How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Everyone,

WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials.

Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc.  Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia or books in the case of Wikibooks .

Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example:

• There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements.
• There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials. 
• There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide collaboration and contributions from the community.
  

So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions?

Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see: http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_(3) ) -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and "ownership" of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit and change the resource without creating problems for the original authors resulting from their modifications?

Clearly we need a mechanism to visually communicate the intent of the creator to prospective editors. We need a messaging system which says, for instance:

• I need help and welcome WikiEducators to collaborate, edit and improve this resource, or
• I have no problems if you copy this resource and modify for your own purposes -- but will appreciate if you don't make changes because I'm using this in my course, or
• I don't mind editorial improvements but don't want editors to make substantive changes to my OER --- suggestions and comments are welcome on the corresponding talk page.
  

It seems to me that we need a template or content infobox which clearly communicates the intent of the original OER creator in terms of "permissible" contributions and/or restrictions with regard to community edits.

Thoughts? Are there any other intents than those listed above?

You gotta love the WikiEducator project -- we're figuring out solutions that work for education. We're pioneering the future that has already happened :-).

Cheers
Wayne









--
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

[aprasad]

Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends,

It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus

--
Warm regards

Anil

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Anil,

I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a "universal" resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts.

However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum.  Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource.

In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.)

I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation.

On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes.

Does this make sense?

Cheers
Wayne

2009/10/20 aprasad <aple...@gmail.com>

[aprasad]

Dear Dr.Wayne,

 

I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’  :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also

 

I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. 

--
Warm regards

Anil

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Anil,

I see we're on the same page here :-)

I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way.

I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking  to provide an indication to prospective editors to say "please don't edit this page" --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page.

Does this make sense?

W

2009/10/20 aprasad <aple...@gmail.com>

[aprasad]

Dear Dr. Wayne,

You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus page http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus under a proper sub title.

--
Warm regards

Anil

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Anil,

Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-)

[Savithri Singh]

Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil.  I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified.  In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable.

Savithri

2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh <mackinto...@gmail.com>

--
डॉक्टर सावित्री सिंह
प्रधानाचार्य
आचार्य  नरेन्द्र देव कॉलेज
( दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय )
गोविन्दपुरी, कालकाजी
नयी दिल्ली 110019

Dr. Savithri Singh
Principal
Acharya Narendra Dev College
(University of Delhi)
Govindpuri, Kalkaji
New Delhi 110 019

Tel: 2629 4542, 2629 3224, 2641 2547
Fax: (011) 2629 4540
Res: 2584 8151     2584 9786    2584 3496

http://andcollege.du.ac.in
http://wikieducator.org/Acharya_Narendra_Dev_College
http://wikieducator.org/User:Savi.odl
http://wikieducator.org/India
http://wikieducator.org/India/wikieducator_launch
http://www.slideshare.net/singh.savithri

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Savithri,

You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions.

We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution!

Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review.

Cheer
Wayne

2009/10/20 Savithri Singh <singh.s...@gmail.com>

Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil.  I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified.  In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable

[john stampe]

Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this.

 

First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done).

 

Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates probably should state not only the "permissions" but also very briefly why. For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need more than three templates.

 

One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like "You are free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes there."

 

Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own needs.

 Cheers,

John

http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWS
http://johnsearth.blogspot.com

---

From: Wayne Mackintosh <mackinto...@gmail.com>
To: wikied...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?

2009/10/20 Savithri Singh <singh.s...@gmail.com>

Savithri

2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh <mackinto...@gmail.com>

Cheers
Wayne

2009/10/20 aprasad <aple...@gmail.com>

W

2009/10/20 aprasad <aple...@gmail.com>

2009/10/20 aprasad <aple...@gmail.com>

Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see: http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_category_%283%29 ) -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and "ownership" of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit and change the resource without creating problems for the original authors resulting from their modifications?

--

Warm regards

Anil

--
Warm regards

Anil

[jkelly952]

Protecting original efforts and years of research is a serious
question that WE and wiki's, in general, must come to terms with
before they will truly benefit the communities they serve.
One reason I use some jpeg images to display research information in
my WE pages is to provide some protection (like:
http://www.wikieducator.org/ADDITION_%28DECIMAL%29_-_SUMA_%28ADICION%29_-_ADDITION_%28DECIMALE%29
). While most of my website k-12math.info is viewable HTML code, the
research is kept in a MySQL database accessed only by a PHP program.
The PHP program is to protect the information – having to watch
1,000's of pieces of information from being “spammed” on a daily
bases is the last thing I want to do.
I am hoping that Wiki architecture will undergo some modifications to
allow approved information to be stored in protected areas – I am not
sure the "please don't edit this page" approach will work.

Jim Kelly
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jkelly952

On Oct 20, 4:31 am, john stampe <jwsta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this.
>
> First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done).
>
> Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates probably should state not only the "permissions" but also very briefly why. For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need more than three templates.
>
> One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like "You are free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes there."
>
> Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own needs.
>  Cheers,

> Johnhttp://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWShttp://johnsearth.blogspot.com
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>

> To: wikied...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM
> Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE?
>
> Hi Savithri,
>
> You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for WikiEducator to find creative solutions.
>
> We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India who will help us to find the optimal solution!
>
> Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review.
>
> Cheer
> Wayne
>

> 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh <singh.savit...@gmail.com>

>
> Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne and Anil.  I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular context and people do not want it modified.  In case we develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable
>
>
>
> >Savithri
>

> >2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>

>
> >Hi Anil,
>
> >>Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the list :-)
>
> >>Cheers
> >>Wayne
>

> >>2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com>
>
> >>Dear Dr. Wayne,
>
> >>>You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusunder a proper sub title.

>
> >>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Hi Anil,
>
> >>>>I see we're on the same page here :-)
>
> >>>>I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from it -- it's not the wiki way.
>
> >>>>I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus thinking  to provide an indication to prospective editors to say "please don't edit this page" --- what I envisage is a template box which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page.
>
> >>>>Does this make sense?
>
> >>>>W
>

> >>>>2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>>Dear Dr.Wayne,
>
> >>>>>I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include consensus to ‘do not edit’  :) such and such thing….by such and such members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also
>
> >>>>>I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about the right documentation for the same. 
>

> >>>>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Hi Anil,
>
> >>>>>>I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is an intent to collaborate on the development of a "universal" resource which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts.
>
> >>>>>>However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum.  Obviously the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to edit and change the resource.
>
> >>>>>>In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.)
>
> >>>>>>I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely available to be copied and modified for use in another learning situation.
>
> >>>>>>On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use (and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus processes.
>
> >>>>>>Does this make sense?
>
> >>>>>>Cheers
> >>>>>>Wayne
>

> >>>>>>2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>>>>Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends,

> >>>>>>>It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tunehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus

>
> >>>>>>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Hi Everyone,
>
> >>>>>>>>WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared training materials.
>
> >>>>>>>>Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc.  Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia or books in the case of Wikibooks .
>
> >>>>>>>>Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example:
>

> >>>>>>>>        * There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum requirements.
> >>>>>>>>        * There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials. 
> >>>>>>>>        * There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide collaboration and contributions from the community.

> >>>>>>>>So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions?
>

> >>>>>>>>Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see:http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_cat...) -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and "ownership" of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit and change the resource without creating problems for the original authors resulting from their modifications?

>
> >>>>>>>>Clearly we need a mechanism to visually communicate the intent of the creator to prospective editors. We need a messaging system which says, for instance:
>

> >>>>>>>>        * I need help and welcome WikiEducators to collaborate, edit and improve this resource, or
> >>>>>>>>        * I have no problems if you copy this resource and modify for your own purposes -- but will appreciate if you don't make changes because I'm using this in my course, or
> >>>>>>>>        * I don't mind editorial improvements but don't want editors to make substantive changes to my OER --- suggestions and comments are welcome on the corresponding talk page.

> >>>>>>>>It seems to me that we need a template or content infobox which clearly communicates the intent of the original OER creator in terms of "permissible" contributions and/or restrictions with regard to community edits.
>
> >>>>>>>>Thoughts? Are
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[valerie]

I think the page creator should have the rights for protecting or
limiting editing of a page if they think that is appropriate - one
component of the solution.

Another need is the ability to fork off a derivative work. I like what
you have done. Now I want to make my own copy and make changes for my
context. If you make changes to the "source" I'd like to know that and
see what changes you have made, as they might be important. I need to
make the judgment call.


On Oct 20, 1:25 am, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[vkizza]

Hi Everyone,
Valid observation indeed. Also given that school
curricular are relatively static even within long time windows,(..or
at least in my country!) the need to "protect" resources designed
round them cannot be overemphasized . Maybe a kind of "status value"
to reflect resource states such as under development,completed or even
abandoned, could be attached to a resource such that "merciless
editing" is more encouraged at certain appropriate points than at
others in the proposed template or info box. Conversely,this
discussion has greatly reminded me of WE cute built-in features such
as discussion forums and the community values which are invaluable in
"collaboration intensive" projects and could explain the relatively
low number of blocked users.
Cheers
Vincent

On Oct 20, 10:16 am, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are different,
> for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration is not
> focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from the
> micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we
> benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example
> shared training materials.
>
> Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators working on a
> wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open textbooks, OER
> courses for online teaching, learning activities based on external
> resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts, glossary
> projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of project or
> community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free content etc.
> Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves
> around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: Encyclopedia

> articles in the case of Wikipedia <http://www.en.wikipedia.org/> or books in
> the case of Wikibooks <http://www.en.wikibooks.org/> .

>
> Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community develops
> procedures to support the attainment of our individual and collective aims,
> while respecting the intent of the original creators. For example:
>

>    - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator which are

>    not intended for collaborative authoring due to local curriculum
>    requirements.

>    - There are individuals who develop materials on WikiEducator which they

>    would like to make available for others to create derivative works, but
>    would prefer not to have other educators edit their materials.

>    - There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking wide

>    collaboration and contributions from the community.
>
> So the question is: How do we support and respect educator contributions in
> WE given the different intentions of our individual contributions?
>

> Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic (see:http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_cat...))

> -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and
> "ownership" of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate and
> respect a contributor's intention where they do not want collaborative
> authoring and participation on their OER resources? If an educator finds a
> valuable resource they want to use and improve -- can they edit and change
> the resource without creating problems for the original authors resulting
> from their modifications?
>
> Clearly we need a mechanism to visually communicate the intent of the
> creator to prospective editors. We need a messaging system which says, for
> instance:
>

>    - I need help and welcome WikiEducators to collaborate, edit and improve
>    this resource, or
>    - I have no problems if you copy this resource and modify for your own

>    purposes -- but will appreciate if you don't make changes because I'm using
>    this in my course, or

>    - I don't mind editorial improvements but don't want editors to make

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Everyone,

Protection of pages is a topical issue :-).  Apology for the long post -- but this is an important community value in open education.

Clearly there are well-founded academic reasons for restricting modifications, particularly in the area of original research. That said, I think there are better social and technical solutions to respond to this challenge.

I'm not comfortable with protecting wiki pages for the following reasons:

• It goes against the core values of our community and our commitment to the essential freedoms
  
• There are technological alternatives to address this need
• Excluding opportunities for increased productivity in our community
  

Core values

A key value of WikiEducator is rooted in the freedom to help your neighbour. Our community motto says: Just try it -- our community will support you. WikiEducators should have the freedom to help a colleague, for example fixing a typo or assisting someone who may be struggling with the layout of a more complicated syntax. This is what makes our community special -- the willingness of so many to gift time for the social good of education.

Moreover, the notion of protecting pages is a slippery slope when we think about human rights in a modern democracy. (Not unlike digital rights management). Protecting pages could be interpreted as an assumption of guilt -- that is we assume that another educator is potentially guilty of editing a page when they shouldn't -- so we lock the page before they can prove their innocence ;-(.  Assuming guilt before proving innocence is not a world I want to live in.

I think that we should remain true to our values of respecting freedom -- including the freedom of educators to say "this is a course I'm teaching -- please don't change the page" or this "is original research and I would like to keep the original in tact"

We are a respectful community and my experience with WE these past three years has been exactly that. We're a top 100K website generating in the region of 9 million hits per month.  In the past three years -- there have not been more than a dozen instances of vandalism -- which is pretty amazing considering the traffic of WikiEducator.  

Technological alternatives to address this need

The Mediawiki software does have the tools to assist educators in monitoring their pages. The history page documents every page edit and using the Watch feature -- Mediawiki will send an email notifying primary authors of any changes.

That said -- I do see the need for teachers to be able to host a static instance of their OER. Good news here -- under the OERFs current bid from the Hewlett Foundation we will be building import <==> export capability between WikiEducator and the Connexions platform. Therefore it will be possible for WikiEducators to host a static instance of their content and lock down editing without compromising our core values. This feature will also be very useful for teachers wanting to revise their course materials during a live session of their course ( in the case where a static version is required). We will be able to host a static version on Connexions while working on the dynamic version in WikiEducator.

We are also keen to implement an educational adaption of the Flagged Revisions extension for Mediawiki (http://tinyurl.com/2n8uef) -- This would enable us to implement peer review approaches, where the default preference for users could be set to only view the latest peer reviewed version of the content -- while editors can continue working on the draft version of the OER.

Excluding opportunities for increased productivity in our community

As an open self-organising community -- we don't know how future productivity will evolve or what new innovations may emerge from our peer collaboration models. We should remain open to improvement --- and I share President Obama views in relation to open source content and the American Graduation Initiative -- "We don't know where this experiment will lead, and that is exactly why we ought to try it."

Cheers
Wayne

2009/10/21 jkelly952 <jkel...@sbcglobal.net>

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi John,

Apology for the delayed response -- too many emails today.

It would be possible to design a single template with parameters specifying the different reasons for requesting users not to edit the page, for example:

• Currently being used in a course (Typos and and syntax assistance permitted?)
  
• Original research findings Typos and and layout assistance permitted?)
• No edits whatsoever (i.e. excluding help with typos and syntax assistance?)
  

Are there other reasons we may have missed? We can include standard suggestions /instructions in the template -- for example linking to a resource which explains how to remix content when the author does not want collaborative edits.

In all cases users will be allowed to make a copy (with proper attribution) and customise according to their needs.

History sensitive branching in the wiki is a little more complicated (i.e. if you want to keep the fork synchronised with the original source.) Where there are discrete sections which users want to reuse -- tansclusion may help (i.e. including part of a document in another by referencing it) -- see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion.

This is fun figuring out educationally relevant tweaks for our wiki project.

Cheers
Wayne

2009/10/21 john stampe <jwst...@yahoo.com>

[valerie]

The other thing that I would like to see is a review and rating system
within WikiEducator to help direct others to the strong content that
is available for adoption with or without editing and customization.

If people make copies of their own, it would be wonderful to track
that fact, too. Show all the versions that were forked off from the
original. Further information that this is important content.

[Wayne Mackintosh]

Hi Valerie,

I agree excellent suggestion --- I'm also keen to see a review and rating system implemented.

In addition to this, I think WE should also think about ways to support feedback and discussion on how OERs were used and reflections as a feedback loop.

I also think some form of visual representation of the status of the OER would help  -- for example:

Phase 1: "Draft resource under development"
Phase 2:  "Resource is ready for review comments."
Phase 3: "Review phase is completed and the resource is "Published"
Phase 4:  "Resource has received an acceptable number of usage comments and feedback from teachers".

See for example:  http://wikieducator.org/Template:OER_Metadata#status

Thoughts?

Wayne

2009/10/22 valerie <vta...@gmail.com>

[valerie]

I love the little 4 green squares icon for status. Very helpful.

I just read Shirky's piece
http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html

Having a few formal categories for metadata and user tags might be a
good way to go.

I have been helping out on the http://www.wikieducator.org/Workgroup:Categories

Some of what are listed as Categories should be formal Categories and
"administered". The OER Metadata entries are a good start.
http://www.wikieducator.org/Template:OER_Metadata
Everything else should be user tags - any one can use what makes sense
to them. These two things are mixed in together now. They need to be
two separate things. Can that be handled in WE?

[valerie]

There are a couple of good commercial models that demonstrate some
very useful functionality. It may be a bit of a leap to see how these
can be applied to OERs and WE pages, but I think you get the idea.

Rating system with recognition and following for reviewers - if I like
what this reviewer recommends, I can see what else they have
recommended - http://www.yelp.com/

Social bookmarking (tagging) - labels and search functions for
creating an aggregate view of all users' bookmarks, as well as a
personal view for each user. - http://delicious.com

[john stampe]

Jim, sorry about the delay but I have been busy with personal
business.

> Protecting original efforts and years of research is a serious
> question that WE and wiki's, in general, must come to terms with
> before they will truly benefit the communities they serve.

Actually, much as gone on in this area, especially with projects such
as the Open Knowledge Foundation (http://www.okfn.org) and Science
Commons (http://sciencecommons.org) (the latter is part of Creative
Commons). The point of what is called Open Data, is to allow data to
be freely shared between researchers. This especially true with
respect to the sciences where reproducibility is extremely important.
For a good description read the about page in Science Commons (http://
sciencecommons.org/about) and look at the wikipedia article (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data)

Best regards,
John

On Oct 20, 10:00 pm, jkelly952 <jkelly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Protecting original efforts and years of research is a serious
> question that WE and wiki's, in general, must come to terms with
> before they will truly benefit the communities they serve.
> One  reason I use some  jpeg images to display research information in

> my WE pages is to provide some protection (like:http://www.wikieducator.org/ADDITION_%28DECIMAL%29_-_SUMA_%28ADICION%...

> ). While most of my website k-12math.info is viewable HTML code, the
> research is kept in a MySQL database accessed only by a PHP program.
> The PHP program is to protect the information – having to watch
> 1,000's of pieces of information from being “spammed” on a daily
> bases  is the last thing I want to do.
> I am hoping that Wiki architecture will undergo some modifications to
> allow approved information to be stored in protected areas – I am not
> sure the  "please don't edit this page"  approach will work.
>

> Jim Kellyhttp://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jkelly952

> > >>>You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusundera proper sub title.

> ...
>
> read more »

[john stampe]

Sorry, for the delay but I have been busy with personal business.

I think we are on the same wavelength here.

> It would be possible to design a single template with parameters specifying
> the different reasons for requesting users not to edit the page, for
> example:
>

> - Currently being used in a course (Typos and and syntax assistance
> permitted?)
> - Original research findings Typos and and layout assistance permitted?)
> - No edits whatsoever (i.e. excluding help with typos and syntax
> assistance?)

Agreed. However, I think you could distinguish between two cases of
the first item. One would be used in a current course (that is time
limited) and that where local curriculum requirements are too be met
(not time limited, unless regulations, etc. change). At least a
theoretical difference, even though not sure about a difference in
practice.

> History sensitive branching in the wiki is a little more complicated (i.e.
> if you want to keep the fork synchronised with the original source.) Where
> there are discrete sections which users want to reuse -- tansclusion may
> help (i.e. including part of a document in another by referencing it) --
> see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion.

Actually transclusions is not really what I was talking about, as I
was considering more like forking the whole thing. However,
transclusions are not a bad idea for branching a part of a project.

John


On Oct 21, 9:16 am, Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Apology for the delayed response -- too many emails today.
>
> It would be possible to design a single template with parameters specifying
> the different reasons for requesting users not to edit the page, for
> example:
>

>    - Currently being used in a course (Typos and and syntax assistance
>    permitted?)
>    - Original research findings Typos and and layout assistance permitted?)
>    - No edits whatsoever (i.e. excluding help with typos and syntax

>    assistance?)
>
> Are there other reasons we may have missed? We can include standard
> suggestions /instructions in the template -- for example linking to a
> resource which explains how to remix content when the author does not want
> collaborative edits.
>
> In all cases users will be allowed to make a copy (with proper attribution)
> and customise according to their needs.
>
> History sensitive branching in the wiki is a little more complicated (i.e.
> if you want to keep the fork synchronised with the original source.) Where
> there are discrete sections which users want to reuse -- tansclusion may
> help (i.e. including part of a document in another by referencing it) --
> see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion.
>
> This is fun figuring out educationally relevant tweaks for our wiki project.
>
> Cheers
> Wayne
>

> 2009/10/21 john stampe <jwsta...@yahoo.com>

>
> >  Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this.
>
> > First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact,
> > I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license,
> > which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a
> > document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be
> > edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done).
>
> > Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates
> > probably should state not only the "permissions" but also very briefly why.
> > For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need
> > more than three templates.
>
> > One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint
> > (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like "You are
> > free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. If
> > you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make changes
> > there."
>
> > Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as
> > most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New
> > Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own
> > needs.
>
> >  Cheers,
> > John
>
> >http://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWS
> >http://johnsearth.blogspot.com
>

> >  ------------------------------
> > *From:* Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>
> > *To:* wikied...@googlegroups.com
> > *Sent:* Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM
> > *Subject:* [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator

> > contributions in WE?
>
> > Hi Savithri,
>
> > You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators
> > who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for
> > WikiEducator to find creative solutions.
>
> > We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India
> > who will help us to find the optimal solution!
>
> > Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the
> > ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review.
>
> > Cheer
> > Wayne
>

> > 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh <singh.savit...@gmail.com>

>
> >> Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between
> >> Wayne and Anil.  I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of
> >> issues/questions asked about WE - specially when some materials are created
> >> for a particular context and people do not want it modified.  In case we
> >> develop suitable templates indicating the intend of the authors then it
> >> should be acceptable
>
> >> Savithri
>

> >> 2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com>

>
> >> Hi Anil,
>
> >>> Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the
> >>> list :-)
>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Wayne
>

> >>> 2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>> Dear Dr. Wayne,
>
> >>>> You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to
> >>>> be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus

> >>>> pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusunder a proper

> >>>> sub title.
>
> >>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <
> >>>> mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Hi Anil,
>
> >>>>> I see we're on the same page here :-)
>
> >>>>> I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from
> >>>>> it -- it's not the wiki way.
>
> >>>>> I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus
> >>>>> thinking  to provide an indication to prospective editors to say "please
> >>>>> don't edit this page" --- what I envisage is a template box which
> >>>>> communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this may be
> >>>>> necessary within the template box, without protecting the page.
>
> >>>>> Does this make sense?
>
> >>>>> W
>

> >>>>> 2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>>>> Dear Dr.Wayne,
>
> >>>>>> I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include
> >>>>>> consensus to ‘do not edit’  :) such and such thing….by such and such
> >>>>>> members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal with
> >>>>>> editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also
>
> >>>>>> I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about
> >>>>>> the right documentation for the same.
> >>>>>>   On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <

> >>>>>>> 2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>>>>>>   Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends,
>
> >>>>>>>> It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine tune
> >>>>>>>>http://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus
>
> >>>>>>>>   On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <

> >>>>>>>> mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>
> >>>>>>>>> WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are
> >>>>>>>>> different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our collaboration
> >>>>>>>>> is not focused on developing an objective encyclopedia entry resulting from
> >>>>>>>>> the micro-contributions of a large number of editors. At the same time, we
> >>>>>>>>> benefit from the advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example
> >>>>>>>>> shared training materials.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators
> >>>>>>>>> working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: open
> >>>>>>>>> textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning activities based on
> >>>>>>>>> external resources, lessons, articles and research papers, handouts,
> >>>>>>>>> glossary projects for use as a reference resource, the establishment of
> >>>>>>>>> project or community nodes, the development of funding proposals as free
> >>>>>>>>> content etc.  Other wiki projects within the OER landscape have organised
> >>>>>>>>> themselves around the nature of the objects being produced, for instance:

> >>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia<http://www.en.wikipedia.org/>or books in the case of
> >>>>>>>>> Wikibooks <http://www.en.wikibooks.org/> .

>
> >>>>>>>>> Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community
> >>>>>>>>> develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and
> >>>>>>>>> collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original creators. For
> >>>>>>>>> example:
>

> >>>>>>>>>    - There are institutions which develop courses on WikiEducator
> >>>>>>>>>    which are not intended
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[jkelly952]

John and Wayne

Thank you for suggestions of using external sources, to hold the
research and original materials, that could be linked into WE pages.
The “building of import <==> export capability between WikiEducator
and the Connexions platform” is very interesting. This would allow WE
members to continue to develop and play with ideas (similar to
function like the brain's short term memory). While pulling supportive
“no change” information or storing developed materials in the
external source (similar to long term memory).

The CNX.ORG has primary “textbook” school materials already in it.
Maybe Gladys Gahona and mathematics group might want to explore the
series Mathematics Grade 1 (this is the actual complete title, in case
the link below does not get you there) through Mathematics Grade 9 .
Mark Horner who it looks like is overseeing a lot of the materials
tells me that Mathematics Grade 1 is for a 6 year old's.
This series and the South African series could be a source for WE's
Mathematics Glossary examples.

Wayne, please keep us informed on the relationship between WE and CNX.
Especially how to acknowledge CNX work on Wikieducator pages. Thank
you.

(Mathematics Grade … series:
http://cnx.org/content/search?words=mathematics+grade+&allterms=weakAND&search=Search&weights.title%3Aint%3Arecord=10&subject=Mathematics+and+Statistics
)

Jim Kelly
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jkelly952

> > > >>>You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusunderaproper sub title.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jesse Groppi]

My apologies to all for coming into this so late; my inbox this week looks like someone set off an email bomb!

On the whole, I agree that some measure must be taken to inform readers and members of the authors' intent for collaboration.  It gets me frustrated when I see that, despite the myriad possibilities of the wiki, we still seem to come so short of what it is we want to do.  I almost think it requires a staff PHP/MySQL programmer to really attain. :P  And then I get even more frustrated when I see how much there really is yet to do!  If anybody has seen my to do list, well, it's already a year's worth of work on it, and I'm sure to add more by the end of that year.

Anyway, my first question is whether the use of namespaces has been taken into consideration.  Namespaces are used to inform the reader of many things, including how the page is meant to be used, who wrote the page, and what the page may be involved with.  The Mediawiki namespace is for pages that control the behaviour of the wiki software, and are transcluded into the basic wiki structure.  The WikiEducator namespace is for describing the purpose of the wiki and the way in which it achieves that purpose (about, guidelines, policies...).  The Help namespace is for pages that assist readers and members in using and understanding the wiki (tutorials, glossary...).  The User namespace identifies pages that are written by the user under which they are filed and suggests that only the author is invited to edit them.  Do you think there is a way we could say the things we are talking about in this topic by using namespaces?

Jesse
http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jesse_Groppi
skype: jesse.groppi

[Jesse Groppi]

Valerie,

In my experience in wikis, none of the categories are ever officially "administered", and all of them are user inspired.  Members are free to create whatever categories that please them, usually guided by a set of guidelines and watched over by a group of experts and helpers.  The purpose of using categorisation in a hierarchy-like format (MW is not just top-down, it's also side to side) is not typically to place content on "shelves" but to allow members to browse, which is an essential tool.  And just like tag categorisation, it creates relationships between content.  As I see it, MediaWiki categorisation is really just a cloud of links, as Mr. Shirky described.

I would love to have a tool that displays a category cloud on a page, however, I have found no extension that does it today.  There are functions that do similar things, but not exactly.  This concept also cannot be separated from another existing MW categorisation concept because they are in fact the same thing, only displayed differently.

Jesse

[Robert Kruhlak]

Hi John,

> Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as
> most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New
> Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own
> needs.

Mediawiki has import and export pages (see [[Special:Export]]) that
could be used to branch a page or set. of pages as one of the export
options is to retain the complete revision history.

Hope this helps.

Rob aka User:Kruhly
--
Robert Kruhlak
North Vancouver, BC
CANADA
(M) +1 778 230 1875
(E) kru...@gmail.com

[valerie]

So is WE categorization really just "tagging" - user keywords that are
intended primarily for the user who applied them?

The problem comes when there is an expectation (mine and others?) that
there will be some consistency in "categories" while tags are
explicitly user keywords. When these are all lumped together as
"categories" they don't achieve the power of either.

Are these the common use meanings for the terms "category" and "tag"?
Are they the same or different?