucidity by appointing chairmen when a certain number of participants have been reached in a debate. A form of decentralization would be that the collective of participants to a single debate may decide how the debate is organized (a chairman or not, the rules of the debate, preventing chaos). A debate will take a month and not longer, so each month whole new groups of debaters would come into existence. This would prevent overly bureaucratic control and would still have a form of regulation. Introducing quality stamps given by certain groups of experts can ensure a division between high-quality debate and low-quality debate. Each scientific discipline or other group can give these quality stamps. A problem with these plans is that i am jumping too quickly into conclusions. Inventing solutions to problems that have not occured yet, and could very likely not occur at all. My plans and ideas could change in time as well.--Daanschr 13:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For education, it would be needed to have teachers with authority and clear views on certain aspects of knowledge. My proposition on the organization of debates should be seen seperately from the organization of courses and learning materials.--Daanschr 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think WIkiversity should facilitate many different approaches to education and discussion. We are not limited to just replicating (in wiki format) traditional approaches to education and discussion. Sure, it is great when an expert can step forward and act with authority to guide a wiki-based collaboration. However, in many cases the first wiki participants for topic areas are not experts. We need a system that allows everyone (even in the absence of a participating "authority") to constructively participate in Wikiversity. The power of wiki is that even a group of non-experts can work together to do great things.....they might even become experts in the process. --JWSchmidt 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New thread started, see, below.


text:
Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/December 2006/Cite and Verify Sources

Cite and Verify Sources
This thread started above at.

You are right indeed. Although I would like to point out the significance of reading books. I joined in the discussions on Citizendium where some participants mentioned the academic method: experts in the academic world who disagreed with each other wrote books or articles, so they could describe in detail what their argument is. If we don't read the books and follow the discussions that have taken place in the last couple of centuries, then expertise will be hard to acquire.--Daanschr 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity should make sure that it provides wiki participants with tools that help non-experts cite and verify reliable sources. This skill set is one of the most important cultural artefacts from the academic world and it needs to be central to what we do here at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 17:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, some practical issues have to be taken care of regarding enforcing this policy. What will we do when a vast majority of the users of Wikiversity will be not interrested in verifiability? When an article without sources is detected, is it simply deleted, or will the creator of this article be warned for the deletion up front or guided to change the article? Some articles about courses don't have the sources cited. I created a course myself which is about a book, but I didn't enter page numbers to remarks I made about this book, so this article is not sufficient at the moment.--Daanschr 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Simple: Wikiversity is not a "playpen". The project should not put up with "nonsense". If a majority of users treat it as such, then in a sense it is not the place that it was meant to be. Most of the time, the odd thing about a Wiki is that it works in practice, but fails in theory. I think the rule of thumb should be this: references where necessary, but not necessarily. In other words, if I write something "off the top of my head" I should know where to look for information to support that, and be able to provide a citation for it. In fact, I should be able to have it handy - if someone were to ask me what was the 17th letter appearing in the 3rd sentence on page 2, I can say what that is. There is an odd thing about "trust" over the internet - trust where reciprocated. When not, well, this is not the place to play games with online integrity. --HappyCamper 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I will use Wikipedia as an example again, because I don't know of any other good examples of wikis used for acquiring and spreading knowledge. Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia wrote about the first year of Wikipedia that even the most simple rules had to be enforced. Articles turned into talk pages. It had to be enforced that discussion was only possible in the talk page and not in the main page of an article which was supposed to perform to the format of an essay, as it is today on Wikipedia. What also had to be enforced was that political discussions or even personal ones were excluded from the talk pages. To be able to ensure that even the simplest rules on Wikiversity will be obtained, it will be necessary to have a sort of law enforcement. Wikipedia was not successful in ensuring that verifiability of sources became important. The result of this is that my university explicitly demands that students don't use wikipedia to get information. If we want to be respected by the academic community, then it is mandatory to live up to a basic level of methodology. The scholarly ethics are designed for this purpose, among others. How are we going to ensure that the rules on Wikiversity will be obeyed by the users, without becoming too bureaucratic?--Daanschr 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * If you are in traditional publishing you can set and enforce explicit rules for how authors have to cite sources, but it only makes sense to take that approach if you are free to limit participation to authors who have training and experience in how to select, cite and verify reliable sources. The entire matter is made more complex in Wikiversity because we allow anyone to edit, even if they do not know about the need for citations or understand how to go about doing a good job of citing sources. At a wiki, it is up to the community to define and enforce standards for citations to sources, plus, in an education-oriented wiki, I think we have a special obligation to help participants learn how to cite good sources. Wikipedia has been involved in a long drawn out process of trying to get editors to cite sources.....a struggle that has gone on for five years. There is a significant amount of collective wisdom that now exists in the Wikipedia rules for citing reliable sources. It would not be crazy for Wikiversity to adopt the Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a starting point. However, I think that Wikipedia has a tradition of being lax in enforcing the rules about citation and verification of reliable sources. Many wiki contributors have no training in how to select, cite and verify reliable sources. I think all Wikimedia Foundation projects would benefit if there were a "school" where editors could go to learn how to select, cite and verify reliable sources. If Wikiversity tried to take on the task of educating editors of Wikimedia Foundation projects about how to cite sources I think that would be an important community service. --JWSchmidt 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be an idea to start a course of 'methodology' which will be mandatory for those who want to get high up in the hierarchy. The contents of what will be taught at this course should be open to change.--Daanschr 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Would you volunteer to do a draft for that? --HappyCamper 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I will give it a shot, but I have to work on my final paper as well. Also, I have hardly any experience in teaching. I once taught a class of 12, 13 years old about Athens and Sparta for 50 minutes and I have lots of experience in keeping order in classes of 4 to 8 years old, but that is very different from teaching adults. So, I hope that others will help me in the process.--Daanschr 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is "how" we are to cite sources. We aren't producing scholarly articles, we are producing learning materials. How could I cite something like this: Simple addition flashcards?--Rayc 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * That's what I meant earlier by "...references where necessary, but not necessarily" :-) --HappyCamper 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The practical reality of providing citations for wiki content is that most people cite no sources unless there is a dispute. However, you can always try putting something like "flashcards mathematics education" into a Google search and see what comes up. Google Scholar has 1,090 hits for "flashcards mathematics education". Just by looking at what other people have done you might get some new ideas or find that you want to make some external links to useful resources. I would like to know if any research has been done that concerns forcing young students to do math problems quickly. Do such teaching "methods" help students pass standardized tests but turn them off from mathematics? --JWSchmidt 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wondered that too. I know Piaget’s Theory and Perry’s Theory of Development of College Students, and the MBTI tests. Certain types of students must like the method, just not all. I hope we will be able to classify what type of a learner someone is and then point them to the most helpful resource, meaning we'll have to do the same material in many different ways.--Rayc 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the subject whether citation is necessary. I want to make a strong case for social sciences, but I don't know how necessary it is for other fields of study.--Daanschr 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * We may wish to keep in mind that humanity reinvents the wheel all the time. While citing sources is a traditional and useful technique in a fairly closed environment, such as academia, where standard previous knowledge is routinely taught as a basis for getting started; it is less useful to someone who has reinvented the wheel as necessary and is willing to explain to others what they have done.  Rather than trying to establish some bureaucratic rules (without a legitimate bureaucracy) which can be enforced arbitrarily upon random users (since in a "voting is evil" culture acknowledged consensus or legitimate authority exists only after all those in disagreement have moved on for the brief time that exists while no newcomers have arrived with alternate views) it might be better to simply encourage the addition of citations where individual contributors feel it is worthwhile tracking down appropriate information to cite.   I doubt an animator who has contributed an animation technique learned or developed in the course of his/her work will be offended by someone else adding a citation to formal literature providing useful insight into the origin or efficacy of the technique.   I suspect the same animator faced with a big community controversy aimed at forcing him/her to personally look up a formally published source for a technique they independently evolved or reinvented in the course of their professional work (to satisfy rabid roving bands of citation enforcers threatening to delete their work if such citation is not provided immediately upon demand as per rules agreed upon somehow somewhere but never formally ratified) will probably simply move on and explain to anyone who will listen what a waste of time participation at Wikiversity turns out be.   A simple expression of interest or some chit chat on the talk page aimed at allowing the person who thinks a citation is appropriate to look for information to cite themselves might be perceived by the originator as interested in the topic and be received more positively.  This alternate approach might even lead to word of mouth advertising that information published at Wikiversity improves with random community participation.  Further, it is a fact that much human knowledge is not easily accessible online for citation or verification.  I think one of the major contributions of Wikipedia and Wikiversity will be to help bridge this electronic/paper divide between those who have access to expensively published and controlled archives and those who have access merely to an internet communications device.   Rather than attempting to force people to add citations perhaps we should merely acknowledge or celebrate that a citation is a useful contribution and encourage participants to make them when they feel like making a useful contribution.  We are after all an independent project of volunteers with no formal structure beyond a few mandates from our benefactor, the Wikimedia Foundation.  Ultimately with no or few volunteers, there is no viable Wikiversity project. Mirwin 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In other posts on this forum, I wrote that i am in favour of inclusiveness. I want to include anyone on Wikiversity, who want to be a part of it. This means that I agree with you. It would be an idea to start a section within Wikiversity which will try to reach a certain level of academic expertise and which will try to establish contacts with Open Universities and traditional universities. Other parts of Wikiversity can focus on promoting the fun of learning and trying to establish a pleasant community for all contributors.--Daanschr 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)