Talk:Wikiversity scholarship

I'm interested in this project, but seeing as I have not contrubited anything, I'm not yet listening myself as a participant. The Jade Knight 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

External recognition

I've been actively involved in university life from undergraduate to post-graduate student, to researcher, lecturer and Prof. since 1975 (both in Europe and the Americas, in addition to industry-baseed R&D on both sides of the Atlantic). For the past couple of years I've been an active and enthusiastic contributor to Wikipedia etc. I had great hopes for Wikipedia, but it has, in many ways, exceeded my expectations.

I feel that the "versity" suffix throws us into a whole new, and very much more exigent and critical arena. (And rightly so. -I expect that the people who'll come here won't be seeking "general knowledge" but rather, expecting something much more advanced). I fully support the initiative, but feel duty-bound to express my concerns that contributors MUST adopt a very conscientious, rigorously self-critical and professional attitude (be they formally "qualified" or not) when preparing their submissions, edits, suggestions etc. etc.

"Versity-level" respect and recognition can only be won by long, hard work, but can be lost in the blink of an eye !

Have no doubt, numerous representatives (probably the majority) of the traditional academic community will be very vocal in denouncing any error or misconduct, no matter how insignificant or short-lived. It would be an enormous pity to see such a noble project flounder under such criticism. wikityke 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

against NPOV

i don't believe wikischolars should be neutral:

first, because no one is neutral;

second, because trying to be neutral when one is not means reducing our own discourse, thus crippling both our knowledge and passion;

third, because the strongest argument for NPOV does not apply to wikiversity. that argument being "on regular institutions, there's no room for every political position to be represented, therefore scholars must take neutral positions on teachings and publications". however, as long as wikiversity is open and free, there'll be always room and forks.

capi ^talk 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about the proposed Wikiversity NPOV policy? --JWSchmidt 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

i believe it is good, however it seems to me that it believes diversity cannot cooperate. i mean, if i display left-wing on a resource, it'll probably keep the right-wing away. when discussing topics such as keynesianism, it'd be wonderful to see left, right, libertarian, neocon and postmodern approaches coexisting. forking works, but i think forks can be on the same page, different sections - and this is just to make sure it'd be possible to view them all and merge knowledge into comparative approaches.capi ^talk 06:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a mandatory NPOV will undermine the ability of wikischolars to present original research in a credible and convincing way. When one goes to college and takes a public speaking class or an English composition class one is instructed to write and speak about that which one has passion for. In persuasive presentations, essay or otherwise, one is required to take a side and present a case for it. Scholars champion the fields they study and the methods they use.

A scientist champions the scientific method in favor and perhaps in defiance of other philosophical or religious methods. In that respect a scientist is most definitely critically biased as is necessitated by his field of study. If I as scholar of the origin of the universe had to stop and present all the other views on the origin of the universe, I would be unable to get to the part about what science has to say about the origin of the universe or what a dissenting voice in the scholarly community at large has to say about the origin of the universe. It binds ones ability to do what scholars are supposed to do by their very nature: Engage in critical discourse regarding fields of interest.

Beyond that I like the guidelines presented, and I do believe that one should disclose one's position. I believe that is the point in this case. I believe that in favor of NPOV it would be more beneficial to the scholars to implement a system of responsibility and accountability. In college, the entire point of learning the MLA, APA, Chicago, etc formats is to learn the system of accountability and credibility that has been developed over the past century or so. In the talk pages, the signatures we use are a form of just such a system, so our comments and opinions are attributable to us.--KickAssClown 11:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)