Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikiversity/Vote/Votes no

< Wikiversity | Vote
    • Ryang2 06:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)i would REALLY REALLY love to see something like a Wikiversity in the future. For now, i regret to shoot the idea down but the truth remains that simply being able to read material about a course online is NOT what defines a University experience. The guidance of a professor, who is a researcher with experience and a unique insight into his/her fields, who can provide the details of the on-going development of the subject, as well as students with varied experience and background is VERY IMPORTANT. We are missing these now and i don't see such things being feasible with the given computing technology accessible to the general public (not everyone owns a webcam/broadband connection to download tons of media/the capacity to be connected almost 24/7). I do realize i am very lucky to have these. Plus, where are the professors? Hopefully we are not talking about slap-dash demi-qualified pple who don't know the subject they are going to teach very well? There are LIMITED number of professors on this planet. And it's sad but true that many of them doesn't even know Wiki (they might know Wikipedia as a researching resource, but the power of real-time editing in Wiki...?) For a similar effort to WikiVersity, and one i think that is doing VERY WELL , please see MIT OpenCourse Ware and please bear in mind that this one is designed to compliment the coursework for students who are currently enrolled.(user page is missing link to "most edited")[reply]
  2. Shizhao 01:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC) some wikibooks--Shizhao 01:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ucucha 05:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elian 11:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC) it's not the moment yet for such a project, clear concepts are missing etc.[reply]
  5. Geni 13:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC) the world doesn't need another online unacredicted university. key concepts don't appear to hve been thought out.[reply]
  6. Yann 15:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC) This project doesn't seem well focused, we need first to stabilize our current projects before starting new ones, and solve technical bottlenecks. Yann 15:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Flyout 16:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC) I see no clue and too less concept for this (in the core great) idea. By the informations provided by now, I see this project more in a vision-state than in execution-state. For me it sounds strange, creating something called a University providing several divisions from scratch without offering any graduation. As long as there is the aim to give the potential students a real advance for their career by doing a Wikiversity course, there must be (in my point of view) at least a certification of any kind.[reply]
    I also do not agree with the idea, that this project could be based on the standard Mediawiki software:
    • There is a need for some update-protected regions to ensure a minimum level for the students (i.e. tests).
    • It is strange, wanting to provide E-teaching materials without any multimedia extensions in the standard software.
  8. Datrio 16:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Too early - simply too early[reply]
  9. E-roxo 17:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Fito leave me a message 17:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Eclecticology 20:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC) It's certainly short of the vision when I first suggeste the name to Mav. In the two years since it has never gone beyond writing textbooks which happened to have been called course outlines. Has there been even one "student"? Has anyone thought to ask what our prospective students want? We aren't ready yet.[reply]
  12. Michael Snow 21:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC) The concept is not ready yet. It needs to have a vision, if not necessarily a full implementation, of something more than simply posting syllabi and reading materials. That can be done with Wikipedia/Wikibooks/Wikisource.[reply]
  13. Vev 21:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC) i am disagree to have many entities, for me WP is beyond an encyclopedia[reply]
    • Chalisimo5 22:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC) ¿Have you seen how many titles there are in wikibooks? At least, in spanish, its poor. I think we should improve wikibooks first and then begin to think in things like this. the idea is good, just it's not the moment.[reply]
  14. Jeff Q (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I like the Wikiversity idea in principle, and I don't agree with those who are concerned about the state of the project, as I believe it might be better developed as a separate project than as an awkward piece of Wikibooks. But I'm very concerned about diverting the board's attention from persistent performance problems with existing projects. For example, I'm finding en:Wikipedia exceedingly difficult to edit right now, right after we raised nearly a quarter of a million dollars for the MediaWiki projects. Whatever growth we've had to this point should have been dealt with by the last round of funding, so that we don't have these problems. When we can accurately anticipate growth of the flagship project and expand the overall system to meet it, then we can launch another major multilanguage project.[reply]
  15. Goals not defined. Nichalp 05:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cinabrium 05:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Other project like Wikibooks should get the attention instead. Rune 09:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Red Baron 12:24, 17 September 2005 (UTC) The concepts are too unclear...[reply]
  19. There's a vital projekt on ZUM.de, which aims to collect teaching material for schools. I propose to support this projekt first before starting one for university level. Second: The idea about giving certificates through a wiki-project is utopia and not compatible with the free character of a wiki. -- Thkoch2001 07:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "Es ist nicht gestattet, Materialien oder Linklisten ohne unsere explizite Genehmigung auf anderen Servern zu spiegeln" - according to my rusty German, you can't copy from that site, so it's not not a form of competition. 62.121.101.201 21:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it states that it is not allowed to mirror contents on other servers. The "Lizenz" states that commercial use is not allowed. There is a lengthy discussion page that exhibits sound uncertainty about what is allowed and what is not allowed. (Typically german.) Have a look at it and you can see why we need a clearly free wikiversity. 84.160.234.158 18:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Not clear enough ; I don't see what it could do that Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc. can already do. - Darkdadaah 17:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Too early and not clearly defined. We shouldn't be spreading our efforts too thinly. The wub 21:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Hello World! 09:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC) The prerequisite to start Wikiversity is to close Wikibooks. We don't need two projects. I suppose merge the idea of Wikiversity into Wikibooks.[reply]
    • It would be kind of difficult to merge Wikiversity into Wikibooks since that's where it currently sits! The whole point of it being proposed as a new project is that a lot of people at wikibooks thinks that the "Wikiversity" deviates too far from the stated goal.
    • Be bold. Wikiversity should strive for nothing less than a fully accredited university. Steps haven't been made toward academia at all, lacking proof that students learn or guidelines to that end, thus falling short even of current goals. Plus there's no insight. Everything proposed is either non-wiki or can be accomplished in wikibooks just by extending the definition. Davilla 11:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Too early, not developed enough. James F. (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I find this a great idea, but I don't think it is ready, for many of the reasons expressed above. notafish }<';> 18:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Not unless something concrete is suggested. I can't see how wiki would make this resource unique. Smoddy 20:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. it doesnt seem to me that this project will add anything new that the other wikipages dont have (especially with a strong similarity to wikibooks). We should save the effort, and focus on improving the pages we already have --Whiteknight 02:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Gentgeen 07:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Amgine 22:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Multiple missions, proposal reflects a lack of knowledge of the state of online accredited instruction, project would require a different software or massive extensions/expansion of Mediawiki.[reply]
  29. Jayson Virissimo 20:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC) I think this is a great idea and would love for it to happen but I think it is just too early to start another project of this size at this time. First we need clearly defined and realistic goals. Once the goals are decided upon then we should begin work on the basics of how the software should work. It's just too early guys.[reply]
  30. Get_It (WP:PT) 14:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Micru 16:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC) We're spreading too thin. Other projects still haven't consolidated, so it's too early for starting another one. Please, wait at least a year, and solve the technical issues in the meanwhile.[reply]
  32. This seems to be a duplication of effort — the learning material already exists on Wikipedia and Wikibooks and discussion with professors in guided courses would be best implemented with a forum system/email/instant messaging, not Wikis. (Will free online courses work? Or will they be inferior to commercial online universities?) Andrewmackinnon 19:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. We should focus on wikibooks and wikipedia. Pfv2 14:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I don't think it will work. Our existing projects are more than enough. Dan100 08:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Let's increase our base resources first - we just started Wikispecies, and I think we need a WikiWho's Who first, something I can't find anywhere else and something that a university student would need as a resource. Virgil 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. It will never work. How can you neutrally hand out "diplomas"? How can you hope to decide who the teacher will be? What if I want to start a class that already exists? How will credit be earned? How will you teach a class without even the ability to have real-time discussion? This is only the tip of the iceberg folks. It can't survive.--Naryathegreat 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. It can't work. Wikipedia is a great encyclopaedia. Wiktionary is a great dictionary. Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, and those guys have the potential to become great at what they do. I cannot, however, see Wikiversity becoming anything more than a random webpage where people give each other diplomas and have wars over NPOV. Lord Bob 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I agree with the other here that wikibooks would be a better place for a lot of this stuff. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. All I can say against has bee said before: "Let's increase our base resources" — "focus on wikibooks and wikipedia" — "duplication of effort" — "strong similarity to wikibooks" — "Too early, not developed enough". --Krischik 08:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I agree that wikibooks would be the best place for this things. --Helios89 13:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Southgeist 19:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Noch ein "wir könnten doch mal"-Projekt :-(.[reply]
  41. Trevor macinnis 22:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Jtwdog 23:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC) What's the rush? It just takes more oxygen away from WikiBooks.[reply]
  43. RealGrouchy 03:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC) We should first develop materials on WikiBooks, then spend time on organizing it. There is too much administrative effort required to start up WV, and this will just eat up our server requirements. BTW, who is double-checking the validity of votes, and proper voter registration?[reply]
  44. I think it's too soon. Perhaps in a couple of years this will be a good idea. -- Dominus 14:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. The whole point of using a wiki is that a team of volunteer editors collaborating and checking each other's work is more accurate and neutral than any one person who volunteers to be the teacher. Every article in the 'pedia is a work in progress; who can say when a lecture is complete and accurate enough? GUllman 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Currently. Its plan hasn't been developed well yet, the technical resources including servers seems not to capable to run one another major project, the software required to this project seems beyond the features of current MediaWiki; In addition, if one wants to get open content eLearning materials without accredibility, there is already Wikibooks. --Aphaia++ 22:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Xiaojeng 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Who are qualified to be teachers? How can one ensure the teaching contents reach a certain academic level? The reason why I like Wikipedia is that everyone here is equal and no one has privileges or is smarter. And that is how Wikipedia works. However, Wikiversity seems to be going into the opposite direction, which raises someone to be teachers and puts others down to students. Wiki should be a place of no teachers and students, no tests and certificates. What's more, without a certain administration (from a government or sth), the quality of teaching can hardly be guanranteed, I am afraid.[reply]
  48. I'm not convinced the user base or value is there to make this successful; if it isn't it is but a distraction and waste of resources. --Marudubshinki 00:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's all about standards and also collaborating with existing active learning communites already out there. More specifically, in order to have Wikiversity we need a Learning Management System LMS and there already are plenty of good ones out there being used the world over. We also need to have standardized learning objects (see also above url). Why should we recreate the wheel? If we could host one of the open-source/open-standards thriving LMS initiatives, then I would instead vote yes.--Jweden 21:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like a good idea, but is way too early. Let's build Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects to be more of a household name before we launch something like this. Bonus Onus 00:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Anthony DiPierro 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC) It's too good of an idea to let it get bogged down by Wikimedia bureaucracy. Wikimedia is supposed to be about media, and a university is much more than just media. Are Michael Davis, Tim Shell, Jimmy Wales, and Angela Beesley really interested in being on the board of directors of a university? I see anthere has voted yes to this idea, but I don't see even a vote from the others. I'd rather see Wikiversity as a separate entity which works hand-in-hand with Wikimedia, especially Wikibooks. If the project needs any help setting up its own 501(c)(3) entity I'd be glad to provide my assistance. Then the Wikimedia Foundation can donate the domain names to the new entity. Contact me through en:Special:Emailuser/Anthony_DiPierro.[reply]
    • Projects like this can easily lead to the Wikipedia community over-extending itself, if it has not already. The backbone of Wikipedia, its encyclopedia, is clearly in its infancy. Although the number of articles is increasing exponentially, the vast majority of pages are poor, and only a handful actually resembles encyclopedia entries. Merely to keep the existing Wikipedia encyclopedia as a viable and useful project will require substantial on-going contributions to improving existing content. In addition, many basic operational issues must be refined to avoid further disillusionment of contributors. It is important to place the existing projects on more solid footing launching new ones.Sbucher 00:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • amit_karnik 12:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) I think this is an excellent idea at the wrong time. I think we should first plan some pilot course offerings for a few(about 2,3) disciplines and let the software, the process and the community grow around it before we take steps towards something such as an University.[reply]
  50. Yxtiger 12:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) I love this idea, but strong opposed to establish WIKIVERSITY. Reason is: researching and teaching are complex procedure, not only meterial. So there must be so many software to support communicate/coordinate/level test/advice etc., it's a so hard project!!! 我喜欢这个主意，却强烈反对实施wikiversity计划。理由如下：研究与教学是复杂的过程，而不仅仅是资料堆砌。因此，需要有很多的软件来支持交流、协作、水平测试、建议等，这实在是太困难了[reply]
    • Sohmc 17:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) I think this is a great idea, but just that. I think much more goes into education than just reading and learning. And I agree with others on the "no". I think expanding other projects should come first before taking on another project, especially one that will be very complex.[reply]
  51. Insufficient preparation. 119 01:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I love this idea, and I do think it's possible. But I agree we need to start with a small test bed, just a few courses, and I don't even think we're ready for that yet. We need to focus on strengthening existing projects, the quality and comprehensiveness of the content; and, as other users have said, it would behoove us to have learning management tools ready before we decide to launch. Also, one of the potential software needs outlined in the Wikiversity proposal is the single login, and I don't think we're close to implementing any of the proposals on that( though I could be wrong?). -- WikidSmaht 08:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Dedalus 14:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC) If you do want to have wikiversity - rename wikibooks to wikiversity[reply]
  54. I don't think it's a good idea. Enochlau 01:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • actinide 11:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Absolutely not. There are already too many unaccredited online "universities" floating around. Let Wikipedia and Wikibooks just remain what it is and has been: a great resource for student research.[reply]
  55. There is still a LOT of work to be done on Wikibooks. This project should be held back for a future date. Gmcfoley 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I think a wikiversity would be a serious mistake. A university has two functions--to teach, and to give credit--if you passed a course at Ohio State in molecular biology, Ohio State will happily tell that to the world. What happens when people want to claim credit for a wikiversity course? (The name is part of the problem--wikischool would be much better.) The wiki is excellent for creating and disseminating useful documents, and it should stick to that purpose. Chick Bowen 00:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. This is pure Wikibooks territory, nothing else. Almafeta 07:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. This is a wonderful idea, it's such a great concept, it's incredibly nifty, and there is no way in hell that it's actually feasible. I've taught before, I've corrected the homework of university students, I've worked with professors... it's the whole milieu. A university requires actual skilled professionals, who need to stay current in their fields, and who need to be paid. We can't do that. DS 18:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  59. We don't have the resources to support yet another project at this time. —Kate | Talk 18:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. This seems like it would be more logically handled by WikiBooks. Cohesion 21:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Wikibooks is as sluggish as it is... We don't need to divide up our editors even further... Ross Uber 07:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Originally reading about the idea I was for it. But reading further it's clear that it's just not the right time for it. Other projects need to be fleshed out before this is started. Sempron 04:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Although this would be a great long-term aim, let's get the material on WikiBooks etc. up and going first. --Harriseldon 13:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. As per Marudubshinki: I'm not convinced the user base or value is there to make this successful and we should focus on developing Wikibooks instead. --Eleassar my talk 15:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Pointless waste of time. No employee will accept a Wikiversity "degree" and for private amusement you can read the -pedia instead. Fornadan 20:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the 10 billionth time WE DO NOT PLAN TO GIVE OUT DEGREES. WE DO NOT PLAN TO BE ACCREDITED. Wikiversity is to be a collaborative education environment, not an accredited university.
  66. Martinroell 13:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)the concept is too vague and appears not very well thought out to me.[reply]
  67. ··gracefool |☺ 23:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Better to improve Wikibooks.[reply]
  68. Not yet, concept and software not ready. Schewek 15:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • James L 16:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC) This is a very involved project that should remain in the scope of Wikibooks. The pages already semi-completed could be substituted into the Wikibooks and allow the community to decide which page they like more. Once Wikibooks and Wikipedia reace a sufficient maturity Wikiversity should be able to launch without a hitch. If more immediate results are wanted then have a "teaching function/lesson plan" as a subset of the Wikibooks so that people inspired to contribute to Wikiversity can still create the lesson plans. As of right now this is perhaps spreading the Wiki too thin when the focus on bringing the other current Wikis to some higher standards of education.[reply]
  69. Wikilivros. Os usuários que falam português não estão prontos para mais um projeto.
    Wikibooks. Portuguese-language users are not ready to yet another project. --E2m 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  70. A great long term goal, but too soon. I'd like to see some consolidation. I was swung by how quiet it is at Wikibooks CoTM and the currently depressing state of Wikibook - Art History. I think the University should be founded on a great library. At the moment Wikibooks is at best nascent and, at worst, filled with all sorts of as yet unnoticed (to be blunt) crap. --Bodnotbod 11:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  71. yes to wikischool combined with the 100$ laptop no to wikiversity (yet) lacking the academic userbase needed Pitsch
  72. --Gaf.arq 03:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC) I don't think that all of the Wikimedia community is ready to hold such a project. That's a bold and interresting idea, but there's a long way to make it doable.[reply]
  73. Most certainly not. This will drive away much-needed help from Wikibooks; wikibooks is already not doing as well as it should be, and this will just make it worse. We need to focus a lot more on the quality of Wikimedia projects, and stop creating an endless stream of new projects that threaten to damage the credibility and reputation of all Wikimedia projects. Besides, I don't see why wikibooks can't provide a close-enough alternative. Textbooks are the most fundamental learning resource, and courses often mirror these textbooks. There is also no reason why quizzes to test users' knowledge cannot be incorporated into textbooks. -Frazzydee 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  74. No, reluctantly. I would like to see some proof of concept first. Do you have a single course ready? A single lesson? Great idea, wrong time. A wiki-powered unaccredited (or even eventually accredited) university is a spectacular idea. But the software isn't ready yet, the community isn't ready for the workload yet, and the world is not yet ready to pay that much attention to an unaccredited university. (The day will come, though.) Furthermore, I believe that this development would benefit much more from competition, so rather than having one "Wikiversity" from the Wikimedia organization it would be better to have several from independent sources. No matter how much NPOV you get, one Wikiversity is still going to provide a one-size-fits-all education. The first Wikiversity needs a second Wikiversity to learn from, and vice versa, so neither needs the blessing of being "the official Wikiversity" from Wikimedia. Jdavidb 19:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is my suggestion: start it yourself. Use Wikicities, or set up your own MediaWiki installation. Build one single lesson, first. Then build a couple more lessons. Then build a test over those lessons. Then build a course. Then build a couple more courses, until you have a department. Along the way I imagine you are going to face a lot of issues you haven't thought of, yet. You will probably need modifications to the MediaWiki software (testing and multimedia are two mentioned above but I'm sure there are more) and I honestly suspect you will need more than just a wiki. Once you have a course, you can invite people to take it and issue your own certification that they have done so and with what grade they passed. If you have done a good job, your certification will eventually speak for itself. You can do the same thing or something similar once you have several courses and a department: issue a certification that a person has completed an assigned program of study within that department. Once you have gotten that far you will have picked up more steam and there should be plenty of workers around to start building the other departments and you will have your university. Along the way if you are doing a good job it will probably have been adopted as a Wikimedia project. But, again, I think there need to be competing universities, and I think they need to grow from the bottom up, with single lessons, single courses, and single departments before having something big enough to offer a valuable but unaccredited degree. Jdavidb 19:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Rather than starting new projects the ones already in existence need to develop and grow up more first. There are only so many users and they can only do so much work. When so much time is spent reverting vandalism it leaves less time to do other things. Drknexus 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  76. everythin' said. Schaengel89 @me 18:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  77. We should focus on bringing quality content to WikiBooks before launcing yet another project. --Orderud 01:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea is intriguing and brilliant, no doubt an endgame objective of wiki development, and certainly and inevitability as more contributors continue to build up Wiki projects. But in order for the project to be useful, there should be informational foundations laid within Wikimedia's other projects in order to make development easier. Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wikibooks need to be developed and expanded in a way that reflects the methods and subjects taught in Wikiversity. These projects would hence serve as a de facto Wikiversity library for students and instructors. While Wikipedia may be ready for that at this point, Wikisource and certainly Wikibooks are not nearly complete enough. If contributors focus more heavily on building up material in Wikibooks and Wikisource, along with improving the quality of Wikipedia, Wikiversity would be closer to becoming what it eventually will be, given the exponential growth in Wiki's effectiveness at housing information.--MatthewMitchell 03:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)MatthewMitchell(user page is missing link to "most edited")[reply]
  78. Just expand the mission of wikibooks to to include this and dump it there, we don't need yet another project. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  79. The Wikimedia projects are not yet clear enough about their own internal workings to start constructing a University-style project. All the wikis have edit-warring, POV-pushing and all the rest of it. There is no place at all for that in a product that sets out to deliver quality education. That, by the way is a distinct goal from gathering knowledge, which is the role of the various Wikipedias. -Splash 14:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  80. I think it is too early to start this project. I oppose setting up this project so soon. Do this at a latyer date. We are not prepared enough. --Ruennsheng 11:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  81. What a stupid idea. Purplefeltangel 04:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Premature, and furthermore textbooks can already be at wikibooks. David.Monniaux 07:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  83. I think it is far too early and more thought needs to be given to this idea. Steve block 13:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Venex 19:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Wikibooks is more consistent than this is, as in it can be a repository of tutorials, and it would require the same effort from users. I just can't see a wiki working as planned for Wikiversity, and it just wouldn't be, well, "official" or meaningful out there. (sorry, I can't word things better). Kieff 23:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Timing not right. Significant overlap with wikibooks. Where it does not overlap, the emphasis is on technology, which leads to concerns about primary projects competing for developer resources, --Tabor 23:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Just seems like a duplication of Wikibooks, with a slightly more ambitious mission statement. Babajobu 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Seems too much like Wikibooks (at least as of right now) to me. WikiFan04 00:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, our focus should be on Wikibooks. Wikiversity is at least a year away.
    • Jcarroll 05:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC) It is a great idea! I look forward to it. However, it currently lacks a fundamental difference from Wikibooks and Wikipedia to be a separate project; it needs professional professors able to give of their time. The underlying technology of MediaWiki isn't ready for it yet...[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity/Vote/Votes_no&oldid=15936819"