Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month pilot to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the U.S.) to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of expertise. We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we learned a *lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation report on what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the pilot: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_...
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-publishes-evaluation-of-f...
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to begin in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can be helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who might also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of the evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
LiAnna, I am very happy to see this.
Would you please describe how you choose the subject matter of articles and expertise for inviting Fellows?
It's not clear whether the Fellows were paid or otherwise compensated; were they?
"In the past four years, the Wiki Education Foundation (Wiki Education) has signed formal partnership agreements with academic associations to improve Wikipedia in their topic area." -- how many? Is the list public?
When you select such subjects and topics, do you consider the number of pageviews? Do you use existing WP:BACKLOG category membership? Both?
Do you consider the harm inaccuracy or bias can do to society by infesting Wikipedia when selecting the subject and topics?
Thank you!
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:51 AM, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:
Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month pilot to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the U.S.) to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of expertise. We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we learned a *lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation report on what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the pilot: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_...
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-publishes-evaluation-of-f...
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to begin in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can be helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who might also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of the evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Hi, LiAnna! Great read and very interesting initiative.
I’d like to add another question. As you and others may know, I work in a particularly quarrelsome Wikipedia (PT), where there are lots of reversions of edits from newbies, even when they display knowledge of WP rules. What was the reception of the Fellows’ work among the community of editors?
Greetings, Juliana
Enviado do meu iPhone
Em 22 de mai de 2018, à(s) 16:02, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com escreveu:
LiAnna, I am very happy to see this.
Would you please describe how you choose the subject matter of articles and expertise for inviting Fellows?
It's not clear whether the Fellows were paid or otherwise compensated; were they?
"In the past four years, the Wiki Education Foundation (Wiki Education) has signed formal partnership agreements with academic associations to improve Wikipedia in their topic area." -- how many? Is the list public?
When you select such subjects and topics, do you consider the number of pageviews? Do you use existing WP:BACKLOG category membership? Both?
Do you consider the harm inaccuracy or bias can do to society by infesting Wikipedia when selecting the subject and topics?
Thank you!
Best regards, Jim
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:51 AM, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote: Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month pilot to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the U.S.) to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of expertise. We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we learned a *lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation report on what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the pilot: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_...
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-publishes-evaluation-of-f...
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to begin in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can be helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who might also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of the evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Answers inline!
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Juliana Bastos Marques < domusaurea@gmail.com> wrote:
I’d like to add another question. As you and others may know, I work in a particularly quarrelsome Wikipedia (PT), where there are lots of reversions of edits from newbies, even when they display knowledge of WP rules. What was the reception of the Fellows’ work among the community of editors?
There were some minor disagreements with other English Wikipedia editors,
but conversations were ultimately productive. We did have one article nominated for deletion, but the Fellow was able to successfully argue for it to not be deleted.
Em 22 de mai de 2018, à(s) 16:02, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com escreveu:
Would you please describe how you choose the subject matter of articles and expertise for inviting Fellows?
Fellows chose their own articles to improve based on their interests and expertise. We selected the associations to participate in the pilot based on our relationships with them; we're expanding future Fellows cohorts to other subject areas.
It's not clear whether the Fellows were paid or otherwise compensated; were they?
There's a reference to this in the "Recruiting Wikipedia Fellows" section (I know there's a lot in here, so I'm not surprised if you missed it!): "We encouraged partners to consider offering Fellows honoraria, travel scholarships to their conference, or conference fee waivers. Partners were amenable to the idea but most said they needed more time to be able to offer it. We hope this might be able to be built into future Fellows cohorts."
"In the past four years, the Wiki Education Foundation (Wiki
Education) has signed formal partnership agreements with academic associations to improve Wikipedia in their topic area." -- how many? Is the list public?
We've signed agreements with 12 academic associations; they're listed on our website: https://wikiedu.org/partnerships/
When you select such subjects and topics, do you consider the number of pageviews? Do you use existing WP:BACKLOG category membership? Both?
We encouraged Fellows to choose articles that would receive large page views or were core articles in their field -- subjects that they would be able to improve but a student studying that topic would struggle to effectively improve. Beyond that, we left the selection up to the Fellows.
Do you consider the harm inaccuracy or bias can do to society by infesting Wikipedia when selecting the subject and topics?
We teach all our program participants about the importance of NPOV and stress how writing for Wikipedia needs to be fact-based, encyclopedic content, not persuasive, analytical content.
Note: I tried to ask some follow-up questions of LiAnna, but the "filter rules" rejected them somehow.
There is a copy here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2018-May/006284.html
Best regards, Jim
Hi LiAnna,
Thank you for this report. Increasing the number of good-faith contributors to Wikipedia is always nice to see. I believe that at least a few people in WMF, the affiliates, and the long-term volunteer population have been interested for many years in increasing the number of academics who contribute to Wikipedia.
The program sounds like it was relatively labor intensive on the part of WikiEd, and the number of academic participants was small. Who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more efficient in terms of cost per participant?
I would like to see this project scale up, but I am concerned about its cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability.
As you probably know, I am continuing my development of training materials, primarily videos, for new Wikimedians, although the audience that I have in mind is more typical of ENWP's volunteer population instead of being focused on the specific interests and mindsets of academic contributors.
Regards, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) -------- Original message --------From: LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org Date: 5/22/18 9:51 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education education@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month pilot to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the U.S.) to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of expertise. We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we learned a *lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation report on what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the pilot: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_...
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-publishes-evaluation-of-f...
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to begin in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can be helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who might also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of the evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
Pine, why would you be concerned about the cost-effectiveness or sustainability. This program looks great to me, except for the mismatch between needs and recruiting.
On that point, there is an alternative to http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/files/2015/09/figure-1-wikiped...
(Beyond expanding it from the sciences to the humanities and ranking it by the damage quality issues do to society for each topic.)
Which is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7cHxlGgEt4&t=46m
Math is the most valuable topic for donations. I'm interested in suggesting improvements to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frobenius_manifold
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi LiAnna,
Thank you for this report. Increasing the number of good-faith contributors to Wikipedia is always nice to see. I believe that at least a few people in WMF, the affiliates, and the long-term volunteer population have been interested for many years in increasing the number of academics who contribute to Wikipedia.
The program sounds like it was relatively labor intensive on the part of WikiEd, and the number of academic participants was small. Who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more efficient in terms of cost per participant?
I would like to see this project scale up, but I am concerned about its cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability.
As you probably know, I am continuing my development of training materials, primarily videos, for new Wikimedians, although the audience that I have in mind is more typical of ENWP's volunteer population instead of being focused on the specific interests and mindsets of academic contributors.
Regards, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) -------- Original message --------From: LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org Date: 5/22/18 9:51 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education education@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month pilot to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the U.S.) to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of expertise. We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we learned a *lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation report on what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the pilot: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_...
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-publishes-evaluation-of-f...
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to begin in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can be helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who might also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of the evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
As I wrote in my previous email, I get the impression that this program was relatively expensive compared to the number of content contributors (who in this case are academics). I am keeping in mind that this was a pilot, and that initial planning and the first iteration for many programs like this require some one-time expenses and some debugging. My guess is that for future rounds WikiEd can make the program be more efficient, and that this will be a work in progress. This program is not without financial costs, both for the pilot and for future rounds. I return to the questions that I asked LiAnna in my previous email: who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more efficient in terms of cost per participant? I am hoping that WikiEd has a reliable funding source for the next round, and that WikiEd is currently planning how to increase the cost-effectiveness. Stepping back to consider the larger problem of too few knowledgable volunteers supporting too many novices throughout the wikiverse, I get the impression that WMF is spending increasing amounts of money on training and one-on-one help for technical and content contributors, both by directly funding WMF employees and by providing funds to grantees. I anticipate that the trend will continue, and I am anxious to see it be effective in increasing content contributor longevity, content quality, content quantity, diversity of contributors, and measues of community health. I am glad to see WikiEd working in this domain with academics, and I would like for this program to be successful, financially sustainable, and cost-effective in the medium to long term.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com Date: 5/23/18 7:07 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education education@lists.wikimedia.org, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot Pine, why would you be concerned about the cost-effectiveness or sustainability. This program looks great to me, except for the mismatch between needs and recruiting.
On that point, there is an alternative to http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/files/2015/09/figure-1-wikiped...
(Beyond expanding it from the sciences to the humanities and ranking it by the damage quality issues do to society for each topic.)
Which is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7cHxlGgEt4&t=46m
Math is the most valuable topic for donations. I'm interested in suggesting improvements to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frobenius_manifold
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi LiAnna,
Thank you for this report. Increasing the number of good-faith contributors to Wikipedia is always nice to see. I believe that at least a few people in WMF, the affiliates, and the long-term volunteer population have been interested for many years in increasing the number of academics who contribute to Wikipedia.
The program sounds like it was relatively labor intensive on the part of WikiEd, and the number of academic participants was small. Who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more efficient in terms of cost per participant?
I would like to see this project scale up, but I am concerned about its cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability.
As you probably know, I am continuing my development of training materials, primarily videos, for new Wikimedians, although the audience that I have in mind is more typical of ENWP's volunteer population instead of being focused on the specific interests and mindsets of academic contributors.
Regards, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) -------- Original message --------From: LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org Date: 5/22/18 9:51 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education education@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month pilot to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the U.S.) to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of expertise. We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we learned a *lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation report on what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the pilot: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_...
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-publishes-evaluation-of-f...
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to begin in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can be helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who might also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of the evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Hi Pine,
You're exactly right that we spent a lot of staff time and thus expense on this first round because it's a pilot -- to be able to put an extensive report together like this, we needed to devote a LOT of staff time to tracking everything that happened. Those learnings are invaluable in a pilot program, and are now helping us actively work to scale up the impact without significantly adding to the expense. As we note in the "Adapting the pilot" section of the report ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_...), we're experimenting with a wide variety of ways to run Fellows cohorts over the next year in order to see how we can get more impact without significantly adding staff time (and thus costs) to the mix. This model is exactly the same one we followed with our Classroom Program -- a lot of individual attention to instructors and students at the beginning so we can garner learnings from what exactly happened in the program, then experimenting with ways to successfully scale the impact without scaling the costs at the same rate (back in 2010, we had about the same number of staff supporting a program with 200 students a term as we currently do supporting 8,000 students a term).
In terms of funding, we didn't have restricted grant funding for the Fellows pilot, meaning funding for it came from a variety of the institutional and individual donors who provide us unrestricted general operating support for our work, including Wikipedia Fellows. Our development director sees lots of potential for funding future rounds, and we're actively working on securing funding so we can scale the program, increasing its impact while making it more cost effective. I share your hopes for this program, and think it has the potential to, as you put it, "be successful, financially sustainable, and cost-effective in the medium to long term." :)
LiAnna
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
As I wrote in my previous email, I get the impression that this program was relatively expensive compared to the number of content contributors (who in this case are academics). I am keeping in mind that this was a pilot, and that initial planning and the first iteration for many programs like this require some one-time expenses and some debugging. My guess is that for future rounds WikiEd can make the program be more efficient, and that this will be a work in progress. This program is not without financial costs, both for the pilot and for future rounds. I return to the questions that I asked LiAnna in my previous email: who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more efficient in terms of cost per participant? I am hoping that WikiEd has a reliable funding source for the next round, and that WikiEd is currently planning how to increase the cost-effectiveness. Stepping back to consider the larger problem of too few knowledgable volunteers supporting too many novices throughout the wikiverse, I get the impression that WMF is spending increasing amounts of money on training and one-on-one help for technical and content contributors, both by directly funding WMF employees and by providing funds to grantees. I anticipate that the trend will continue, and I am anxious to see it be effective in increasing content contributor longevity, content quality, content quantity, diversity of contributors, and measues of community health. I am glad to see WikiEd working in this domain with academics, and I would like for this program to be successful, financially sustainable, and cost-effective in the medium to long term.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com Date: 5/23/18 7:07 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education < education@lists.wikimedia.org>, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot Pine, why would you be concerned about the cost-effectiveness or sustainability. This program looks great to me, except for the mismatch between needs and recruiting.
On that point, there is an alternative to http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/files/ 2015/09/figure-1-wikipedia-open-access1.jpg
(Beyond expanding it from the sciences to the humanities and ranking it by the damage quality issues do to society for each topic.)
Which is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7cHxlGgEt4&t=46m
Math is the most valuable topic for donations. I'm interested in suggesting improvements to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frobenius_manifold
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi LiAnna,
Thank you for this report. Increasing the number of good-faith
contributors to Wikipedia is always nice to see. I believe that at least a few people in WMF, the affiliates, and the long-term volunteer population have been interested for many years in increasing the number of academics who contribute to Wikipedia.
The program sounds like it was relatively labor intensive on the part of
WikiEd, and the number of academic participants was small. Who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more efficient in terms of cost per participant?
I would like to see this project scale up, but I am concerned about its
cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability.
As you probably know, I am continuing my development of training
materials, primarily videos, for new Wikimedians, although the audience that I have in mind is more typical of ENWP's volunteer population instead of being focused on the specific interests and mindsets of academic contributors.
Regards, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) -------- Original message --------From: LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org
Date: 5/22/18 9:51 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education < education@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot
Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month
pilot
to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the
U.S.)
to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of
expertise.
We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we learned a *lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation report
on
what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the pilot: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_
Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_pilot_evaluation
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-
publishes-evaluation-of-fellows-pilot/
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to
begin
in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can be helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who might also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of the evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Thanks for the comments, LiAnna.
An issue that someone mentioned to me is that many academics choose not to edit Wikipedia articles because editing Wikipedia is far less beneficial to their careers than publishing academic articles and books. There may be some benefit to academics from having their articles and books cited in Wikipedia, but that is different from editing Wikipedia unless they add their own articles and books as citations or have someone else do that on their behalf (which I would discourage them from doing directly, although recommending relevant articles and books on talk pages and disclosing any potential COI could still be a net benefit so that other editors can evaluate their recommendations). I am curious about how you were so successful in recruiting academics to volunteer for this program. Can you comment on that? It would be nice if academics and universities are starting to feel that contributing to Wikipedia is valuable for academic careers and/or as public service that they wish to encourage.
On a related subject, I will mention that to my surprise, some universities now award scholarships to undergraduate applicants for e-sports. One would think that extensively contributing constructively to Wikipedia, whether by applicants for admission or by academics, would be viewed much more positively by universities than participating in e-sports, but to my knowledge no universities have made such a decision. If you know of any change in academia about the value of editing Wikipedia articles by applicants for undergraduate or graduate admission, I would also be interested in hearing about that. Perhaps admissions policies are a potential area in which the Wiki Education Foundation could lobby universities to make changes. I realize that this is a tangent from the subject of encouraging academics to contribute content themselves, but I thought that I would mention this as a related topic of interest.
Thanks,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:49 AM, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
You're exactly right that we spent a lot of staff time and thus expense on this first round because it's a pilot -- to be able to put an extensive report together like this, we needed to devote a LOT of staff time to tracking everything that happened. Those learnings are invaluable in a pilot program, and are now helping us actively work to scale up the impact without significantly adding to the expense. As we note in the "Adapting the pilot" section of the report ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_ Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_pilot_evaluation#Adapting_the_pilot), we're experimenting with a wide variety of ways to run Fellows cohorts over the next year in order to see how we can get more impact without significantly adding staff time (and thus costs) to the mix. This model is exactly the same one we followed with our Classroom Program -- a lot of individual attention to instructors and students at the beginning so we can garner learnings from what exactly happened in the program, then experimenting with ways to successfully scale the impact without scaling the costs at the same rate (back in 2010, we had about the same number of staff supporting a program with 200 students a term as we currently do supporting 8,000 students a term).
In terms of funding, we didn't have restricted grant funding for the Fellows pilot, meaning funding for it came from a variety of the institutional and individual donors who provide us unrestricted general operating support for our work, including Wikipedia Fellows. Our development director sees lots of potential for funding future rounds, and we're actively working on securing funding so we can scale the program, increasing its impact while making it more cost effective. I share your hopes for this program, and think it has the potential to, as you put it, "be successful, financially sustainable, and cost-effective in the medium to long term." :)
LiAnna
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
As I wrote in my previous email, I get the impression that this program was relatively expensive compared to the number of content contributors (who in this case are academics). I am keeping in mind that this was a pilot, and that initial planning and the first iteration for many
programs
like this require some one-time expenses and some debugging. My guess is that for future rounds WikiEd can make the program be more efficient, and that this will be a work in progress. This program is not without financial costs, both for the pilot and for future rounds. I return to the questions that I asked LiAnna in my
previous
email: who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more efficient in terms of cost per participant? I am hoping that WikiEd has a reliable funding source for the next round, and that WikiEd is currently planning how to increase the cost-effectiveness. Stepping back to consider the larger problem of too few knowledgable volunteers supporting too many novices throughout the wikiverse, I get
the
impression that WMF is spending increasing amounts of money on training
and
one-on-one help for technical and content contributors, both by directly funding WMF employees and by providing funds to grantees. I anticipate
that
the trend will continue, and I am anxious to see it be effective in increasing content contributor longevity, content quality, content quantity, diversity of contributors, and measues of community health. I
am
glad to see WikiEd working in this domain with academics, and I would
like
for this program to be successful, financially sustainable, and cost-effective in the medium to long term.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: James Salsman <
jsalsman@gmail.com>
Date: 5/23/18 7:07 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education < education@lists.wikimedia.org>, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com Subject:
Re:
[Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot Pine, why would you be concerned about the cost-effectiveness or sustainability. This program looks great to me, except for the mismatch between needs and recruiting.
On that point, there is an alternative to http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/files/ 2015/09/figure-1-wikipedia-open-access1.jpg
(Beyond expanding it from the sciences to the humanities and ranking it by the damage quality issues do to society for each topic.)
Which is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7cHxlGgEt4&t=46m
Math is the most valuable topic for donations. I'm interested in suggesting improvements to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frobenius_manifold
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi LiAnna,
Thank you for this report. Increasing the number of good-faith
contributors to Wikipedia is always nice to see. I believe that at least
a
few people in WMF, the affiliates, and the long-term volunteer population have been interested for many years in increasing the number of academics who contribute to Wikipedia.
The program sounds like it was relatively labor intensive on the part
of
WikiEd, and the number of academic participants was small. Who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more
efficient
in terms of cost per participant?
I would like to see this project scale up, but I am concerned about its
cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability.
As you probably know, I am continuing my development of training
materials, primarily videos, for new Wikimedians, although the audience that I have in mind is more typical of ENWP's volunteer population
instead
of being focused on the specific interests and mindsets of academic contributors.
Regards, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) -------- Original message --------From: LiAnna Davis <
lianna@wikiedu.org>
Date: 5/22/18 9:51 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education < education@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot
Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month
pilot
to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the
U.S.)
to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of
expertise.
We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we
learned a
*lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation
report
on
what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the
pilot:
Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_pilot_evaluation
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-
publishes-evaluation-of-fellows-pilot/
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to
begin
in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of
the
Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can
be
helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who
might
also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of the evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Hi Pine,
Fellows shared in surveys that they felt encouraged to apply to the program because their academic associations see it as aligning with their mission to disseminate knowledge to the public; at the end of the pilot, participants saw it as professional development in refreshing how to communicate to the public and learning how to participate in an online community like Wikipedia. This is certainly not universal across academics or universities, but it speaks to the power that our partnerships with academic associations have.
LiAnna
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the comments, LiAnna.
An issue that someone mentioned to me is that many academics choose not to edit Wikipedia articles because editing Wikipedia is far less beneficial to their careers than publishing academic articles and books. There may be some benefit to academics from having their articles and books cited in Wikipedia, but that is different from editing Wikipedia unless they add their own articles and books as citations or have someone else do that on their behalf (which I would discourage them from doing directly, although recommending relevant articles and books on talk pages and disclosing any potential COI could still be a net benefit so that other editors can evaluate their recommendations). I am curious about how you were so successful in recruiting academics to volunteer for this program. Can you comment on that? It would be nice if academics and universities are starting to feel that contributing to Wikipedia is valuable for academic careers and/or as public service that they wish to encourage.
On a related subject, I will mention that to my surprise, some universities now award scholarships to undergraduate applicants for e-sports. One would think that extensively contributing constructively to Wikipedia, whether by applicants for admission or by academics, would be viewed much more positively by universities than participating in e-sports, but to my knowledge no universities have made such a decision. If you know of any change in academia about the value of editing Wikipedia articles by applicants for undergraduate or graduate admission, I would also be interested in hearing about that. Perhaps admissions policies are a potential area in which the Wiki Education Foundation could lobby universities to make changes. I realize that this is a tangent from the subject of encouraging academics to contribute content themselves, but I thought that I would mention this as a related topic of interest.
Thanks,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 9:49 AM, LiAnna Davis lianna@wikiedu.org wrote:
Hi Pine,
You're exactly right that we spent a lot of staff time and thus expense
on
this first round because it's a pilot -- to be able to put an extensive report together like this, we needed to devote a LOT of staff time to tracking everything that happened. Those learnings are invaluable in a pilot program, and are now helping us actively work to scale up the
impact
without significantly adding to the expense. As we note in the "Adapting the pilot" section of the report ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_ Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_pilot_evaluation#Adapting_the_pilot), we're experimenting with a wide variety of ways to run Fellows cohorts
over
the next year in order to see how we can get more impact without significantly adding staff time (and thus costs) to the mix. This model
is
exactly the same one we followed with our Classroom Program -- a lot of individual attention to instructors and students at the beginning so we
can
garner learnings from what exactly happened in the program, then experimenting with ways to successfully scale the impact without scaling the costs at the same rate (back in 2010, we had about the same number of staff supporting a program with 200 students a term as we currently do supporting 8,000 students a term).
In terms of funding, we didn't have restricted grant funding for the Fellows pilot, meaning funding for it came from a variety of the institutional and individual donors who provide us unrestricted general operating support for our work, including Wikipedia Fellows. Our development director sees lots of potential for funding future rounds,
and
we're actively working on securing funding so we can scale the program, increasing its impact while making it more cost effective. I share your hopes for this program, and think it has the potential to, as you put it, "be successful, financially sustainable, and cost-effective in the medium to long term." :)
LiAnna
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
As I wrote in my previous email, I get the impression that this program was relatively expensive compared to the number of content contributors (who in this case are academics). I am keeping in mind that this was a pilot, and that initial planning and the first iteration for many
programs
like this require some one-time expenses and some debugging. My guess
is
that for future rounds WikiEd can make the program be more efficient,
and
that this will be a work in progress. This program is not without financial costs, both for the pilot and for future rounds. I return to the questions that I asked LiAnna in my
previous
email: who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way
that
is more efficient in terms of cost per participant? I am hoping that WikiEd has a reliable funding source for the next
round,
and that WikiEd is currently planning how to increase the cost-effectiveness. Stepping back to consider the larger problem of too few knowledgable volunteers supporting too many novices throughout the wikiverse, I get
the
impression that WMF is spending increasing amounts of money on training
and
one-on-one help for technical and content contributors, both by
directly
funding WMF employees and by providing funds to grantees. I anticipate
that
the trend will continue, and I am anxious to see it be effective in increasing content contributor longevity, content quality, content quantity, diversity of contributors, and measues of community health. I
am
glad to see WikiEd working in this domain with academics, and I would
like
for this program to be successful, financially sustainable, and cost-effective in the medium to long term.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
-------- Original message --------From: James Salsman <
jsalsman@gmail.com>
Date: 5/23/18 7:07 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education < education@lists.wikimedia.org>, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com Subject:
Re:
[Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot Pine, why would you be concerned about the cost-effectiveness or sustainability. This program looks great to me, except for the mismatch between needs and recruiting.
On that point, there is an alternative to http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/files/ 2015/09/figure-1-wikipedia-open-access1.jpg
(Beyond expanding it from the sciences to the humanities and ranking it by the damage quality issues do to society for each topic.)
Which is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7cHxlGgEt4&t=46m
Math is the most valuable topic for donations. I'm interested in suggesting improvements to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frobenius_manifold
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi LiAnna,
Thank you for this report. Increasing the number of good-faith
contributors to Wikipedia is always nice to see. I believe that at
least
a
few people in WMF, the affiliates, and the long-term volunteer
population
have been interested for many years in increasing the number of
academics
who contribute to Wikipedia.
The program sounds like it was relatively labor intensive on the part
of
WikiEd, and the number of academic participants was small. Who funded WikiEd's expenses for this project, and what thoughts does WikiEd have regarding how the project can be scaled up in a way that is more
efficient
in terms of cost per participant?
I would like to see this project scale up, but I am concerned about
its
cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability.
As you probably know, I am continuing my development of training
materials, primarily videos, for new Wikimedians, although the audience that I have in mind is more typical of ENWP's volunteer population
instead
of being focused on the specific interests and mindsets of academic contributors.
Regards, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) -------- Original message --------From: LiAnna Davis <
lianna@wikiedu.org>
Date: 5/22/18 9:51 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education < education@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia Education]
Evaluation
report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot
Greetings, all!
At the beginning of 2018, the Wiki Education Foundation ran a 3-month
pilot
to engage academic experts (mostly professors at universities in the
U.S.)
to improve English Wikipedia articles related to their areas of
expertise.
We're pretty happy with how the pilot turned out -- we had some great improvements to articles, and, more importantly for a pilot, we
learned a
*lot* about how to run a program like this successfully.
The team that worked on it put together this extensive evaluation
report
on
what we did, what we learned, and what the outcomes were from the
pilot:
Foundation/Wikipedia_Fellows_pilot_evaluation
I also put together a short blog post about it: https://wikiedu.org/blog/2018/05/22/wiki-education-
publishes-evaluation-of-fellows-pilot/
We already have calls for applications out for additional cohorts to
begin
in June, and we're eager to learn even more from future iterations of
the
Wikipedia Fellows program. I hope sharing our learnings like this can
be
helpful for other education programs in the Wikimedia movement who
might
also be interested in engaging subject matter experts to edit.
We're happy to answer questions on this list or on the talk page of
the
evaluation report on Meta.
LiAnna
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
-- LiAnna Davis Director of Programs; Deputy Director Wiki Education www.wikiedu.org _______________________________________________ Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
Education mailing list Education@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education