Wikiversity/Vote/Votes no

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Wikiversity‎ | Vote
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Krischik (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 2 October 2005 (strikeout invalid votes (see rule 2 - red link user pages can't be valid.)). It may differ significantly from the current version.
  1. Shizhao 01:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC) some wikibooks--Shizhao 01:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ucucha 05:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elian 11:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC) it's not the moment yet for such a project, clear concepts are missing etc.[reply]
  4. Geni 13:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC) the world doesn't need another online unacredicted university. key concepts don't appear to hve been thought out.[reply]
  5. Yann 15:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC) This project doesn't seem well focused, we need first to stabilize our current projects before starting new ones, and solve technical bottlenecks. Yann 15:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Flyout 16:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC) I see no clue and too less concept for this (in the core great) idea. By the informations provided by now, I see this project more in a vision-state than in execution-state. For me it sounds strange, creating something called a University providing several divisions from scratch without offering any graduation. As long as there is the aim to give the potential students a real advance for their career by doing a Wikiversity course, there must be (in my point of view) at least a certification of any kind.[reply]
    I also do not agree with the idea, that this project could be based on the standard Mediawiki software:
    • There is a need for some update-protected regions to ensure a minimum level for the students (i.e. tests).
    • It is strange, wanting to provide E-teaching materials without any multimedia extensions in the standard software.
  7. Datrio 16:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Too early - simply too early[reply]
  8. E-roxo 17:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Fito leave me a message 17:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Eclecticology 20:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC) It's certainly short of the vision when I first suggeste the name to Mav. In the two years since it has never gone beyond writing textbooks which happened to have been called course outlines. Has there been even one "student"? Has anyone thought to ask what our prospective students want? We aren't ready yet.[reply]
  11. Michael Snow 21:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC) The concept is not ready yet. It needs to have a vision, if not necessarily a full implementation, of something more than simply posting syllabi and reading materials. That can be done with Wikipedia/Wikibooks/Wikisource.[reply]
  12. Vev 21:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC) i am disagree to have many entities, for me WP is beyond an encyclopedia[reply]
    • Chalisimo5 22:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC) ¿Have you seen how many titles there are in wikibooks? At least, in spanish, its poor. I think we should improve wikibooks first and then begin to think in things like this. the idea is good, just it's not the moment.[reply]
  13. Jeff Q (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I like the Wikiversity idea in principle, and I don't agree with those who are concerned about the state of the project, as I believe it might be better developed as a separate project than as an awkward piece of Wikibooks. But I'm very concerned about diverting the board's attention from persistent performance problems with existing projects. For example, I'm finding en:Wikipedia exceedingly difficult to edit right now, right after we raised nearly a quarter of a million dollars for the MediaWiki projects. Whatever growth we've had to this point should have been dealt with by the last round of funding, so that we don't have these problems. When we can accurately anticipate growth of the flagship project and expand the overall system to meet it, then we can launch another major multilanguage project.[reply]
  14. Goals not defined. Nichalp 05:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Cinabrium 05:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Other project like Wikibooks should get the attention instead. Rune 09:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Red Baron 12:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC) The concepts are too unclear...[reply]
  18. There's a vital projekt on ZUM.de, which aims to collect teaching material for schools. I propose to support this projekt first before starting one for university level. Second: The idea about giving certificates through a wiki-project is utopia and not compatible with the free character of a wiki. -- Thkoch2001 07:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "Es ist nicht gestattet, Materialien oder Linklisten ohne unsere explizite Genehmigung auf anderen Servern zu spiegeln" - according to my rusty German, you can't copy from that site, so it's not not a form of competition. 62.121.101.201 21:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Not clear enough ; I don't see what it could do that Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc. can already do. - Darkdadaah 17:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Too early and not clearly defined. We shouldn't be spreading our efforts too thinly. The wub 21:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Hello World! 09:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC) The prerequisite to start Wikiversity is to close Wikibooks. We don't need two projects. I suppose merge the idea of Wikiversity into Wikibooks.[reply]
    • Be bold. Wikiversity should strive for nothing less than a fully accredited university. Steps haven't been made toward academia at all, lacking proof that students learn or guidelines to that end, thus falling short even of current goals. Plus there's no insight. Everything proposed is either non-wiki or can be accomplished in wikibooks just by extending the definition. Davilla 11:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Too early, not developed enough. James F. (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I find this a great idea, but I don't think it is ready, for many of the reasons expressed above. notafish }<';> 18:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Not unless something concrete is suggested. I can't see how wiki would make this resource unique. Smoddy 20:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. it doesnt seem to me that this project will add anything new that the other wikipages dont have (especially with a strong similarity to wikibooks). We should save the effort, and focus on improving the pages we already have --Whiteknight 02:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Gentgeen 07:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Amgine 22:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Multiple missions, proposal reflects a lack of knowledge of the state of online accredited instruction, project would require a different software or massive extensions/expansion of Mediawiki.[reply]
  28. Jayson Virissimo 20:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC) I think this is a great idea and would love for it to happen but I think it is just too early to start another project of this size at this time. First we need clearly defined and realistic goals. Once the goals are decided upon then we should begin work on the basics of how the software should work. It's just too early guys.[reply]
  29. Get_It 14:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Micru 16:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC) We're spreading too thin. Other projects still haven't consolidated, so it's too early for starting another one. Please, wait at least a year, and solve the technical issues in the meanwhile.[reply]
  31. This seems to be a duplication of effort — the learning material already exists on Wikipedia and Wikibooks and discussion with professors in guided courses would be best implemented with a forum system/email/instant messaging, not Wikis. (Will free online courses work? Or will they be inferior to commercial online universities?) Andrewmackinnon 19:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. We should focus on wikibooks and wikipedia. Pfv2 14:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I don't think it will work. Our existing projects are more than enough. Dan100 08:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. No. Let's increase our base resources first - we just started Wikispecies, and I think we need a WikiWho's Who first, something I can't find anywhere else and something that a university student would need as a resource. Virgil 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. It will never work. How can you neutrally hand out "diplomas"? How can you hope to decide who the teacher will be? What if I want to start a class that already exists? How will credit be earned? How will you teach a class without even the ability to have real-time discussion? This is only the tip of the iceberg folks. It can't survive.--Naryathegreat 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. It can't work. Wikipedia is a great encyclopaedia. Wiktionary is a great dictionary. Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, and those guys have the potential to become great at what they do. I cannot, however, see Wikiversity becoming anything more than a random webpage where people give each other diplomas and have wars over NPOV. Lord Bob 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I agree with the other here that wikibooks would be a better place for a lot of this stuff. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. All I can say against has bee said before: "Let's increase our base resources" — "focus on wikibooks and wikipedia" — "duplication of effort" — "strong similarity to wikibooks" — "Too early, not developed enough". --Krischik 08:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I agree that wikibooks would be the best place for this things. --[[User:Helios89|Helios89 on it.wiki]] 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  40. Southgeist 19:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Noch ein "wir könnten doch mal"-Projekt :-(.[reply]
  41. Trevor macinnis 22:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Jtwdog 23:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC) What's the rush? It just takes more oxygen away from WikiBooks.[reply]
  43. RealGrouchy 03:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC) We should first develop materials on WikiBooks, then spend time on organizing it. There is too much administrative effort required to start up WV, and this will just eat up our server requirements. BTW, who is double-checking the validity of votes, and proper voter registration?[reply]
  44. I think it's too soon. Perhaps in a couple of years this will be a good idea. -- Dominus 14:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. The whole point of using a wiki is that a team of volunteer editors collaborating and checking each other's work is more accurate and neutral than any one person who volunteers to be the teacher. Every article in the 'pedia is a work in progress; who can say when a lecture is complete and accurate enough? GUllman 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Currently. Its plan hasn't been developed well yet, the technical resources including servers seems not to capable to run one another major project, the software required to this project seems beyond the features of current MediaWiki; In addition, if one wants to get open content eLearning materials without accredibility, there is already Wikibooks. --Aphaia++ 22:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Xiaojeng 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Who are qualified to be teachers? How can one ensure the teaching contents reach a certain academic level? The reason why I like Wikipedia is that everyone here is equal and no one has privileges or is smarter. And that is how Wikipedia works. However, Wikiversity seems to be going into the opposite direction, which raises someone to be teachers and puts others down to students. Wiki should be a place of no teachers and students, no tests and certificates. What's more, without a certain administration (from a government or sth), the quality of teaching can hardly be guanranteed, I am afraid.[reply]
  48. I'm not convinced the user base or value is there to make this successful; if it isn't it is but a distraction and waste of resources. --Marudubshinki 00:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. It's all about standards and also collaborating with existing active learning communites already out there. More specifically, in order to have Wikiversity we need a Learning Management System LMS and there already are plenty of good ones out there being used the world over. We also need to have standardized learning objects (see also above url). Why should we recreate the wheel? If we could host one of the open-source/open-standards thriving LMS initiatives, then I would instead vote yes.--Jweden 21:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. It seems like a good idea, but is way too early. Let's build Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects to be more of a household name before we launch something like this. Bonus Onus 00:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Anthony DiPierro 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC) It's too good of an idea to let it get bogged down by Wikimedia bureaucracy. Wikimedia is supposed to be about media, and a university is much more than just media. Are Michael Davis, Tim Shell, Jimmy Wales, and Angela Beesley really interested in being on the board of directors of a university? I see anthere has voted yes to this idea, but I don't see even a vote from the others. I'd rather see Wikiversity as a separate entity which works hand-in-hand with Wikimedia, especially Wikibooks. If the project needs any help setting up its own 501(c)(3) entity I'd be glad to provide my assistance. Then the Wikimedia Foundation can donate the domain names to the new entity. Contact me through en:Special:Emailuser/Anthony_DiPierro.[reply]
  52. --SonicR 22:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Projects like this can easily lead to the Wikipedia community over-extending itself, if it has not already. The backbone of Wikipedia, its encyclopedia, is clearly in its infancy. Although the number of articles is increasing exponentially, the vast majority of pages are poor, and only a handful actually resembles encyclopedia entries. Merely to keep the existing Wikipedia encyclopedia as a viable and useful project will require substantial on-going contributions to improving existing content. In addition, many basic operational issues must be refined to avoid further disillusionment of contributors. It is important to place the existing projects on more solid footing launching new ones.Sbucher 00:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. amit_karnik 12:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) I think this is an excellent idea at the wrong time. I think we should first plan some pilot course offerings for a few(about 2,3) disciplines and let the software, the process and the community grow around it before we take steps towards something such as an University.[reply]
  55. --Yxtiger 12:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) I love this idea, but strong opposed to establish WIKIVERSITY. Reason is: researching and teaching are complex procedure, not only meterial. So there must be so many software to support communicate/coordinate/level test/advice etc., it's a so hard project!!! 我喜欢这个主意，却强烈反对实施wikiversity计划。理由如下：研究与教学是复杂的过程，而不仅仅是资料堆砌。因此，需要有很多的软件来支持交流、协作、水平测试、建议等，这实在是太困难了[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity/Vote/Votes_no&oldid=215869"