Talk:MIT OpenCourseWare

message: All videos of their youtube channel have been deleted together with other educational channels.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/user/MIT/videos
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/BlenderFoundation/videos
But this might be based on my country, Germany. When i open the links [0,1] it says "there are no videos", can anyone outside of Germany try to open these links?
--Scisne  21:44 UTC 18. Jun. 2018  —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube has taken down all videos?

message: MIT has refused to provide Opencorseware meeting the definition of courseware. [A class one could use to master the the subject matter] Mit only provides curriculum outlines and certain related info. Not Courseware.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.213.199 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MIT does not do Open Courseware

message: They admited to lies and changed their home page:
"OCW shares free lecture notes, exams, and other resources from more than 1700 courses spanning MIT's entire curriculum."
 We all knew the 1,800 number was false but there are only 9 courses with the fontent needed for a person to teach or learn the class from.
 Thank you Wikipedians for forcing them to tell the truth!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.213.199 (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MIT Admits to lies

message: Is there a reason to keep the subject list? It seems so comprehensive that its meaningless. Doug Alford 15:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject list

message: There are several other schools that have OCW now, including Utah State (http://ocw.usu.edu/), Johns Hopkins (http://ocw.jhsph.edu/), and Tufts (http://ocw.tufts.edu/).  Perhaps OCW should not redirect here, but be its own article? --Uttaddmb 21:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There is no such thing as "courseware" or "open courseware" or "OCW" outside of project names themselves. It is "course material" or "open course material" or better Open educational resources we are talking about. Plain English is called for in Wikipedia articles. --Roger Chrisman 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The redirect from OpenCourseWare to MIT Open Course Ware was canceled, because the word "OpenCourseWare" is permitted in the world, Universities behind MIT maked up "OCW"'s site, maked up world wide consortiums and conferences for OCW. The article of OpenCouuseWare in Wikipedia is opened. Please add text if you know about OCW.--HATA A. K. (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: OCW ≠ MIT OCW

message: The article states that there isn't a lot of resistance from the faculty, but I wonder how many faculty would allow their lectures to be videorecorded and then put in public libraries for all to view. The MIT website states that the video streaming isn't accessible for a lot of people but I think tapes and CD's in libraries would be more accessible. --Anon.
::When I taugh 18.075 in the summers of 2000, 2001, and 2002, all of my lectures were videotaped.  For all I know, the tapes may still exist. -Michael Hardy 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Faculty resistance

message: Additionally we should discuss, at least via a link to a new article, the darkside of education.  For example, why isn't the US Dept. of Ed. publishing open courseware?  Does OCW conflict with private for profit curriculum development companies like Neil Bush's Ignite Learning and his cash COW (Curriculum on Wheels)?  What pressures, if any, do private companies like his put on programs that are beneficial to the nation.  
What damage might companies do to public policies in order to privatize (convert) national resourses.  Surely, if american tax dollars are going to curriculum development, shouldn't the licenses for these products be held by those who contracted to make these products.  Why should americans have to buy twice the products that their tax dollars produce.
I should say that I write this not knowing if the DOE is producing Video Lectures, applets, and online HTML textbooks.  I find it difficult to conceive that the DOE could possibly claim to be the leader for educational policy without doing so.  Nevertheless, there does not seem to be any usable link to such resources on the DOE website.
Additionally, I have spent many hours searching the internet, without success for government produced lecture series on High School and College mathematics.
I feel real shame that my country is not helping children and young adults to realize their potential by providing an excellent course of free online education at least through high school.
Other countries are doing this, e.g. Ireland and England have very good online education through high school. (See skoool.ie and the bbc's asguru.com. If we care more about our children than our wealthiest citizen's bank accounts, we will insist on free, firstclass, streaming video lectures and free textbooks online. --Anon.
:But can we discuss any of this in the article without decending into original research? --maru   (talk)  contribs 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why aren't others doing this?

message: I'm in the process of drafting a paper trying to argue for improving the MIT open course ware license to make it more wikimedia friendly.  The draft paper is on my wiki at http://www.gnacademy.org/joe.
--Roadrunner 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW: I like your homepage! Especially the "Q: Does convection help iron core collapse supernova models to explode? A: No" bit. Classic humor! (Funnier for me than you I suppose...) That said, what little I see of your essay (this is it, right?) looks like you are trying to argue for basically a Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribute license. --maru   (talk)  contribs 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been wondering about this too, esp for using the material at Wikibooks. With the current licenses, requiring attribution, would it be enough to have a notice (using a template) on the relevant page acknowledging the source, with the url to the specific material? --Singkong2005 talk 07:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making MIT courseware more Wikimedia friendly

message: OpenCourseWare redirects here; however other institutions do OpenCourseWare, including those listed at the bottom of OpenCourseWare Finder and I think the University of Osaka. --Singkong2005 talk 07:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created OpenCourseWare as a stub, and moved some material from here to there. --Singkong2005 · talk 22:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OpenCourseWare is not just MIT

message: From Steve Carson (scarson at mit dot edu), External Relations Director for MIT OpenCourseWare
Hi all,
I just stopped by to update the total courses number here, as I do from time to time, and I wanted to ask about the following statement and how it might be altered to better reflect what OCW is all about:
As of June 2009, of the over 1800 courses available, only 27 included complete video lectures, and not all of these have complete lecture notes. The lack of lecture notes makes it difficult to follow some lectures, for example, when the lecturer is referring to slides being projected in the lecture hall. The selection of available courses is somewhat incomplete. For example, prerequisite classes for a given course are frequently not available. However, the quality of those courses which include complete materials is very high, and many of the lecturers are extremely compelling. 
It seems to me the above includes a bit of editorializing about the project (eg "only 27 courses"). The factual statement would be "27 of which contain full video lectures").  "The lack of lecture notes..." line is editorializing as well, an unsupported opinion. Again, "The selection of courses is somewhat incomplete..." has a bias to it, considering that MIT's OpenCourseWare covers at least 80% of MIT's total undergraduate and graduate curriculum, far more than any other OCW site.  The line about high quality, while complementary, is also editorial in nature.  What is the Wikipedia policy on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.193.0.205 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: «The lack of lecture notes can make it difficult to follow some lectures, for example, when the lecturer is referring to slides being projected in the lecture hall» seems reasonable, so it may be considered "common knowledge", while "The selection of courses is somewhat incomplete" etc. needs a source; however, you can specify that no OCW does better (with a source), etc. The high quality, if undisputed, can be reported without a specific source. --Nemo bis (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for Wikipedia Community

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MIT OpenCourseWare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327130556/http://ocw.mit.edu/about/media-coverage/press-releases/iphone-lecturehall/ to http://ocw.mit.edu/about/media-coverage/press-releases/iphone-lecturehall
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified