Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikiversity/Vote/it

< Wikiversity | Vote

Traduzione da qui

ang | ar | de | diq | el | en | es | fr | it | pt | sr | tr | zh  modifica


Regolamento di voto:

  1. Il voto inizia il 15 Settembre 2005 alle 00:00 UTC. Si potranno ancora tradurre le istruzioni per il voto e la pagina della proposta in altre lingue dopo l'inizio del voto.
  2. Per votare, bisogna avere un account registrato qui su Meta con un link sulla tua pagina Utente Meta sulla tua pagina utente sul wiki a cui partecipi più attivamente.
  3. Il voto si concluderà l'1 Novembre 2005 alle 00:00 UTC (il voto potrebbe essere prorogato di una settimana se necessario).
  4. La proposta ha bisogno di due terzi (2/3) dei voti a favore per passare alla direzione per considerare se farla pertire come progetto beta (maggiore sarà il supporto, più breve sarà il periodo di durata della versione beta).
  5. Se, dopo una settimana di votazioni, c'è più del 90% di accordo tra i votanti, e più di 10 voti, il progetto potrebbe essere fatto partire subito sotto approvazione della direzione della Fondazione.
  6. NOTA BENE: Questo voto serve a determinare se far partire Wikiversity come progetto Wikimedia in ogni lingua. Se Wikiversity partirà come progetto nella propria lingua o no, questo sarà determinato separatamente se la votazione avrà successo e se la direzione approverà il progetto.

Si può votare una volta sola. Si prega di leggere l'intera proposta per Wikiversity prima di votare.

Si possono formulare domande su Wikiversity sul canale IRC #Wikiversity (irc.freenode.net).

Se il voto avrà successo e la direzione approverà la creazione di questo progetto, allora de.wikiversity.org e en.wikiversity.org saranno lanciati come siti sperimentali. Dopo 6 mesi la direzione studierà i progressi di queste prove e determinerà se dovranno diventare progetti beta, essere chiusi, o se il periodo di sperimentazione debba essere estesa. Se la direzione approva Wikiversity come progetto beta, allora a questo punto versioni in altre lingue oltre all'inglese e al tedesco potrenno essere lanciate come beta. I progetti Wikiversity esistenti in altre lingue oltre all'inglese e al tedesco continueranno su Wikibooks come collocazione temporanea, e lo sviluppo potrà continuare lì fino a che questo periodo di beta non si sarà concluso. Nessun progetto Wikiversity in altre lingue su Wikibooks.

Durante il periodo di voto si potrà cambiare il proprio voto. Se si decide di farlo, bisognerà prima rimuovere il voto dato precedentemente. Voti sia positivi che negativi da parte dello stesso utente saranno cancellati da entrambe le parti.

Dovremmo lanciare il progetto Wikiversity come descritto su Wikiversity?

Si prega di indicare il proprio voto se si è interessati a partecipare a questo progetto

Sì

edit
  2. kalinyaprak 10:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC) nice concept, wikis are the future of learning![reply]
  3. Zephram Stark — I would be interested in converting my courses to the Wikiversity if it has a more stable form of Reputation Management than the bureaucratic hierarchy of Wikipedia. 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Gabe Sechan 00:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ian Stanley 12:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC) I love it. Imagine being able to take a course on almost any subject![reply]
    • Awilkinson 00:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Great idea!(Link does not actualy point to a userpage)
    • Winterlord 00:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)(Link does not actualy point to a userpage)
  6. Marcos Antônio Nunes de Moura 00:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC) I'm interested in portuguese version of this project.[reply]
  7. NGerda 01:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JWSurf 00:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ambi 03:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Brim 03:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Robert Harrison 04:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Dovi 05:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adam12 08:16, 16 September 2005 (CET)(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  13. Bokken 06:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Daniele 07:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ourobouros 08:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Nojhan 08:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Interessé par une version française.[reply]
  17. Starwiz 11:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Sounds like something I'd enjoy being involved with[reply]
  18. le Korrigan bla 11:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Shanel 11:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Rdb/de:Benutzer:Rdb 11:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. John N. 12:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. None 12:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Traroth 12:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Alvaro 13:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC) fr[reply]
  25. Aurox 13:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC) really interested to collaborate to en based and also fr one, if ever born. thinking about a it version... (it's one of most bautiful wiki-dea i ever heard)[reply]
  26. vanGore 13:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC) could it be too early? I dont think so. Be bold.[reply]
  27. Garrett 13:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Faager 15:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (fr)[reply]
  29. MisterX 15:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC) IT - Why not?[reply]
  30. Ascánder 15:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC) - Interesado en participar en la versión en español.[reply]
  31. Nick1915 16:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC) io a quella italiana!!![reply]
  32. Langec 17:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Javier Carro 17:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Though I understand certain skepticism of those who say that it seems too early,... let's try it! lot's of people is longing for it.[reply]
  34. Anthere Comment : the project is not only about opening YET another university. Its frame is much larger.
  35. Physchim62 20:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Would be interest in participating in English or French. I feel that this project would be complemantary to Wikipedia, helping to improve the latter as well.[reply]
  36. Chairboy 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC) - Comment: I really like the idea, and have sketched out some concepts that might help spur conversation on my wikipedia user page.[reply]
  37. Jacoplane 20:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC) I was sceptical about wikinews, but since that was successful I think this might just be too.[reply]
  38. Eloquence 21:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (The software isn't there yet, the planning is lacking, and the name is too limiting. But the idea of building a global, free institution of learning carries an amazing potential for humankind. Giving people an official framework to develop this idea seems reasonable, especially when denying it now would likely kill it for the forseeable future.)[reply]
  39. Nilsandi 01:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I like the project, I would like to contribute within the Mathematics/Computer Science field of knowledge, focussing on the german project. If someone helps, I would like to prepare a set of slides and exercises for the subject "Informatik I" (Computer Science 1), which usually deals with introducing Java and some other basic Problems, like the "Halteproblem" and the term "algorithm".[reply]
  40. Marshman 04:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC) I must say I find the reasons to vote "no" that are stated below to be quite compelling. Still, these Wikimedia projects have a way of stumbling around completely clueless and then just seem to right themselves and sail into success. I expect this "launch" to pretty much show the same course. But you gotta launch...[reply]
  41. 4lex 07:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Participé en las pruebas en español. Dispuesto a trabajar en el proyecto.[reply]
  42. Chaos 11:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Taxman 13:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Enough potential to make a pilot worth it. I'm skeptical it will work, but we'll leave that to the people passionate about it. Few thought Wikipedia would work either.[reply]
  44. Bobwinmill 14:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) The chicken or the egg? Moot point. The egg is laid, let it be hatched. Then, we will see the chicken. Be Bold, BE VERY BOLD.[reply]
  45. Slehar 15:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Yes! Do it! It is a very powerful idea! The current academic establishment is so ossified that we really need an alternative![reply]
    • Gryphon688 17:23 17 September 2005 (UTC)(user page is missing link to "most edited")
    • Garrone 00:47 18 September 2005 (UTC) (user page is missing link to "most edited")
  46. Cormaggio @ 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Am very interested in helping create this resource. I think the criticisms below are valid (ie. too soon, no vision) but it needs its own domain, a group of dedicated and hopefully experienced volunteers and a proper brainstorm to see what we can really do with it - what an opportunity! Here's my vision..[reply]
  47. Snowdog 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. on2see 9:35 AM, 18 September 2005 (EST)
    • osaminha 14:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)(user page is missing link to "most edited")[reply]
    • Digby I think the notion of an anarchic University whose identity will depend only on the quality of the ideas that it transmits is excellent although its success will require major effort from some dedicated people(user page is missing link to "most edited")
    • sramam It's an excellent idea. The experiment should definitely be tried. (user page is missing link to "most edited")
  49. Alex beta 19:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC) I am interested in participating. I have already been working in the School of Philosophy in Wikibooks.[reply]
    • Fephisto 18:56, 18 September 2005 I have learned so much from Wikiversity, and letting it have the ability to spread into video format, etc., is pretty exciting. I actually don't think of it so much as an unacredited university, as a just more focues learning format.(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  50. YolanC 00:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC) -- intéressé par une version française (interested)[reply]
  51. 555 02:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC) - I need to help in portuguese language version.[reply]
  52. Super1 06:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Jb-adder 08:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC) I'd love to work on the course creation side of things for Wikiversity, especially the mathematics and computer science end of it.[reply]
  54. Blakwolf 12:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Chun-hian 15:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC) - Say yes to Wikiversity![reply]
  56. Suprano 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC) - This is a great idea. I love to see some activity in this project[reply]
  57. Masterzora 22:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC) I would love to both use and contribute to this. They don't want it on Wikibooks, but it's too good of an idea to completely abolish.[reply]
    • Boku wa Kage 18:15, 19 September 2005 (GMT-4)(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  58. Rmrfstar 00:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC) - Does not belong in Wikibooks and is quite deserving of its own project.[reply]
  59. ~Amish 03:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Klingoncowboy4 03:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shuikaun 23:55, 19 September 2005 (GMT-7) i always like learning more(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  61. Taichi - (^_^) 06:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Destrogal 07:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC) -- The vision is there, but there is a great need to make the wiki-professors feel like they should contribute to this cause. As of right now, I do not see any cause for this. There is no ultimate goal. What need be told is that, as wiki-professors, you are not only creating a text in some instances, but you are also creating a course. That is, you are creating lectures, demonstrations, and assignments. You are discussing topics and not simply letting your course sit for days.[reply]
    • Martin.Wiki 08:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC) - There is already quite a lot of material for lectures and exercises on the web. It is though possible to encourage people to contribute. Wikiversity would help to provide an easier access to scientific material for educational purposes. (not signed with wikimedia user)
  63. Chlewey 09:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Purodha Blissenbach 11:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC) - I do not expect accredition to be a problem at medium sight. We shall find corroborators in existing universities and academia. Some are even eager to jump start new traits of teaching. Apparent organizational/technical success of Wikipedia imho attracts institutions to link into well defined Wikversity projects with their own ressources and support. I want to see this as an experiment to grow over the next 10 years, then maybe re-evaluate Questions such as credits etc. internationally.[reply]
    • Cidandrade 13:31, 20 September 2005 - I hope help this wiki.
    • Arthur Eisele 17:48, 20 September 2005 - Wikibooks should be a subproject of Wikiversity, not the other way around. (user page is missing link to "most edited")
    • Nakki 11:20, 20 September 2005 (user page is missing link to "most edited")
    • spitzl 22:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC) I think it's worth a try.(not signed with wikimedia user)
  65. Taejo 21:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC): Understand concerns expressed below, but the infinite ideals of the wiki projects appeal to me.[reply]
  66. Kwhitefoot 21:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC): A qualified yes. I just hope that what is intended is a University and not yet another vocational training system. Accreditation should not be attempted, it will only drain energy and time away from the real work of a University which is education not training.[reply]
  67. Magicmonster 23:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC) This seems like a great idea and, with enough effort put into it, could rivel wikipedia[reply]
  68. GalaxiaGuy 23:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  69. splintax (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Sounds like a great idea.[reply]
  70. Michiel Sikma 08:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Sure is early, but if you kickstart this project and nurture it carefully during the first six months, you'll surely be able to at least build a proper foundation for when the project reaches its maturing stages. Software enhancements to MediaWiki can be made after there has been created a reason to. For that reason, I vote yes.[reply]
  71. Alphax 08:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Mattwj2002 12:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC) I think it is important for people to easily self educate, to help with humality projects like educating people in Africa, and to give teachers a tool that can help in the classroom. I believe that this proposal could really help make this a better world.[reply]
  73. Pirenne# 14:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Canaen 03:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  75. GerardM 13:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC) It is good for its own sake but it will also generate a need for functionality. :)[reply]
    • Crystal Matrix 19:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)(not signed with wikimedia user)
    • kaivalya 22:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Rock on Wiki!(not signed with wikimedia user)
    • ChidoOne 19:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Knoledge belongs to te world and anyone should have acces to it.(not signed with wikimedia user)
    • fwk2005 13:00, 22 September 2005 Exciting idea!(not signed with wikimedia user)
    • ajdlinux 06:52 Australia/NSW, 23 September 2005 Great idea!
  76. Mydotnet 02:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC) I would say to put the resources to wikibooks, but voting yes is the lesser of two evils[reply]
  77. Greudin alea jacta est
    • Tratos(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  78. Adamforster 15:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Misza13 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC) Great idea - give it a try![reply]
  80. La ratica 17:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Rovenhot 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC) I think free materials for educators and students would be an excellent idea, as long as the materials were well-developed.[reply]
  82. Greenman 23:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  83. WiseWoman 19:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC) I don't think that this will be any sort of revolution - I've been in eLearning too long to believe the hype. But I am devoted to openContent, so I want open eLearning materials! I think it's an excellent idea even without accreditation.[reply]
    • 80.178.7.92 21:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)(not signed with wikimedia user)[reply]
    • Lilka 00:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC) (user page is missing link to "most edited")[reply]
    • Serveracim 00.40 25 September 2005 (GMT +02) tr I'm interested in collaborating with this project, especially the Turkish version. I am a music teacher at the Malatya-Inonu University-TURKEY. I've published my lesson notes in my Personal Page. So, I tested the result about the interest of my students. They are really interested. I want to create online lesson pages in this enviroment. I want to join to the educator's team. This is a huge chance for me. (Ben bu projeyi tüm kalbimle destekliyorum. Ders notlarimi bu sayfalarda yayinlamak isterim.) (user page is missing link to "most edited")
    • Lilka 00:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC) (Users are only allowed one vote and missing most edited link)[reply]
  84. Matt Yeager 05:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Romihaitza 11:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC) I agree with the fact that we must have strong projects and we must work to thowse we already have but this is a great idea which can add more users to sister projects also.[reply]
  86. Hellisp 11:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Patio 12:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Windsamurai 18:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Cronian 03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Korg 05:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Ramir 09:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC) No reason for "no".[reply]
  92. ClareWhite 10:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  93. This could be an exciting project. Warofdreams 12:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Masterhomer on en.
  95. User:singpolyma
  96. User:Shannon 11:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Roger Gianni 19:14, 27 Septembris 2005 (UTC), Optime
  98. Hardern 20:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC) definitely yes - this is one of the most extraordinary projects I have ever seen, although not already developed enough to look like it ;) the idea of free education for ANYONE fascinates me, and we should do it![reply]
  99. Risk 21:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Zscout370 00:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Lets give it a shot.[reply]
  101. Staeiou 00:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC) This sounds cool[reply]
  102. PatrickD 13:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC) I like wikiversity![reply]
  103. Bevo 15:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Andymadigan 17:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Ryan524 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) -- I support wikiversity as an addition to wikibooks but I don't think it should be a seperate project.[reply]
    • S.rice 5:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC) I think that this could be a good idea. (user page is missing link to "most edited")
  106. Gkhan 08:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC) extreme heterosexual support. The details can only be worked out within the scope of the project itself. If people had said wikipedia didn't have any clear goals before it started, well, i do not dare think of it Gkhan 08:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Malafaya 15:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) I'm looking forward to it! It's like a dream coming true :)[reply]
  108. Toothpaste 20:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Andre (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Strangely appealing idea.[reply]
    • sais72 (talk) 9:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC) good idea(user page is missing link to "most edited - did you realy thing I would not spot the red link?")
  110. Tmh 13:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  111. porao (responder) 13:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC). es: project
    • Benbakelaar 14:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC) I think it says it all in the first paragraph "After 6 months the board will review the progress of these pilots and determine if they should become beta projects". This is a 6 month pilot and so I think the points brought up in the No votes are not really so applicable.[reply]
  112. Ghost Freeman 15:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Tooby 21:31, 30 September 2005 (CET)
  114. Severino666 23:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Akir - I was wondering if wikibooks would ever get some structure! I wonder what will happen about forming classes though...
  115. Vardhan - Sounds like a good idea. The pilot period should help us know the feasibility/success, and generate a stronger conceptual and technological foundation. On face value the proposal looks exciting in its wiki aspects and also because its not 100% clear and will emerge in true Wiki style.
    • L0ne We can change the world with something like this! Keep up the good work, Legion of Wikipedians! - 11:51 1 October 2005 (CET)
  116. Platonides I think this is a good project, although hard to made (probably as any in the beginnings create an encyclopedia?? how many people though it impossible?) and i myself wonder how could i help on it - 11:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  117. Deprifry 14:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Yakoo 20:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Ulenspiegel 21:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Roberth 03:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC) I hope everybody realizes that this is a vote for all languages, not just English. I don't think the objections to getting this project going are sufficient to derail what is happening either, although I do agree that there needs to be more organization and coming up with some real classes. The main point is that Wikiversity needs to get on its own high-profile project and end the past couple of years of stagnation that it has seen so far.[reply]
  121. Why not? Let's Try.Truth 03:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's get this rolling ASAP. There are too many illiterates on web anyways...imagine one of those coming by, and deciding to learn something new in life! GO WIKIVERSITY! (No voter signature)
    • zemurph This sounds really cool. (user page is missing link to "most edited")
  122. Sj An idea with great energy; it is incomplete now, but will draw in new and very dedicated contributors from outside of the wikiverse. This will not be a zero-sum shifting of the attention of current Wikimedians. aduni attracted amazing attention for its efforts at a free-content university, but was not collaborative enough to make use of that attention... we will do better.
  123. Ral315 00:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Klaus Heinisch 09:30, 3 October (UTC): Wikiversity maybe the keystone of the great wikipedia-building. Years ago i planned and thougt about something like wikipedia and wikiversity. Then wikipedia cames along and destroyed my small vision, replacing it by a greater one. Education has to become radically reformed to help us, keeping the world a liveable place...
    • jhaykage 01:17 October 3, 2005 (HK)can't wait to enroll!
  125. Guaka 22:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Good idea! Let's get it started![reply]
  126. EAi 23:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Sounds great! Love to see how well this works.[reply]
  127. WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo 00:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Af 00:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC) This is a great opportunity to develop the art of wiki-writing and share knowledge in a consolidated area.[reply]
    • cagdasaruI'm realy interested in this project and i want it to have a Turkey part.
  128. Vipuser 07:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC) we can build labs in Wikiversity[reply]
  129. Cution 19:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  130. bj_predator_0919 October 5, 2005 12:51 p.m. i'm saying yes to wikiversity because i want to teach what i know and i wanto to be part of such a good project. there should be a filipino version of this project.
  131. X1987x 21:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC) i hope i have a high wiki GPA![reply]
    • Lincher 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Bonne idée. Tenter d'implémenter une banque de textes qui se rapportent à l'école et ainsi faciliter le travail des étudiants en classe en ayant d'autres livres de référence, j'y crois. Bravo pour cette initiative. (user page is missing link to "most edited")[reply]
  132. cache Wikibooks and Wikipedia provide great material. But to really learn things you need more - a place like wikiversity. It's the next big step. I am going to support this project.
  133. PabloBD Let's give it a try
  134. Irmgard 13:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Collaboration in English / Mitarbeit in Deutsch depending on subject[reply]
  135. Mark Elliott 05:41, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) I'm very much for the project - it is the next step in providing education free to the world. I would also be happy to create a course - or two... I could also see wikiversity being useful for courses that no longer have a home in the institution for whatever reason - i.e. budget cuts etc - and are languishing without students.
  136. ∞Who?¿? 14:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC) I think it is a good project, and will help the already booming community. Some of the comments of getting Wikibooks further along should be heeded, but should not hinder the start of the project.[reply]
  137. Liblamb 17:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Let's try and see.[reply]
  138. Titoxd 03:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC). Who needs a degree? All we need is for someone to want to learn, someone to want to teach, and a place to make both meet. Wikiversity would be the place.[reply]
  139. Tingo 07:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Connor Doyle 11.oct.2005.10.17.am je pense que c'est une bonne ideé! bon chance. i've been looking forward to something like this for a long time... screw accredation, information is what matters. paradigm shift!(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  140. Sdalge 16:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Athanor 15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Ottima idea! Sarebbe uno strumento fantastico da usare[reply]
  142. Moolsan 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kmiles 15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)WONDERFUL! Cant wait to see it and USE it. I highly support this idea. (user page is missing link to "most edited")[reply]
    • howeman 21:42, 12 October 2005 (EST) Even if you can't get a capacity to test and grade people, even having pages designed to teach people subjects is a great idea, and will enhance the other Wikipedia projects. Reading an article about String Theory can be very complex, but if you can follow a logical progression of courses, you can eventually teach it to yourself. Having pages designed to teach information and not just spill it out is the very essense of what I think Wikipedia should be. Not just a place to dish out information, but a place to promote unerstanding and learning. (user page is missing link to "most edited")
  143. Phroziac (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Absolutely. We are supposed to be combining most of the (useful) information in the world here.[reply]
  144. Creepyguyinblack 23:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I am eagerly awaiting the future of mass participation education. We will be changing the way that information flows.[reply]
  145. Pedant17 01:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Tarawneh 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Dionyziz 10:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Great idea.[reply]
  148. Chworld 10:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Nothing to say, only great.[reply]
    • Ragpicker8 I could only dream of it. But your proposal shows there are people to actually translate dreams into action. Your project would fulfill urge for learning for millions who cannot afford to go for expensive University couses for actual learning. I emphatically say yes and wish the proposal the best.
  149. Wolfrider 22:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Great idea.[reply]
    • tboard 20:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC) YES, would love to work on it. (php and mysql wise) I think the human consciousness collective is ready for such endeavor. To grade and professionalize the information collected and contained in a single human mind can lead to new way to grade the learning processes that we are experiencing in a high-tech oriented culture. Also it can bring university to economicaly challenged people with hunger for knowledge, Self-taught people and underbudgeted schools and universities. This project could seed the way to big changes. BIG YES. (user page is missing link to "most edited")[reply]
  150. Merovingian 05:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC), I probably won't have anything to add, but it's a good idea.[reply]
  151. Jeff8765 23:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  152. GoodStuff 12:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC) I'd like to see this become a reality.[reply]
  153. Kowey 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  154. LostLeviathan 23:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC) I would enjoy seeing this project become a reality a great deal. It's an ambitious idea, and seems very likely to become a useful educational resource. I would certainly enjoy contributing to it personally, once the technology is developed.[reply]
  155. User:Willy78 00:24 17 October 2005 (UTC) It's a "beautyfull mind" idea. I approve.
  156. Cspurrier 17:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Forza4 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) . This will be a great impulse to Wikibooks through Wikiversity.[reply]
  158. Teemul 20:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC). Uhh... I am very skeptical about this. Still in the description there are more good words – such as: “progressive educative community”, “collaborative learning” and “students will take charge of the activity”, than bad words – such as “electronic testing”. I hope this will give a new life for the old great idea of academia and does not become another “university”.[reply]
  159. Paulgiron 21:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Jaberwocky6669 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom Bartlett Great idea! 19:53, 20 October 2005(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  161. Penaz 13:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Timothy J Scriven Knowledge is the death of tryanny.
  163. Martin 01:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Jacques FATTACCIOLI 12:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)A GREAT idea ! That can be useful for anyone ! High-Level Courses for students, researchers etc etc...[reply]
  165. Jon Harald Søby (talk, contrib) 17:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Finferflu 18:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC) i like the idea[reply]
  167. E^(nix) 18:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC) I would like to do a course on differential geometry.[reply]
  168. elguajiro I love it. Breaks away from "slave mentality" (e.g. working for someone else's benefit) of traditional indoctrinization method that is the educational "process".
  169. Lareon 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Hexapode I think it could be one of the best project of wikipedia.
    • Micro506 A terrific idea.(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  171. Clayrocks Good idea.
    • FrancoisGuite An absolutely splendid initiative.(user page is missing link to "most edited")
  172. Banana04131 17:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Rayd 22:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC) If anything doesn't fit in wikibooks and is useful, then it needs a place to be put. Why not put it here and transform education while your at it?[reply]
  174. EBOLA rulez 08:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  175. BZiL 13:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC) I strongly support Wikiversity and especially the french one ! That's a very cool idea ![reply]
  176. Cmassa1 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC) I would love to help in any way I can. I think its a great idea.[reply]
  177. rogerbarnette 23:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC) We homeschool. The Wiki projects form a tremendous value for the education of humanity. We don't yet count on it, but would love to have a place to contribute the materials that we prepare. I don't see it as competing with Wikibooks, but rather a location for the courseware that will call upon books to complete the educational experience.[reply]
  178. Edward 11:23, 25 October 2005, paris. It could be good for student who want to know somethings themselves.
  179. --Orso franca 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  180. --RobKohr 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  181. --Gurch 18:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Definitely. One of the better project ideas I've seen.[reply]
  182. Miki88 20.46, 25 Ottobre 2005 Interessantissimo!
  183. tumaini99 11:36 26 October (CET) Possibly a revolutionary concept. Great.
  184. shenme 02:28, 27 October 2005 (The secret word is "stretch")
    • Very good idea. One more vote for a go. 11:06, 27 October 2005 (CET) Not signed properly.
    • N C I vote yes Not signed properly.
    • omar 20:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)--omar 20:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Not signed properly.
  185. SimRPGman 03:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Most interesting idea that I would love to be a part of.[reply]
  186. Thomas Horsten 15:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC) An exciting experiment, who knows if this could be the educational revolution of the 21st century.[reply]
  187. Worth perservering. Valid issues have been raised and the way to address them is to keep working on it. Andrewa 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Lunarian Moogle 4:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Yes. I think this is a very interesting idea and would love to see it started.
    • Vedant lath 09:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Wikiversity is a great idea. I think if we can do this correctly, a revolution in studies is sure. Now it seems like only a project like wikibooks where you can only see text pages with images and nothing else. But if we add features slowly (while the textbooks are being written) a whole eUniversity can be made. The curriculum is another matter, it can lead to deep issues, like, students who live in Nepal will always get high scores in things related to mountains, which can lead to bias among students. Best wishes for the success of Wikiversity.(user page is missing link to "most edited")[reply]
    • Ndesi6213:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC) This is my first time voting, and I vote Yes...... Can someone explain how I'm supposed to do this?[reply]
    • Basejumper12314:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Wikimedia is ready for a big next step, but the issue with being the universiy of the world and still having every person be a contributor is just not realistic. Wiki can do this, but one has to wonder how far it can go. I vote YES to a small testbed of this sort.[reply]
  189. A Link to the Past 15:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Interesting idea. I like it.[reply]
  190. Erico Koerich 16:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC) - Projeto muito interessante e não substitui o Wikibooks.[reply]
  191. Cookiecaper 21:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC) I'm down, this will be a good thing to see.[reply]
  192. Karmafist 04:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC) As long as we get wiki Spring Break ;-)[reply]
  193. katpatuka 14:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC) - give it a chance...[reply]
  194. MonsterOfTheLake 16:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Can't wait till the "how to make an atomic bomb" article.[reply]
  195. Ryo 07:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC) nice & ambitious concept, worth a try![reply]
    • Vika Zafrin Oct. 31, 14:54 UTC – Sounds great, I'll play.
    • User:Iguane39 Oct. 31, 16:15 UTC - I think researches and universities will win a lot with a wiki about that. (fr)
  196. --Antoine   (Let's chuchadas begins) 16:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC) parece bueno[reply]
  197. Molly 21:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC) I definitely think it could go somewhere. I'm up for it.[reply]
    • User:JeremyBoden I would like to see this. There are bits of wikipedia which would form a skeleton.
  198. Emijrp 22:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Que ondaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![reply]
    • Alexevasion22:30, 31 October (UTC) I have issues with how the Wikiversity project has thus been framed in discussion, but I remain in full support of the project moving forward and working out the kinks along the way... I have almost completed converting my course materials from my Principles of Sociology course at the University of Florida to wikiversity formats.
  199. Jobe6 22:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Athrash 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Gospel 101[reply]
  201. Bduke 08:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Payxystaxna 12:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC) I think it is a great idea. This type of project would enable sharing of knowledge worldwide, while enabling everyone who wishes to learn to do so.[reply]
  203. GRYE 12:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Absolutely. It will mark a point in the evoltion of human learning experience[reply]
    • User:Enaam --Enaam 01:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC), This is a wonderful idea that will revolutionize the way education is distributed throughout the world. Not only will it open previously unimaginable opportunities to people all over the world, but it will also be a fine example of what the wikimedia foundation's vision of free education is all about. I fully support this proposal and look forward to helping out in anyway I can.[reply]


y

No

edit
    • 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/it&oldid=316560"