Talk:Wikiversity/Vote/en: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Content deleted Content added
Krischik (talk | contribs)
JWSchmidt (talk | contribs)
Line 46: Line 46:


A quick check shows that about half the votes are not valid - the user page is a red link - this is against voting rule 2 - I think we should strike them out.
A quick check shows that about half the votes are not valid - the user page is a red link - this is against voting rule 2 - I think we should strike them out.
:It makes sense to trace the past editing activity of people who vote. However, many people who are interested in wikiversity are students and they may not edit wikis. They might simply use wikis as learning tools. I suggest that the validity of each vote cannot be determined until voting closes. Some people may return between now and the end of the voting period and provide the missing link that the rules require. I suggest that a flashing warning message be placed on the voting pages explaining the purpose of voters providing a link to the wiki they edit most. There should also be an option besides voting for people who do not edit wikis but who would like to comment on the wikiversity proposal. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSurf]] 15:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:47, 2 October 2005

6 months pilot seems too long

I suggest a shorter pilot period, maybe 2 months. I know that it's difficult to make a decision about new languages after that amount of time, but it seems unfair to give English and German preferential treatment for 6 months. I also believe that it will probably be very difficult in practice to shut down a running project after 6 months, whereas it might still be possible after 2.--Eloquence 01:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikiversity should be given a chance, but I agree 6mo is a little long. 3-4 should be enough to see if there is a chance for it to work shouldn't it. Also, the voting question is a bit biased. The entire page talks about voting to see if the project should be given a chance, then the question asks if you want to participate. Not everyone that thinks it is a good idea will want to or be able to participate. That question combined with the requiring a supermajority before a pilot project is even allowed seems a bit like there are people that don't want to give this a chance. Maybe that's just me. I don't happen to think it will take off, but giving it a chance seems like a good idea. - Taxman 02:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My vote didn't register

I recently cast my vote but it is not showing up on the page, Did I make a mistake somehow? --Robert Harrison 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind --Robert Harrison 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the vote - from my undestanding of the reading I've managed to do..

I oppose this vote. It seems we can only vote yes or no. Call it "Wikiversity" and I think I have to vote no.

  • a University should be defined by ability to meet standards / outside examiners. This isn't yet possible.
  • a University should be at a high level; more basic learning is also worthwhile.
  • a common criticism of wikipedia is that we don't undestand institutional learning, this title opens that accusation wide open.

But at the same time, I think the idea of tutored learning should be supported if there are people willing to tutor, and developing course materials, apart from books, is an excellent idea. I refuse to vote for the material to be deleted, which seems to me to mean I have to vote yes..

I vote for renaming the project "Wikilearn" which has less baggage, is more open to different forms of learning, but at the same time less open to misinterpretation. Wikiversity can be "founded" once there's a serious belief we know what it would mean and might achieve it. Mozzerati 21:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you European or Canadian by any chance? I think this is caused by a confusion of what the term University means to different cultures. I have recently recieved an education in this from outside conversation. From what I've been told, in Canada and Europe, University means a top school. Anything else is a college, and saying you're in college or going to college is admitting you're going somewhere second rate.
In the US, university and college are used interchangably, and mean any type of post secondary school. A lot of vocational schools use both terms as well. What other nations term as college is in the US deemed a "Community College" and is always prefaced with the community part (unless someone is trying to hide the fact, and just says college). It seems to be an unfortunate case of culture clash, and seems to be costing us some nays from people who want us to be an accredited learning institute.
I don't particularly care what the name is, but the current name has a lot of momentum. Changing it at this point might cause a lot of confusion. I'm not sure it can be done. --Gabe Sechan 22:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a general description in North American academics, a University is a collection of two or more schools or colleges, and engages in research. Colleges and schools may or may not engage in research, and "teaching colleges" do not engage in research. - Amgine 00:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Mozzerati. The term "university" can be traced back to the practice of groups of scholars banding together as a community to provide students with higher education. The wikiversity proposal calls for a similar community effort that will exist in wiki format. The proposal need not and does not include "meet standards / outside examiners". The wikiversity community will define its own standards as did the original universities in Paris, Bologna and Oxford. No existing conventional university can offer advice on what education methods will work in a wiki enviroment and what standards are applicable. Nobody argues against the idea that "more basic learning is also worthwhile". However, that is not part of the proposal. The current proposal requires students who will take responsibility for their own learning as full collaborators with instructors (facilitators). In my view, the wiki interface rules out most young students and "basic learning". It makes sense to focus on advanced students who will be willing to make the serious effort required to advance their personal learning goals in an open and distributed learning environment. --JWSurf 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fear it is necessary though to make a poll on the name we should give this project. If the name must be fixed (understand changed), it is now we can do it, not in 2 years. I intend to propose such a thing in the coming weeks. Currently, many editors are opposed to it, there might be no better solution, but best to talk about it rather than ignore it. Anthere

Why are vote order numbers changing?

I voted and now note that the position number that I voted has changed. What is going on? I voted at "For" position 47 and now I'm at 49. - 70.196.66.76 14:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC) - sorry I forgot to log in - Bobwinmill 14:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some people add themselves to the top of the list. --JWSurf 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Problem identified and patched, not fixed. - Bobwinmill 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More servers

I've been trying from multiple computers, and the response time on many of the wiki pages is pretty slow. Wikipedia always loads quickly, but wikibooks always lags, and wikispecies is almost impossible to browse because of lag and timeouts. I can't imagine voting to add a new domain when the hardware can't even support what we already have. --129.32.61.137 19:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid votes

A quick check shows that about half the votes are not valid - the user page is a red link - this is against voting rule 2 - I think we should strike them out.

It makes sense to trace the past editing activity of people who vote. However, many people who are interested in wikiversity are students and they may not edit wikis. They might simply use wikis as learning tools. I suggest that the validity of each vote cannot be determined until voting closes. Some people may return between now and the end of the voting period and provide the missing link that the rules require. I suggest that a flashing warning message be placed on the voting pages explaining the purpose of voters providing a link to the wiki they edit most. There should also be an option besides voting for people who do not edit wikis but who would like to comment on the wikiversity proposal. --JWSurf 15:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]