Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[Pine W]

Hi LiAnna,
That's interesting and nice to hear. It's refreshing to hear good news.
I wish you the best for future iterations of this program.
Thanks,Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
null
___
Education mailing list
Education@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[James Salsman]

> 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

LiAnna,

If any of the Fellows responded indicating a differing opinion, please send them
 http://ide.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/SSRN-id3039505.pdf
especially the part about being 1,700 times more cost effective on
page 32. I am hopeful that you will align your Fellows program
recruiting to match the coverage and accuracy needs of the wikipedias.

And again, I want to take this opportunity to reiterate my
recommendation to establish an essay contest for students on topics
such as economics, or any of Wikipedia's under-represented sciences or
humanities. The last time we discussed this question I did not
understand the reasons that you suggested such an essay contest would
be inappropriate. You not only objected to the idea of an essay
contest, but you asked me to not run such a contest myself, saying
that asking Education Program students, "to write essays would be
counterproductive given the mission of our program, our organization,
and the Wikimedia movement. We will not support this effort, and ask
that you do not reach out to them on your own."

Is that still your position on the subject? You didn't provide any
reasons that the best Wikipedians aren't also the best essay writers
on the Wikipedia projects. You didn't say how you measured the
purported counterproductivity, you didn't say whether the restraint
you asked of my freedom of expression was an official or a personal
request, you didn't offer anything which would make me less likely to
want to run such an essay contest myself, and you didn't say whether
Frank Schulenberg or Katherine Maher agree with your refusal, your
assessment of counterproductively, or your request that I not hold
such a contest.

Best regards,
Jim

___
Education mailing list
Education@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[Pine W]

urn 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 <
> jsals...@gmail.com>
> > Date: 5/23/18  7:07 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education <
> > education@lists.wikimedia.org>, Pine W <wiki.p...@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=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.p...@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 <
> lia...@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

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[LiAnna Davis]

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.p...@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 <jsals...@gmail.com>
> Date: 5/23/18  7:07 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education <
> education@lists.wikimedia.org>, Pine W <wiki.p...@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=46m
>
> Math is the most valuable topic for donations. I'm interested in
> suggesting improvements to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[Pine W]

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 <jsals...@gmail.com> 
Date: 5/23/18  7:07 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education 
<education@lists.wikimedia.org>, Pine W <wiki.p...@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=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.p...@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 <lia...@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 fr

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[James Salsman]

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=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  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  
> Date: 5/22/18  9:51 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education 
>  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

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[Pine W]

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  Date: 
5/22/18  9:51 AM  (GMT-08:00) To: Wikimedia Education 
 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

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[James Salsman]

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

___
Education mailing list
Education@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[LiAnna Davis]

Answers inline!

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Juliana Bastos Marques <
domusau...@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 
> 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.
___
Education mailing list
Education@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education

Re: [Wikimedia Education] Evaluation report on Wikipedia Fellows pilot

[James Salsman]

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  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_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