Is there any interest in developing OERs using the Wikipedia model?
Although someone starts a page, there is always an implicit open
invitation to add and update. I'd start with middle school science and
math activities but I'm open to suggestions.
It seems that most WE contributors - myself included, haven't been
working this way. Partly because there isn't anything that is
explicitly designated for this wide community collaboration. Partly
because most contributors are working on personal teaching resources.
To me, the Wikipedia model is about creating open learning resources.
I would really like to get some collaborative content development
going that extends beyond the needs of an individual teacher, or
school.
We are seeing expanding participation as learners in FOC08, CCK09,
L4C, M4T which is great. Now let's get that going in the development
side.
You have my vote on that, Valerie. I have always invited others to join the
BOL, BL and and fully synchronous and asynchronous workshops as developers,
students and facilitators. I consider myself fortunate in having had some
response, but I would welcome many more.
Warm wishes,
Nellie Deutsch
Sharing is Caring!
Doctoral Student
Educational Leadership
Curriculum and Instruction
Integrating Technology @ http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd Get ready for CO10: http://connecting-online.ning.com/ Free online workshops on WikiEducator: http://www.wikieducator.org/Workshops
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM, valerie <vtay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any interest in developing OERs using the Wikipedia model?
> Although someone starts a page, there is always an implicit open
> invitation to add and update. I'd start with middle school science and
> math activities but I'm open to suggestions.
> It seems that most WE contributors - myself included, haven't been
> working this way. Partly because there isn't anything that is
> explicitly designated for this wide community collaboration. Partly
> because most contributors are working on personal teaching resources.
> To me, the Wikipedia model is about creating open learning resources.
> I would really like to get some collaborative content development
> going that extends beyond the needs of an individual teacher, or
> school.
> We are seeing expanding participation as learners in FOC08, CCK09,
> L4C, M4T which is great. Now let's get that going in the development
> side.
Valerie,
I am very interested in collaboratively developing OERs, with an open
invitation to all for additions and revisions. I do think we have quite a
number of projects underway that fit this model.
I've never worked on wikipedia, but it seems like the early editors may have
intentionally cultivated the "Be bold" culture ("in a nutshell: If you see
something that can be improved, improve it!" from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold ).
Maybe we should be asking how we can intentionally cultivate a culture in
which OERs are collaboratively developed and improved. But in doing so we
need to be mindful of the issue that many (most?) learning resources are
context dependent.
And this brings us back to the discussion that Wayne began last week on "How
do we support and respect Wikieducator contributions in WE?" (
http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator/browse_thread/thread/59b3...)
The conversation began with Wayne proposing that authors label their
work
according to the level of community contribution desired. For a community
resource he suggested: "I need help and welcome WikiEducators to
collaborate, edit and improve this resource."
Labeling our developing resources as to the level of community collaboration
desired seems like it could help both the resources that need to be focused
on a target audience as well as those that are community-wide resources. Did
anyone begin work on the templates that could be used for this purpose?
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM, valerie <vtay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any interest in developing OERs using the Wikipedia model?
> Although someone starts a page, there is always an implicit open
> invitation to add and update. I'd start with middle school science and
> math activities but I'm open to suggestions.
> It seems that most WE contributors - myself included, haven't been
> working this way. Partly because there isn't anything that is
> explicitly designated for this wide community collaboration. Partly
> because most contributors are working on personal teaching resources.
> To me, the Wikipedia model is about creating open learning resources.
> I would really like to get some collaborative content development
> going that extends beyond the needs of an individual teacher, or
> school.
> We are seeing expanding participation as learners in FOC08, CCK09,
> L4C, M4T which is great. Now let's get that going in the development
> side.
The goals of WE are pretty straight foward and clear. Acheving the
necesaty OERs can only be acheived through collaboration authoring.
There are very few nodes on WE however that, in my view, meet the end
results we all target as the possible use for all these OERs, e.g
wikieducator.org/chemistry an excellent node in own right. Most of
these excellent peices have however been adaptations of previously
existing materials and then others have started adding on. This is not
a bad idea at all - after all, there is nothing new under the sun. Low
"intisified" collaboration is perhaps so at this stage because of the
rather "new" nature of the project/community. Sometimes, i am of the
view that there are many willing volunteers with little clue as to
where to go/what to work on. With the development of the OERF,
hopefully, we will have a much better cordination of volunteer efforts
with good "quasi-delegation" of tasks to volunteers.
One area/strategy/tactic i find useful in ensuring collaboration is to
encourage it right from the training phase - L4C both online and F2F.
I encourage my participants to always work in mutual-interest groups,
first brainstorm on the contents they can possibly work on together
(possibly a root topic e.g Digestion), allocate chapters/sections
among themselves, and then just go ahead and "do-the-do" <smile>. I
have seen many great outputs through this mechanism especially in
cases where i had participants from different schools working on the
mutual-interest topics. This has worked very well for me in F2F
sessions, i am not very sure how this has panned in some online
sessions. If there are dedicated participants online with good pre-
knowledge about social/online interactions, and good/adequate access
to the net, this works for me.
I greatly look foward to strategies we can all come up with to promote
further collaborative contect development in this community.
Regards,
Victor.
On Oct 27, 4:19 pm, valerie <vtay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any interest in developing OERs using the Wikipedia model?
> Although someone starts a page, there is always an implicit open
> invitation to add and update. I'd start with middle school science and
> math activities but I'm open to suggestions.
> It seems that most WE contributors - myself included, haven't been
> working this way. Partly because there isn't anything that is
> explicitly designated for this wide community collaboration. Partly
> because most contributors are working on personal teaching resources.
> To me, the Wikipedia model is about creating open learning resources.
> I would really like to get some collaborative content development
> going that extends beyond the needs of an individual teacher, or
> school.
> We are seeing expanding participation as learners in FOC08, CCK09,
> L4C, M4T which is great. Now let's get that going in the development
> side.
I have heard it suggested that sites like WE and Wikiversity should be
the place(s) to go if one needs more than an encyclopedia article. Is
there a template on Wikipedia for this? Perhaps a federated search
template which returns hits on various OER repositories?
e.g. on Wikipedia have a template {{edusearch}} (etc) or something
more specific: {{cnx}} or {{we}} etc.
If such templates were available (and we could make them), it would be
good to have the WikiEducator hits ready and waiting for Wikipedia
users.
Perhaps we could design some templates which help WikiEducators set up
such pages. What would the template need to include? (think of meeting
the needs of the Wikipedia users looking for more than an encyclopedia
article).
Here are some rough preliminary thoughts for you to edit/discuss:
> Is there any interest in developing OERs using the Wikipedia model?
> Although someone starts a page, there is always an implicit open
> invitation to add and update. I'd start with middle school science and
> math activities but I'm open to suggestions.
> It seems that most WE contributors - myself included, haven't been
> working this way. Partly because there isn't anything that is
> explicitly designated for this wide community collaboration. Partly
> because most contributors are working on personal teaching resources.
> To me, the Wikipedia model is about creating open learning resources.
> I would really like to get some collaborative content development
> going that extends beyond the needs of an individual teacher, or
> school.
> We are seeing expanding participation as learners in FOC08, CCK09,
> L4C, M4T which is great. Now let's get that going in the development
> side.
Working this from several directions is really going to get some
traction. Another thought - a portal for links to projects that
explicitly want volunteers to collaborate.
Wikipedia was entirely collaborative development from the outset.
Whether intended or not, WikiEducator has been much more about the
practice of open "publishing" and WikiEducator is filling this need
well. This is great, but different.
So now, for those of us who want to participate more collaboratively,
we need explicit direction about where and when we should just jump
in. Resource designation is good. Templates are useful. A portal as
an entry point to list projects inviting collaboration will help.
However, this is just a start. Please keep thinking about this and
collaborating on providing solutions.
We are producing a collaboratively-created open dictionary written in
simple, student-friendly language at http://dictionary.k12opened.com/ and would be willing and happy to provide glossaries for any math/
science units that are created as a part of this. (I have worked on
Wikibooks and Wikipedia and am an educator.) One of the parts of this
dictionary tool is a glossary builder that includes wikitext as one of
its output options.
If anyone has other projects for which this might be of interest, let
me know.
As usual you have brilliant ideas Kim. I was going to the article on
wikipedia and adding my contributions as references. This is when I
realised that I was starting a new article on ikebana thinking one did
not exist in Arabic, but in fact it did. The way it is pronounced in
Japanese is ikebana and that is what I wrote in the phonetic
rendition. I was told off because there was already an article but the
pronunciation was eekeebana. From then on, I am more careful and I
look at the side bar with the languages.
But automatic links are a very good idea.
Nadia
On Oct 28, 8:43 pm, Kim <kctuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have heard it suggested that sites like WE and Wikiversity should be
> the place(s) to go if one needs more than an encyclopedia article. Is
> there a template on Wikipedia for this? Perhaps a federated search
> template which returns hits on various OER repositories?
> e.g. on Wikipedia have a template {{edusearch}} (etc) or something
> more specific: {{cnx}} or {{we}} etc.
> If such templates were available (and we could make them), it would be
> good to have the WikiEducator hits ready and waiting for Wikipedia
> users.
> Perhaps we could design some templates which help WikiEducators set up
> such pages. What would the template need to include? (think of meeting
> the needs of the Wikipedia users looking for more than an encyclopedia
> article).
> Here are some rough preliminary thoughts for you to edit/discuss:
> On Oct 27, 3:19 pm, valerie <vtay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is there any interest in developing OERs using the Wikipedia model?
> > Although someone starts a page, there is always an implicit open
> > invitation to add and update. I'd start with middle school science and
> > math activities but I'm open to suggestions.
> > It seems that most WE contributors - myself included, haven't been
> > working this way. Partly because there isn't anything that is
> > explicitly designated for this wide community collaboration. Partly
> > because most contributors are working on personal teaching resources.
> > To me, the Wikipedia model is about creating open learning resources.
> > I would really like to get some collaborative content development
> > going that extends beyond the needs of an individual teacher, or
> > school.
> > We are seeing expanding participation as learners in FOC08, CCK09,
> > L4C, M4T which is great. Now let's get that going in the development
> > side.
I hope that there will be sharing and collaboration with the open
dictionary project and many other projects who have similar goals.
This is a great start for making connections and networking.
..Valerie
On Oct 28, 11:56 pm, Karen <kmfasimp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Karen,
Great link http://dictionary.k12opened.com/ It is very interesting to
see what young learners associate with terms. The geometry glossary
was done by young learners in what grade (or age) ? This type of
activity will help develop programs in other learning communities.
Thanks.
> We are producing a collaboratively-created open dictionary written in
> simple, student-friendly language athttp://dictionary.k12opened.com/ > and would be willing and happy to provide glossaries for any math/
> science units that are created as a part of this. (I have worked on
> Wikibooks and Wikipedia and am an educator.) One of the parts of this
> dictionary tool is a glossary builder that includes wikitext as one of
> its output options.
> If anyone has other projects for which this might be of interest, let
> me know.
Thanks for your interest. Most of our definitions are written by
adults (primarily teachers) but at a language and concept level that
students can readily understand. Some of the word definitions are
written by students as well (typically upper elementary and middle
school), but all the definitions are then reviewed by someone older
with educational experience. We encourage learners of all ages to
participate.
On Oct 29, 7:38 am, jkelly952 <jkelly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Karen,
> Great linkhttp://dictionary.k12opened.com/ It is very interesting to
> see what young learners associate with terms. The geometry glossary
> was done by young learners in what grade (or age) ? This type of
> activity will help develop programs in other learning communities.
> Thanks.
> On Oct 29, 12:56 am, Karen <kmfasimp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Valerie,
> > We are producing a collaboratively-created open dictionary written in
> > simple, student-friendly language athttp://dictionary.k12opened.com/ > > and would be willing and happy to provide glossaries for any math/
> > science units that are created as a part of this. (I have worked on
> > Wikibooks and Wikipedia and am an educator.) One of the parts of this
> > dictionary tool is a glossary builder that includes wikitext as one of
> > its output options.
> > If anyone has other projects for which this might be of interest, let
> > me know.
Thank you. Even better by having teachers come up with glossary
entries they are examining how their students might interpret the
terms. Teacher insight into how learners interpret terms is very
important. Some of those interpretations can be used to develop
lessons, while others should be avoided as they may create
misconceptions. I wonder what interpretations other learning
communities would come up with.
Thank you.
> Thanks for your interest. Most of our definitions are written by
> adults (primarily teachers) but at a language and concept level that
> students can readily understand. Some of the word definitions are
> written by students as well (typically upper elementary and middle
> school), but all the definitions are then reviewed by someone older
> with educational experience. We encourage learners of all ages to
> participate.
> On Oct 29, 7:38 am, jkelly952 <jkelly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Karen,
> > Great linkhttp://dictionary.k12opened.com/ It is very interesting to
> > see what young learners associate with terms. The geometry glossary
> > was done by young learners in what grade (or age) ? This type of
> > activity will help develop programs in other learning communities.
> > Thanks.
> > On Oct 29, 12:56 am, Karen <kmfasimp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Valerie,
> > > We are producing a collaboratively-created open dictionary written in
> > > simple, student-friendly language athttp://dictionary.k12opened.com/ > > > and would be willing and happy to provide glossaries for any math/
> > > science units that are created as a part of this. (I have worked on
> > > Wikibooks and Wikipedia and am an educator.) One of the parts of this
> > > dictionary tool is a glossary builder that includes wikitext as one of
> > > its output options.
> > > If anyone has other projects for which this might be of interest, let
> > > me know.
Thanks for the comparison. "Wikipedia was entirely collaborative
development from the outset.
Whether intended or not, WikiEducator has been much more about the
practice of open "publishing".
I've always been interested in how the two domains would complement
one another, especially as they use the same engine; and wayne's
mention of a "static version of course materials in Connexions": and
"an educational adaption of the Flagged Revisions extension for
Mediawiki for implementing peer review" gives me a better idea of how
three domains might. Wikipedia as the the top layer (of chaos and
promotion), wikieducator (and others) as the peers, and a fixed
archive (in Connexions as one).
I can't add anything terrible useful here. My interest is more in
working through the real time tools that might be shared between
members of edu networks and domains, and lobbying governments to put a
cc license on every one of their GLAMs. But can I point you at this
page in the wikipedia strategy process. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers
The main areas are at Point 5. Alliances and partnerships and
technology infrastructure.
Some interesting questions which collaboration between domains might
answer better than any one by itself. Any answers from wikieducators
will certainly be welcomed.
Hello Everyone,
Yes, that was very interesting, Valerie. I believe that we can learn so much
by raising questions so here goes. I came across Wikiversity as a result of
following a council member of WikiEducator who had created an incredible
course called Facilitating Online Communities:
http://wikieducator.org/Facilitating_online_communities . I took the course
last year. This year FOC09 left WikiEducator for Wikiversity:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Facilitating_Online
My question is: Are WikiEdcator and Wikiversity connected somehow? If not,
should they be?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:43 PM, simonfj <simo...@cols.com.au> wrote:
> That was so interesting valerie,
> Thanks for the comparison. "Wikipedia was entirely collaborative
> development from the outset.
> Whether intended or not, WikiEducator has been much more about the
> practice of open "publishing".
> I've always been interested in how the two domains would complement
> one another, especially as they use the same engine; and wayne's
> mention of a "static version of course materials in Connexions": and
> "an educational adaption of the Flagged Revisions extension for
> Mediawiki for implementing peer review" gives me a better idea of how
> three domains might. Wikipedia as the the top layer (of chaos and
> promotion), wikieducator (and others) as the peers, and a fixed
> archive (in Connexions as one).
> I can't add anything terrible useful here. My interest is more in
> working through the real time tools that might be shared between
> members of edu networks and domains, and lobbying governments to put a
> cc license on every one of their GLAMs. But can I point you at this
> page in the wikipedia strategy process.
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers
> The main areas are at Point 5. Alliances and partnerships and
> technology infrastructure.
> Some interesting questions which collaboration between domains might
> answer better than any one by itself. Any answers from wikieducators
> will certainly be welcomed.
A dimension / facet which many projects working in the open space sometimes
forget (because of the legacy of closed content ;-) ) -- is the fact that it
doesn't matter where OER content is hosted.
For example, WikiEducator and Wikiversity may be perceived by some as
"competing" projects -- but I don't buy into this rational. We are all
collaborating as nodes in the free culture network contributing towards the
vision of free access to the world's knowledge.
There are differences in the characteristics of the communities that
congregate around different projects --- this is a healthy and productive
phenomenon of the Internet in my view. For example, WikiEducator serves the
formal education sector in peer-production approaches to OER with 72% of our
members being teachers, lecturers or trainers working in the formal
education sector where the WMF projects are better examples of open public
wiki communities. However -- we all have something in common --- content
using licenses that subscribe to the free cultural works definition.
It seems to me that we should work towards facilitating the connections and
remix opportunities among open content projects. This is a key strategic
focus of the OER Foundation -- namely to facilitate the evolution of the OER
ecosystem. Our work in building OER content interoperability between
Connexions and Mediawiki software being a prime example.
I agree -- alliances, partnerships and technology infrastructure are the
gaps we need to resolve :-)
> Thanks for the comparison. "Wikipedia was entirely collaborative
> development from the outset.
> Whether intended or not, WikiEducator has been much more about the
> practice of open "publishing".
> I've always been interested in how the two domains would complement
> one another, especially as they use the same engine; and wayne's
> mention of a "static version of course materials in Connexions": and
> "an educational adaption of the Flagged Revisions extension for
> Mediawiki for implementing peer review" gives me a better idea of how
> three domains might. Wikipedia as the the top layer (of chaos and
> promotion), wikieducator (and others) as the peers, and a fixed
> archive (in Connexions as one).
> I can't add anything terrible useful here. My interest is more in
> working through the real time tools that might be shared between
> members of edu networks and domains, and lobbying governments to put a
> cc license on every one of their GLAMs. But can I point you at this
> page in the wikipedia strategy process.
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers
> The main areas are at Point 5. Alliances and partnerships and
> technology infrastructure.
> Some interesting questions which collaboration between domains might
> answer better than any one by itself. Any answers from wikieducators
> will certainly be welcomed.
-- Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director,
International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Board of Directors, OER Foundation.
Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org Mobile +64 21 2436 380
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg
WikiEducator and Wikiversity are connected in that we are both projects
which are working towards the development of free content which subscribes
to the free cultural works definition :-). There is wealth in diversity.
We use the same technology infrastructure (Mediawiki) and there is a strong
history of collaboration between WikiEducator and WMF projects (like
Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikiversity), particularly on the technology front.
WikiEducator -- through the Commonwealth of Learning was a prime
collaborator in developing wiki ==> pdf technology. We have reciprocal
representation on our boards and advisory bodies. For example, I serve on
the International Advisory Board of the WikiMedia Foundation and the Deputy
Director of WMF is a member of our Community Council.
I commend WE users who migrate content from one wiki project to another --
this widens access to OER. We in turn also benefit tremendously from our
friends over at WMF -- we have the ability to incorporate images from the
Wikicommons in WE and will be able to convert Wikipedia articles into lesson
plans on WE thanks to the WMF migration to incorporate CC-BY-SA licensing.
You find more information and detail on how WikiEducator differentiates
itself in the OER landscape here:
There is a significant difference in the demographics of the respective
communities we serve --- but together we are making a difference in moving
the the free content agenda forward.
Think about these differences as the places on the planet where we choose to
reside -- different neighbourhoods. However, we all live on the same
planet. Let's work together in building a better future for all!
> Hello Everyone,
> Yes, that was very interesting, Valerie. I believe that we can learn so
> much by raising questions so here goes. I came across Wikiversity as a
> result of following a council member of WikiEducator who had created an
> incredible course called Facilitating Online Communities:
> http://wikieducator.org/Facilitating_online_communities . I took the
> course last year. This year FOC09 left WikiEducator for Wikiversity:
> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Facilitating_Online
> My question is: Are WikiEdcator and Wikiversity connected somehow? If not,
> should they be?
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:43 PM, simonfj <simo...@cols.com.au> wrote:
>> That was so interesting valerie,
>> Thanks for the comparison. "Wikipedia was entirely collaborative
>> development from the outset.
>> Whether intended or not, WikiEducator has been much more about the
>> practice of open "publishing".
>> I've always been interested in how the two domains would complement
>> one another, especially as they use the same engine; and wayne's
>> mention of a "static version of course materials in Connexions": and
>> "an educational adaption of the Flagged Revisions extension for
>> Mediawiki for implementing peer review" gives me a better idea of how
>> three domains might. Wikipedia as the the top layer (of chaos and
>> promotion), wikieducator (and others) as the peers, and a fixed
>> archive (in Connexions as one).
>> I can't add anything terrible useful here. My interest is more in
>> working through the real time tools that might be shared between
>> members of edu networks and domains, and lobbying governments to put a
>> cc license on every one of their GLAMs. But can I point you at this
>> page in the wikipedia strategy process.
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers
>> The main areas are at Point 5. Alliances and partnerships and
>> technology infrastructure.
>> Some interesting questions which collaboration between domains might
>> answer better than any one by itself. Any answers from wikieducators
>> will certainly be welcomed.
-- Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director,
International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Board of Directors, OER Foundation.
Founder and Community Council Member, Wikieducator, www.wikieducator.org Mobile +64 21 2436 380
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter: OERFoundation, Mackiwg
I started a project based on the Darwinius fossil find some time
back. The initial idea was fairly basic: get diverse biologists
together to build teaching materials based around the biology of the
publication. I lacked time to develop the project. In many ways I'm
glad. The fossil find has resulted in some interesting controversy
and may actually be a more valuable 'teachable moment' about the
process of science. Regardless, the next couple of weeks will reveal
if I have time to build this resource and add it to my current course,
or take a pass this year and incorporate it in a future course.
Before removing the WIP tags, my students are earning grades, and
would welcome any technical help they can get. Actually, I have no
objections if any of their projects lead to a natural collaboration.
I'm currently enrolling students in the Spring 2010 iteration of the
course. That will probably be the last cohort of students for a
while; my intent is that the resources we have accumulated will
provide science activities that can be linked, cannibalized, improved,
and shared.
Finally I have a non-WE project aimed at getting high school students
into streams. It is locally tailored to Vermont field sites and so I
have not brought it to WE. I'd be very much open to collaborating
with other stream ecologists if any see a natural fit with what you
do: http://academics.smcvt.edu/Vermont_rivers/ My students and I are
constantly checking the taxonomic accuracy; if you see a mistake, we'd
love to hear about it. If the images are of broader use to biologists
let us know; we'll 'Wikimedia' them.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Declan <declanjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I started a project based on the Darwinius fossil find some time
> back. The initial idea was fairly basic: get diverse biologists
> together to build teaching materials based around the biology of the
> publication. I lacked time to develop the project. In many ways I'm
> glad. The fossil find has resulted in some interesting controversy
> and may actually be a more valuable 'teachable moment' about the
> process of science. Regardless, the next couple of weeks will reveal
> if I have time to build this resource and add it to my current course,
> or take a pass this year and incorporate it in a future course.
> Before removing the WIP tags, my students are earning grades, and
> would welcome any technical help they can get. Actually, I have no
> objections if any of their projects lead to a natural collaboration.
> I'm currently enrolling students in the Spring 2010 iteration of the
> course. That will probably be the last cohort of students for a
> while; my intent is that the resources we have accumulated will
> provide science activities that can be linked, cannibalized, improved,
> and shared.
> Finally I have a non-WE project aimed at getting high school students
> into streams. It is locally tailored to Vermont field sites and so I
> have not brought it to WE. I'd be very much open to collaborating
> with other stream ecologists if any see a natural fit with what you
> do: http://academics.smcvt.edu/Vermont_rivers/ My students and I are
> constantly checking the taxonomic accuracy; if you see a mistake, we'd
> love to hear about it. If the images are of broader use to biologists
> let us know; we'll 'Wikimedia' them.
> Cheers,
> Declan
-- Open Education is a sustainable and renewable resource.
> My question is: Are WikiEdcator and Wikiversity connected somehow? If not,
> should they be?
Hi Nellie, Guys,
I thought you may be interested in this one. It's the "merge list"
from the wikimedia strategy process. It's a bit disorientating I know
but this is just to give you an idea of how they're pulling the
similar ideas together.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHe... You might like to click on one to see how they're pulling the common
ideas together ( i.e categorizing)
So far as the idea of how (say just) wikipedia might feed into the
next 'layer' of peer reviewed articles; you'll see that the wikipedia/
wikieducator merge is close to lots of people's ideas.
I'll point you at this one. It's badly written but I find the best
conceptualists won't let poor grammar stand in their way.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Divide_Wikipedia At the references, you'll find a link to the wikieducator $60m
question.
= Proposal:Legitimizing a Scholarly Collaborative
(not that WE need legitimizing, but it's this "layering' effect which
is driving everyone's imagination)
I joke that the top (wikipedia) layer is a chaotic layer which is good
for promotion (for); the second layer, being the 'peer review' which
the domain centric will consider as WE or citizendium, etc (or
creativearchive if you're the BBC). And the third layer being a fixed
archive. At least that the general concepts which are popping through
the web orientated communities. We'll see.
> For example, WikiEducator and Wikiversity may be perceived by some as
> "competing" projects -- but I don't buy into this rational. We are all
> collaborating as nodes in the free culture network contributing towards the
> vision of free access to the world's knowledge.
YO!
> It seems to me that we should work towards facilitating the connections and
> remix opportunities among open content projects. This is a key strategic
> focus of the OER Foundation -- namely to facilitate the evolution of the OER
> ecosystem. Our work in building OER content interoperability between
> Connexions and Mediawiki software being a prime example.
> I agree -- alliances, partnerships and technology infrastructure are the
> gaps we need to resolve :-)
Just going through the WE 'operational' page, and seeing that
Marketing is the next step. One required bridge, as I see it, is
between this lovely community of content creators and their peers who
prefer other tools, and the geeks (Ok, engineers). You'll know in my
mind this comes down to the geeks in NREN, so I'll point you at what i
think is going to be the hub of my geekish universe next year.
http://www.terena.org/activities/compendium/ (Bottom of the page)
Terena seem to be place for me, primarily because Amsterdam and Spain
are nice places and their NREN's speak a bunch of languages. (should
be a challenge) Anglos always miss the rest of the world.
WE is primarily in the text and graphics space, but I'm an old audio/
video engineer and "real time' needs a lot more work between NREN's
than the web stuff, particularly as sometimes you'll want to skype and
other times, run an Accessgrid conference. (and the difference between
the two is just allocating bandwidth)
I know that WE is in the edu space, whereas from what I'm picking up,
the real driver is coming from the .gov area. (Inclusion is the
catchcry around the global traps. Digital Engagement is the slogan).
Let me point you at this one. http://www.terena.org/activities/media/ws2/programme.html It's about media. If you look around at their other taskforces you'll
see their PR and marketing people are crossing into this (media
management) space. Another is trying to get the "common service
portfolios" aligned. http://www.terena.org/activities/tf-msp/meetings/20090915/ They need to get a handle on the WE's of this world rather than the
institutionally centric old farts.
I'm really going to need a few WE people to make them culturally aware
(sharing a blog over there would help the conservative euros get their
head around the WE paradigm, and being sociable).
This will give you an idea of a tool which might be useful to the WE
(and WMF) communties.
http://www.global-project.eu/ (Hit the link to the virtual conference
centre) to get some idea of what the guys down at Madrid uni are
putting together. There are lots of others of course. But i think
you'll find that the idea of global groups will begin to form into
subject specific hubs before too long, rather than just single tools.
The idea of running (A/web/V) conferences in a domain - broadcasting,
streaming, and keeping the recordings where they are broadcast from
would seem to be a common requirement. So i hope you're talking to
KAREN. Sooner or later we'll have to start running a few global
workshops and see if we can't get the conversations happening. BTW.
We're starting to see a thing called distributed conferences starting
i.e. 3 sites with local groups and 1 agenda. Would be nice to see the
WMF/WE run a few for their strategy.
|
