Hi everyone,
I would argue that the Discourse and P2PU profiles actually show different types of participation. The Discourse profile shows participation in terms of discussions about P2PU, whereas the P2PU profiles show participation in terms of courses and badges. In my opinion, the P2PU profile is more valuable, as the courses and badges are the core of what P2PU is about; learning. Whereas the Discourse profile seems (to me) to display āmeta-participationā, in that, whilst the conversations are valuable, they are abstractly removed from the content consumption and contribution which is more directly linked to learning.
@dirk, I donāt understand what you mean? Are you suggesting that because a user on the site does not have complete control of what others see when they look at their profile page, it is not a good idea? I think that the fact that content in the profiles is automatically generated and cannot be edited by users provides a validation on the truthfulness of the data portrayed in the profile. Thus adding weight to a userās contributions and participation within the community. I think that if a user could have free reign to say āI did this, this and thisā without verification mechanism, it would have less validity in the eyes of others. ā¦ Or am I completely missing your point (I feel I might be)?
I personally do not love that phrasing. āPhilipp considers himself to be part of a larger communityā : This phrasing highlights the subjectivity of the inclusion into the community. I would argue that the inclusion into a community is an objective certainty by virtue of continued participation within that community. Then āHere is how you can participateā seems to be an advert (well, maybe it is an advert).
I would like to offer the alternative wording of āMember of Peer 2 Peer Universityā. It is simple, easy to fit into a design, leaves no room for semantic misinterpretation (as I am guilty of with the above phrase), and the word āMemberā has no implicit power relation, and is quite democratic. When placing text on other peopleās spaces, I think less is more.
Perhaps a discussion of this would be better placed in a new thread. However, my ātwo cents worthā is that approaching this as āallowing people to mark content as P2PU coursesā will be a technical nightmare. Perhaps a better approach would be to allow people to apply on the P2PU website to have content or courses listed in a community directory of learning resources. This can then be easily moderated, and the application process can allow for a standardized set of data to be provided for each piece of content being submitted. That is my suggestion regarding a technical solution. However, I would ask the question of what is it that makes a course a P2PU course rather than simply a P2P course?
Regards,
Ralfe