Wikiversity/Ingmar's UNESCO proposal

Ingmar's Proposal

I am copying from his letter from 2006-06-04, discussions need to continue here and not by email.

International education platform edit

in the goal to create a international platform with/for free qualified learning and teaching material, collaboration and making/ finding new contacts:

  • Qualified learning material for pupils, students, vocational pupils and all other people, which have a interest to learn from free qualified material
  • Qualified teaching material for teachers, professors, vocational teachers etc
  • collaboration and communication between this people (in every imaginable form)
  • making new contacts for learning, teaching, academic research or anything like this
I have no idea what the word "qualified" means. Who determines the qualification, and who determines that this body is qualified to bestow qualification? --WiseWoman 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No graduates, certificates, credentials edit

in that point, that every graduates, credentials, certificates or anything like this are not serius for such a platform?

I tend to disagree that certificates, credentials, or even granting degrees is impossible for something like Wikiversity. A degree granting university could come out of this proposal, but I would also have to temper this statement to suggest that if such a very long-term goal is sought by the Wikiversity community, it is going to be a much harder and longer road than even the process to try and get Wikiversity started in its own domain. And the quality of all Wikimedia projects is going to have to improve substantially for such a degree granting organization to be fully established. This means a higher quality Wikipedia, real textbooks at Wikibooks that are complete and being used in formal classroom instruction as the primary text, common citations from Wiktionary in the popular press (Wikipedia is doing that right now), and major scholarly journals using Wikisource as signifcant citation reference. With such resources being available to Wikiversity and being associated with such projects, Wikiversity would have the necessary clout to go through the accreditation process that would eventually get some sort of degree to be granted.
This is something that is years away at best, and not something to push for with the initial proposal, nor something to be expecting for the initial group of Wikiversity participants. --Roberth 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified material and qualified people edit

  • that qualified material only can come from teachers, professors, vocational teachers, academic researchers, vocational pro's or exception talents (a examples for the last: a young student or pupil with perfect and exception know-how in a theme without a education, but generally accepted as such a talent)?
  • that every qualified knowledge on the platform must be sign from such accredited or established persons, so that every user can control the qualified source?
  • that anonymously learning material without a sign from a qualified person has no value for the learner's or other tutor's and that such material at the worst actually can cause damages? (as example: pupils or students learn with wrong material and get therefore bad marks)

Qualified moderation groups edit

that such a platform must have a group of permanent qualified people for every knowledge discipline, so that these "qualified moderation group members" have a view on new material and new users, that sign as qualified teachers, professors etc... (qualified new user acount must be controled, if this is a fake or a real professor, teacher etc)

Takedown in writings edit

that takedown in writings from pupils, students etc from qualified lectures also is good material, but that these material must sign explicit as such material in any obvious form (whatever will be the best form for that)

I think you mean lecture notes, not "takedowns". Lecture notes are filtered through a student and may not be very good, as many points may have been missed or noted wrong. Students must learn to discuss their lecture notes with others to determine if they have understood right. --WiseWoman 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expert advices and partnerships edit

that such a platform need the best expert advicese and partnerships for the evolution.

This expert advices could come from specialized people or organisations (as example Unesco, VDI etc). Other organisations can have the status as consultant or partner. As consultant they consult only, because they support the goal of such a platform. As equitable partner the partner work together for a special goal.

No, I don't want to be conferring "expert" status, either. The Wikiversity needs people who use the material, people who add material, people who comment or edit material, and some admins to fight the trolls. --WiseWoman 11:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs analysis edit

that such a platform need a accurately need analysis with the future users like students, teachers, pupils, professors etc, so that the software development and the platform development only work with true needs from the target groups and not with thoughts, what the target groups could maybe want. For every business this is the basic for success, before you invest in the realization of a vision.

Rubbish. Things that are needed will appear. Things that are not needed as well. The Wikiversity is NOT to be about developing a learning platform. I am sick of "learning platforms". Teachers and students together form a class, independent of any or multiple learning platforms. Education is not a business and I will fight anyone who starts thinking this way. Knowledge must be free. --WiseWoman 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So its not important what we as project manager think, its important what the target groups realy want from such a platform. We can make in this analysis only proposals what all could be possible and blaze the trail and the border. But they must make the decisions inside of the trail and borders.

It will develop. It's a wiki. --WiseWoman 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - more quality for... edit

that this platform must also raise the quality from the encyclopedia Wikipedia and related projects.

It would be not good, if this platform will be a international star and has (of course) a higher level then Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be integrated in this platform, so that the encyclopedia Wikipedia will be valorized and win quality.

Dream on. The Wikipedia has achieved its own quality status. It is just a tool, a book in the library, for education. It must always be checked, it is a source, but an amazingly credible one. Teaching and learning is not about facts!! It is about understanding, analyzing, synthesizing. Facts are just a minor, minor part of learning, and we don't always agree on what the facts are. That is part of science, we search for truth, but encounter a lot of contradictions along the way. --WiseWoman 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The happy medium edit

I mean not a accredited institution as you can see. Thats would be too static and constricting. But this platform need expert advices and national and international partnerships with important organisations, also universitys, schools etc. It must have a "offical touch", but it must be also free like a bird, like Wikipedia. Thats the only way to win many teachers and professors around the world even so it kept the spirit from the free culture and knowledge movement. Thats the "happy medium" I mean.