Wikipedia talk:Education Working Group/Proposal

Comment

Could the section Wikipedia:Education_Working_Group/Proposal#Members_of_the_Initial_Board be edited so that each name links to the user page of their Wikipedia accounts? Biosthmors (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone did this. :) Thanks for the suggestion! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Probation period

Why not make an explicit community probation period clear in the proposal's timeline? If the working group gets approval, shouldn't it be temporary? And shouldn't the community always be able to "fire" this organization if they are ever not performing up to community expectations? Biosthmors (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think my best answer for you is that the Working Group (and now Initial Board) will be following the procedures that the Affiliations Committee has already set up rather than creating a new process. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really follow, but thanks for the reply. I guess what I'm saying is this: if the organization eventually becomes a line item in the WMF budget, but then underperforms, doesn't the community have veto power to stop the WMF from funding it? Biosthmors (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(I'm not well-versed in this, and don't have a direct role in the Working Group / proposal process, but I'll try to answer as I understand it.) If the organization was still getting funding from WMF after the initial period, I expect that would have to be done through the (community-run) Funds Dissemination Committee. So the community would have the same sort of "veto power" it would have for other thematic organizations funded by WMF. (It may end up with at least some non-WMF fundding, though.) That said, I see that as sort of a bare-minimum of accountability; I personally will expect quite a bit more from the new organization than that in terms of making sure it's working as part of the community rather than at cross-purposes with the community (and I think you can see a similar perspective behind Mike Christie's Education program interactions with the community post). Fleshing out the specifics of community accountability, I anticipate, would be a major part of the initial board's work in the coming months.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Affiliations committee

Name

Hello, recently we had the discussion about the Wiki Med Foundation, which sounds nearly the same as Wikimedia Foundation. I could also imagine confusions coming from "Wikimedia Education Foundation – United States and Canada (WMEF-USCA)". While Geoff recommends not to use the term "Wikimedia" (for other reasons), I recommend not to use the term "Foundation". Also, this name form suggests that there are several Wikimedia Education Foundations, and this is the one for US and CA. Is that the intention? I would prefer one world wide thorg "Wikimedia Education", and have national organizations within it. Ziko (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the use of the Wikimedia trademarks has got a bit more restricted recently, especially in the name of organizations that concentrate only on a subset of the Wikimedia projects (see also Geoff's recent blog post requesting further community input on that); so finding a right name might need a bit of consultation and negotiation (with the community, Geoff, AffCom). --Bence (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Contact Aff Com

Aff Com recommends that groups wishing to affiliate would do so sooner rather than later in the process so as to increase the time for community discussion. See meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations#Added_US-Canada_education_program. Congratulations on all the hard work that has gone into this. I have been following it for months. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Lane for the notice. Indeed, I would recommend to get in touch with AffCom even at the earliest stages of planning, so that AffCom is up to speed with the group's intentions and activity (shortening the time needed to review the proposal once it gets to the advanced stages) and to identify any difficult issues that might need to be ironed out sooner than later (even seemingly trivial ones, like finding a name that conforms to a guideline that itself is being shaped at the moment...). –Bence (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification please

The proposal currently states in bold: "Action item: The Working Group is submitting this proposal to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment, recommendations, and guidance before submitting to the Affiliations Committee. Please share any recommendations before the Working Group takes this next step." What does "this next step" mean? Biosthmors (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry; that means before we officially request AffCom to approve us as a thorg. Was that too jargony? :) JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. So could it read "Please share any recommendations before the Working Group submits to the Affiliations Committee on X Februrary 2013"? And provide a specific date? That way we know how long we have to help improve the document before submission? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We already submitted the "final" version that Frank Schulenburg will review, and I've asked him to try to give any feedback by the end of this week, as we want to engage AffCom as soon as possible. The board also has the first (remote) meeting this evening, so this is something we can talk about (our next steps). Do you have suggestions for the document or for the content? Ignore the "document", as it's just a summary of what we want to do, but please do comment here on the talk page with any suggestions you'd still like to make about the organization. This won't need to happen before AffCom unless it's so huge that you think it's likely to impact whether they are willing to let us associate as a thorg. Otherwise, the board will be building the organization/procedures for a while, and we welcome any support and suggestions you may have! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. I'll leave some comments below on the document. Biosthmors (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ensure what? and Wikipedia

As a bullet point in the Objectives... section, it says "The Working Group will develop an engagement process that ensures the broad interests of Academia, including students, faculty, administration and support staff". I'm not sure this is a complete sentence, I guess it was intended to say "will be met" at the end. Shouldn't the interests/consensus of the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia policies and guidelines be mentioned as things that will be met? Biosthmors (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, Biosthmors. I think "are met" or "are considered" is the correct ending to that sentence. Presumably it's not "will be ignored entirely." :) To your second point, I agree it would be appropriate to include the interests of the Wikipedia community and the encyclopedia here. I've edited the proposal to reflect that. Pjthepiano (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Invitations

In the Details... section, there is the phrase "It will invite current Wikipedia Ambassadors, instructors, Wikipedians, students, and other volunteers in the current program to join". That gives the impression there will be an official invitation to participation, but I was under the impression current ambassadors and instructors/classrooms would be grandfathered in. Biosthmors (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Working Group wanted this member-organization to be as low-barrier for entry as possible, so the group decided that the only real "requirement" will be for members to have an email address on file with the organization. Not only will Ambassadors/instructors be grandfathered in, but essentially any interested person can join. Our theory is: if somebody is excited about using Wikipedia in the classroom and wants to help out or get more information about the org/programmatic work, then sure they can join. However, we of course will have to establish some sort of procedure for removing anybody who doesn't act in good faith as a part of the org. So the "invitation to join" really just means essentially letting current participants know that this is happening and that there will be some changes. The program now isn't really a membership-based organization, so people should have the option to join or not to join. Also, we don't just want Ambassadors to be members but also instructors and students! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. Maybe the document could benefit from clarifying and describing this low barrier of entry. Biosthmors (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We outlined the processes in more detail in our planning documents, but this proposal is already fairly detailed, so we're trying to focus a bit more on big picture. The board will need to set up a more explicit process and then can communicate it with the community (on Wikipedia and in the Wikipedia Education Program, in general). Does that work? JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fine, thanks. Biosthmors (talk)

Guiding precepts

Currently, in Guiding precepts, there is the phrase "The organization will work hard to equally support the needs of its various communities, including students, Wikipedia editors, instructors, institutional faculty, and volunteer Ambassadors." I am concerned that this does not place Wikipedia policies and guidelines the appropriate weight. Any contribution here should follow our norms. It's really non-negotiable to violate our policies and guidelines to support an educational program, in my opinion. Can we clarify the wording here? Maybe instead we could say, "The organization will work hard to ensure that assignments for students follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it will work to support the needs of its various communities, including students, Wikipedia editors, instructors, institutional faculty, and volunteer Ambassadors"? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Biosthmors. I absolutely agree that the education program's efforts must work within Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and norms. We make a point of noting that in a few places in the proposal. The section labeled "Guidelines for working on Wikipedia" lays this principle out pretty clearly. I think the sentence you identified addresses a different question, namely, what the organization will do with its limited resources (e.g. money, labor, materials, etc.). My interpretation of that line is that we will do our best to treat all of the program's stakeholders equally, not favoring any single group over another. Pjthepiano (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality content

Poor quality content is acknowledged in the document as a reason why some people oppose Wikipedia assignments. Is there somewhere that mentions if a classroom does not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that it will be removed from the program? Could we include that? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a good question. The board has not specifically discussed this yet (and probably won't for a little while, as there's a lot on everyone's plate right now, and the org won't be supporting classes for at least 7 or 8 months), but I definitely see merit in what you're saying. I do know the group already established the mentality of: if somebody is going to use Wikipedia in the classroom no matter what, we may as well support them as much as possible. In other words, at its most basic level, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. So the problem is that we can always recommend and advise (which most instructors heed), but we'll never truly have "control" over what people are doing on-wiki. Do you have any ideas for dealing with this? It's a problem that we currently see, though on a very small scale. Perhaps at least removing the instructor as a member of the organization? JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

By saying "if somebody is going to use Wikipedia in the classroom no matter what, we may as well support them as much as possible" seems like one would support a professor in any case. What if an instructor was assigning their students to perform original research, should the instructor receive official support from an education program then? Biosthmors (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you're defining 'support'. Materials/trainings/available ambassadors that should essentially try to explain why the students are going to have a bad experience if they are writing original research: yes. The organization going around saying "this is a good example of what professors are doing in the classroom": no. Keep in mind, this isn't a discussion or procedure that has been finalized by the board, so I'm just spit-firing. :) It's good to have input like this from you for when the board does have that conversation. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am defining support as this: official incorporation into an educational program with recognition and the possibility to be officially assigned ambassadors. Let me phrase it this way: if a professor obstinately refuses to construct an assignment that follows the most basic of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines despite being told of the violation(s), should they still receive this support? To me, it seems obvious that at some point, an assignment should "flunk out" of getting official support. Biosthmors (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is also how it works in the current program. Let's say this prof is at Ohio University, and we have a WikiEd Group there. For whatever reason, they're not supporting any (or a lot of) classes that semester. If they want to still try to work with this professor and, more specifically, the students, then I think they can have a positive impact on what the students are adding and can help the professor understand why this is a terrible idea. But if the prof is looking for online support (which is always limited, but hopefully someday will not be :) ), then I completely agree they should not be a priority. As for the professor being a member of WEF-USCA, I believe the other "requirement" for membership is "alignment with the organization." Since one of the missions is to be a positive impact on Wikipedia, this professor would not be a member. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. Biosthmors (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiEd groups

I was wondering about WikiEd groups and the types of communication they would have. What is the vision here? I've found it very beneficial to engage with WikiProjects (such as neuroscience, medicine, and MCB) with the assignments I've been an ambassador for. I wouldn't want anything that could go on a WikiProject page to be "split" off into a separate discussion space, because WikiProjects need our support, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean communication among WikiEd Groups or communication on-wiki? We definitely envision the program taking it much further when integrating into established infrastructure, and I do mean on-wiki and at universities. So a WikiEd Group at Rice University might work closely with the writing center and technology center to provide a space for students to get some help with those basic skills. On-wiki, the goal will be to work more with relevant WikiProjects for sure. What do you mean that you don't want things to get split to a separate space? Can you clarify? JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean this: if communication within WikiEd groups is discussing something that "belongs" at a WikiProject page (because there is a reasonable expectation that some members of that WikiProject would or might be interested) then the WikiProject page should be used for that communication. Biosthmors (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this will be the model that we suggest for WikiEd Groups. However, one of the biggest motivations for this model was to give some more flexibility to people using Wikipedia in the classroom. So, we will try to set groups up with the practice of working with WikiProjects, but no, I don't believe anybody will be ensuring all of these conversations are in the "correct" place on WikiProjects. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess a larger issue I have with WikiEd groups is this: at this point, there doesn't seem to be enough of a critical mass to justify forming many. I don't want multiple groups to be created unnecessarily, because it might split up people in to such small groups that all groups might become ineffective. At WikiProject Medicine, we have lots of talk pages for task forces on specific portions of the field, but because there isn't a critical mass of people interested in cardiology on Wikipedia, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Cardiology task force is effectively inactive. We just communicate at WT:MED. And it seems like a "Sociology" group should just collaborate within WikiProject Sociology, etc., until consensus decides that a separate mode of engagement is preferred. Biosthmors (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I agree that a *ton* of WikiEd Groups will not develop off the bat. Also, it's a bit different for Topical WikiEd Groups, as I think their #1 goal should actually be to flesh out WikiProject Sociology. And we will definitely work to create an effective communication method among groups and members in general so that even if a more specific WikiEd Group develops and is only 7 members, they will still be involved in the community at large. I feel like I'm talking in circles now, which might be the disproportionate amount of coffee I've had to food today. Let me know if it sounds like we're still not on the same page, as I think we are. :) JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. And if a university group didn't want to officially use the name "WikiEd" but instead opted for a name such as Ohio State Wikipedians, that would be OK, wouldn't it? Biosthmors (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I'm sure that's totally fine, but you made me decide to create a list of "open questions" that the board (or Exec Director) will need to decide at some point. I'll add this. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. It will likely prompt productive discussion, in my opinion! Biosthmors (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

question about "existing processes" and more

OK, here's a question. The proposal says that "The Working Group is committed to working within the existing infrastructure on Wikipedia, but that requires existing processes to remain functional." What does this mean? What "existing processes"? What is the perceived tension between these processes and the "existing infrastructure on Wikipedia"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, we were referring to the burden issue that comes up a lot. We want to work with WikiProjects so as not to inundate subject-area pages with edits without WikiProject members having a head's up or knowing what's going on (as an example). I suppose the perceived tension is one that some people have been pointing to for a while: that Wikipedia already works really well, but a large number of edits from a related group of people can affect how well those processes work. So we will establish some accountability within the program to alleviate this. For example, maybe we'll have a specific group of members who do want to respond quickly to any copyvio notifications or another group who helps out at AfC. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so the "existing processes" are those of Wikipedia itself? Would it be clearer if the sentence read: "The Working Group is committed to working within the existing infrastructure of Wikipedia, and to ensuring that the it does not place undue burden on the encyclopedia's processes"? It seems that this is what you are trying to say. Though in fact the Education Program has led the creation of an entirely new infrastructure, so even this seems wrong. Perhaps: "The Working Group is committed to working within the culture of Wikipedia, and to ensuring that it does not place undue burden on the encyclopedia's existing processes." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So, it looks as though you are not particularly interested in clarifying this proposal--or indeed, receiving feedback. Oh well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jbmurray, this suggestion is a good improvement/clarification of the current text. I haven't gone through to make the specific edits from this talk page yet but will do so in the next day or two. Thanks so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Now another question: what is "information fluency," a phrase which occurs with bewildering frequency in the document, not least in its mission statement. I therefore take it to be a rather important phrase, though it is nowhere defined. I further note that here on Wikipedia, information fluency redirects to (what is a really rather poor article on) information literacy. Would this latter phrase have worked equally well, if not better, in this proposal? If so, which of the various definitions of information literacy in that article (or elsewhere) is best suited to the purpose imagined here? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

JB, we started out using the term Information Literacy which has its genesis in the world of library science and librarians. Once we learned that Information Literacy was not widely used by instructors in the classroom, the term Information Fluency, a broader umbrella term was adopted. Both terms are valid, but Literacy is considered a subset of Fluency. Indeed the WP article is poor incomplete and out of date. Here are a couple of links to items that explain Information Fluency better. [1], [2] The Ed Working Group does see Information Fluency as burgeoning rationale/incentive for using WP as a tool in the classroom, thus its prominence in the mission statement. If you think about it, good encyclopedic writing requires Information Fluency on the part of the editor. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The link you give quite clearly defines "information fluency" as something that is not at all "a broader umbrella term," and "information literacy" as only partially overlapping with it. (To save you the bother of reading it yourself, let me remind you that it defines "information fluency" as the intersection between critical thinking, information literacy, and computing skills.) No wonder the confusion and sense of incoherence! Perhaps it would be handy to add to the document a brief definition of how you are using the term (whether in line with the links you are giving or not). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As I remember the working group's initial discussions, the term Information Literacy was what we started with. We had a Libraian type on the working group who explained why it was important and my personal experience at MSU with the Libraian Campus Ambassadors was that the concept was gaining lots of traction in teaching models in higher education. Academics on the working group however were uncomfortable with the term and preferred Information Fluency, thus that's why the term was used. As far as its exact definition and whether Literacy and Fluency overlap or Literacy is a component of Fluency, that is for academics to debate. What is important here is that these concepts (however they are defined) are important motivators for academia, libraians and students in advancing the use of WP as a tool in the classrooms of higher education. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, one of the things I like about working with Wikipedia, or in other words something that motivates *me* to do things at the interface between Wikipedia and academia, is that it forces you to be clear, to try to communicate precisely to a wide audience, and not to rely on some kind of academic credential or mystifying jargon. To say, basically, "I don't know and I don't care what a key term in the proposal and its mission statement means; I'll leave that up to academics to debate" goes very much against that spirit. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So, it looks as though you are not particularly interested in clarifying this proposal--or indeed, receiving feedback. Oh well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jbmurray makes a good point that we should clearly define what it means. Since will be a rough proposal to AffCom, we'll have to clarify any questions they may have as they come. But it's good for us to note that down the line, whatever main resource/portal/website we create should work to clarify this. Especially if we're trying mostly to get funding outside of the Wikimedia movement, as I guess defining a confusing term in our mission/purpose will be very relevant for potential funders. Thanks jbmurray! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jami. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, it would be good to clarify this sentence: "More importantly, the board will foster the expectation among program participants (especially Ambassadors) to proactively monitor student contributions and resolve issues in a timely manner." Whose "expectation" is this? Who will be doing the monitoring? In what sense will this be a "proactive" monitoring? For an aim that is described as "most important," it remains remarkably unclear--and looks suspiciously like passing the buck. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And in an ideal assignment, it seems the instructor would be the one proactively monitoring the contributions, since they are the ones who cause the edits and grade the edits. Biosthmors (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You see, what seems to me to make sense is that *Wikipedians* should be able to expect that the *Education Program* will be monitoring student (and other participant) contributions and resolving issues in a timely manner. Indeed, it is precisely the problem with the Education Program to date (see the Pune project) that it wasn't doing this. I would suggest rewriting this rather important sentence along these lines: "More importantly, the Board will ensure that the Program meets Wikipedia expectations, by monitoring participant contributions and resolving issues without delay." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jbmurray - I see that sentence as saying basically that WEF-USCA will make sure that program participants (especially ambassadors) know they are supposed to monitor student contributions. So, the expectation is placed on participants; the participants will be doing the monitoring; it will be proactive in the sense that participants should not wait for community members to raise concerns - they should see them and address them as they develop. I agree with everything you said except for the use of the word "ensure." The Board and WEF-USCA staff cannot be expected to actively monitor all participant contributions and resolve all issues. There are less than a dozen board members and will only be a few staff. It's really important to stress that WEF-USCA will promote these ideals, but volunteers are expected to adhere to them. Pjthepiano (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? It's about what responsibility, if any, the Education Board or Program (I note that they are here constantly confused) should bear for Program participants. Your wording essentially says that the Board and/or the Program has done its job so long as it has told participants that they need to live up to Wikipedia expectations (e.g. but not solely regarding plagiarism). Moreover, it tells us that it's the Program participants rather than the Program itself or the Board that are responsible a) for monitoring contributions and b) for resolving issues that may arise. The Board/Program have done their job so long as they have passed on to participants details of what is and is not expected of them.

The problem is that this is exactly the attitude of the WMF faced with crises such as the Pune program: "We told them what they should be doing; they knew that they shouldn't be doing this; we did our due diligence." I don't think that will wash.

So, OK, perhaps "ensure" is the wrong word here. Or perhaps, better, there needs to be rather more thought (learning from the past) about the extent to which the Board and/or the Program as a whole wishes to assume responsibility for what its participants do. The current muddled and vague wording really isn't helping us here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The language could definitely be made more clear - as you point out, the education board, WEF-USCA staff, ambassadors, professors, students, Wikipedians, etc. are all important stakeholders and perhaps the proposal could do a better job of being specific about which group it is referring to at a given time. That said, I don't think the sentence we're discussing suggests that the Board and Staff have done their jobs if they've just passed on some information about Wikipedia standards to the students. My point was that it's not feasible to expect the board and the small staff to monitor the contributions of every student in the program. Ambassadors and professors will be responsible for actively monitoring student contributions and addressing any problems. If the ambassadors/professors are not doing this job then WEF-USCA will step in and address the situation. Pjthepiano (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You say that "If the ambassadors/professors are not doing this job then WEF-USCA will step in and address the situation." Well, this already is an addition to what the document currently says--and a welcome one. We seem to be getting somewhere. But still more thought and more clarity on this issue is very much needed, if the mistakes and neglect of the past are not to be repeated. Not that the wishy-washy language of "stakeholders" will help clarity, of course. Simply put: we need an attempt to say who will do what, when, and where responsibility lies. We also need, as you point out, some thought as to what expectations are reasonable to have of either the Board or the Program, and what expectations are unreasonable. This should be a central issue for a proposal such as this, I would have thought. All the more so given what was said in the RFC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the discussion going. And FWIW, I bet here are still "issues", with the content put out by the class I was an ambassador for (User:Biosthmors/Intro_Neuro) last semester. But now I'm frying other fish. Am I supposed to go and tidy up those articles and "fix" things, just because I volunteered to help a classroom edit that was going to edit Wikipedia without me anyways? It seems there should be more of an expectation on the students and teachers to get things right with professor know-how, grading, and assignment design but yes, I'd love it if board members and an ED rolled up their sleeves to help content follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. By the way, the ED is going to be an experienced Wikipedian who has a history of producing high-quality content such as good and featured content, right? Biosthmors (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jbmurray - I agree that we will need to clearly outline the responsibilities and powers of the Board, staff, ambassadors, professors, students, Wikipedians, etc. (collectively, the stakeholders). We will definitely be having those discussions in the weeks ahead. @Biosthmors - The board is developing a job description that includes the desired characteristics for the WEF-USCA ED. We'll have more on that soon. Pjthepiano (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Where will we be having these discussions? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

From the perspective of a faculty member and relative newbie (who is still mystified by the WMF heirarchy – so forgive me if my comments are out of line here), I am a bit confused by much of this discussion. There seems to be considerable concern about who will be responsible for fixing problems that students may create while editing for a class project. Why is this any different than the problems created by the myriad of inexperienced and newbie Wikipedians that contribute on a daily basis? Isn’t this what the Wikipedia Community is all about? A successful Education Program could add a lot of inexperienced editors at a much faster pace, but it will also help build a larger community of more experienced editors with time. Biolprof (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Biolprof, and welcome! To be honest, I agree with you, in that I, too, am very much in favour of a successful education program. But to get some sense about why it would be good to have this proposal clarified, firmed up, and improved, look for instance at the RFC or perhaps at the independent report on the Pune program. You might also look at the archives of the Education Board (here, for instance). There has been lots more discussion, unfortunately much of it widely scattered, but these would be places to start. Given all this, any proposal needs to be well thought-through and robust, and (for instance) issues of responsibility and accountability--not to mention overall aims and key terms--need to be as crystal clear as possible. It also, quite obviously, needs to be the end result of a transparent process. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Responsibility and accountability are issues I've been wrestling with in regards to the program. There is an potential incompatibility between volunteer work and being accountable for the actions of others. As a WP editor, I usually only take responsibility for my own edits. If we are to have a volunteer-driven program, how do we reconcile this? As Biosthmors mentions, should an Ambassador be "on the hook" for issues with a class he/she signs up for? If we place that responsibility on the volunteers, I can't see the ambassador role as being attractive to seasoned editors. WP provides enough stress, few people sign on for more. And then there's the issue of classroom projects that spring up without any affiliation with the program, who is responsible for their editing? I suppose that's really a separate question. But back on topic, on whom is the accountability for potentially hundreds of newbie edits going to fall on? To my knowledge, this is a novel dynamic within the community. WikiProjects don't assume responsibility for their members, if there is a problem within the WikiProject, it is dealt with the community at large. For me, that's the only framework for our volunteers that seems viable.

I could see the Ed program hiring a monitor of sorts, who would be well-versed in past pitfalls with student editing. This person would be responsible for proactively dealing with issues, within a to-be-determined framework (i.e. bring problems to the profs attention, then the Ed. Noticeboard, finally the Admin's noticeboard if blocks are needed). The Interior (Talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment from User:JMathewson (WMF)

Note: When reading this proposal and talk page, please keep in mind that this is a work-in-progress (and a draft). Nothing is set in stone, but the Initial Board wants to be as transparent and open as possible, as soon as possible. The board believes this is a group with a fair representation of people concerned with using Wikipedia in the classroom in the US and Canada, but the board members are eager to heed feedback and make this proposed organization as successful as possible. Thank you for your feedback and interest! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's a work in progress, I wonder why there is none. (I also wonder about your conjunction "but" in your second sentence, but that's another matter.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this proposal dead?

I note that there's been no interest in revising this proposal in response to the various queries on this talk page. Is it dead? If so, it's strange that it should be described as a "work in progress," given that there seems to be no progress. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry convo's been slow, embarrassingly I just watchlisted this page today. There are some big issues here, and we can make some progress here despite ourselves. I'll try be more engaged here myself. In terms of making this process more in line with the wiki way of doing things, a glacial pace is what I've come to expect from difficult wiki decision making! (not that we should use that as an excuse for any stagnation.) The Interior (Talk) 02:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, it's true that wiki discussions are sometimes glacial. And sometimes they move at the speed of a hurricane, which brings its own problems. But we can aim for a middle ground. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

But this discussion seems deader than most. Ten days ago Jami said she would be working on the proposal "in the next day or two." User:Mike Cline and others seems to have effectively abandoned it. And most of the members of the working group have never contributed in the slightest (as indeed many of them have hardly contributed to mainspace, either). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, someone could also find a diff of me stating my intent to get something done this week that I didn't get to, =) but if I had to guess, I'd say it has something to do with Wikipedia:Education_Board/Initial_Board_Open_Tasks. It seems that the meeting might have established a group consensus on things (like making edits and clarifications to this proposal) but I'm not sure where things are at the moment. Biosthmors (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The board meeting fell victim to the New England snowstorm (Nemo?). We're doing a skype meeting next week, which will hopefully mean some more progress on figuring out some of these issues. The Interior (Talk) 23:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but all this only exacerbates the sense that everything takes place off-wiki, in meetings and Skype calls and so on. And that this proposal is indeed dead, because it was never intended to live. As such, I fancy attaching a "historical" template to it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I like doing things face to face is that you tend to get more done, in a shorter time period. I know it must be aggravating for those not involved. Would it help for us to publish meeting minutes? They'd be absolutely riveting reading, I'm sure. Or a summary at least. But please hold off on the historical tag for the time being, Jb. The Interior (Talk) 00:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It is just all very odd, when nothing is done on-wiki except adding layers of bureaucracy. User:DStrassmann, for instance, is clearly active, adding legalese to Wikipedia:Education_Board/Initial_Board_Open_Tasks. But she has never once edited this page. (Nor, incidentally, has she edited mainspace since this edit back in July 2011.) None of this bodes well for transparency or for the notion that the EP or its board has any real interest in integrating itself into Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's time for a clear discussion on the current status. Based on what seems to be public, the discussions are so inconclusive that we would do well to have a backup plan in place. The obvious backup plan is a wikiproject, which has several great advantages:

First, it intrinsically must be done in public, in the normal Wikipedia fashion.

Second, it requires no approval from affiliations committee or the WMF, and requires only that people be willing to work on it, which is a requirement of any successful program whatever.

Third, it requires no formal constitution. Thus there is no need to replicate the 9 months of discussion, which so far has gotten nowhere. We can preserve them as with so much else in the past year at the organizational level, as a lesson on how not to do things at WP. Rather, we will do what we do best, which is make guidelines as we need them. It will be inefficient and chaotic, but what is necessary will get done somehow.

Fourth, the infrastructure is ready: the programming and basic ambassador structure already set up needs only to be continued. It's remarkably clumsy, but we've learned how to work it.

Fifth, although some operations will take money, the basic ones do not, and we can plan the work so that none will be needed, except what will eventually come from the US (and Canadian) chapters.

The key question is how much longer to give the existing committee's efforts before the community moves to terminate them. I hope to see some evidence of progress at NYC's meeting on Saturday. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's certainly long past the time for a clear discussion. I have nothing against Wikiprojects, though I'd have thought the obvious back-up plan was for the WMF to continue with its efforts to develop and refine some kind of educational program. It started throwing everything off and washing its hands of the thing just as in some ways it was making some progress and starting to learn from earlier mistakes. In the meantime, quite significant amounts of time (and money) have been spent on... what exactly? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with you on this; it would be a reasonable alternative. I have been taking them at their word, and perhaps what you suggest is in fact going to happen. If the Organization does not get organized, they will have the choice between either continuing their role, or letting the program in the US go without support entirely. In that case, I am beginning to have a suspicion that the people presently organizing will just continue to go on as if their program had been approved, and operate in essence as a shadow wikiproject. That they think they can adopt the program despite a lack of consensus from the community might indicate that they do not actually care about formal processes or about anything outside the group, and are determined to go on unless someone stops them. The reason for stopping them would be that they are operating in private without effective control of any sort: neither the admittedly sometimes incompetent control of the foundation, or the admittedly sometimes inconsistent and unstable control of the community. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've not been on-wiki much recently so I apologize for not noticing this thread till now. A quick status: the new organization (WEF for short) is still in the throes of getting created; we have a pro bono lawyer who is ready to start the incorporation process and we are preparing to apply to both the affiliations committee and the grants committee. We'll probably have to immediately start looking for outside funds as it doesn't seem likely we'll get enough funds to do what the WMF has historically done for the US/Canada EP, in the way of coordination, communication, resource development, outreach and so on. I see this proposal page has been marked as historical; I wouldn't have done that so soon, but it's going to become true as the focus is shifting to the actual organization rather than the proposal.

One of my tasks for the WEF will be to help facilitate on-wiki communication; Chanitra Bishop is the other board member who volunteered for that job. I've been very reluctant to get started on that till the WEF is actually incorporated/affiliated/funded, but I understand that some ongoing status is necessary. I'll try to post, here or on the Education Noticeboard, when significant events happen. I'll try to answer questions too but I have rather limited on-wiki time these days so I may not be very quick.

Once the WEF actually exists, I think the simplest structure would be a WikiProject page; the talk page would serve as the main communications channel. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So, Mike, just to get this clear... The proposed Education Board doesn't intend to work on wiki, but rather has nominated two of its members (you and User:Etlib, who has never edited this page and indeed hasn't edited at all on wiki for two and a half weeks; the last time she edited in mainspace was early October) to "help facilitate on-wiki communication"?! What does this mean? Do you think really think that this is in the spirit, say, of fellow board member User:Pharos's comments on the RFC: "The important thing is that we structure this program for deep community participation at all levels, which is a lesson that I believe has been learned from the experience of past stages, both in North America and globally. And we must ensure the community fully joins in planning the next stage of this structure as it evolves beyond the top-down approach of the pilot programs." Because I don't. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)