Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikiversity

Wikiversity
...and the non-textbook pages it links to. Textbooks it links to are fair enough, they are what this project is all about.

I understand this will be contentious, and if it is removed it can be moved to a subpage of Wikiversity where this proposed project is currently being developed, or perhaps we could share the wiki at de.wikiversity.org.

Justifications:


 * Not a "textbook" by any stretch of the imagination
 * Violations of project goals in Welcome:
 * "Any content unrelated to our project" - this is a new proposed project
 * "Primary research" - research in wiki-based e-learning
 * "Proposals or prototypes of new Wikimedia projects"
 * Spawns many encyclopedia-esque articles, and encourages others to do the same.

Aya T C 16:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Update 1
I posted this mail in response to Anthere's suggestion that it ought to be okay to move this content to Meta, although I also suggested the possibility of using a Wikicity. Which would people prefer? I don't think de.wikiversity.org will be practical, since the user interface is largely in German. - Aya T C 04:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Meta would be better than Wikicities. Being ad-free would go much more with the open college kind of idea, and it deserves to be part of the wikimedia project proper, and not something more loosely associated with it. MShonle 05:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Update 2
Another possibility here (and I think this might be the best). We might be able to persuade the appropriate people to change the DNS name "de.wikiversity.org" to just "wikiversity.org", update the UI elements to English, and make that site the canonical multi-lingual site for developing this project, in a similar fashion to the other multi-lingual sites such as Meta, Wikisource and Wikicommons. It seems silly to restrict this wiki to German, when it gets an average of around 2 edits per day. I've been chatting to people on IRC for ages about this, but still can't seem to find the right person who can make this happen. I shall keep trying. - Aya T C 12:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Update 3
It seems that the status of this project is still unclear. I got the impression that as long as this is the case, then Wikimedia admins are not prepared to make any changes to the Wikimedia servers, and that Wikicities would not be prepared to host it. Since de.wikiversity.org is apparently the correct place, it ought to go there. If you register a new account there, you can change your preferences to get the user interface in English instead of German. - Aya T C 14:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Update 4
It seems to me that the general consensus so far is, "it's okay to move it when the right place exists to move it to." I had a chat with Eloquence (see m:User:Eloquence for details) about this, and it seems one of the pre-requisites for getting 'the right place' is going to require major software changes to the MediaWiki software (e.g. to support grading of courses and the like), which, to me, implies "which we'll implement when we've finished optimizing MediaWiki for Wikipedia", which implies "when the Wikipedia project is finished", which implies "never". Although he did give me a rough estimate of 1-2 years. Perhaps we should move this VFD and the current prototype at Wikiversity into a feature request report on bugzilla. ;-) - Aya T C 02:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I gotta be blunt here that I don't like discussions about what happens here on Wikibooks to be made and decisions reached that are off-site, which is why I was pushing to move the existing content to Meta (where major policy decisions regarding this project are currently being made.) It appears though, that Meta doesn't want it, and by us kicking it off Wikibooks is going to make this a truly orphaned project that even Wikicities wont take. (I had to say WTF over this point!?!?)  It does not take a "major software change" to move the current content, and that is pure buck passing IMHO.  Organizing the schools and even conducting courses does not require any change to MediaWiki software, especially if they are going to follow the Diversity University (http://www.du.org/) model, or even Virtual University (http://www.vu.org/), which started on a dial-up BBS for crying out loud.  If the user base that is going to use this project really could be there, then it needs to be started up and courses taught in an "audit-only" environment for now.  Can a single course be pointed to that is happening at the moment?  I point to these other two projects because I think they do many things that are part of the goals of Wikiversity, but the #1 difference is that they are successful and Wikiversity is not. What this project needs is somebody to say "damn the torpedos.... let's get this thing running NOW!" and then doing something.  I see that perhaps Gabe Sechan may have that fire, as he is the one that seems to be making the most coherent statements of support for this project.  (I would nominate Gabe as the first admin/bureaucrat for this project, if it happens.)  I know I don't have the energy needed to get this going as I have different things I want to accomplish, and this is a major project to take on with a lot of problems to resolve, although if it would get it off of Wikibooks I could be persuaded to make a major stab at it. The main reason why the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to "turn it loose" is pure bureaucratic BS and a fear that it will turn into another Wikispecies.  Wikispecies is a cool idea, but the "founders" of the project got cold feet part-way into putting in content and decided to do a major revision that took more time than anybody was willing to put into it.  The same issue applies to Wikiversity so far as the Foundation is concerned, because the goals and purposes of this project are not clearly defined, and it seems like the participants are trying to bite off more than they can chew by proposing an entire multi-college research university (with Carnegie-Mellon research status and accreditation as well) to be formed out of whole cloth rather than a simple adult education center with a few classes.  If more more thought is done on how to "bootstrap" this whole project, perhaps some thoughts on how to convince the Foundation board to let a separate wiki be kicked loose to let this project try to develop on its own can be made.--Rob Horning 11:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, so what does need to be done to turn this into a workable proposal? Is there a list somewhere of steps we need to go through?  Do we have a list of their concerns about our scope that we can address (either by proving we can do it or altering scope)?  For one I'd toss accreditation out the window- worry about that much later if ever, and lets concentrate on putting up content for now.  Same with research- if you want to teach a class on what you're researching fine, but this wouldn't be the place to write research papers. I'm willing to spend time and effort doing this, but I'm going to be limited in the next couple weeks.  Just bad timing-  I'm relocating at the end of the week, and will lose computer access for 2 weeks (unless work lets me keep my laptop) followed by limited access until I'm set up.--Gabe Sechan 21:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Update 5
I just started a New project discussion thread on meta, with links to everything that I can find so far. This is really what the status of this project should have been all along, and IMHO would have been thrown into the heap of other project ideas that have been tossed on this page. If Wikiversity needs to be restarted as a proposal, then perhaps this will get the notice it needs. I'm going to squeak real hard on this one --Rob Horning 12:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Might I advise that everyone interested in contributing to Wikiversity should add their name to the "People interested in joining" list there. The bigger the show of support the more likely it is that Wikiversity will be seriously considered by the Foundation. GarrettTalk 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments/Votes

 * Transwiki/Delete - For my reasons above, although beginning to lean towards give up with trying to admin this site since it's upsetting the status quo that Wikibooks is "the canonical dumping ground for vanity pages and other crap that no-one else wants". - Aya T C 16:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Its a useful idea that can eventually grow to be something big. At that point creating its own wiki might make sense, but until then doing so prematurely may kill it.  As for the reasons above-  wikibooks itself spawns many encyclopedia-esque articles, thats a reason to delete the entire site.  And calling it primary research is a stretch, the idea of a wikibook is primary research itself under that definition. --Gabe Sechan 20:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't actually addressed any of the points above. It's not a textbook, so it ought to be relocated. We can still move it to Meta, which wouldn't "kill it". The other encyclopedia articles found on the site are being deleted, or pasted in as pages to other books. You also seem to misunderstand "primary research". The Wikibook Chess is not primary research, unless we are to believe that the author of this book actually invented the game. Perhaps you should read the Welcome page. Whether it's "useful" or not is surely irrelevant. I might find it "useful" to copy a complete fork of Wikipedia to this site, but does that mean I should? - Aya T C 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think transwiking it to meta would kill it. As it is now, its not very prominent, at meta it would be even less so.  I hadn't even *heard* of meta until this debate, I had at least heard of wikibooks from several places before now.  I'd have 3 reasons why moving it at this point is a bad idea.


 * As we can't get en.wikiversity.org yet, it would need to be moved twice. This is confusing and difficult to both users and contributors.
 * Putting it on Meta makes it less prominent, and won't net us more contributors
 * It does not yet have even 1 working course. My experience with user contributed systems in open source shows that advertising something prominently before its ready for primetime causes permanent damage to the project in the public image.  It becomes thought of as immature and badly managed.  It really needs a selection of operational courses before that step is taken.


 * I don't misunderstand primary research. If you claim that writing a course is "primary research" into running wikicourses, then every wikibook in existence is "primary research" into writing a book.  Wikiversity is not primary research, any more than the book on Chess is.


 * And while yes, wikiversity isn't quite a book, there is a definite linkage between instructional books and instructional courses. Wikiversity can easily be seen as a framework of additional resources designed to help understand a wikibook.  While it may not be a perfect solution, keeping it here until its ready to be released as a stand alone project (meaning whatever magical permission we need and a sufficient base of courses to warrant it) is far better than throwing us somewhere in meta.  --Gabe Sechan 20:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - and transwiki to Meta. I have been reading a great deal of what Aya has been saying about Wikiversity, and it really is inappropriate to have on Wikibooks.  I just got into a little bit of a discussion about Wikiversity on Foundation-l (see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-August/003871.html and my firey reply to the suggestion for yet another project being "dumped" on Wikibooks).  This whole thing should have been on Meta in the first place as an "Alpha test" (not even Beta like Wikinews) of the project.  Wikibooks is very much an inappropriate place to put any new project, even if it will have a close relationship with user on Wikibooks (which from my experience does not totally match up with reality).  Either that or it needs to be moved to Wikicities as a new project there.  BTW, I have a "new project proposal" that I did try to "dump" on Wikibooks, but before I got too far I removed the content from Wikibooks and instead put it on meta, and even put  tags on the content to make sure it was removed.  I have been assured that an initial test page or two on Meta is perfectly reasonable for a new project that wants to get a "look and feel" down on a new project idea. The main reason I think Wikiversity was put on Wikibooks is because one of the founders of Wikibooks really liked the idea and because there was at the time very little activity on Wikibooks, he could get away with it.  There was this idea that Wikibooks was going to support Wikiversity, but it appears as though they really support very different goals. One other final and major reason for the transwiki to Meta is that most of the in depth discussion (what discussion there is) is happening on Meta as well with its own separate community.  This is also happening with Wikijunior, and I'm trying to change that with Wikijunior.  If the whole project were on Meta, the contributors and the discussion could all happen at the same place.  If the admins on Meta were getting fed up with having to deal with all of the editing issues of Wikiversity, perhaps that will be enough motivation for "green lighting" Wikiversity onto its own server, where it really belongs ultimately, just as the German Wikiversity already is on its own Wiki server.BTW, see also the Foundation-l discussion starting with (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-August/003830.html) --Rob Horning 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and transwiki Unfortunately, that's really what we have to do here - especially as this is not a textbook, as previously mentioned. I think differently to Gabe Sechan, in that giving Wikiversity its own server might help to raise the profile of what is a worthwhile initiative. The overlap between Wikiversity and Wikibooks is enormous and creating a separate "Wikiversity" project might help to clarify the differences so we can minimise the duplication that might occur if Wikiversity remained a subproject of Wikibooks. Serge 23:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * giving Wikiversity its own server might help to raise the profile of what is a worthwhile initiative - I agree. I was really hoping to get en.wikiversity.org started up, but Brion doesn't seem to be allowed to break the Wikimedia 'prime directive', which is that he can't make any server changes without the correct authorization. - Aya T C 00:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Transwiki. This is going to be a lot of work, but it simply must be done. Hm. But does Meta want it? have you talked to the people there about this? I don't want it here, but I don't want to see it transwikied and then deleted en-masse either. Hm... GarrettTalk 23:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But does Meta want it? - To be honest, I don't think anyone actually wants it. The question should really be which wiki should host it. Looking at m:Meta:About, and related pages, it seems as if it's the most appropriate place. The other alternative I suggested was to share the de.wikiversity.org server, but all the UI elements are in German, so this may be less optimal. I'll have a chat with the Meta-types about this. - Aya T C 00:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * keep. I think it is horrible to delete good content without having a place for it. Dumping it on Meta is another thing that I oppose as Meta has its function as much as Wikibooks has, offloading it without a proper solution is morally wrong. Giving it a separate "server" is nonsense, no project has its own servers except for Commons. When you mean that it should get its separate "project", that may be an idea. GerardM 07:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is more a case of semantics, but by separate project that means it has it own domain, unique set of admins, and separate editorial policies. The separate editorial policies is already there, as well as semi-independent user base of support as well.  As far as separate physical computers, that makes no difference either.  I don't care how the content is physically stored on hard drives, but by having separate domains and work space (as well as separate database tables) there is no reason to keep everything on the same physical "server".  Besides, that is just a technical issue.  And besides, I think it should get it own separate server so far as this is an experimental concept that needs some real leadership to decide what the future direction this project should be going.  As far as leadership here on Wikibooks, Aya is leading the way to try and get this content removed. --Rob Horning 12:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete from here, no question, and transwiki if people wish. It is clearly not suitable content for Wikibooks: Wikibooks is for writing free-content text-books, and not a place for users to publish content unrelated to our main objective. Dan100 08:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and Transwiki. I'd like to see shelter extended until the project can be transplanted to the appropriate en.wikiversity.org domain. There is no reason so urgent as to deport the Wikiversity. Yes, it is a "prototype"/"proposal" and yes, the sin is unforgivable. A blemish on an otherwise unadulterated body. But its presence here was not a dim-witted action. A review of the obsolete, What_Wikibooks_is_not reminds us that "Wikibooks hosts instructional resources". Returning to the canon, About, I find as many inclusive attributes as I do exclusive injustices. Many of the existing schools serve as Annotated_texts based upon developing Wikibooks. For instance: School_of_Sociology. Take note of the Logic branch of the School_of_Philosophy. It is clearly situated as a learning aid, a primer for the student who is or will be reading associated Wikibooks. The School_of_Literature_and_English_Studies quite clearly intends to develop books (though they're labeled "courses") and the School_of_Economics has taken care to link to Wikipedia when appropriate and to develop Wikibooks otherwise. To Aya's contention that the schools spawn encyclopedia-esque articles, I rebuke, that such articles are either incomplete manuals or misplaced Wikipedia entries (and can be added to, moved or deleted). There are pages that have yet to be collated and chapters that have yet to be written. Remember, Wiki is not paper. It is not criminal, that the schools are developing their books within the Wiki, instead of first developing them personally then posting them. As they are currently manifest, the Schools are reading guides, to both Wikibooks and the Wikipedia. "In order to properly instruct students in various disciplines", we will have to expand our Paper definition of a "textbook". Though the stated goals of the Wikiversity are strong and noble, they are inchoate, undeveloped. The items of the Wikiversity mission have rarely been attempted within the schools. What is developing in the womb of Wikibooks is quite in line with the Wikibooks project goals. As for transgressions, regretfully the schools have not reached those aspirations. As I've said, within the current system, the "content" is quite related to Wikibooks, and the instruction of students in non-fiction. There has been no primary research conducted within any of the schools. The Wikiversity proposal is certainly a prototype whose only supporting proof-of-concept would be the de.wikiversity.org project. Though the work is at times sloppy, and quite clearly racing at the speed of a tortoise, it is quite thoroughly related to the instruction of people through the use of Wikibooks, with references to the Wikipedia for specific terminology. The Schools have not met a single goal for the Wikiversity (meta) project. They have more commonality as vulgar aids for dense textbook material (as instructional guides to the self-taught/self-motivated) than they do amongst the dialectic nature of the academy. Please, build us a new home, don't send us back to the source. It would be a violent gesture to rip out the working material built by the schools and transplant it into a foreign body. Many have not registered as contributors nor recognition of the landscape. When en.wikiversity.org is ready, then it will be a proper time for weaning. I doubt we'll have progressed so much toward the Wikiversity goals in the meantime, as to have egregiously distanced ourselves from the goals of the Wikibooks. Downchuck 10:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the urgency in deleting this content: Because Wikiversity (and Wikijunior as well) exist on Wikibooks with their own guidelines, policies, goals, and content; many people think that Wikibooks is a place to dump any other kind of similar project.  This essentially turns Wikibooks into a virtual Wikicities.  That is not the purpose of Wikibooks, and we really don't have the user base nor the admins necessary to be able to keep track of all of this content.  This is not the only such project, but Wikiversity and Wikijunior in particular have more or less "official" sanction from the Foundation board (at least several board members are seeking to protect these projects).  This strongly encourages others to start similar projects on Wikibooks and really confuses people as to what the purpose of Wikibooks is all about.  All told, this project should never have been on Wikibooks in the first place, and what we are trying to do right now is to clean things up here.  Wikibooks has a tremendous amoung of neglect over the past year or so, despite the near heroic efforts of a couple of active admins who were seriously overloaded.  That things seem to be changing on Wikibooks is true, and part of that is because those who are here on Wikibooks trying to clean things up want this project to succeed.  With over 10,000 wikibook modules having been written, and a very steady addition to the number of Wikibooks on here (real Wikibooks, not special projects) this is turning into a successful project with some very real potential. You must admit that at some point in the future that Wikiversity must go.  It needs to be on its own wiki server at some point in the future.  I fail to see what the difference is between Wikiversity and the host of other well meaning projects other than this seems to have the support of at least one Foundation board member.  We are not trying to rip out the working material built by the schools and transplant it into a foreign body, but rather trying to put this content where it should have been in the first place. If you want to have an experimental wiki, it really should be Wikicities.  That way the people who are interested will have full editorial control over the content, it will not have any conflicts with existing Wikimedia projects (Wikibooks in this particular case).  It is not my fault or that of anybody else here on Wikibooks that the Wikimedia Foundation is refusing to start any new major sister project, and it isn't my position to even to suggest how to accomplish something like that except to sweet talk the Foundation board into giving you a chance.  --Rob Horning 12:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The question is- what problems is it currently causing? Is it actually causing overload to admins or is this a potential problem?  If it is, can this be solved through extra volunteers (I would gladly volunteer to do so)?  You may have an argument that it shouldn't have been here in the first place, but lets face facts- it *is* here.  Moving it would adversely effect the contibutor base for the project, as the set of people who would develop for either project has a large overlap.  This is a project that it seems everyone likes, including most admins of wikibooks.  It may not be the absolute best solution, but right now the best solution doesn't seem to be possible (a wikiversity.org site, with sufficient coursework to get interest from the get go).  It may not fit the ideal design of how wiki projects start, but thats life- sometimes worse is better.  I do believe this is better for both projects-  don't forget that a lot of wikibooks will get written/improvements added due to wiki courses.  --Gabe Sechan 20:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * no vote, since I don't work on wikibooks, although in my opinion the wikiversity pages should be moved somewhere else. Please do not use meta-wiki for it (that's not the place for it). Probably these pages could go temporarily to http://de.wikiversity.org (which is currently sort of a playground for experimenting with wikiversity) - this seems to be the place where it fits best. --Elian 14:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep on Wikibooks for now, but only if scope is limited in such a way that it is in reasonable compliance with Wikibooks policy (e.g. no original scientific research). Working on curricula or syllabi is borderline acceptable, in my opinion. If the Wikibooks community doesn't want it, the relevant pages could be moved to Meta -- if the allocated space there is clearly limited -- or an en.wikiversity.org demonstration wiki could be set up.--Eloquence 17:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, how I would love it if an en.wikiversity.org wiki was set up. I've been trying to get this to happen for over a month now, but have met with resistance every time. If you think you can make this happen, please do. Our best solution so far seems to be to share the de.wikiversity.org wiki. - Aya T C 18:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Would de.wikiversity.org want us? That sounds like a solution designed to cause problems.  We would then have a mix of english and german pages on one site, confusing both sets of users.  We'd have a bunch of pissed off german contributors who don't want us around (I can see the revert wars now).  And we'd have the very non-intuitive idea of looking for the english wikiversity under a german page.  It makes some sense in the technical sense (hey, its half right), but ignores the human factor of mixing 2 sets of users and contributors.--Gabe Sechan 20:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding de.wikiversity.org, I took a look through the recent changes, and it now seems to get 1 or 2 edits per day on average. The project has no admins at all. I don't think there is a "they" to want us or not. Reading the content there, they seems equally confused at to what the project is all about. It's pretty much a dead wiki, so we might be able to breathe some life back into it. - Aya T C 03:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, until en.wikiversity.org is created, as there still appears to be no urgency to delete this content, apart from being a little undefined and hence irritating to a few on this project (I admit I'm not really one). Why move it before a "proper" home for it is created? Maybe this is the incentive it needs? I must say, I am shocked to find Wikiversity on Vfd. Cormaggio 21:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it defies our rules. People can look at it (and, to a lesser extent, Wikijunior) and think they can start any crazy project they wish. I would be quite happy to keep it here for logistical reasons, BUT the problem of new rule-defying guinea-pig projects being started on us must not be underestimated. GarrettTalk 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind Wikijunior staying here. Wikijunior is at least writing books, which seems okay for a site called Wikibooks. Let's leave Wikijunior out of this discussion. - Aya T C 02:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand the precedent argument, ie creating an excuse for other projects to be dumped on Wikibooks (although I don't know any examples), but maybe the healthiest view we can take on this (or mine at least) is to treat Wikiversity as an exception, an anomaly, and probably due to move at some stage soon, ie when that space is defined and provided. Until then I personally don't see the hurry - it's too interesting and huge a project to be kicked around. Cormaggio 23:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Transwiki because it is not a textbook, and hence violates our rules. But, also because it encourages other new projects that don't conform to our goals. I've found the same thing with vandalism, if you fix it quickly, then you get less of it. I think that it has to do with what contributors perceive to be acceptable conduct. Geo.T 02:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The way I see it (as do many others) is that people don't read the rules, they just see what else is on the site, and mimic that, while changing it sufficiently to spread whatever it is they want to spread into the memepool. Maybe we need to sit back and rethink what this site is actually all about. I merely suggested it might be a good idea to only write 'books' because the site is called 'Wikibooks', which would make sense to newbies. A book, in my mind, is one of those things made out of dead trees, which usually contains a contents page, and several chapters about a specific topic. Now I realise that wiki is not paper, but without sticking to content that is book-like, how are newbies going to understand what sort of content we want here. Perhaps I'd be happier if Wikiversity was re-organised as a book. That is to say a book called, perhaps, "The Wikiversity Project", which follows WB:NP, and whose content is a guide to what the "Wikiversity" project will be, if and when it happens, rather than just a blind stab at a prototype for a project which no-one seems to be agree on the purpose of. It should focus more on the goals of such a project, and include information about any proposed software changes that would be required to the MediaWiki software in order to implement such a project, rather than just be a bunch of pages called "School of Meaninglessness Studies", etc., linking to a bunch of fictional course units, although these could arguably be included in the book as examples of how Wikiversity might ultimately be structured. Maybe it's the form, rather than the content I object to. After all, Wikipedia and Wikibooks have a lot of content overlap, but one is formatted as encyclopedia articles, and the other as a book. - Aya T C 03:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep until discussion of wikiversity as its own project and/or as a parent/child project of wikibooks identifies a clean distinction between the two; much harder to agree on how to migrate content to Meta, there is currently no good waz to mediate this kind of transwiki placement dispute, and the existing Wikiversity content (and links to it) is important enough to merit care. Sj 21:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep exactly as per Sj. It doesn't cause a problem for Wikibooks, so let it stay and grow until it finds a more permanent home. There's no value in deleting good information. - Taxman 21:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as with Sam. "Transwiki" means precisely nothing when there's nowhere to send it to (as a meta sysop, I'd have to delete it were someone to attempt to "transwiki" it there). James F. (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I believe the Wikiversity is being judged according to what it could be instead of according to what it is now. Most of the contributions to Wikiversity are textbook-like (please visit the School_of_Mathematics for a good example). I believe that many contributors initially respected the Wikibooks policy, even though some of them probably had visionary dreams about what the Wikiversity could become. More recently, contributors have started to be more vocal about the possibilities and have sparked the debate about other types of content. The fact remains that most of the content is either of the "reading list/bibliography/resources" kind or the introductory chapter kind. I would personally love to have the Wikiversity in its own domain, with its own courses and other experimental learning techniques, but we are not ready yet. I think we still need to work a little more on our textbooks.(Alex beta 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Keep When I first coined the name (at least I had not seen it used before) in a comment to Mav it was with a much grander vision than what I see now.  For now it is little more than a hierarchical series of textbooks in the form of course outlines; that leaves it best suited for Wikibooks.  When there is evidence that someone has in fact guided a "student" through at least a one semester course here in anything, and can report on his real experience, then maybe we will be ready to have this as a separate Wikiversity project. Eclecticology 20:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Until it get's it's own wiki
 * Could you sign your vote, please? (Alex beta 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Keep and Transwiki when it gets its own wiki. It is a great idea and would definitly be better than what most online learners are doing with forums. Obviously, needs a great deal of work right now, and wikibooks is the project that wikiversity should be closest too; no other major wiki site is dedicated to learning other than wikibooks. Wikipedia is just a collection of knowledge, Wikinews is for news... but people go to wikibooks to learn. That is why wikiversity should stay here... no other project works enough with this one. --Dragontamer
 * DELETE. If it is not a book, If it does not follow Naming conventions delete without mercy. --Krischik T 07:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Forget Transwiki'ing it, that just confuses the whole issue, its not a book, its messing Wikibooks up, it doesn't belong here. Delete without Mercy as per Krischik Tmalmjursson 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet Yack
 * Keep and transwiki. Too much work done on it to delete it or move it to a nether-world city.  --Fephisto 17:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the harm?
I read this entire page. Can someone please explain exactly what problems wikiversity causes for wikibooks? I just do not see how wikiversity pages harm anything. It seems like some people are making legalistic readings of what wikibooks should be so as to target wikiversity for elimination from this wiki. --JWSurf 23:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain above, the main harm that is caused to Wikibooks by letting this project co-exist with Wikibooks is that it has separate policies, goals, and users. Proposals for new projects has a list of other really cool ideas that well-meaning people (including myself) have proposed as new projects for consideration with the Wikimedia Foundation.  By allowing this project to be here it encourages other projects like those listed on meta to come to Wikibooks.  That is a major discussion and something that perhaps Wikibooks could become (as a spawning ground for new projects), but that is also a major policy change for not only Wikibooks but for the Wikimedia Foundation in general.  This in effect turns Wikibooks into a variant of Wikicities. It is my belief that Meta is a much more appropriate place for things of this nature to occur, or perhaps some reassurance from the Wikimedia Foundation that if you start a project on Wikicities that there is a chance it could be "brought in" as Wikimedia sister project.  By being a Wikimedia sister project (like Wikibooks, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc.) you get a certain built-in user base and support team to help you out that being on your own doesn't exist.  That is the primary draw for all of these new proposals, and Wikiversity is just one of dozens that have been made over the years that doesn't have its own separate wiki yet. I also have a major issue with the current Foundation board over the stance for new projects to be started, just like Wikiversity.  There is so much resistance to starting a new major sister project that I have expressed that a disclaimer be added that no new project will ever be start for any reason unless it is a pet project of a board member.  I wrote the current "disclaimer" on Meta because I felt at least somebody tripping across those pages needed a little warning before going off and trying to start a new project idea. Wikiversity should have been a new project proposal just like that, and there is a discussion page on Meta that talks about what the direction for this project should be.  Indeed, immediately after I write this comment I'm going off and writing up Wikiversity as a new project proposal where it should be.  --Rob Horning 11:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikiversity stuff doesn't belong here. Wikibooks has an identity and mission, and other stuff doesn't belong here.  I don't know what Rob means about no new projects being created unless they are the pet project of a board member, and I invite him to email me personally to discuss this.  I think he's mistaken about something important. --Jimbo Wales 15:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rob- Thanks for your reply. Yesterday I happened to notice a comment on a wikipedia history page from September 2003 to the effect that wikibooks did not even merit a wikipedia entry. At that time, there was already discussion at wikibooks of the idea of creating a wikiversity at wikibooks. There was also discussion of the wikiversity concept at Meta in 2003 including, “Wikibooks would be the bookstore of WikiU?” Clearly, it is easier to construct individual wiki books that it is to create a wiki university. Wikiversity has been in a holding pattern for the past two years. Some people have argued that there needs to be special new software support for a wikiversity, but I do not see that as a reason not to provide a wikiversity namespace now. The software support could come later. I think the main thing holding back wikiversity is related to why Nupedia failed. Nupedia was an early incarnation of wikipedia in which all articles were reviewed by experts, generally people with a Ph.D. Similarly, a wikiversity calls for experts who can create educational wiki pages. Generally, the people who are qualified to do this are busy earning a living and have little time or motivation to “give away” the expertise that they normally get paid for. Given these facts, wikiversity has been slowly developing as a few dedicated individuals spend their “spare time” to work on the project.


 * There is an interesting phenomenon by which new wikis are created. Often, an existing wiki serves as an incubator for new wikis. It has never been clear to me why there are people who are in a rush to narrow the focus of existing wikis and sterilize them to remove everything that does not fit a narrow definition of the purpose of the wiki. Maybe a sociologist can explain why it is that people feel the need to specialize and exclude anyone/anything that does not fit a narrow definition of a wiki’s mission. We have reached the point where a few guardians of wikibooks can no longer stand to have wikiversity present. It seems strange that a wiki that was struggling to be born just two years ago is now in a hurry to push another fledgling wiki out of the nest. I think many supporters of the wikiversity idea may wonder why other wiki projects have been given name spaces during the past two years while wikiversity has not. I suspect that most of the supporters of wikipedia are busy working to feed their families and do not have time to make noise and lobby for a wikiversity namespace, but if the wikiversity was created they would start to contribute to it. --JWSurf 18:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

All of that is by-the-by. Wikibooks is a place to write free text books, not a place to run pet projects. Wikiversity should simply be deleted, and if people want to continue their project, find their own servers. Dan100 18:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

undadored links
The main "harm" I have noticed it the use of undadored links links. Any unadored link goes into the main namespace of wikibooks. For example I found the a link to Human Resource Management on School of Library and Information Science

Now guess what - That link is a redirect to Fire Officer IV/Human Resource Management and has nothing to to with "Library and Information Science". This is ony one example. Wikiversity has hundreds of those unadored links pointing to Wikibooks. Most of which are - luckily - still red.

There are several problems attached to this situation:


 * 1) What_is_Wikibooks - Quite a few of those links would better point to Wikipedia.
 * 2) Naming policy - Quite a few of those pages break the Naming policy.
 * 3) Policy/Vote - Quite a few of those pages would better be chapters of larger books.
 * 4) Those links will all be broken when Wikiversity gets it's own server.

As it is the situation is bad for Wikibooks now and will be bad wir Wikiversity in the future.

--Krischik T 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reassurance
Ok, can the most vocally opposed people here please assure those of us who are interested in preserving what Wikiversity has done so far will not be deleted until the new domain is created? Dumping onto meta is only slightly better but it seems like the frustration of wikibookians to rid themselves of this project is akin to chopping down some overgrown bushes in your garden and then throwing them into the neighbours' house. I do appreciate that it is annoying to many, but can you also acknowledge that many people would be completely shocked if this were to just vanish? Can we, for the moment, treat it as "pending transwiki" and then just pound the developers on it? Cormaggio 15:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't get it posted here earlier. I have set up a time-table for what needs to happen with this project and is tied to this VfD. If this process goes through according to formal Wikimedia Foundation policies, the earliest that it can be transwikied to a whole new server is going to be November 15th. I think that a deletion of content from Wikibooks before then would be a very bad idea, and I for one will strongly object if it happens before that time. Indeed, it won't be until January of next year on the time table before any serious deletion will really occur on Wikibooks. Is that acceptable?

Apparently the Wikimedia Foundation board is also taking a strong interest in Wikiversity, and considerable effort has been made to try and keep it as some sort of Wikimedia project. Of course the devil is in the details, and it is the details that need to be worked out. If you want to see this project succeed, please get involved with the new project proposal, and voice your opinions on what Wikiversity should be looking like. I am not trying to kill this project, but trying to find a good permanent home for it. By turning this into a formal new project proposal, there are existing policies that can be enabled in order to make this whole project idea succeed. In addition, DON'T STOP CONTRIBUTING TO WIKIVERSITY! If and when Wikiversity gets moved somewhere else, what is added on to the current set of pages here on Wikibooks will be transfered and anything that can be done to demonstrate the viability of Wikiversity will be useful to the overall discussion of how valuable it will be to the Wikimedia Foundation. Based on what I've seen so far and current support, I seriously doubt that it will be killed completely as a project. --Rob Horning 17:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rob, I think that overall that's a much better message to be sending. Yes, I am involved (sortof) in the project proposal and will be more so in the future. It seems that now what we need to do is get some developers' input - which seems harder now if Erik has indeed departed :( Cormaggio 08:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what the big issues are from developers unless MediaWiki really is incredibly crufty with regards to namespace redirection (i.e. notation tags for interwiki links like wikisource: and wikipedia:). That is a major bug, IMHO if that is the case, and something that needs to be changed.  The rest of what needs to be done in terms of setting up a separate wiki is fairly normal and something that happens all of the time, particularly to new language domains.  And wikiversity.org is already "owned" by the Wikimedia Foundation, so only a couple of minor DNS records need to be modified in order for en.wikiversity.org to be created... again something like what should happen already for creating a new language wiki for existing project.  As for the new feature requests that pertain to Wikiversity, I think that they will get priority (and perhaps developer support) once the need for such features starts to come forward.  Do what can be done "manually" and then try to demonstrate why it would be useful.  --Rob Horning 10:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki software
Why doesn't someone create a wikibook or wikiversity on programming the wiki software and hope some wikibook users will help with implementing the new features? --V2os 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There is documentation on the MediaWiki codebase at []. Its not really the issue here though- while certain enhancements would be nice, we aren't stalled waiting on software changes. This is really about where does/should the content be placed. --Gabe Sechan 22:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)