-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sumana
Harihareswara
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013 11:50 AM
To: Wikimedia developers
Cc: Siko Bouterse; Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Toss around a project idea in IdeaLab,maybe get a
grant?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab
IdeaLab is an incubator for people to share ideas to improve Wikimedia
projects and collaboratively develop them into plans and grant
proposals.
I'm cross-posting to the developer and researcher lists because I
could imagine some of you following this path:
idea for research -> IdeaLab -> learning to use publicly available
data sources -> quick prototyping via User Metrics, replicated
databases in Labs, stats.wikimedia.org, and Limn -> idea for a bigger
project with research & editor engagement implications -> idea
refinement in IdeaLab -> grant proposal
Now is a good time to start so you can get a grant proposal in by the
30 September deadline, requesting up to USD 30,000. More information:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-learn
Hope this is helpful!
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Gangarra et al., VisEd should have stabilised by the time we got around to writing/designing/producing vids. That's a pretty good time to start, to ride the new wave.
T
___________________
Tony Souter
*Fixed-line phone: +612 42633401
*Mobile: 0450 717627 (+61450 717627), but usually not switched on
*Skype: tonysouter
*Street address: 1/29 Tarrant Ave, Kiama Downs 2533, Australia
hmm many of those will need to be redone/duplicated with the changes to
visual editor
On 21 July 2013 14:14, Kerry Kilner <k.kilner(a)uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Thanks for this reference, Leigh!
>
> Kerry Kilner
>
>
> On 21/07/2013, at 3:59 PM, Leigh Blackall <leighblackall(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are a few on the Wikiversity page I maintain for workshops: <http://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikipedia_editing_workshops>
> http://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikipedia_editing_workshops
>
> If need be I'll forward a YouTube playlist
> On 21/07/2013 3:03 PM, "Kerry Raymond" < <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
> kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ****
>>
>> Leigh, feel free to point me at these instructional videos (there’s stuff
>> I would love to learn personally as well as making those links more
>> available to others). I did go looking once and found some on a Wikipedia
>> site (probably on outreach, can’t remember) but they seemed to be all
>> broken links.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Certainly we would not be proposing to reinvent the wheel if there was
>> perfectly good material already there. There might be some minor
>> “Australian” content we could add but it would be very minor (mainly about
>> referencing key Austrlian resources)****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Kerry****
>>
>> ** **
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Leigh Blackall [mailto: <leighblackall(a)gmail.com>
>> leighblackall(a)gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
>> *To:* <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com
>> *Cc:* <wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org; WMAu members
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos
>> and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Is this suggestion because we are dissatisfied with the dozens if not
>> hundreds and thousands of instructional videos already available? Maybe the
>> suggestion is for Australian accent and language versions? A series in an
>> Indigenous language would be remarkable! Or perhaps the suggestion is to
>> create videos about ****Australia**** related projects and interest
>> groups? In which case its a good suggestion. I for one would benefit from a
>> video overview of the things going on. I have a few videos on my channel
>> outlining Wikiversity work. And know of others looking at Wikinews.****
>>
>> On 21/07/2013 8:44 AM, "Kerry Raymond" < <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
>> kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:****
>>
>> In ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> <http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal>
>> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training
>> and/or to replace it. He asks is “is it too ambitious”? Because of the
>> WMF’s enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards
>> “low-hanging fruit” projects. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Edit training workshops are a good example of this “low hanging” fruit
>> problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
>> know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
>> attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
>> (based on feedback forms) – so that’s a nice measurable success for a nice
>> project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
>> instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially
>> reach a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200
>> people we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be
>> absolutely zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is
>> much higher (we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit
>> training.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian
>> WP community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like
>> to run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people’s work lives).
>> Would we find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional
>> videos which they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don’t
>> know. What are the relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel
>> costs, but we’d probably need to spend some money on professional tools for
>> making instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and
>> perhaps some training on how to use them effectively.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or
>> higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of
>> infinite resources we can do both, but we don’t live in that world
>> (“everything costs something” as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).*
>> ***
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical
>> problem in relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality
>> of the visual editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop
>> materials (slides and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of
>> videos. But my question here is more philosophical about the risk/return
>> model of what we do.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Kerry****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> <Wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l****
>>
>
--
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
In
http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
<http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal>
Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or
to replace it. He asks is "is it too ambitious"? Because of the WMF's
enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards "low-hanging
fruit" projects.
Edit training workshops are a good example of this "low hanging" fruit
problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
(based on feedback forms) - so that's a nice measurable success for a nice
project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially reach
a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200 people
we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be absolutely
zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is much higher
(we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit training.
Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian WP
community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like to
run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people's work lives). Would
we find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional videos
which they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don't know. What
are the relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel costs, but
we'd probably need to spend some money on professional tools for making
instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and perhaps
some training on how to use them effectively.
So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or
higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of
infinite resources we can do both, but we don't live in that world
("everything costs something" as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).
Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical problem
in relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality of the
visual editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop materials
(slides and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of videos. But my
question here is more philosophical about the risk/return model of what we
do.
Kerry
Tony1 has made some comments about the 2014 Annual Plan:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan
and I hope we will be hearing more from others!
In regard to his comment about WMAU being represented at international
events, it's probably worth a broader discussion of some of the issues here.
In 2013, we didn't budget any money for participation in international
community events, precisely because we (the committee) were doubtful about
the benefits from "chinwagging" relative to the costs. However, that has
been interpreted by others as not engaging with the broader community, etc.
In particular we had a certain amount of criticism for not being represented
at the Chapters Conference.
The other issue here is that, despite all the electronic means of
communication, people still seem to need face-to-face meetings (and, in
particular, the act of eating together) to build trust and goodwill; this is
something that I have seen so many times in my years in international
standards development (even though almost all the people I worked with were
IT people and hence those who one might think most able to work effectively
electronically). And trust/goodwill is important when it comes to getting
money, so it may be that an international airfare for some carefully-chosen
event (meaning "who" will be there) might be an excellent investment. So
that's why it's on the list of possibilities for discussion.
Kerry
The recent WMF Metrics meeting recorded a 1 hour video. The purpose of the
meeting was to ensure that WMF staff and volunteers are all on the "same
page" on the "state of the encyclopaedia" and the initiatives being taken to
address concerns such as edition attrition. Don't be put off by the first
few minutes of "hello everybody" stuff as it then gets down into a series of
substantive presentations. I found it very interesting and thought others
might find it so too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALT8_Toyc0g
Kerry
There's an agenda here and some of the slide packs:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2013-07-11
but some of the items on the agenda aren't on the video.
Kerry
_____
From: Kerry Raymond [mailto:kerry.raymond@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013 9:23 AM
To: 'WMAu members'; 'Wikimedia Australia Chapter'
Subject: Interesting youtube video about WMF's activity
The recent WMF Metrics meeting recorded a 1 hour video. The purpose of the
meeting was to ensure that WMF staff and volunteers are all on the "same
page" on the "state of the encyclopaedia" and the initiatives being taken to
address concerns such as edition attrition. Don't be put off by the first
few minutes of "hello everybody" stuff as it then gets down into a series of
substantive presentations. I found it very interesting and thought others
might find it so too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALT8_Toyc0g
Kerry
A little while ago there was a call for ideas for our Annual Plan for 2014,
which is an essential part of our FDC funding application (can't ask for
money unless we have things we intend to do!).
To try to get this conversation going, I have thrown together a list of
ideas that have come up. Which of these are worth doing? Which not? What's
missing from the list?
http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal:2014_Annual_Plan
Please discuss via email or via editing the page/talk as you prefer.
Kerry
The World Intellectual Property Organisation has established a treaty which
seeks to ensure that copyright is not a barrier to translating books etc
into formats suitable for visually impaired people and to allow these to be
shared across national boundaries (to avoid having to repeat the translation
in each country). It is expected that this will increase the range of
material available for visually impaired people worldwide.
Read more here:
http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2013/article_0017.html
Kerry