Wikiversity talk:Review board

Note: the early discussions of this page were imported from the Wikimedia meta-wiki and were about an earlier version of the page that used the term "faculty" rather than "referee".

discussion from the meta-wiki

Original research
In the current version of the Wikiversity proposal, "conducting research and publishing results" remains as part of the stated mission of Wikiversity. I think the clear intention of the proposal is that Wikiversity support and fosters scholarly “secondary research” (literature reviews). However, the current proposal also says, "Whether or not Wikiversity will host original research or secondary research is still the subject of debate." If Wikiversity allows original research then special effort will have to be made to deal with crank theories and the problem of "original research spam". I think it is safe to say that original research will only exist within Wikiversity if a policy framework can be developed by the community to deal with the potential problems of original research. In Faculty club and Primary research I have tried to sketch a system by which Wikiversity might be able to adopt a "some original research" policy. In my view, the goal would not be to make original research a priority within Wikiversity, but it would be useful for the educational mission of Wikiversity if there were a system that allowed some original research, particularly in special subject areas such as the study of how wiki communities function. --JWSurf 03:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But what is a faculty member?

I don't see exactly what a faculty member should be at the Wikiversity. We have teachers, but they can just as well also be learners in different subjects.

I introduced the idea of a Teaching ring as a group of people who teach on a particular subject.

Faculty clubs in the Real World (tm) are exclusionary and make the members feel good because they are on the inside. What would the purpose really be in the Wikiversity? We can have Research rings and Teaching rings and Learning rings. The question of trust, as you have noted, must be addressed. But we are not granting professorships here, we are in the business of open education. --WiseWoman 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

---

"exactly what a faculty member should be" within Wikipedia.
If Wikiversity does eventually allow some original research then Wikiversity will need to deal with the problem of sorting "crank" theories from valid research efforts. At Wikipedia, editors with expert knowledge in various subject areas are informally relied upon to spot bogus content and remove it (example of a bogus Wikipedia article that took 4 months to remove). Such an informal system is adequate for Wikipedia because all content at Wikipedia either cites verifiable sources or it can be deleted....even a non-expert can often look at cited sources and decide if Wikipedia content is verifiable.

The main function of a Wikiversity faculty member will be to provide the skills of an expert to the task of sorting "good" content from "bad" content. It would be possible for Wikiversity to rely on the same informal system that exists at Wikipedia and not create a special "functionary" to deal with "crank" content that could be confused with meaningful original research. However, I think having a formally selected group of functionaries to sort "good" content from "bad" content at Wikiversity is a reasonable approach to dealing with problems that will arise from allowing some original research content at Wikiversity.

As is mentioned above, the terms "faculty" and "faculty club" have established connotations. By using these terms at Wikiversity, there is a risk of people jumping to conclusions about what a Wikiversity faculty member is. However, groups of wiki "functionaries" do not "feel good because they are on the inside". They feel good because they apply their experience to the task of performing specific duties for the community, duties that the community has trusted them to perform.

"we are not granting professorships here" <-- Having a group of trusted functionaries called "faculty members" has nothing to do with professorships. I used the term "faculty member" because I was thinking of a formal system within Wikiversity that would include experts for various subject areas. Many universities find it useful to have divisions such as Social Sciences, Engineering, Law, Medicine, Fine Arts. Universities can have faculty members who are recognized as experts within a particular domain of study such as the "Faculty of Natural Sciences". I think it would make sense for the Wikiversity community to have "faculty members" for each subject area in which Wikiversity participants engage in original research. These Wikiversity functionaries would be expected to use their expert knowledge to help the Wikiversity community judge if Wikiversity content is useful research or some sort of "crank" theory or "spoof" of actual research. Wikiversity faculty members would be called upon to use their expert knowledge as a basis for explaining to the Wikiversity community how to distinguish actual research from bogus content that only has the superficial form of research. The term "faculty club" is just the name for a wiki page. I expect that the main Wikiversity page for faculty members would eventually look something like this, a page that explains what faculty members do and supports the tasks that they perform.

Beyond the fundamental function of Wikiversity "faculty members" (described above), I think there are additional functions that could be performed by these Wikiversity functionaries. If the Wikiversity community goes to the trouble of selecting trusted members of the community to serve as "faculty members", it will be natural for the community to try to make additional use of their expertise. In conventional universities, faculty members are often called upon to serve as advisors for students. I think it will be reasonable to expect Wikiversity faculty members to be aware of the resources that are available at Wikiversity and be able to advise other Wikiversity participants on how to find and make use of those resources. Another function that Wikiversity faculty members should be able to help with is facilitating interactions between Wikiversity and educators outside of Wikiversity. These were just possibilities that came to my mind when I tried to think of a coherent system that would make it possible to have some original research inside Wikiversity. The Wikiversity community will have to decide on the types of "functionaries" to have and what their duties will be. --JWSurf 16:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Expert (in a particular field) is a more accurate term than faculty member.-Hillgentleman 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Quote:"The main function of a Wikiversity faculty member will be to provide the skills of an expert to the task of sorting "good" content from "bad" content."
   • Sometimes it may be difficult to distinguish orginal and bogus materials. If wikiversity is to ask a university professor to evaluate the material in wikiversity and censor those which she decideds to be bogus, then I cannot see how wikiversity can serve better than any university.
     • (But an expert can certainly participate in the discussion of a study which he considers bogus, and explain his reasonings.)
   • I would prefer the dicotomy: Bold and free in study/research; Careful and Conservative in formal publication.

-Hillgentleman 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: migration from meta

I made some important changes to this page when it was imported from the meta-wiki. The older discussions above refer to the original page content at meta. --JWSchmidt 19:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Newer discussion

• I think the ambassador function is very important and potentially transformative for all concerned. A colleague of mine is already planning on using wikiversity as part of her media art course that she is teaching in the fall. they will contribute content, and more people will get involved. the university experience will open out to the public spheres, and everyone will be the better for it. --Smithgrrl 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of "Expert" discussion

For some departments (and perhaps for all), it is absolutely necessary to have trusted members of the Department who can analyse materials and offer an opinion on them—Material on Wikiversity absolutely should not be decided solely by democracy (particularly in the case of original research). I think it's important we have some sort of provision for "experts". I also think that individual Schools and Departments should develop the procedures for this selection themselves, and have it ratified by the Colloquium in general (to help avoid people creating a department, setting up a bogus system, and clinging to it).

In History, for example, there is bad history, mediocre history, and good history. Even trained Historians often disagree about what is historical fact, but they can (or should) be able to focus on methodology over fact, and come to an understanding of what is appropriate history. It'd be good if the School of History were allowed to come up with a system to set apart contributors who demonstrate knowledge of good historiographical methodologies and have a review process that they could engage in to verify content/methodologies. The Jade Knight 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

May I also add that I don't like the name "referee"? I think we need to come up with a better term. "Referee" a) reminds me too much of sports, and b) makes me think of someone who's there to make sure people don't break the rules (which is more of what custodians do, IMO). The Jade Knight 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Usually we only talk about the referree of a paper, and not a referee in general. An expert of a field is called an expert.-Hillgentleman 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree in general with the idea that in order to identify an expert in a field of study it helps to be well informed about that subject area. If Wikiversity ever does develop a system for identifying "experts" and giving them special duties, those decisions will probably depend heavily on making use of the kind of process that recently took place at the Wikipedia WikiProject for Molecular and Cellular Biology to select a director for that content development project. However, the peers of a "community expert" could probably write a report documenting the past contributions of the candidate. That report could then be easily reviewed by others from outside of that special subject area to make sure that good choices are made. In any case, the actions of "referees" will always remain open to continuous evaluation by the community. The name "referee" was just the first thing I came up with. I'm sitting here now thinking "community expert", "community facilitator" or "community advisor". --JWSchmidt 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the name "advisor". "Expert" would be suitable only if it were ensured the individual in question knew the subject field in question extensively (IMO). The Jade Knight 07:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

arXiv.org

w:ArXiv.org started off as a pre-print archive and now it is considered somewhat-formal. Authors sometimes cite these pre-prints as references (cautiously so, and knowing who the trustworthy authors are). They recently introduced a sponsor system.

Wikiversity, or wiki-publication, may learn from its experience. One may consider them as one step beyond arXiv.org.Hillgentleman 10:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Citizendium's policy

Citizendium (http://citizendium.org / http://pilot.citizendium.org) asks its contributors for their Curriculum Vitae, and have stricter requirement on their editors (i.e. what we call experts, referees or faculties here). Wikiversity may learn from their experience. We may not actually need such a special type of users, but the (non-obligatory) CV of a contributor tells other participants of a study project how much he can be trusted. And every referee of a piece of study should have sufficient (i.e. industrial standard) qualification, outlined in a CV in her user page. ---Hillgentleman|User talk:hillgentleman 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What about tutors? People say they have experience in a certain field, and take on "tutees". If they are just pretending, then the tutees will look for other tutors. If they actually are experanced in a filed, it could be reflected in there teaching.--Rayc 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Tutor - Yes - ultimately the students know the teachers best. It is better if tutors post their CV's here, but it is not absolutely necessary. On Wikiversity, somebody may ask a question, anotherbody answers it, and the somebody decides for herself whether to trust the otherbody. But this procedure would not work for refereeing.-----Hillgentleman|User talk:hillgentleman 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Boards are a bad implementation

I would like to voice an opinion that I have been developing along with my social research: boards are a bad thing. What I would like to implement is a fully democratic organization that seeks to release control thereby implementing honesty -- which is, in fact, the security strategy of wikis in general. Boards, in contrast, give power to those who seek control taking it away from the general population. Those supporting boards may argue that boards are generally democratically elected, though the Wikipedia "empire" seems to work through a different model. Electoral democracy is singly one of the most disappointing aspects of human society, and among the most corrupt where their corruption is easily disguised through a variety of tactics -- most recently multi-culturalism.(The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.14.195.245 (talk • contribs) )

This strikes me as a terrible idea, unless what you mean by "fully democratic" is that it is fully democratic about those who know about the subject, as opposed to the population in general. What is good history, for example, should never be determined by popular vote. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 08:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the proposed role of the research review board: "The Wikiversity peer review process must be entirely transparent and openly conducted in wiki format. Wikiversity referees can act to facilitate and guide the Wikiversity community as it reviews original research results within Wikiversity." It is just a way to utilize community members who have a history of constructive editing in a topic area to help guide community review of research. --JWSchmidt 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)