Jim, sorry about the delay but I have been busy with personal business. > Protecting original efforts and years of research is a serious > question that WE and wiki's, in general, must come to terms with > before they will truly benefit the communities they serve.
Actually, much as gone on in this area, especially with projects such as the Open Knowledge Foundation (http://www.okfn.org) and Science Commons (http://sciencecommons.org) (the latter is part of Creative Commons). The point of what is called Open Data, is to allow data to be freely shared between researchers. This especially true with respect to the sciences where reproducibility is extremely important. For a good description read the about page in Science Commons (http:// sciencecommons.org/about) and look at the wikipedia article (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data) Best regards, John On Oct 20, 10:00 pm, jkelly952 <jkelly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Protecting original efforts and years of research is a serious > question that WE and wiki's, in general, must come to terms with > before they will truly benefit the communities they serve. > One reason I use some jpeg images to display research information in > my WE pages is to provide some protection > (like:http://www.wikieducator.org/ADDITION_%28DECIMAL%29_-_SUMA_%28ADICION%... > ). While most of my website k-12math.info is viewable HTML code, the > research is kept in a MySQL database accessed only by a PHP program. > The PHP program is to protect the information – having to watch > 1,000's of pieces of information from being “spammed” on a daily > bases is the last thing I want to do. > I am hoping that Wiki architecture will undergo some modifications to > allow approved information to be stored in protected areas – I am not > sure the "please don't edit this page" approach will work. > > Jim Kellyhttp://www.wikieducator.org/User:Jkelly952 > > On Oct 20, 4:31 am, john stampe <jwsta...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Hi, all. Just some thoughts on this. > > > First, I agree it is not a collaboration vs. protection agrument. In fact, > > I'll remind the list members that WE is under the Creative Commons license, > > which specifically does not prevent using and further changing of a > > document; but that is not the same as not wanting a specific page to be > > edited in place (but allowing copying and derivatives to be done). > > > Yes, I do think that a template might be the way to go. The templates > > probably should state not only the "permissions" but also very briefly why. > > For example, it is being used in a current course. Therefore, we may need > > more than three templates. > > > One possible wording for the template where the user wants some restraint > > (I use that term in place of restriction) might be something like "You are > > free to use this resource, however it is being used for a current course. > > If you wish to change it, please copying it to another page and make > > changes there." > > > Finally, I was wondering if it is possible in Mediawiki to have branches as > > most version control systems have. That way, using Wayne's example, a New > > Zealand teacher could simply branch the Ugandan project to suit his own > > needs. > > Cheers, > > Johnhttp://www.wikieducator.org/User:JohnWShttp://johnsearth.blogspot.com > > > ________________________________ > > From: Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> > > To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 5:17:49 PM > > Subject: [WikiEducator] Re: How do we support and respect educator > > contributions in WE? > > > Hi Savithri, > > > You're right -- the educational issues relating to context and educators > > who may not want their teaching resources modified is an opportunity for > > WikiEducator to find creative solutions. > > > We're very fortunate to have a dedicated and experienced team from India > > who will help us to find the optimal solution! > > > Seems that the template idea is the right way to go -- we'll fine tune the > > ideas based on feedback and develop a prototype template for review. > > > Cheer > > Wayne > > > 2009/10/20 Savithri Singh <singh.savit...@gmail.com> > > > Have been reading the interesting thread started by Wayne and between Wayne > > and Anil. I agree with Wayne that these are the kind of issues/questions > > asked about WE - specially when some materials are created for a particular > > context and people do not want it modified. In case we develop suitable > > templates indicating the intend of the authors then it should be acceptable > > > >Savithri > > > >2009/10/20 Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> > > > >Hi Anil, > > > >>Good idea -- lets get this done based on the feedback we receive on the > > >>list :-) > > > >>Cheers > > >>Wayne > > > >>2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com> > > > >>Dear Dr. Wayne, > > > >>>You are right. We may list out the instances with reason, the message to > > >>>be displayed for each instance, develop template and add it on consensus > > >>>pagehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensusundera proper sub > > >>>title. > > > >>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Wayne Mackintosh > > >>><mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>Hi Anil, > > > >>>>I see we're on the same page here :-) > > > >>>>I'm not calling or suggesting universal protection of pages -- far from > > >>>>it -- it's not the wiki way. > > > >>>>I'm looking for us to find solutions within the ambit of our consensus > > >>>>thinking to provide an indication to prospective editors to say > > >>>>"please don't edit this page" --- what I envisage is a template box > > >>>>which communicates this message -- including the range of reasons this > > >>>>may be necessary within the template box, without protecting the page. > > > >>>>Does this make sense? > > > >>>>W > > > >>>>2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>Dear Dr.Wayne, > > > >>>>>I think the ambit of consensus is so broad so that it can include > > >>>>>consensus to ‘do not edit’ :) such and such thing….by such and such > > >>>>>members….on such and such occasions etc etc Of course it has to deal > > >>>>>with editing guidelines and Policy for page protection also > > > >>>>>I am not challenging the cause to be got protected, but thinking about > > >>>>>the right documentation for the same. > > > >>>>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Wayne Mackintosh > > >>>>><mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>Hi Anil, > > > >>>>>>I think you're very right about consensus on resources where there is > > >>>>>>an intent to collaborate on the development of a "universal" resource > > >>>>>>which would be applicable in a wide variety of contexts. > > > >>>>>>However, consider for example a Ugandan teacher who is developing an > > >>>>>>OER on Ugandan history for a Year 10 Class in accordance with the > > >>>>>>Ugandan national curriculum. For instance, lets say a New Zealand > > >>>>>>teacher discovers this resource for possible use in a social studies > > >>>>>>lesson on East Africa under the New Zealand curriculum. Obviously > > >>>>>>the New Zealand curriculum requirements will be different regarding > > >>>>>>emphasis, year level and learning objectives. I don't think that it > > >>>>>>would be fair on the Ugandan teacher for the New Zealand teacher to > > >>>>>>edit and change the resource. > > > >>>>>>In this example -- I don't think that we are delaing with a > > >>>>>>collaboration VS protection issue. The Ugandan teacher would like to > > >>>>>>make his/her teaching materials avialble for adaptation and reuse in > > >>>>>>other contexts, but would not want teachers from other countries to > > >>>>>>alter the teaching materials in ways that it may not align with their > > >>>>>>national curriculum. (If you see what I mean.) > > > >>>>>>I'm thinking here of ways to best communicate the intentions of the > > >>>>>>resource creator. Its not protected becuase the content is freely > > >>>>>>available to be copied and modified for use in another learning > > >>>>>>situation. > > > >>>>>>On the other hand -- resources which are intended for univeral use > > >>>>>>(and ultimately part of an International Qualifications Framework) > > >>>>>>would need to focus and support WikiEducator's evolving consensus > > >>>>>>processes. > > > >>>>>>Does this make sense? > > > >>>>>>Cheers > > >>>>>>Wayne > > > >>>>>>2009/10/20 aprasad <aplett...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>Dear Dr. Wayne and other friends, > > >>>>>>>It is Collaboration Vs Protection; we need to fine > > >>>>>>>tunehttp://www.wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Consensus > > > >>>>>>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Wayne Mackintosh > > >>>>>>><mackintosh.wa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>Hi Everyone, > > > >>>>>>>>WE is a unique educational wiki project in many respects. We are > > >>>>>>>>different, for example, from Wikipedia in the sense that our > > >>>>>>>>collaboration is not focused on developing an objective > > >>>>>>>>encyclopedia entry resulting from the micro-contributions of a > > >>>>>>>>large number of editors. At the same time, we benefit from the > > >>>>>>>>advantages associated with mass collaboration, for example shared > > >>>>>>>>training materials. > > > >>>>>>>>Moreover, WE has organised itself as a community of educators > > >>>>>>>>working on a wide range of different OER artifacts, for example: > > >>>>>>>>open textbooks, OER courses for online teaching, learning > > >>>>>>>>activities based on external resources, lessons, articles and > > >>>>>>>>research papers, handouts, glossary projects for use as a reference > > >>>>>>>>resource, the establishment of project or community nodes, the > > >>>>>>>>development of funding proposals as free content etc. Other wiki > > >>>>>>>>projects within the OER landscape have organised themselves around > > >>>>>>>>the nature of the objects being produced, for instance: > > >>>>>>>>Encyclopedia articles in the case of Wikipedia or books in the case > > >>>>>>>>of Wikibooks . > > > >>>>>>>>Therefore we need to think creatively about how our community > > >>>>>>>>develops procedures to support the attainment of our individual and > > >>>>>>>>collective aims, while respecting the intent of the original > > >>>>>>>>creators. For example: > > > >>>>>>>> * There are institutions which develop courses on > > >>>>>>>> WikiEducator which are not intended for collaborative authoring > > >>>>>>>> due to local curriculum requirements. > > >>>>>>>> * There are individuals who develop materials on > > >>>>>>>> WikiEducator which they would like to make available for others to > > >>>>>>>> create derivative works, but would prefer not to have other > > >>>>>>>> educators edit their materials. > > >>>>>>>> * There are many projects in WikiEducator which are seeking > > >>>>>>>> wide collaboration and contributions from the community. > > >>>>>>>>So the question is: How do we support and respect educator > > >>>>>>>>contributions in WE given the different intentions of our > > >>>>>>>>individual contributions? > > > >>>>>>>>Valerie has alerted my attention to this important topic > > >>>>>>>>(see:http://wikieducator.org/Thread:Ownership,_status,_granularity_and_cat...) > > >>>>>>>> -- Thanks Valerie. So what is the best way to signify intent and > > >>>>>>>>"ownership" of OER materials in WikiEducator. How do we communicate > > >>>>>>>>and respect a contributor's intention where they do not want > > >>>>>>>>collaborative authoring and participation on their OER resources? > > >>>>>>>>If an educator finds a valuable resource they want to use and > > >>>>>>>>improve -- can they edit and change the resource without creating > > >>>>>>>>problems for the original authors resulting > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
