On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Barry Newstead
<bnewstead@wikimedia.org> 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@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