User talk:Cormaggio

I hadn't seen your note on my user page as I hadn't got the old "You have new messages" sign (or do you get that on Wikibooks?) Cormaggio 11:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dunno. Lets find out. Maybe I should have put my original message here. I have been neglecting wikibooks in favor of other projects. I have been neglecting wikiversity because it seemed like it would never be a project. --JWSurf 13:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

("original message" pasted here)


 * I'm still not sure why there is an effort to remove the wikiversity pages from wikibooks. Maybe the long-standing failure to start a wikiversity and the sudden effort to remove wikiversity is driven by people who own stock in some other online university. --JWSurf 16:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hah! A conspiracy - I knew it! :-) Cormaggio 11:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity:About
I like what you did to About. --JWSurf 20:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It still needs a good bit of work though - feel free to edit mercilessly.. But I think we also need to do this more visibly, on Meta. Cormaggio 23:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Tests and Quizzes
How to enable tests and quizzes? I am trying to develop a school, and I want to make some tests for those who wish to be the students. Can you help me? --George D. Bozovic talk 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Professors and other nonsense with Wikiversity
I'm not sure if you have had a chance to see this page on Meta that was about a conference in South Africa that Anthere attended as an official representative of the Wikimedia Foundation: Conference reports/FLOSS, South Africa 2005/Workshop 2

That is a huge eye opener in terms of what the Foundation board may be thinking in terms of Wikiversity, and it is just one more example that if you ask an average Wikimedia user what exactly Wikiversity means to them, you would probably get a different answer from each and every person you would ask that question to. I have seen so many different responses both from supporters and detractors of Wikiversity that sometimes I even wonder if they are talking about the same project proposal. I would try to graph out the various philosophies to compare one person's vision about Wikiversity to another, but I can come up with at least six different axis of future directions for Wikiversity, including potential for accrediation, relationship between professors and students, original research, teaching actual classes, development of educational resources, and wheither it should even be a Wikimedia project at all. Even more interesting is that most people don't have strong opinions on any of these topics, but tend to muddle in the middle about each of these potentials although there are strong champions for each end of these philosophies, for example those that absolutely don't want a heirarchy and those that do, or those that feel Wikiversity is about an on-line learning experience (actual classes) and those that think it should only be in essence a one stop shopping center for textbooks and classroom visual aides. There are some people with general leanings in one direction or another, however, but I havn't found any consistant correlation between the various schools of thought. Supporters of original research, for example, have divirgant opinions on all of the other issues.

The important thing to note is that none of this has really been resolved in any direction, although there are sometimes strong opinions on the subject. Wikiversity is evolving even now, and I think this tension between traditional educational model thinking and those that are used to peer-related activities that are natural to Wikis will be almost an ever-present feature of Wikiverity for as long as it exists. If some group gets in and forces "policy" one way or another, there will still remain those who insist at going the other way. For myself, I tend to agree with you in terms of keeping the peer relationships going on Wikiversity, being one friend offering some new knowledge to another friend. Getting all huffed up over maintaining mideval relationships imposed during feudal monarchial governments can seem downright silly in a modern world, but you must keep in mind that this is a point-of-view as well.

What Wikiversity needs now is simply some leadership. I am also appalled that the indecisiveness of the Wikimedia Foundation board regarding new projects. They aren't saying "No", but neither are they saying "Yes". It shouldn't be that hard of a decision to make, and I don't even see a statement like "we want to review all of the discussion on the subject, and it is simply going to take some time to digest everybody's thoughts". Instead I see an odd disconnect between the Wikimedia Foundation board's view of Wikiversity and what the participants think it is or ought to be.

BTW, in terms of User:Gh0st deleting things from his own talk page, I don't see anything specifically wrong with that practice. He got the message, and doesn't want to be reminded that other people have different opinions on the subject. That is a reflection of his tolerance toward differing opinions (and unfortunately typical of most university professors from my experience). You should use that to judge his potential as an instructor as well. I do appreciate that some people like him are trying to organize some actual classes that will be taught through Wikiversity, as I think there needs to be some demonstration classes to convince the board that this is a real possibility. --Rob Horning 09:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for such a lengthy response! There's loads here but I'll try to answer your points one by one.


 * On Anthere's presentation: Yes, I was in contact with her while she was preparing that presentation - but she made no secret of the fact that she herself was quite confused by what Wikiversity was. I don't think this represents the board's view per se, but rather reflects her own research on the various ideas of what Wikiversity could be. Note that the other attendees at the conference thought the e-learning model was unworkable, but preferred the repository idea instead. I think this has certainly influenced her thinking since then. But you can see that it represents a clear interest in the project. And on the board's "indecisiveness" - this is exactly why I have been asked to join the Special projects committee, and your idea for what the board should be saying/asking is exactly what is being asked of me/us :-) I don't know if you've appreciated the importance of that fact so far - that this committee will set up Wikiversity, soon, with the support of the people, like yourself, who have been putting in the work so far. I've taken on the "leadership" challenge, but I really hope to count you in on this process..
 * On policy or the project's identity: Well, this is where all the misunderstanding and circular arguments have been coming from. But, in my mind at least, the confusing range of ideas about Wikiversity can all be resolved with the "repository-of-resources and learning-community" model. This is one where people develop resources together, just like on any other Wikimedia project, and then use them to discuss, problematise, research, learn. This is peer-learning in action. But, and this is the crucial point, it doesn't have to be just between peers, or "friends", as you say - it can just as easily work as a dialogue between a teacher and student, with questions like, "why do you think this is so?", "have you thought about..?". I think that the community model involves people who want to teach, ie help other people learn - but it can't involve other people who are inflexible enough to relinquish control of 'their course'. In short, Wikiversity can support leadership (just like any community), but not ownership. This is why I think User:Gh0st's attitude is so unsustainable - he's free to develop materials and then use them but not to use Wikiversity as a platform. And as for his blanking of questions from me and another user, well, I think that's a terrible precedent to set (especially for a self-appointed "leader"); it is a clear violation of etiquette, and even though not mentioned on Etiquette or w:Wikipedia:Etiquette, I definitely think it should be. In fact, I'm going to take this up on the mailing list, probably foundation-l. Well, I think in a rambling sort of way, that addressed most points you made. I think, overall, we need to work on creating a sustainable vision for Wikiversity that will continue to attract and include people from all backgrounds. If this disappoints some people who want to bolster their ego by calling themselves a "professor", so be it. Cormaggio 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In reply to this, I fail to see what the real difficulty is to simply "turning on" http://en.wikiversity.org/ at the moment? The debate by the Foundation board should be if we can secure the domain (it has been done and is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation), and if there is going to be a viable community to keep it sustained.  I can understand some need to clarify what the "founding" policies are going to be, but that work has been done, nor were there any real suggestions or guidelines as to what those policies should be.  I can appreciate the P.R. angle that the board members are working with, but it really isn't that hard to do.  It certainly wasn't that hard to create http://de.wikiversity.org/, nor has there been even a mention that it was created improperly by any board member.
 * As far as the Special Project Committee is concerned: I am not at all pleased with the way it was put together, even though I would have to admit that if I was given the choice to hand select the members of such a group that I would likly have chosen most of the same people.  The insular procedure of accepting new members into that group is going to ultimately be its downfall, as there is no mechanism to bring in people with substantially different points of view.  I'll reserve ultimate judgement and I'm trying to keep a relatively low profile over the group, but all I consider the Special Projects Committee to be is simply a bunch of Wikimedia users who got together to help get a few things rolling.  It certainly doesn't represent the Wikimedia community, nor should it ever.  Board members who treat anything developed by that group should give it the same credibility as any other ad-hoc committee formed by any other group of Wikimedia users.  --Rob Horning 21:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (I moved your comment here to aid reply.) Wikiversity.de was created without the consent of the board - what we've been trying to do since (as you know) is to get board approval for Wikiversity. It certainly won't be hard to "turn on" Wikiversity - that's never been the issue - the issue is the scope etc of the project, and whether that's workable and sustainable. The "PR angle" shouldn't really be an issue either - although we don't want (as Angela once pointed out) people turning away because their hopes of getting a free education are not fulfilled - is that what you meant here?


 * The special projects committee was set up, by the board, to set up or facilitate new projects, to interface with other organisations, and to coordinate research efforts (amongst other things), and as such, it represents the organisation of Wikimedia, rather than the community, per se. But we want to be as open to the community as possible, and we're trying to make clear what our procedures are so any individual or group can bring their ideas to fruition. We're also making our policy on how we accept new members, and believe me, we will be accepting new members. However, the bulk of the work will actually be done through subcommittees, focussed on individual tasks. One of these subcommittees will be on Wikiversity - I am spearheading this. These subcommittees make their own rules of procedure, but are ultimately answerable to the main SP committee. Some will be more closed - others will be more open. I'm hoping to make this as open and as accepting of people of "substantially different points of view" as possible - but, most importantly, I'm trying to put together a good, practical, exciting and inviting proposal, probably containing evidence of how it will work, and possibly some indication of its policy framework. This is what the Special projects committee and the board ultimately want. Cormaggio 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being involved at least with this group. Time will tell how truly open it is, and I do have my doubts.  Jimbo himself has been critical of some of the opinions I've expressed over the subject of new project creation, but experience has almost vindicated what I've said about the creation of new wikis (aka seperate projects) with the Wikimedia Foundation.  de.wikiversity was announced to Foundation-l within days of its creation, and IMHO it should have been shut down immediately for no other reason than precedence.  It wasn't, and neither was the action condemned by the board (which could have been done in a civil tone as well).  Oh well, I guess you can tell by my tone that I do have strong opinions here.  I think Wikiversity could be started with a strong "disclaimer" on the front page that Wikiversity is still being established.  The big problem I see at the moment is that content is being added to Wikibooks that admins here on Wikibooks are very reluctant to delete because of its association with Wikiversity.  Some Wikiversity content has been put up for a VfD, but I've especially been relutant to even question some of the content.  Original research is explictly prohibited, and that has been the main thing that was removed, including the whole mess with the Wikimania proceedings that resulted in a deletion war between myself, Kernigh, and Brion Vibber.  And you thought edit wars could be nasty?  I do wish the Wikimania participants would have used a connection to Wikiversity as justification for keeping it on Wikibooks, but they didn't.  --Rob Horning 13:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise, thanks for your continued dedication to the Wikiversity dream (even keeping material on Wikibooks, when it should be deleted). On wikiversity.de, I think there was confusion all round at the time, but things have moved on since then. Wikimedia is now (as you know) getting its house in order with regards to the full process by which work is done and decisions are made etc, and these committees are meant to be addressing that. But I digress. And on the Wikimania proceedings transwiki, I have to say that I had no idea it was happening until after the event (your post to Meta I think it was that alerted me). I certainly would have chimed in if I had known.. Cormaggio 13:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikikernel and a seed Wiki
While I'm pestering you, I might as well note that I've started a new project proposal on Meta that is essentially restarting one that you have done earlier. I have linked to your earlier effort, and now I'm just trying to solicit comments and trying to overcome objections that were raised earlier by Angela and Anthere.

Any comments or even assistance in trying to get this proposal going would be significantly appreciated. This is just another attempt to Be Bold and to try and get something going where IMHO there is a real need. --Rob Horning 11:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like Wiki project incubator or thinktank type project. How does it differ from the "Special Projects" committee? Was just wondering...--Mfinney 15:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike. Robert's talking about an idea to have a wiki for hosting projects that have participants but don't yet have an official home or recognised status. The Special projects committee is (amongst other things) about giving projects that status. I don't really see how this idea is different from Seed wiki, but in any case, I think it would be good to get something like this going - it might make it easier for the Special projects committee to see which projects would work and which wouldn't. Cormaggio 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, Cormaggio!

 * I have to make some comments here, because whilst there are some correct assessment, there is ALSO a lot of bullshit. Maybe may I also clarify some questions. Anthere 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize that you are under thirty, a rising star with an education in education, and now selected by the Wikimedia Foundation power structure as their special representative less disliked than any other incorrigables at Wikiversity. Personally, I did not care for the syllabus or outlined approaches of Gh0st's Poly Sci classes or apparent leadership style but would it be so difficult to simply advise him/her to title his activity a series of seminars and leave them alone to prototype some online learning? If the newcomer user:Wikizach takes me up on prototyping some poly sci classes then the student body will have some options in at least one learning area at Wikiversity.


 * No. Cormac is not a "selected representative". The current situation is "some editors made a proposal to start wikiversity. It was presented to the board, to see if the Foundation would support the project (ie, pay for the servers maintaining the project, pay for the bandwidth etc...). The board thinks that the project as proposed may not be suitable. And as a result, the project is stuck. And the board does not have time to push for modifications that might be suitable. The sp committee is there to have things done that the board is clearly not able to do itself. By lack of time, interest, or whatever. Cormac, as an interested party, will, hopefully, make it so that the project gets alive. That does not mean he leads the project. Nor that he will take the decision to start it or not. Rather see him as an interface.

Meanwhile I have found nothing promised at meta regarding submitting the proposal and getting our permanent URLs active. Get your paperwork done and leave the harassing of other participants to us other mere participants. How are you going to play mediator or leader when you are defining yourself as one side of the newly arising disputes that the Wikimedia Foundation has suckered you into taking on? Do yourself a favor. Go find out if Roberth or Maveric149 (former leaders in charge of proposal of Wikiversity now going on three years slow rolling by Board) and find out if they have hard feelings towards you being picked to take credit for leading their project into the promised land. In fact, go consult JWSurf and MFinney regarding office politics in private. Notice both of them are experienced managers and instructors. Try not to threaten them with spurious charges of incivility or your new found status as the selected minion of the stacked Board's selected committee.
 * I think I do not belong to the "stack" stuff. The board approved three people to start this committee, Danny, Jakob and myself). These three people chose the current committee members. And definitly chose Cormac. Not the board. This will be the same for any future member. The committee will choose them; Not the board. Roberth is actually on the subcommittee if I understood well. Mav could be if interested naturally. When the subcommittee is formed, any member on it may be chosen as the "chair" (which might be understood as the "leader"). Or no one if you think it best. Cormac is not the leader of it. He is what the group will accept him to be.

Get our URLs active and turn on the web traffic. If five or fifty fullblooded P'hd Engineers, PE show up to give real courses with official syllabus, exercises, lectures, etc. etc. or retired NASA people grumpy at never getting to design an actual useful spacecraft or technology you do not want to be marginalized as the idiot trying to enforce uninformed Board mandates all by your lonesome. In case you missed it Wikiversity is an experiment. Nobody really knows what is going to work. We need to try some things and find out. The Board has painted themselves into some corners with their premature announcements and promises regarding "freeing the curriculum"
 * I must be very firm here. It is unnice to say "the board has said" when only Jimbo said something. Please, respect that each board member is an individual, with a past, an experience and opinion on his/her own. Thanks

and some other idiocies aimed at separating the fiscal entity from the "community" in pursuit of cash donations they control. When the dust settles do you want to be the villian scapegoated and outcast by the "community" of instructors, students, and participants who inevitably choose to do as they please rather than as the Board mandates for the Board's convenience or financial interests? Keep in mind Wikiversity is slowly getting started in spite of mismanagement of the Board. If the permanent URLs are not forthcoming soon how long do you suppose it will be ... nevermind. That argument was old a year ago and the lack of available public student wikis still mystifies me.
 * The problem is that you may start the project on your own, and hide it in one of Wikimedia project. But if it is not recognised as valid, one day or another, it might just be entirely erased. So, it might be a better idea to have it approved, so that it has the right on its own to be there... or move it to another hosting provider.

Please consider writing a paragraph submission memo for the modified proposal and request some of the regulars show up and express support and state personal exceptions. I personally will rewrite and repropose the alternative Wikiversity is Not section:

Wikiversity is not a place to tell others what they cannot do or try. Productive forking is encouraged, may the best learning community grow faster than its alternatives. cc: Lazyquasar 07:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cormaggio's discussion page.
 * Gh0st's disscussion page


 * Hi lazyquasar, I'm responding here, because it's easier to refer to what you're saying.


 * There are things that I agree with here, things I disagree with strongly, and things I simply don't understand. I agree that i may have come across too strongly in addressing User:Gh0st initially - but you have to realise the context of that. Did you look at, for example, the history page of the class or the school, or his deletion of subsequent queries of his actions? I thought that Buridan's question and point of view was a valid one and saw Gh0st's actions as, basically, bullying. However, I realise he had only joined wikibooks, and I was possibly too strong in my initial comment, and I don't feel so great about that.


 * On the work of getting Wikiversity set up, this is ongoing at Wikiversity/Modified project proposal, and details of the subcommittee we were talking about are at Wikiversity subcommittee. We're currently trying to figure out where we will actually get that paperwork done and how. This is a collaborative process, as always - it's not solely my responsibility - though I will put everything into seeing that it does get done, and well.


 * "selected minion of the stacked Board's selected committee" - this is just ridiculous. I'm still a participant of Wikiversity - I've been asked on to the SPC for various interests of mine, and I proposed the Wikiversity subcommittee, but that doesn't mean that I am its self appointed leader. When I said "spearheading" to Gh0st, I meant to just highlight the context of this to him, and that I will be playing an active role in this, as I am motivated to getting Wikiversity set up - just as you are, and just as Robert and Mav are. I'll be representing the subcommittee to the SPC, but I'm still involved in the project and its proposal and activities. So, of course I will give my opinion on anything I have an opinion on - how can you suggest that i just busy myself with the bureaucracy? And as for the "selected committee" of the "stacked board", well, it just betrays a complete misunderstanding.


 * What wikiversity is not - I fully agree that we need to allow Wikiversity to be an experimental place. But I still think we need to make broad recommendations about what is likely to work and what is not. I don't think this should at all be an imposition - I was thinking that working in a collaborative environment needs to be respected, so allowing for ownership of courses is potentially divisive. However, i do agree that some forking will happen - different people will have different methods. But: we still need to figure out how to deal with the board's directive to "exclude online courses" - I wouldn't call this mismanagement, but I do think it could have been explained better.


 * I haven't a clue what you mean about the board's financial interests or the other "idiocies" you mention - can you please start making sense and trying to work with me and others (including the board), rather than take this combative stance all the time? Cormaggio 12:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The bane of science and productivity is people who have no idea about what will actually work in the field attempting to "lead" others by dictating what others can or can not do. Personally I think we can productively discuss "broad recommendations" as long as we do not drift into " ... as a designated representative of the Board's selected committe I am here to relay their a priori commandments to you so listen well or else dire consequences shall follow ..."


 * Regarding ownership. Wikiversity is not Wikipedia.  There can be more than one page per topic or student interest.  If ownership offends you then merely move on to an unowned or differently owned page or start and own or disown your own.  The self evolving and regulating web traffic will dynamically sort people, interests, and material appropriately when the site has established itself with thousands of diverse regular users.


 * Regarding stacked board. Run a search of the wikipedia-l mailing list for the first two or three years for foundation or non-profit.  You may find it illuminating.  I would suggest you do so before publishing any further academic work on "Democracy" within the Wikipedia community.  The actual label and lynch process early on resembled selective genocide or evolution more than "democracy".  Perhaps this has evolved in recent years.  Since I restrict my participation at Wikipedia to correcting obvious factual errors or adding citations, often anonymously, I am not really familiar with the "community" practices for the last year or two.  As a designated troll for the early temerity to ask some specific questions regarding business organization, long term plans, licensing issues, financial plans and attempting mediation in implementation of actual written policy vs. the prejudices, opinions, and personal desires of the "leadership" I got a pretty good bird's eye view of the prevailing "leadership" as practiced at early Wikipedia by project founders and Bomis employee's.


 * Collaboration does not mean everyone snaps to at the whim of a designated leader. To many people it means productive cooperation as in a barn raising.  People helping with things they know how to do or are interested in learning about.


 * Idiocy. Announcing to the world at large via a public conference the wonders of the Wiki Way and its potential in "freeing the curriculum" (presumably from the clutches of publishers and government regulators and economic pressures) and bridging the digital divide only to return to the wiki communities locally attempting to experiment with the technology on a public wiki funded by public donations to a non profit corporation and deny them stable URLs in favor of diverting traffic to a personally owned commercial wiki site could probably be termed many things: incompetence, criminal, shady, selfish, foolish, divisive, etc.   I prefer the broad category of "idiocy".  Notice that of five board members only two have publicly acknowledged interests in Wikia.  Why are the other three aquiescing in this foolishness?  Possibly because the Board is stacked (selected by Jimbo for his personal reasons as stated as intent on the public mailing lists) to go along with "Jimmy says ..." as the local "leadership"s governing ontological distinction?  If you dislike the term idiocy then you are welcome to call it what you please: genious of the Board, policy mandate from the community leadership, detailed policy established by consensus of survivors on surviving wiki pages, etc. etc.
 * This is public information, Jimbo is as of today the chair of Wikia. Angela is its vice-chair. Michael is the treasurer as I understood. And Tim is also working in Wikia. I am the only independant one. So, generally, I agree with your statement. This relation with Wikia may have two consequences. First, Wikia benefits from Wikipedia's popularity (it definitly does. Jimbo mentions Wikia each time he can; including in his permanent signature. And divert business that can not go in WMF). Finances are still a bit shared or were still shared until recently (office for example). Second, 3 board members are in effect Jimbo's employees, thus casting doubts on their voting directions. Practically speaking, I believe Michael though, is making a lot of effort to separate both entities and has shown a good level of independance from Jimbo. But right, a board with 3 members being the employees of a fourth is quite laughable :-) Why are we aquiescing to this foolishness ? Well, without giving details, I'd say that Michael is not aquieshing. Me neither. Pointing out to this situation more publicly might however have bad pr consequences. So, we need other solutions. Having subcommittees is part of the answer. Resigning is not. Evidence has shown that reality is manipulated.


 * Regarding the Board's mandate to exclude online "courses". You are welcome to do as you please.  I intend to ignore it.  A rose by any other name is a rose.  If a section of engineering students or practioners who start by helping each other out with discussions of statics or stress problems leave behind themselves a learning trail adequate for engineering candidates to review in preparation for the Professional Engineering exams you are welcome to call it a "review" or "learning trail" rather than a "course".  I suspect at the engineering school we will have a lot more trade studies and open source projects than actual "courses" if we ever achieve a stable URL space and an active community.


 * I have not suggested you busy yourself exclusively with the burearacracy. I have suggested that you complete whatever paperwork is necessary and sufficient to motivate the burearacry to quit stalling and activate our URL's and wiki databases and leave harassment of other wikiversity participants to other participants until you have completed this critical path activity.  By all means come back and participate (try to avoid announcing your status as a designated community leader and warning others of dire consequences from ignoring you) after completing this 30 minute milestone the committee needs for a fig leaf with the Board to demonstrate their masterful control of the willing volunteers.  I suggested an e-paragraph cover summary to deliver the existing proposal in an attachment (or via URL to a new official version).  It has been worked on and discussed to stale heat death over a couple of months and years.   No further evolution is likely without some actual field experimentation and resulting data.  Give them a suspense.  "In conclusion, the active Wikiversity developers' would appreciate an active URL and Wiki NLT 1 May 06 so that we may organize a publicity drive and fund raising activities to support dedicated servers and software tailoring to coincide with summer break."  CC it to all the applicable community mailing lists.  Tell them which mailing list the Wikiversity participants intend to discuss it on or respond to specific concerns ... I suggest the Textbook-L list since Roberth volunteered it; he, you and I are already there; it will visibly reassure the Wikibooks community we are attempting to get out of their hair and policy space; and there has been no action on setting up the requested Wikiversity-L list. When they respond that all fund raising must be coordinated by the Board and funds directed to official Wikimedia Foundation accounts but that they will ask Brion to activate the URLs after you acknowledge their authority to control the money.  Be a good little selectee and transmit the required fig leaf.  "Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.  I will inform the community we must work with the Treasurer of the Wikimedia Foundation and that we can expect the URLs and Wiki to be active in a few days since you, the committee, have graciously asked the Board in writing to request Brion to activate them."  It is not binding on anyone else considering supporting impending forks.


 * Please do not make the mistake of only asking for the singular activation of URLs. If the Board or committee were inclined to unilaterally fulfill their responsibilities without public acknowledgement of their alleged authority then someone would have already been reading the draft proposals and the URLs would already be active to allow effective participation of thousands of initial experimenters.   Some of whom would be the people who were invited to come check us out via the "Free the Curriculum" and other presentations at Wikimania 05.  BTW.  Have you seen any financial reports regarding Wikimania?  Did the Foundation or a private party make or lose money on the event and what are the projections for future years?
 * We did not lose money, nor make money from the event. You may ask Delphine (notafish) for more details. Some private parties funded it, and may have got some indirect financials benefits due to its support
 * Are the profits going to pay for public servers, stipends for cronies (forgive me ... respectable members of the Wikimedia Community), etc.
 * Sorry, there were no profit, so it will not goes to paying for servers or people
 * Are the audited expenses for travel, salary, lodging, etc. in line with other conventions hosted or sponsored by public/non profit foundations or commercial endeavers?
 * Good question ! Very good question. Well, as a non profit foundation, we have an independant audit mandatory. We recently picked up an audit firm and Michael cleaned up our finances the best he could. The audit started last week.
 * Hmm .. I seem to have drifted a bit here. Too bad we do not have a reputable investigative news wiki available to support public ICT endeavers.


 * I will check out the links you provide to meta at my earliest convenience. Do not wait for me!  You are the man selected as the point of our stacked Board designed spear.  Go get em when and as you feel it appropriate.  Again, I advise merely dropping the spear and sending them a one paragraph email admitting we are finally ready and predominantly in compliance with their wise mandates (Two or three active "courses" in tens of "schools" must be less than .001% non compliance with the mandate right?   Multiple sides can posture around non data and non activity.  The important thing, after affirming the stacked Board is in charge and Wikia has the right to skim profits, is to collect some actual data regarding what might actually work in the field.)  Lazyquasar 23:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

=Summary=

Hi, I've been trying to figure out what's going on with Wikiversity, but I found nearly 30 uber-detailed discussions that I would need to grab a Slurpy and sit down for a week to read. Can you tell/point me to a way/concise summary of where it's going? It looked like you were a pretty major player with Wikiversity.

Furthermore, if I want to try to start up a class, do I need to be accredited/anything special like that? Or is Wikiversity so boggled down now that I can't do that.

Anyways, just wondering about everything. --Fephisto 19:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity course
You gave me a bunch of info on wikiversity, so I thought you'd be interested in this:

School of Mathematics:Calculus

If you could advertise somehow, that would be nice. Fephisto 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your questions!

The majority of the information your asked for I have in the course outline of the website: School of Mathematics:Calculus. But just to repeat them anyways...

The materials (lectures, assignments, tests, what readings from the test, etc.) will be created in a sort of impromptu way, for two reasons: 1)This is a general Calculus class, I don't know where people are coming from, where they're starting from, nor what their goals are. I.e., some people will want to know Calculus intuitively (an integral is, more or less, the area under a curve), and others (math majors, or those who are uber-ambitious and have knowledge of set theory) will want to know Calculus formally and rigourisly (this is a partition, this is a lower and upper integral, etc.). 2)Both Wikiversity and I am not accredited, rather then grade-choke, I have the opportunity to allow the person to take what he wants from the class, I don't like rote learning, so since I have the opportunity to move away from this, I will try and do so.

If I missed something, ask me again, but if you really are eager, then send a pretest my way (my email is on my front page)! Fephisto 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"And you're saying that they are in the Wikibooks mentioned on that page, and that you're going to then teach people about Calculus using those books, and according to their needs - right?"

Not entirely, I also mentioned that I'd be making assignments and lecture pages impromptu in Wikiversity as I said above. The most I'd do with Calculus pages is assign reading for a certain day.

"This might all be a bit confusing to you - in fact, it occurs to me to ask you about what you say on your page ("I hope Wikiversity doesn't go away") - does this mean you hope the projects don't separate? Are you aware of the context of all this? See the links to the current proposal I gave you before, if not. In any case, I'd really like to hear your views on the matter. Thanks."

I meant exactly what it said, I simply just hope it doesn't get deleted, that's all.

Teh Wishes, Fephisto 16:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The course has already ended, there was a whopping one person (technically two people) that participated. If you're interested in the format or results check it out: School of Mathematics:Calculus.Fephisto 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

International development, Sustainable development
Hi Cormaggio, I noticed your interest in International development & Sustainable development. I'd like to see material on these topics too - I'm currently very active at Appropedia, and we're discussing the issue of textbooks at Appropedia's Village pump.

Personally I'm mainly interested in expanding the material on these topics on Wikipedia and Appropedia. If somebody wants to use that material for developing textbooks or courses, that's cool, but I don't want to focus on that just yet. (First things first.)

Anyhow, have a look at Appropedia and tell me your thoughts - is this kind of collaboration something that interests you?

btw, there's also a WikiProject International development, in case that's of interest. --Singkong2005 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)