Earlier versions of this policy have been previously discussed (see the archive).

The edits I made are not perfect, but I feel they addressed some important issues that help protect wv while allowing the flexibility that is important to research.--John Bessa 14:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This has been around long enough with more changes made and like since the last time. Should this proposal in its current form be made policy?

1. I agree this proposal is simple, straightforward, makes good sense, is well overdue and is needed to compliment What Wikiversity Is. --darklama 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
2. Support --mikeu ^talk 00:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
3. Support - DarkObsidian 18:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
4. Support. I am glad we are able to vote on this and although I am relatively new here, I am more convinced by the supporting arguments than by the opposing arguments. I feel this version of what Wikiversity is not is actually an improvement over the previous version. I don't think Wikiversity should be a duplication of other media resources, an advocacy or advertising platform, or an exclusively post-secondary institution which seem to be important points that were not stipulated in the original. The list of "what Wikiversity is not," in my opinion, should be adaptable. I do have issues with permanently implementing some of the policies stipulated here, although I don't have problems with implementing them now. However, I feel this is not a final vote on Wikiversity policies but can be changed as needed. AFriedman 05:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
5. Support - per AFriedman. If we find that the rule causes problems for materials that otherwise obviously belong here, I'm confident that we would amend the rule rather than delete the project. It's a very good start as it is. --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

   Am I being thick, but what precisely are we voting on? Should not the exact wording be at the top of this page. I have read the archive linked there, but I am not clear. --Bduke 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

   Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not :-). It's never been voted on in it's current form (an earlier version was rejected in 2006). --SB_Johnny ^talk 13:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

6. Support - OK, that was not clear. It looked to me that the vote was about a change to Wikiversity:What Wikiversity is not. It needs to be agreed as a basis for future discussion as per AFriedman. --Bduke 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
7. Support - This better defines and sets out several points. It also adds An advertising platform, and An advocacy platform, both witch have been problems in the past and have disurpted developmemnt.Eadthem 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
8. Support - Seems to be setting out some good principles. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
9. Support Stifle 14:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
10. Support - These Nots seem so simple and obvious, I considered them policy already. Aren't we here to provide learning content, not be plagued by all these extraneous distractions? Sri-ganesh 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
11. Support I support this completly. It makes sense, and it is not a huge change for everybody at wikiversity. Bookwormrwt 20:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
12. Support it is a good definition of what we are not doing here w:Rjgodoy 09:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC).Reply
13. Support Helps outline the basics, a good reference, and it is generally good policy to set boundaries within a project. /kɒpiːˈɛdɪtə/ 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
14. Support Nice! (No other reason) rursus 09:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Unable to support this - too different than the original What Wikiversity is not and this approved by the board. And especially as per Wwheaton. Emesee 15:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

   I don't see any issues or problems. This seems to just merge the two links that Emesee produced. This is a passive support. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

2. Oppose. I think that we should still consider further experimentation, and not prematurely limit future options at Wikiversity. While some of the material here seems pertinent, I am not sure that, overall, this proposed policy would be used for greater good than ill. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
   • This appears to be an argument without substance. Most of the points here, namely the prohibitions on advocacy and advertising and the point about partnering with rather than duplicating sibling projects, are common across all Foundation projects, and not controversial; and anyone who finds them limiting will not find a satisfactory home on any Foundation project. The remainder are little more than the points already contained in the original Meta proposal, and are hardly limiting except in respect of doing things that a charity-owned wiki where anyone can edit without requirement to identify themselves couldn't practically do anyway. Uncle G 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
     • Instead of arguing about what you have misunderstood, you might have done better to ask for clarification. I disagree with your characterization of my comment, and I would like to point out that just because something has been adopted at another project does not make it appropriate or desireable for Wikiversity. In particular, I oppose the content edits which were hidden in this edit, as I believe they are too limited in scope (there has been recent discussion elsewhere about what role titles should play at Wikiversity, for example, and certain titles, such as Custodian, have been adopted to play an important role). Were that edit reversed, I would be more comfortable with removing my oppose. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 23:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
       • If you think that points common to all Foundation projects, that are rooted in the basic mission of the Foundation itself, and its policies against advertising and non-neutrality, are optional for a project, that you can decide are not "appropriate or desireable for Wikiversity", then it is you who lacks understanding, not anyone else. And since your comment was unspecific and a blanket criticism of the entire proposal, you have only yourself to blame when people tell you that it's an argument without substance.
         
         Moreover, if you think that calling accounts in the "sysop" group "Custodians" is what this proposal is clearly addressing (which is the use of actual academic titles), then you haven't understood that specific part of the proposal, either. It isn't anything at all to do with Wikiversity's idiosyncratic name for a MediaWiki permissions group.
         
         It should be obvious that a charity-owned wiki where anyone can edit without requirement to identify themselves cannot practically be in a position to grant academic titles or degrees, by the way. Uncle G 09:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
     • It is also difficult to draw a line between ideology and advocacy, and I see this current proposal as being more likely to open the door for policy abuse (instruction creep) than to improve the project. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
       • I disagree. I don't think this policy contains any instruction creep or would lead to abuse. I am not aware of any recent discussions where there was consensus in support of allowing participants to make up their own titles on Wikiversity. I have noticed more general discussion on the use of titles on Wikiversity that have come up every once in awhile with I think no real conclusion. If consensus eventually differs from what this policy says, than there is likely to be consensus to change the policy. Right now at least the consensus currently seems to be in support of not allowing participants to make up their own titles based on the support for this policy thus far. --darklama 15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
3. Oppose. I just don't like the basic idea of a "What Wikiversity is not" policy page. There's an infinite number of things Wikiversity is not, so it's silly to try to list them all. Instead we should focus on what Wikiversity is. StuRat 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
   • There is an infinite number of things Wikiversity is as well. Neither approach is going to list everything. I think neither approach is complete without the other. If you only list what Wikiversity is, than there is a lack of clarity on what Wikiversity isn't, and if you only list what Wikiversity isn't than there is a lack of clarify on what Wikiversity is. Both are needed to help get a better understanding of Wikiversity. --darklama 14:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
     • I don't agree that there's an infinite number of things which Wikiversity is (or should be). It may be a large list, but it's still finite. StuRat 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
       • I would argue that this policy's goal is just to set some boundaries. To use the analogy of a target, WV:IS sets the center, which everyone should be aiming for, but WV:NOT sets the outer edge, beyond which someone has missed entirely. Neither is going to be perfect or all-inclusive (nor should they be), but they still can be useful. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
   • The only opposition I have with it is on the second item. If wikiversity is never to grant any title to anyone, then wikiversity lacks the integrity of a real institution and I think a fair goal for wikiversity is to foster it into becoming a real institution with integrity. People pay large sums of money to schools- not for the books and materials or the tuition. But for the simple fact that the institution offers that one piece of paper at the end that defines the decision whether the alumni gets the job or doesn't. Consider what kind of revolution we can provide to the world if anyone, regardless of money and class and social prestige- is able to get that piece of paper that decides whether they can get the job or not. Their graduation is based on skill alone. No money. Therefore I am extremely emphatic when I insist that if we wash our hands of the potential to provide certification, then we wash our hands of the potential it really has. We throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. There's a thin line between clarifying your intention and avoiding real responsibility. Integrity comes with responsibility. So in summary: All the rest of it is fine. But we should pursue this notion quite aggressively that we will become an institute that gets the student the paper that gets the student the job. Then we can have a single organization in the world that allows no separation between intelligence and class. Wikiversity is the notion that (1) you can get the job because of being smart, not because of having money. (2) You learn because you want to and your thinking met the criteria, not because of anything you had to wait for or appease. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaiaguerrilla (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
     • Maybe it isn't obvious. ☺ There are legal requirements, under the laws of the State of Florida (the laws that govern the various Wikimedia Foundation projects), for institutions that grant either degrees or diplomas. Such institutions must be licensed by the state, and there are minima that instutitions must satisfy. A charity-owned wiki where anyone can edit without requirement to identify themselves cannot practically comply with these legal requirements. If you want to learn more, I suggest that you start with Title XLVIII Chapter 1005 of the Florida Statutes. Uncle G 09:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
4. Unable to support this It seems to me the dis-allowance of advocacy is not going to work in a research context, which brings up the important distinction between teaching and research universities. Wikipedia, by its verifiability and NOR policies, is a place for learning "settled stuff". The university function of generating new knowledge is out of bounds for Wikipedia, but seems essential for Wikiversity. And it seems to me that disagreement, argument, and hence advocacy are going to be inevitable in the research context. I am a newbie here, so this may be a trivial issue, but I don't see how to get out of it. I assume we want to be open ("no titles") yet not a magnet for fringe theories. Wwheaton 03:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

   I doesn't see how this proposal suggests that advocacy would be disallowed. There is a difference between advocacy as a means of learning and using Wikiversity as an advocacy platform. The later is what this proposal is proposing to disallow, and the proposal makes that distinction. --darklama 02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

   I agree with Darklama that the text seems to make clear the distinction between the kind of advocacy (2) that is used in debate versus "aggressively advocating any personal views or opinions." Wwheaton, are you suggesting that the section should be removed or would you like to see it clarified or reworded? To use an extreme example, the wv community has in the past felt that certain types of advocacy are unwelcome. I mention this here, because some of the wording in that section was originally inserted shortly after the discussion at the link above. I don't believe that this was the only reason for including the text, nor should it be the only justification for inclusion. Personally, I agree with the current wording for a variety of reasons. --mikeu ^talk 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

   Sorry so slow to respond, I just think advocacy has historically been an essential part of a university environment, and sometimes that inevitably becomes heated. I see no way to avoid that, but that is not to say no way exists. Perhaps explicitly allowing POV material, but requiring that it be presented and defended civilly, and backed up by reliable sources, would be OK. I do think scholars should be able to argue that propositions, A, and B, both reliably supported, imply proposition C—which is currently forbidden under a strict reading of Wikipedia's NOR policy, absent an external source that explicitly draws the implication. Personally, I would like it if ideas could be presented here for criticism and discussion, to test their viability, prior to external publication, but I am not sure this is realistically allowable. Best, Wwheaton 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

   My comments below actually blend into this discussion in that I think that we need to allow for opposing POV, or points of view, by allowing parallel opposing research threads. Having made this allowance then articles that are simply "off the wall" in some self-gratuitous way, what we might think of as a vehicle for psychosis rather than an attempt to explain the phenomena of the world, will become obvious. I doubt that there will be too much of that problem especially considering that it will become policy, the policy will be well posted, and we all agree on the need for genuine research and learning (various kinds of "truthing" come to mind). That would leave advertising, and experiences in the Wikipedia has been that a new editor can easily re-word an offending article making it acceptable; not much controversy there.--John Bessa 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

5. Unable to support this. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia: It takes time to sort these ideas out. The cause of conflict that I have seen in the Wikipedia generally occurs when opposing schools of thought clash, each seeking to dominate the Wikipedia with their approach. In Science there is only one set of phenomena that we all live under, yet there will always be conflicting ideas. If there are opposing approaches here in the Wikiversity, then each of them has to exist in its own space to allow for equal growth. What is "fact" to one researcher may very likely be personal (and wrong) opinion to another; the two approaches may never reconcile, but that is life. This relates to the Advocacy clause. Extending this need for flexibility goes to the Static clause. The Static clause only relates to the policy itself, and not the pluralistic nature of research. Clarifying the Advocacy clause to allow for differing opinions in parallel research, and extending the Static clause to show the dynamic nature of the Wikiversity, I believe, will help prevent the types of conflict that have, effectively, driven me away from the Wikipedia. For brevity, I moved the previous writing that resulted from my proposal here.

note: John, it is fine if you want to strikeout comments of yours that you no longer support having included here, but please do not remove the comments of others. Also, if you want to spin this thread off into a new discussion, why not create a page here on wikiversity where everyone can edit? I'm not sure I see the point of copying the comments to an exterenal site for reasons of "brevity" since we have no constraints on how much text is included on this site. --mikeu ^talk 16:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok about removing others' writing; if it were up to me the very first line would warn against the level of "static" thinking I have seen on the Wikipedia that preserves the bias of recent generations, as well as newly created Internet bias. I would do that by distancing the wv from wp, because I feel that the wv is hopelessly polluted with the very mass of misconception that is, and has been, bringing down the human race in cycles of destruction (I see it on this page). What I am trying to do is evolve the idea of openness to new information to blend into the existing text so as to make an anti-static policy, which is closely related to my ideas of democracy. (I will put my Internet-democracy creds on my User page.)--John Bessa 19:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. The page already states that wikiversity is not a duplication of other projects (including wikipedia) but if you are concerned about research, you should realize that the page we are discussing here is not the only proposed policy that is being drafted. See Wikiversity:Original research where it addresses some of the ideas that you seem to be concerned about. I'm not sure I understand what you object to in this page. I don't see how the current text will limit original research. --mikeu ^talk 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
   

I don't see how the current text will limit original research. (Mu301) I am not concerned that it will limit original research, or what I prefer to call "new information" to distinguish it from "original nuttiness," but that it does not stress the need to allow original research. Some things cannot be stressed enough such as "bridge out" or "fire." This, I believe, is one of those things. We are not here to argue, to fight for status, or to promulgate religious wars, for instance; we are here to learn, where learning means developing new information in a way that provides research material. Let me expand this point by showing a key contradiction of the Wikipedia: wiki pages by their nature structure information "blocks" to construct knowledge that is often has unexpected meanings, but the Wikipedia attempts to forbid this, even though it is a wiki, by forbidding the original research that it creates of its own through the wiki phenomena. Added to this problem of forbidding new information is that there is a mass of information, especially in the social sciences, that is simply wrong--probably framed that way for reasons of bias. Many Wikipedians are going to protect this information with their wiki-lives (Beck's self-appointed mini-guards), and the best way to protect it is through a mis-use of rules, such as the rule against original research. Examples that I found not in the social sciences but in wave physics, are pages in the Wikipedia that are written to imply that different kinds of waves live by different rules, which is impossible both from the perspective of Science and modern religion ;). It is far easier for me to write simple explanations for middle school students that tie together wave phenomena here, than try to set the Wikipedia straight. Anyway this is a fairly complex topic and it is going towards the idea of net democracy especially with respect to wikis and information construction applications, and also the scientific method. I covered this in my degree papers--maybe we should name a course on it, using this discussion as material. When I get a chance I will update my user page.--John Bessa 19:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? also explicitly discusses the issue of original research. It specifically mentions that unlike Wikipedia, WV encourages people to use the space for original research. There is some good research hosted by WV, such as the Bloom Clock Project and the Phage Project in Portal:Life Sciences. Also, I'm using my own Userpage to conduct research and you might want to see the Talk for the page Evolutionary Synthesis. --AFriedman 19:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rather than using space for research, as AF says, the wv should revolve around "new information"--this is what I am trying to say. As an example, I went to look for a class on programming the mw, which makes such obvious sense for wv to have since wv is a school, and I found a link to the mw. The class refers, or referred, to programming as "hacking," a concept I now find repugnant after two decades with Perl, as hacking means cracking to the average person. I expressed elsewhere that some added functionality to the wv that would make wv a better classroom. This means that for the WV to grow, the mw "hackers" would have to accommodate educational extendability, such as found on Moodle, or the wv would have to fork. Wikipedians should no longer say that "if the Mediawiki is not for you, there is Joobla," or in our case Moodle. Further, from my memory of the early development of CSS, CSS was meant to add democracy to page rendering; if you needed a specific characteristic for your pages such as large print, you could specify that in your personal CSS page, where ever that may reside. Extending this example, there is no reason the "skin" can likewise be personalized, or tuned for specific classes. I don't see the mw thinking anything like that; in fact everything I see is just the opposite--I see the Wikipedian culture wanting to centralize control (though this particular discussion is a completely different scope). This is why I suggest that the principle that "wv is not wp" reside in the top-level docs; to allow wv to fully reach its potential without harassment from core Wikipedians. And I do mean harassment; I have experienced it, and I feel that my experiences are typical of the type of information suppression that plagues the wp (Beck, Prisoners of Hate). The rule against "original research" is the most common, if not the only, weapon for new information suppression. It is wrong to say this type of WP harassment won't happen to WV as an community; it may have already happened, and the wrangling of the "hacking" class may be an example. Keep in mind that this information suppression phenomena occurs everywhere in human society, and this is why I am sticking with my idea of this top-level inclusion.--John Bessa 14:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is the content on the page based on Wikiversity's proposal [on Meta]? Doesn't it conflict, with the original proposal?--Juandev 19:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is any conflict between this proposal, Meta's and the original proposal for creating Wikiversity, if that is what your asking. I think this proposal is based both on the original proposal for creating Wikiversity as well as the original policy proposal on Meta for what Wikiversity would not do. As can also be seen at the top of both linked pages, there is a box which says the page have been moved to Wikiversity, and any further changes should be made here. So even if there was some sort of conflict between versions, the one here would be the one to follow if passed. --darklama 20:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would recomend to change the word transnational in …„transnational community of teachers, learners, and researchers“… for the word multilingual. Remeber that wikiversity is not about nations, but about languages. Also on Wikiversity Beta, we are having multilingualism, not internationality.--Juandev 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree that multilingual makes more sense. --mikeu ^talk 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I second mikeu. --AFriedman 03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Remeber that wikiversity is not about nations, but about languages. I would say that it is about research individuals who will hopefully attract collaborators to their projects. Internationalism is a valid word as it is about people, whereas languages are a barrier or challenge within the Information Society. To expand, collaboration is about emotional communication, where the digital nature of the Internet, and even character nature of language itself, is a--if not the--barrier.--John Bessa 16:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

You might want to visit betawikiversity: which is the multilingual coordination hub for the wikiversity projects. There are some examples there of efforts to overcome the language barrier and create learning projects between collaborators that speak different languages. I recently started betawikiversity:International Year of Astronomy which, interestingly, contrasts with the organization of the IYA2009 site which focuses on "national nodes." Wikimedia projects are usually structured around the idea of language as a unifying commonality. For example, Wikiversidad is not intended for just contributers from Spain, but also includes people from around the world who can communicate with one another. You will also find people from many parts of the world that contribute here in english. These projects are inherently transnational, despite the multilingual organization. I would be interested in hearing more about your ideas on w:Internationalism as I am not clear on the distinction that you are trying to make. There seem to be many people here who have choosen to identify themselves based on language, perhaps because this seems to be a convenient means to identify other people with whom someone can easily communicate. (In contrast with betawikiversity where people strive to find solutions to work through the communication barrier.) We also have a demographics project that includes a survey on nationality. --mikeu ^talk 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Y Done--Juandev 07:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I propose that "Wikiversity does not confer academic degrees, diplomas, certificates, etc." be changed to "Wikiversity does not confer academic degrees, diplomas, certificates, etc. at this time." Such a change would emphasize that all these policies are works in progress. I see Wikiversity as open to giving some type of recognition to people who completed course materials. --AFriedman 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well doesnt matter. It can be changed in the future as laws are changing. I am just wandering, if I tell to the student, that he is Upper Advanced in English language, if that confer to a degree or certificate?--Juandev 08:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that is a degree or a certificate, to me it's more of a recommendation about which course to take. --AFriedman 17:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

So we can give feedbacks to the students then? Even certified them. What about this: "User:Jtneill has been certified by me as having successfully participated in this project. User:Jtneill is further recommended to become a tutor on this project. --McCormack 08:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)" (source: [1]).--Juandev 07:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a good thing, but then again, I also think Wikiversity should experiment with doing more to recognize when a student has completed a course. To me this type of post seems to enhance the Wikiversity experience and learning environment, I don't know about you. --AFriedman 15:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this. I came here with a wildly hopeful expectation that a Wikiversity, as part of one of my most admired sources of high-quality, community-generated knowledge, Wikipedia, would, in fact, be a source of organization and structure in pursuing a degree. CoyoteLake (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

13 January 2009: I also propose deleting the word certificates in the aforementioned sentence. An unaccredited certificate is not the same as an accredited diploma and it seems as if this is a policy that could be implemented, given enough thought and organization. IMO awarding certificates could improve the learning aspect of Wikiversity and increase interest in the courseware. --AFriedman

I don't see any particular need to change the wording. It says academic degrees, diplomas, certificates, etc. --darklama 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

IMO the reason is that your emphasis on the word academic might not be clear to some people (it wasn't clear to me) and it might make instructors reluctant to give students acknowledgement when they've completed Wikiversity learning materials. Hence Juandev's question about whether McCormack's comment is kosher, earlier in this thread. --AFriedman 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The emphases could also be placed on Wikiversity. IMO the emphases isn't too important. I don't see how that statement might make instructors reluctant to give students acknowledgment, and I don't think a change would make sense until such time as that becomes an apparent problem. There are many other ways to acknowledge people's progress without the potential for "certified" being misinterpretation, like "I think X is ready to help instruct other participants in this subject", or "I think your ready to take the advance course". --darklama 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

darklama, I saw in the archive of an older discussion on this topic that ours is not the first discussion about changing this particular statement to make the wording less extreme. I'm curious what you would define as a certificate, and whether you see any reasonable path toward implementing one. As Wikiversity grows, I think that special Userboxes could be made accessible only to people who have completed particular courses or combinations thereof (much as McCormack attempted to do for Jtneill). I would consider one of these Userboxes a certificate and, if the coursework is rigorous or comprehensive enough, it might be something to put on a C.V. (e.g., John X. was an undergraduate computer science major and also got the Web Design certificate from Wikiversity).

Perhaps instead of deleting "certificates," we could change the word academic to accredited? To me, this change seems to be a more precise phrasing for what the statement really means. Or do you have any other ideas? --AFriedman 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think a certificate is a document which states a person has passed a test or has reached a certain expected level of knowledge. For example an employer might want to see proof of certification before hiring a person for a position. I don't think giving out certifications would be realistic without some help from outside the Wikimedia Foundation. WMF isn't really setup for that nor wants to be. Wikibooks and Wikinews are in the same boat. Wikibooks only recently managed to make some kind of deal where people could get shipped printed copies of books from some company that offers that sort of service, and Wikinews I think has some thing going to be able to get people reporter passes who've gone through some external identification process. The later is probably the same sort of thing that Wikiversity would need to do to have a realistic chance of providing real certifications, degrees, diplomas, etc. to people.

If you don't mean real certifications, I think avoiding such terms would be a good idea to prevent confusing or misleading people. I wouldn't want to see people thinking they can practice law or do heart sugary because they took a course on Wikiversity and been told they are certified if they haven't really been certified.

I wouldn't have a problem with adding accredited as an addition, like "Wikiversity does not confer academic or accredited degrees, diplomas, certificates, etc." I don't understand why anyone would want to encourage the use of pretend or fake certificates. Besides what I had already suggested (e.g. John X passed the advance computer science course) no I don't think I have any other ideas at this time. I don't know if the Wikiversity:Mentors idea I started a bit ago would count as a related idea relevant to this discussion, but I thought I'd go ahead and mention it just in case. --darklama 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough take on certificates, although I was thinking more along the lines of the New York Botanical Garden School of Continuing Education certification programs in botany-related fields (which, as far as I know, do not confer licenses and cannot be used to gain credits toward other degrees). I consider Wikiversity itself academic and the university metaphor as automatically extending to other aspects of what it offers. How about this for a re-wording: Wikiversity does not confer academically accredited certificates, degrees, diplomas etc. at this time. This would leave "John X. is certified by me as having successfully participated in this project. John X. is further recommended to become a tutor" well within acceptable policy, while keeping the limits of such a statement clear. --AFriedman 02:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a particular need to say "at this time". Do you think that without that wording, Wikiversity would somehow be prevented from ever being able to do so even if the community changed its mind? Policies change when consensus changes. I think Wikiversity does not confer academically accredited certificates, degrees, diplomas, etc. is enough. Again though I think saying "John X. is certified by me" is not a good idea, as I touched on before. --darklama 11:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the problem is that any certificates wouldn't really mean much more than a "barnstar". Barnstars are fine, of course, but I doubt that you would list them on a job or school application. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• To darklama. I think one reason people still see the Wikiversity policies as works in progress is that they are so new. At one time, the Bible and the U.S. Constitution were works in progress, but now they are old, venerable and difficult to change. Some of the articles and policies on Wikipedia are already assuming the rigidity of age. My take is that the addition of the words "at this time" would prolong the period of time in which the community would feel comfortable changing its mind, and make such a change easier if it indeed happens. --AFriedman 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
• To SBJohnny. Which specific wording(s) of the policy are you responding to? --AFriedman 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• To AFriedman. Some of the articles and policies on Wikipedia are already assuming the rigidity of age. This leads me to my first idea here: Wikiversity is not Wikipedia, in particular the prime directive that there be no new information, or what is called "original research" on Wikipedia. Your ideas that the Constitution and Bible are not changing is not accurate; both are continually subject to interpretation, so much so that at this moment they are both in radical modes of change. I will skip the Bill of Rights of the Constitution because change there is obvious with the election of a Black American to be the US President. Lets go to the Bible: religion is compassion, and compassion is suddenly linked to specific advance neurons, and especially through evolution. You say no change? As a research institution, the Wikiverstiy has to constantly change with new information being created, or more accurately, new and better building blocks being added to the construction that we call knowledge. As part of the knowledge construction process is the improvement of the construction techniques, specifically advances to the scientific method with the development of social science. As to granting degrees, I see it as impractical to impossible; as for providing structure and project workspace to other degree granting entities, absolutely! I might want to add that the general educational culture distrusts the Wikipedia, and we might want to distance ourselves from the Wikipedia to help solidify connections into the brick and mortar (and some ivy covered) institutions. Going a little further with that, we can easily support research in the tiny and new schools scattered around the world in isolated places that are more concerned with actually applicable knowledge than increasingly meaningless certificates.--John Bessa 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Regarding your comment about the general educational culture... I'm not sure that distrust of wikipedia is as widespread as some reports in the media suggest. You might also consider that where there is distrust, it might not be Wikipedia specifically but the more general idea of content that "anyone can edit." If there is any substance to that suggestion, it would be of no use to distance ourselves from wikipedia because the same dynamic applies here. In other words, I'm not convinced that this about the reputation of wikipedia, but perhaps more about concerns related to insuring factual accuracy and quality of content in a wiki environment. In any case, it would be difficult to distance wv from wp, given that our name and logo appear on the wp main page. There are many advantages to having wikipedia as a sister project and I think that it would be in our best interest to take advantage of that. See for example w:Category:Copy to Wikiversity and w:Category:Wikiversity templates. There are numerous learning projects here that extensively link to wp. You might be surprised at the number of connections that already exist to brick and mortar (even ivy covered) institutions. There are a number of examples at w:Wikipedia:School and university projects, w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination and our own Wikiversity:School and university projects. --mikeu ^talk 21:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • While Wikiversity is not an accredited degree-granting institution, there are credentialed academics here who are engaging with young scholars. Credentialed academics who participate in online learning communities routinely write letters of recommendation on behalf of young scholars who are applying for jobs or for entrance to institutions of higher learning. Over the years, I have written many such letters of recommendation, based on my experience with young learners. One thing that Wikiversity could do to enhance its reputation would be to adopt and adhere to normative principles, policies, and practices appropriate for an authentic learning community. —Barry Kort 22:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

To John Bessa. I am not saying that the Constitution and the Bible do not change, just that they are difficult to change. Of course both U.S. Constitutional policies and Bible-based religions evolve and are subject to interpretation. But at the same time there is a certain sense of continuity and obligation to maintain that continuity. For example, during the U.S. Civil War even Unionists used constitutional arguments to criticize Abe Lincoln for suspending the right to habeas corpus in Maryland. Certainly the right to habeas corpus was not permanently suspended there, possibly because it was a right protected by the constitution. As for the Bible, I disagree with your characterization of religion as solely compassion. Religion is an entire spectrum of beliefs, values and practices, not only compassion, that affect the way humans view the world. Of course religions change, but they are stable enough that Christians, for example, have been celebrating more or less the same major holidays for nearly 2,000 years. Imagine if someone suddenly decided that Easter should not be celebrated because they believed Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection occurred in the autumn. I don't think Wikiversity's policies should be so fixed yet and it is ultimately up to the accrediting agencies, not us, to decide what would be accredited. Brick and mortar (or online) schools go through an external accreditation process as well. --AFriedman 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

To Kort. I agree and I'm glad someone made this point. People certainly seem to be using Wikiversity as a teaching and learning tool for brick and mortar courses. --AFriedman 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Conferring titles and degrees, sort of I thought about the "protected mode" for pages in relation to peer review, and realized that while wv cannot confer degrees, it can validate articles (or courses) through peer review. Since the protected mode gives "ownership" to the page's initiator in the sense of an open programming project, and since the "owner," along with other contributors, will inherit the validation that comes with peer review, he will be recognized for the accomplishment. Also, under the GFDL, he and the contributors will be given credit when the article is duplicated.

Y Done Changed "academic" to academically accredited in the section "Degree-granting institution." --AFriedman 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think at this point summarizing what seems to be the reasons for supporting or opposing this proposal would be helpful.

I think people who support this proposal so far support it because, they think the proposal sets out some good principals that are reasonable and make good sense. People feel that changes can be made as the community changes.

I think people who oppose this proposal so far oppose it because, they are concerned that people may use the principals outlined in ways that won't help Wikiversity. Some people are concerned that some of the principals could limit Wikiversity's ability to be more like a brick and mortar university and feel that the community will be reluctant to make changes later if adopted and there concerns prove to be true.

If my summary is accurate, I think add something like "This policy may be reviewed and updated from time to time to better reflect what the community currently wants" could help. I think people who support the proposal already consider this to be true, so making it explicit should be enough to reduce people's concerns. If there is consensus to do so I propose adding that wording to the end of the proposal and making it policy, because consensus appears to be in favor of adopting this policy and in updating this policy as the community feels changes are needed. --darklama 14:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

To me this seems fair enough. --AFriedman 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would hope that applies to all of our policies, tbh :-). Any policy that gets in the way of the educational mission should be updated to fix that problem. --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Half Done --darklama 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are currently 13 supporting, 5 opposing. 3 of the opposing comments relate to the "advocacy clause", one to clashes with meta, and one objection to having a "NOT" policy at all.

The arguments against the advocacy clause are fairly strong, and have not been met. Perhaps we should just remove the advocacy clause and create Wikiversity:Advocacy, since I think the distinctions being made are perhaps a bit too subtle for a short clause in a large policy. I'll post a note on the user talks to see if they can approve with that clause removed. The other 2 arguments have been met, above.--SB_Johnny ^talk 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think removing the advocacy platform clause is a good idea. I would probably change my vote to oppose if that were done. There is a difference between advocacy and an advocacy platform. I think people are worried about how it might be applied or what it means. I think instead people should be asked if they could support the policy with the explicit condition added in that the policy can be updated when its felt needed as suggested in the section above. If people still cannot support it, I think the next best step would be to ask people to suggest alternative wording for the advocacy platform clause. People seem to be misinterpreting the advocacy clause to mean that no advocacy is allowed which simply isn't the purpose.

I can't even begin yet to understand what exactly people are concerned with. To me its like people see "advocacy" mentioned and jump to a conclusion without reading the whole thing or like they are reading a totally different clause than what is written. People's opposition to the clause seems bizarre to me. Specifics would be nice. Is there specific wording that worry/concern people? Without more information, I feel as if people have already done there best to try to address and reassure people that the advocacy platform clause isn't a problem. --darklama 13:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

But that's just the problem, at least 3 people do find it restrictive as it is now, because the advocacy language is not clear. An advocacy clause and/or advocacy policy that meets these concerns can be one of the "updates".

If you don't understand the arguments, you can't meet the objections, and it doesn't look like a consensus when there are valid arguments that are being ignored. Besides, it's hard to take the "update" clause seriously if you say you're going to oppose the whole policy if one of the restrictive clauses is redacted due to strong objections to that clause. We could on the other hand remove the clause and start the voting over if you think this removal would seriously change the gist of the policy. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there has been a reasonable argument against the advocacy platform clause so far, because there doesn't appear to be an argument against anything specifically. I don't think anyone can satisfy objections that aren't understood and I don't think anyone should have to. I don't even see a strong objection because to me I think if there was a strong objection people would have little difficulty at all pointing out specifics that could be discussed and addressed. I strongly object to removing a clause when people have not seen fit to provide a reasonable argument for why the clause needs to be removed or fixed and why it needs to be removed or fixed. So far all I have seen seems to be generalizations about how advocacy is an import part of learning and the policy specifically says that advocacy in the form of an objection and informative learning resource is ok. --darklama 15:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The issue seems to be that the clause as currently written is too restrictive of advocacy, since certain kinds of advocacy are involved with research and/or an educational agenda. If the rest of the policy is more or less agreeable by the rest of the people have weighed in, why not just approve what's supported, and work towards a consensus on a clause or policy that addresses advocacy? Policies should be reflections of consensus, not legislation. --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(note: SB_Johnny and I edit-clashed just now so my writing may be slightly dated--John Bessa 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC))Reply

darklama writes there doesn't appear to be an argument against anything specifically about the advocacy clause. I hope I can answer this from my perspective: I am opposed to any policy that can be use as a weapon against research freedom, and any policy that will prevent wv being useful to all scholars. I oppose using policy to shape the wv, and that policy should only be used to deal with specific problems. If the policies are too restrictive, then scholars will leave, and I am seeing this. If a researcher is working on a delicate and complicated concept that challenges current thinking, and some self-appointed policy enforcer comes along to upset the researcher's delicate balance, that researcher will leave, and that will hurt wv. We need to think in terms of support and not control, yet control is what I am seeing all across the wv policy documents. We need to discourage what articles (or courses) that I describe as "off the wall," or "a vehicle for psychosis," (where I give "truthing" as an example). The Static clause does not go far enough; there is no question what so ever in my mind that all policy has to be continually revised as a round-robin, and the wv has to continually adapt to the rapidly evolving Information Society, where freedom of speech is increasingly an issue, which goes back to the Advocacy clause. Personally, I really want to move on to other policy topics, and I realize I am not getting my "Wikiversity is not Wikipedia" clause added. So for me to approve:

• Relax the Advocacy clause to apply specifically to "nut jobs" however it is appropriate to label them
• Strengthen the Static clause to assure new Wikiversians that wv is continually evolving, especially with respect to support for scholars (including added software modules), and not just it's policy-making process

I believe the most important thing to do is create a comfortable environment for scholars, and making them feel the benefits of being here--and staying. I put some material proposing wv policy studies on my User page describing my scholar support perspective--John Bessa 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Defining Advocacy better:

• Gratuitous self-promotion as applied to groups as individuals
• Advertising, commercial self-promotion
• Cult creation as Beck defines it Prisoners of Hate: isolated thinking resistant to new information

As different than:

• Learning advocacy Learning what? Hatred?
• Saftey advocacy Safety for whom? Maslow's "well-adjusted Nazis?"
• Wiki advocacy

Does this help? Maybe we need a new clause title to include more related bad things--John Bessa 18:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

[Edit conflict, answers to these questions might still be useful for anyone still opposed]:

I think everyone wants learners and scholars to feel comfortable contributing to Wikibooks and to see the benefit in continuing to contribute to Wikiversity. I think that is a common concern for everyone who gets involved in community discussions.

I have no objections to strengthening the static clause to assure people that Wikiversity is constantly evolving. However I'd like to see more people show there support for doing so first, because there has been objections in the passed to similar proposals like on Wikiversity talk:Ignore all rules. I think without more support this is likely to create more opposition instead.

What do you think isn't relaxed enough in the advocacy clause? Self-promotion and advertising is already discussed in the advertising clause. Do you think the advertising clause inadequately addresses self-promotion and advertising? If so, what more could the advocacy clause do that the advertising clause doesn't do to address self-promotion and advertising? Are you suggesting a change like:

“

a) creating or linking to useful learning resources for exploring ideas that are useful to learners and researchers, and b) allowing Wikiversity to be used to promote self-advocate, or to pursue a personal or group agenda

”

--darklama 19:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think about it the Advocacy clause makes sense because valid causes will be able to stand upon the information that we develop here--a gift unto itself. We don't need to be their platform; we need to concentrate on developing actual building blocks meeting the "single-phenomena" clause of the Scientific Method (and modern religion ;) ).--John Bessa 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does this mean you're no longer opposed to the advocacy clause? What about the static clause? --darklama 19:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I took the article apart and reconstructed to try to clarify for myself what the purpose of the the policy. (Actually this is how I like to build a page from "prose" material.) I think it might also be helpful (down the road) to do the same to the talk page. I see advertising and advocacy as the same--they are only different by tax status! So I created a "platform and vehicle" (think soapbox) clause from them to clarify the purpose. For instance we are not a site to advocate causes, but legitimate causes can easily use the wv to create the the knowledge upon which to support their causes. Because of differences of opinion, there will have to be an acknowledgment that there may have to be parallel projects on the same topic, and the individuals and take from either project to develop their own ideas. I think this more than anything that I have seen so far defines wv.

Not a "platform" or "vehicle"

• Advertising, especially commercial
• Advocacy of causes
• Gratuitous self-promotion
• Personal or group bias

Now, you see the word bias here; look to the Scientific Method Middle_School_Science, which we need to follow, and perhaps extend. So the word "objective" needs to be replaced by "unbiased" everywhere, except where it does not mean unbiased.

I would like to edit the article itself over the next 24 hours to implement those specific Advertising and Advocacy ideas as well as implement some Static ideas without altering the basic structure. The material below is my full idea of the document but that will go into a page itself on Wikiversity Policy Study within (something like) Wikiversity Studies--John Bessa 17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made the changes to the article, and I had some difficulty with the formatting, but I cannot fix it right now as it is Valentine's day, and... you get the picture. My goal with the changes was to help show the protection and unbiased goals of wv, and our commitment to a full breadth of information representation--gotta go.--John Bessa 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Below is the full text:

Not on wv

• Duplication of other articles
• Disruption
• Rejection

Degree-granting

• Titles
• Professors, just scholars, or researchers

Not a "platform" or "vehicle"

• Advertising, especially commercial
• Advocacy of causes
• Gratuitous self-promotion
• Personal or group bias

Wv Not like:

• Other Wikimedia projects, especially Wikipedia
• Not confined to levels; for all ages
• Brick and mortar institution

Wv is not static, wv evolves continually and deliberately with wv-wide represention

• Developed knowledge
• Policy
• Purpose
• Support
• Technology

Yes on wv to clarify what it is not

Dedicated to lifelong learning

• Learning to learn
• Ideal learner
• Structural objective orientation
• Self-promoting as a wiki community

Personal or widely-held opinion

• Focused toward learning
• Reasonably supported ("I can see why you might believe that, though I disagree")

Unique and well-connected multilingual community of Wikiversians committed to over-lapping across wv barriers including language

• Teachers
• Learners
• Researchers

Projects maintain individual focus

• Protect each individual learning project within the indivdual's scope
• Consolidate learning
• Sharing material across projects both inside and outside wv and WM sphere

Seems like everybody is happy so I am going to take out the "striked-out" writing, and then we can vote when we get around to it. Obviously the page needs to be formatted better, and probably the language needs to get tightened.

• I am going to try to organize the Wikiversity Policy Studies page, and probably put it in the category of Wiki Studies Wikiversity Studies. I prefer Wiki over Wikiversty because There are many wiki-oriented issues we need to work out, such as article development and language styles, including multi-lingual awareness, that affect all wikis. Then there also the social issues we brought up here; especially the things you cannot do.
• These issue studies naturally form into courses, since there are multiple layers of policy, social, and technical issues. In fact nearly everything we do here can form itself into a course, which is what we do here: a diet restricted to research, learning, and teaching.
• Protection and peer review: Another issue we need to work out is the relationship between "protection" and peer review, it seems to me that research articles should probably initiate in protected mode by default, and then the article's initiator, or owner, can at some point open the article to peer review, which effectively takes away protection and begins the process of validation. Maybe at this point a research article can evolve into a course by changing its format.
• Peer review criteria need to be developed as well, and it makes sense to develop them in collaboration with the Wikipedia, so that we can legally supply the Wikipedia with material. This would add much value to the wv in the eyes of the wm foundation.
• Publishing: peer review gives the effect of "publishing," benefiting our relationships with brick and mortar institutions, in turn bringing more activity to the wv.

One thing we might want to be proud of: just replace the word "Wikivesity" with "government," especially the advocacy clause's "self-promotion" section. It would make a perfect world, at least 99% perfect, rather than the present ~2%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Bessa (talk • contribs)

Sorry but I am having trouble understanding what your suggesting or trying to explain. I saw your changes to advertisement, advocacy and the static clauses yesterday and made some further changes myself. I don't understand what your desire to study wiki policies or what peer review has to do with this proposal. I don't see the connection. --darklama 20:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As it happens, I discuss my web activity with my friends, especially this, and they understand and agree with my approach. So, straight up, I see you having difficulty grasping what everybody I know sees as obvious, so let me try to help you:

• The most important thing we need to do here is give new Wikiversians an idea that they will have all the research freedom that they need to develop new information; that they will be free of the harassment and conflict that drives good writers away from the Wikipedia. In fact harassed Wikipedians may want to leave the Wikipedia to work here, which is to our benefit.
• The relationship between what we are discussing here and policies in general seems obvious as well: they are one level up. In relation to previous bullet, we are constructing valuable information in this group from what is basically opinion, including yours. What you are not grasping is that the information being developed summates into the larger picture of wv knowledge from which policy, and everything else, is generated. As it happens, this is precisely what the wv does, and because of the nature of the structure of wikis in general, we are able to build a single phenomena from the disparate pieces, creating a uniquely accurate view of Science (used very broadly to include all community-owned unbiased information).
• Because the summation of the information is community knowledge, the information has to be supported through a consensus, but to make the information valid as an aggregation of all of our ideas, each of our opinions has to be respected. This goes to protection: individual's writing needs to be respected not only to allow them research freedom, but also to assure that all approaches are protected so that we do have in fact all the best available knowledge to create for the world the correct "picture."
• Opinion has to be respected, but not so far as to allow the wv to be a vehicle for self-promotion. The best example was the use of the Wikipedia by Washington, DC politicians for re-election purposes, which resulted in parts of Washington being temporarily banned from editing on the Wikipedia--a desperate move.

We live on a mono-diet of wiki here; everything is an article, and as a result we are limited. We lack the discussion threads of well developed forums such as Ning.com. What we do have is the concept of a study, and by the very nature of study we can develop ideas as a group such that we share all our individual ideas to develop a group view that we can all support and embrace based on perceived logical results. Individually we take back these ideas to improve our own lives, and we can expect anyone using our information to get the same benefits. We can initiate everything we do as studies, allow for parallel idea development to facilitate different views, combine these ideas into a single thread, and from this thread develop beneficial policy. The alternative is to do what we are doing here: going back and forth as debate and argument, which in my experience decays into a struggle for "self-promotion" and provides no benefits to the community. This decay benefits only specific individuals: the type of individuals who tend to mental isolation, and hence are useless to the community. They use bad information to dominate communities' perceptions, itself a very likely motivation for self-promotion. Endless debate also wastes time.

--John Bessa 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made a few changes to reflect research and growth. I hope this is OK, darklama. --John Bessa 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The text reads: "if you want to read about a topic, you may be better off visiting, say, Wikipedia or Wikibooks, but if you want to learn about this topic, or participate in research on this topic" after my last edit that added "research."

That seems a little confused. What is the difference between reading and learning. As "learning to learn" experts who are dedicated to "life-long learning" we know (or should know) the difference, but I think the text needs to be more clear:

"if you want to read about a topic, you may be better off visiting, say, Wikipedia or Wikibooks, but if you want to participate in learning about, or researching, a topic"

This actually blurs the distinction between learning and research in the wv context, another idea that occurred to me while thinking about our participatory nature.

I made this change to the article.--John Bessa 18:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The problem with bias, is that biased people feel justified in their bias. "We are great, so that others are less great." Biased people may simply view other types of people as nearly a different species, and hence not protected from bias. Derogatory terminology needs to be avoided too, even when it is not meant as bias, but personal criticism. (In fact I am prone to that!)

Here in the US, I have gone "around the block" so many times with bias issues that they seem second nature. I am guessing most other Americans have to the point where bias is unlikely in normal life. But it may be rampant around the world, however, and it is in the world that wp lives. A most heart-breaking example is experience of the Yazidi people whose religion is among the oldest. Sadly their symbolic name for God has been written up in others' religious texts as the word for "devil," and have recently experienced extreme attacks as a result.

I generally support all the proposals.

I do have one issue, and I think it gets to the heart of Wikiversity...

Why couldn't I put a notice on the Technical Writing pages when I'm teaching a live course based on these materials? It's the number one question I get via email, "Where/when will you teach this course."

This is a separate issue than advertising prohibition. Messaging Widget: Could we break from the foundation by putting messaging where the capital dome symbol is? There are many free and open messaging systems; my thought is that we could have a publish/subscribe system that uses the topic category system to refine levels of discussion down to page edits, perhaps.--JohnBessa^talk 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A lot of us have put many hours into making these courses and none of us expect to get rich from it. It's a labor of love. Yet I don't see how it's unethical to let potential students know when I'll be teaching the same material. Yes, such courses cost something. That's not unreasonable.

From the way I read this prohibition, I could never tell the people most interested that I DO sometimes teach classes in person just because I might (emphasis on might) make a little money for my work.

This doesn't seem very fair to those of us who've worked on getting all this valuable material together.

I'd appreciate some discussion on this. I'm not proposing that anybody put a flashing banner ad on the top, but a listing of when/where a teacher actually teaches the same material along with a link to more information doesn't seem to defeat the goals of Wikiversity. I propose an exemption specifically allowing such a limited list (date and time/location of class/link to more information) for any of us who teach using the materials on Wikiversity.

In fact, the more "live" students, the more potential updates to the information...so it could serve to bring fresh blood to Wikiversity.

Please consider if the ban on advertising isn't overly broad when it comes to classes that are generated from Wikiversity content.

Thanks for your consideration. TWFred 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• {+} (see also: Wikiversity:Approved_Wikiversity_project_proposal.) Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I (or we) all see your point, but, truthfully, I wouldn't sweat about it. It is a fine line but we in the wm have had a lot of experience with it. And, for certain, no one here is so socialist as to reject perfectly good articles because they support a commercial project!

Think of terms such as "gratuitous" or "self-promoting" as criteria. An example on the wp might be an article about a politician. As one should expect, politicians have attempted to use wp as a self-promotion tools so the admins have to step in. Once all the Capital Hill IP addresses got banned for a while.

Fixing an offending page is not difficult. Usually a new editor simply changes wording and brings in other editors who are unbiased who can bring in multiple POV.--JohnBessa^talk 18:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

All of the below introduced by --JohnBessa^talk

• Saying one group is better than another
• Singling out groups or persons (everyone is OK except you)
• Overly-positive social approach implying cultural superiority
• Unsupportable opinion as fact
  • All information is valid but it has to be expanded within the scope of its context
  • Personal experiences, or anecdotes, need to be view within their context so as to validly support learning
• Use of derogatory language of any kind
  • Criticism has to be valid
  • Common language
  • Supportive
  • Constructive

• Focus study with a sense of purpose so that your accomplishments have wide application

Within the United States, traditional bias, such as racial conflict, has been nearly eliminated, yet bias persists in deceptive, and hence more dangerous, manifestations.

• Bias will always be with us because it is usually initiated by biological flaws that may be described as contradictions in life, that can be found throughout higher life.
• Bias can adapt virally so as to be deceptive and nearly invisible, but it has universal traits such as a tendency to single out individuals for mis-characterization.

I have seen in my lifetime many examples of biased attacks on people who have been unfairly accused of bias, or who may be having fear-induced reactions to bias. Bias has adapted to anti-bias bringing bias to new levels. This is precisely what has to be avoided in research, learning, and teaching, as it undermines knowledge construction and learning by eroding it with deception.

Science here us used in the broadest sense applicable. Since collaboration, inventiveness, and imagination are implied methods of knowledge development here, then Scientific concepts can be broadened beyond the present frontier of Social Science to art and music, for example.

The strongest Scientific resistance to bias is the component of the scientific method that says that the entire natural experience operates under a single phenomena. In the social sense, the scientific method says that we are for the most part the same and react in similar ways to the various situations we experience. Phenomena, for the most part, are easily explainable if there is a good foundation of understanding from which to develop explanations, but as Einstein warned, explanations that are too simple, may be incorrect--and biased, based on ideas that are misconceived because they are pre-conceived.

The wv will allowance for differences of opinion by accommodating opposing development threads

• Science
• Technology
• Society
• Individual experiences
• Artistic expression

• Wikis develop meta-knowledge, a "big picture," that is often invisible in the research information
• If knowledge does not seem to be correct, then re-ask questions to realign research directions

• Explore knowledge in the scope of the research environment, or in its context, to avoid relying on fragmented and isolated facts.
• Bring it to a meaningful association with environment

• Integrate different scientific fields within research approaches
• Flexible organization strategies and develop research tools and methods
• Understand the advantages and limitations of different approaches
  • That different approaches are components of the human and natural experiences
• Look for evidence of concepts in wide areas
  • Apply learning to different environments
  • Show universal applicability ideas
• Collect information widely
  • Aggregate accumulated facts into raw information reservoirs
• Communication
  • Develop ideas and directions of research collaboratively
  • Create different avenues of research for wide information gathering

• Develop tools for research
• Guess
  • How conclusions will affect areas of study
  • How practices developed from study will affect the environments or systems that they are applied to
• Work studies backwards from well-developed goals
  • Attempt to disprove ideas as well as prove them

• Try to reach agreement
• Identify areas of disagreement
  • Understand the basis of the disagreement
  • See if differences can be resolved
  • Differing conclusions can be reconciled

Please note:

I will add this "sparse" text to the page, with hopes that someone edit it into "acceptable" language. I have here Scientific Method support to help combat bias to both help create solid building blocks of knowledge and as part of developing collaborative community context.

I will be inserting the sparse text only because I do not want to be the only author of this clause, as I believe that the ideas in it will pervade throughout mw--they are exceedingly important.

• Wikiversity is not a place for bias
  • Saying one group is better than another
  • Singling out groups or persons (everyone is OK except you)
  • Overly-positive social approach implying cultural superiority
  • Unsupportable opinion as fact
    • All information is valid but it has to be expanded within the scope of its context
    • Personal experiences, or anecdotes, need to be viewed within their context so as to validly support learning
  • Use of derogatory language of any kind
    • Criticism has to be valid
    • Common language
    • Supportive
    • Constructive
  • Focus study with a sense of purpose so that your accomplishments have wide application