On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Barry Newstead <bnewstead(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for the engagement on the questions that should be tacked in this
evaluation. See inline for a brief response to Theo's question about Tory
Read.
Best,
Barry
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I really didn't read the entire thread to
have a lot of comments, I just
have one point I noticed that I wanted to ask - Why is Tory Read conducting
the "evaluative study"?
As I recall, her only exposure to India and Wikipedia before this was the
research project. And even that had nothing to do with the Education
program directly. Is there a reason why she's leading the study?
It seems like the same pattern of avoiding knowledgeable
and experienced members of the community to focus on the "outside
perspective". I thought the only lesson that the team did take away was,
you can't do in India what the global education team and Frank did in the
US. They don't scale and you need local solutions.
I'm pretty sure Ms. Read is a competent researcher and would do a good
job but I don't see how Ms. Read's expertise or exposure to India and the
Education program would make this process any different from the pattern
that brought IEP here. Talking to the staff in SF, or spending a day in
Delhi or Pune is not going to give a clear picture at all.
Tory is indeed a competent researcher who built a solid understanding of
the community and how things work in Wikimedia during her engagement with
us in the India Chronicles. I selected her for this assignment because she
has a good working knowledge of our general situation from her work on the
India Chronicles, she has the skills to interview a good cross-section of
those involved (WP editors, students, profs, Campus Ambassadors, online
ambassadors, staff, others), she can look at the issue with fresh eyes and
help synthesize learning and recommendations for changes, she will get this
done in a timely fashion while memories are still fresh (which is really
important).
She is doing a combination of Skype, email and in-person interviews...and
is in Pune this week actually. I'm confident that her work will be valuable
to all of us and it will be shared in its entirety with the community. It
won't be the only work on this. Both the India team and the Global
Education Program team are committed to doing more joint problem-solving on
future changes to the program with those interested in engaging with us.
Hi Barry,
My understanding is that conducting an evaluative study requires a deep
comprehension of our projects and the volunteers. At the same time, an
exercise like this demands objectivity while analyzing empirical evidence.
By building a repertoire of anecdotal evidence through a series of
interviews mostly conducted over phone/VoIP, I do not see how this report
will inform us beyond what discussions on this mailing list already have.
Tory Read is an accomplished story-teller, but she is not a Wikipedian.
Can we simply not have WMF staff in New Delhi handle the interviews and
requests for comment? (They should also seek help from some of the
established Wikipedia editors.)
The reason why I am stressing on this is because I think that an
established Wikipedia editor would be better-placed to objectively analyze
what worked and what did not work, and how this program may be improved.
Such editors need not be Indian, they can be a group of Wikipedians who
were directly or peripherally involved on Wikipedia when the IEP program
was being executed.
Best,
anirudh
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l