Talk:Program Capacity and Learning
Add topicThis page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum. |
Program Capacity and Learning
Criteria to prioritize Program Capacity and Learning work
[edit]Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Leave your comments below.
|
Proposed Projects for Program Capacity and Learning
[edit]Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Leave your comments below.
|
Other comments
[edit]Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Leave your comments below.
|
Process: GLAM-Wiki Support
[edit]Positive Support |
|
Suggestions | |
Concerns |
|
Challenges & Risks |
|
From Daria via email: "GLAM-Wiki support looks promising because of not having that much centralised support in recent years."
Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Discussion[edit]
Clarifying terms and interface with existing and affiliate leadership roles[edit]
"GLAM" is not the concept - "institutional partnership" is[edit]FloNight has the right idea. The spirit of this proposal can be kept, because the spirit of this proposal is to use the term "GLAM" to mean "institutional partnership". Large sections of the Wikimedia community assume that all Wikipedia partnerships have to be with GLAM organizations. This is partly a historical legacy that some GLAM organizations had early partnerships, partly a WMF branding legacy that the organization wanted to avoid conversations about the implications of Wikipedia being used as a health information resource, partly a community legacy in broadly accepting media donations (the standard GLAM engagement) but being unsure about institutional encouragement of text development, and partly a lack of central management in that different content sectors felt the need to have their own support hubs when if there had been staff, the common infrastructure would have been provided centrally so that the same content would not have needed to have been developed independently for GLAM, open access, medicine, Art Feminism, the education program, and STEM collaborations. In fact, lots of organizations want Wikipedia partnerships, and instead of developing GLAM branding, this idea should be developed as "Wiki-support for organizations". The proposal says, "GLAM-Wiki community is one of the strongest community-generated programs". This is true, but other projects are at least as significant. Medicine is a sector that is at least as influential as GLAM.
GLAMs have been underfunded forever and the arts will continue to be abused by society. For once, give them a break. There is nowhere else where the budgets for the arts has hope of benefiting from the budgets to other sectors like medicine. Even if GLAM is the focus, make the foundation of support multi-stakeholder so that every investment can benefit every field of study and interest. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Who you gonna call?[edit]As an experienced GLAM program manager, I appreciate that after some years the WMF oficially includes some GLAM into their programs support. You ask about which kind of concept support should be done by PC&L: I would say GLAM is a perfecte playground area for implementing your mission: You can help GLAM community growing leaders development, helping to develope tools to support our partnerships and reading organization's reports and blogpost to facilitate knowledge sharing among members. I think GLAM is a good place to test the capacities and effectiveness of the PC&L team. For newbies affiliate partners, PC&L should become the "who you gonna call" place when you want to start GLAM or when you started but you want to go one step beyond, sharing program experts info and skills with a wider audience.--Kippelboy (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Risks and barriers to success of GLAM-Wiki Support[edit]What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the GLAM-Wiki Support program, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Success?[edit]And how will you know if GLAM-Wiki Support is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Tool: Wikimedia Knowledge Hub
[edit]Positive Support |
|
Suggestions |
|
Concerns |
|
Challenges and risks |
|
Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Discussion[edit]
Learning Patterns Library Navigation & Maintenance[edit]
Flexibility for independent strategies[edit]
creating connection and maintaining it - institutional knowledge[edit]
A Wikipedia about Wikipedia[edit]That's one thing I've always thought about. As a community we are great to organize world's knowledge but we s*uck to organize our own knowledge. I think on a Knowledge Hub as a simple entry point where I "search" like in Google or wiki search box and results come out easily. Nevermind if it is "how to organize an editathon" or "how to do an APG" or "where I can find a Wikimedian in Boston". It's Kind of a paradox that we are not able to do this. We have hundreds and hundreds of documentation pages (meta, outreach, chapters, orgs, talk...) that need curation. I would love to see PC&L knowledge hub as a "curated content from Wikimedia documentation messy world" until we have a useful "Wikipedia about Wikipedia". On the other hand, I must admit I don't really expect a good knowledge hub to happen...but more a 15 1 stantard exect. Best luck! :)--Kippelboy (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Risks and barriers to success of Wikimedia Knowledge Hub[edit]What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Wikimedia Knowledge Hub, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Success?[edit]And how will you know if Wikimedia Knowledge Hub is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In which languages will the Hub be available?[edit]Hi! I like this project very much. In which languages will it be available?--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Tool: Program and Events Dashboard
[edit]Positive Support |
|
Suggestions |
|
Concerns | Questions raised are answered here. |
Challenges and risks |
|
Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Discussion[edit]
Translation, Privacy, and documentation time[edit]
The future of existing Education extension, and questions on the Education team and community roles[edit]I have the following questions:
Thanks! --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you for those questions, Vojtech. Here are my answers:
Sorry, forgot to ping Vojtěch Dostál. FKoudijs (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Most important thing ever[edit]The Education Extension and Wiki Edu Dashboard offer some of the most important features that must exist in order for some common Wiki-outreach projects to develop. Very routine things like edit-a-thons, institutional partnerships, and Wikimedia chapter / user group organization need the kind of metrics which these tools present. Thanks to AGreen (WMF) and User:Adamw for spending time on this. Adam - do and say what you will but please do not get fired before you finish what you are doing here. I have been an organizer for the Wikipedia Education Program since 2011 when I started presenting to classes. I expect that I have used both the education extension and the dashboard more than any other event organizer for English Wikipedia events. The features of these tools were so compelling that I try hard to use them, even though they obviously were created without sufficient user consultation with Wikipedians who organize events or go into classrooms. The Wiki Edu Dashboard offers many of the most useful features of the education extension and more, so when that became available, I started using it and began to quit using the education extension. There are still some problems with the dashboard. If I had to articulate the biggest problem, is that it has too many features. When I use it, I use it in a stripped down way by turning off as many features as it allows me to turn off, and I only use it as a registration space for English Wikipedia editing cohorts. This is in contrast to its design, which directs editors in cohorts to visit the dashboard regularly. I prefer to keep users on Wikipedia outside of the dashboard, and I want the dashboard tools only for myself as an organizer. See an example of what I do at en:WP:Touro. This is a course page on English Wikipedia. The only student interaction with the dashboard is their initial registration so that I can track them. The obvious change that I want for the dashboard is stripping away the educational branding. It should present as little text as possible so that it can be used for classes, one-day editathons, a sign-in sheet for events where people do no Wikipedia editing, WikiProject membership lists, and all other instances where Wikipedians need for a group of participants in any arbitrary project need to identify themselves and submit to on-wiki tracking. If I made a request for additional development, it would be that the tool also be adapted for tracking development of arbitrary sets of articles without following users. Right now, the dashboard provides metrics about Wikipedia articles only if an editor edits them. There is no way to get metrics about a Wikipedia article without someone registering as a "student" in an instance of the dashboard then editing articles that will be tracked. Instead of tracking by users, I need an instance of the dashboard that tracks by article whomever might edit it. There is intense WMF pressure which says that editing matters and article developing need not be considered, but this is way out of line with what classes and organizations want. Aside from the WMF, no one cares about editor count and engagement. Instead, contributors and readers care that specific articles and topics have good monitoring and engagement. From the reader perspective, if 2-3 experts watched over a set of articles and made them perfect, that would satisfy their need. From a WMF perspective, articles which are made very good by only a few people with only a few edits are a failure, because success is measured by continually recruiting new editors to continually execute low-value tweaks. In order to get expert engagement, I need a way for experts to track the development of sets of articles in a field and to see the same Wiki Dashboard metrics that are already provided, except the article list for the metrics has to be generated by inputting article titles and not by putting in editor names. There are other things that could be done. The dashboard is great for lots of reasons. Yes, please, bring the dashboard to ENWP. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Easy[edit]I've had the honour to see some new features that are being developed on the "content translation" tool (kind of contest and campaings) > I would love to see something like this for edu or editathons. I do believe reporting can't take me more time than planning or evaluating. We need a single tool that, with a list of usernames and a timestamp, gives you the related information or the information asked for WMF reports. A mix between global metrics and similar tools. But easier for everyone. I think the "piles" concept used in labs could be a good thing. Also Jembot, run by a Spanish Wikimedian gives you quite a good amount of information. IMHO, I just need a simple and easy tool like content translator but for events & EDU.--Kippelboy (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Dashboard is crucial for scaling[edit]The Dashboard this proposal is based on is Wiki Ed's Dashboard, so I'm obviously biased — but I firmly believe making this tool work for all language projects and for all programs types is the single biggest thing WMF could do to support program leaders. Wiki Ed is successfully supporting more than 150 courses (3,000 new editors) each term with one program manager and two Wikipedians because of the Dashboard. Yes, you can do things by hand, but that takes valuable volunteer time, and good volunteers are our movement's biggest bottleneck to scaling our programs. I highly, highly support even more WMF staff time to be devoted to making all the features we've built for this tool work for all languages and all programs. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Risks and barriers to success of Program and Events Dashboard[edit]What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Program and Events Dashboard, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Success for Program and Events Dashboard?[edit]And how will you know if Program and Events Dashboard is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This project is the top priority[edit]I vote for this project as the first priority. The Education Program in the Arab World has significantly added to the quality and quantity of the content in the Arabic Wikipedia. I have seen and used two extension pages so far and I hope this project will host course pages for good. Will it support Arabic?--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Narrow focus on certain outcomes[edit]I encourage the development of easy-to-use and effective data dashboards wherever they are beneficial for a program’s management and evaluation. Tools like the Wiki Ed Dashboard or the Outreach Dashboard are tailored to course-like settings and to track participants and user contributions on Wikipedia (aka Global Metrics). Surely, improvements in this field will be very helpful e.g. to fulfill reporting requirements for this kind of activities. But please keep in mind, that “programs” across Wikimedia projects and languages can be legion and strongly differing in their intended outcomes. I hope that focusing on this kind of program dashboards won’t distract us from exploring other ways of collecting outcomes and demonstrating impact. Additionally, I’d like to endorse Blue Rasberry’s demand for tools to track article sets instead of user contributions. This might also reduce some of the legal/privacy issues Pine referred to above.--Christof Pins (WMDE) (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Process: Outcome Mapping
[edit]Total community editors to topic 5/22 total community editors
Positive Support (4 editors) |
|
Suggestions | Needs more description and examples (3 editors total)
|
Concerns |
(1 editor total)
|
Challenges and risks |
(3 editors total)
|
Outstanding questions:
- What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Outcome Mapping, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them?
- How will you know if Outcome Mapping is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success?
Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Discussion[edit]
Needs more description and examples[edit]
Reporting burden and the value of qualitative outcomes[edit](split from description needs above - questions after reading further details)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Fund existing voluntary reporting channels[edit]
Risks and barriers to success of Outcome Mapping[edit]What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Outcome Mapping, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Success for Outcome Mapping?[edit]And how will you know if Outcome Mapping is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Support[edit]Looks like a very good project. Do we already have a place where systematic quantitative data gathering happen? It would be great if we can group both in the same place. I think reporting can sometimes be a burden for volunteers, I really hope this system proposes an easy, stree-free qualitative reporting system.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC) |
Process: Affiliate Partnerships
[edit]Total community editors to topic 6/22 total community editors
Positive Support |
(1 editor total)
|
Suggestions |
(3 editors total)
|
Concerns |
(2 editors total)
|
Challenges and risks |
(2 editors total)
|
Outstanding questions:
- What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Affiliate Partnerships program, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them?
- How will you know if Affiliate Partnerships program is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success?
From Hangout:
There is another question: You see yourself and the re-organising of your team(s) aligned with the new strategy process of the WMF. As I suppose you've been heavily involved in designing these approaches, can you answer me what "Align efforts between our affiliate organizations and the Wikimedia Foundation to increase local language and community coverage on key initiatives." means? (I know, parts of this approach are covered by other CE teams, but parts also by your team) How do you want to "align"? And what are "key initiatives"?
Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Discussion[edit]
Thanks for connecting with me via hangout Pine. Your notations about AffCom informing this work as well as peer mentoring particularly noted as we build out the annual plan RRein(WMF)
Risks and barriers to success of Affiliate Partnerships program[edit]What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Affiliate Partnerships program , and what steps are you taking to mitigate them? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Success?[edit]And how will you know if Affiliate Partnerships program is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Questions and concerns[edit]Generally, I like the approach of the WMF to finally take over some responsibility for facilitating the development of the affiliates – a lot! What I miss in the description, though, are words like enabling, empowering, decentrality that embrace such a diverse and colorful network of groups and organizations like the Wikimedia movement. One thing that runs like a golden thread through several conversations around roles and shared responsibilities is the fine line between paternalism and empowerment. My advice would be to regularly reflect on the challenge to provide leadership without being too bossy. I also think that the description does not really take into account that a lot of affiliates already work together on a bilateral basis, without the necessity of direct support from a central body. A comment I have made in the grants consultation still applies: I think that what could foster the collaboration among affiliates are cross-organization grants that support movement relevant programs/projects and encourage partnerships. Striving for more staff support for affiliate development and organizational effectiveness is kind of an old hat and has been discussed for many years. I am glad to see this finally condense into a clear mandate (and resources) of the PC&L team. A lot of these issues have been examined in the course of the Chapters Dialogue. If you read through the insights, you will see that these challenges are still persistent and that the wish for more support from the WMF is a very strong one.
I also welcome the long-waited support for the Affiliations Committee. Especially, I would like to see the AffCom as a guide for new, young, small affiliates, based on its extensive knowledge and understanding of local communities, for example by supporting them to finalize their “on-boarding handbook for new organisations”, professionalizing their liaison model, and developing the fourth affiliate type for “movement partners”. I fully agree and welcome the approach to “maximizing the value of conferences, site visits and high potential events and opportunities to extend movement wide impact and reach” which fits closely to what WMDE already practices and I would like to see more in the Wikimedia movement. On a more general level, I would like to express our pleasure with the WMF's apparent shift towards partnership, trust and esteem based relationships with its affiliates. The movement is growing closer together, I hope; more dialogues and channels are introduced for communication, collaboration, and mutual support. An important aspect that needs more thinking here, though, is the conversation around global and local responsibilities as well as shared tasks. In my view, we cannot just draw a strict line between global and local tasks by simply assigning global tasks to the WMF and local tasks to the Affiliates. Our strong wish is that the WMF provides the movement with a healthy and decisive leadership. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC) |
Process: Community Listening Project
[edit]Positive Support |
|
Suggestions |
|
Concerns |
(No concerns found, e.g. cautions/risks) |
Challenges and risks |
(Edward: Time and alignment - I worry about other organizations may not have this as high as a priority) |
From Daria via email: ”Community consultation may be useful if you've got a model that we can work out in chapters”.
Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Discussion[edit]
Risks and barriers to success of Community Listening Project[edit]What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Community Listening Project , and what steps are you taking to mitigate them? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Success?[edit]And how will you know if Community Listening Project is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
|
Process: Peer Mentoring and Leadership
[edit]Positive Support |
|
Suggestions |
|
Concerns |
|
Challenges and risks |
|
Main discussion is who should hold this project: affiliates or WMF team?
Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Discussion[edit]
Nice concept but should be affiliate run[edit]
? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Organizational effectiveness tool[edit]
Risks and barriers to success of Peer Mentoring & Leadership program[edit]What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Peer Mentoring & Leadership program, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Success?[edit]And how will you know if the Peer Mentoring & Leadership program is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success? Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Include this in the Hub?[edit]I like this project. I think it would be more helpful if this was included as a tab in the Hub website/page.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
Community Management
[edit]Expand to see complete discussion |
---|
Thanks for the office hours on IRC and Google hangout on February 16th, 2016. In the presentation a 'roadmap' was mentioned, it is the subtitle of the deck of slides. In the conversation the view of PC&L on community management was asked. Here is a list of things a community manager does:
Source: Differentiating Between Social Media and Community Management, Rachel Happe, The Community Roundtable. Will CE / CR / PC&L provide support to for example affiliates to perform the tasks mentioned above? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
|