Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Leigh Blackall]

There are a few on the Wikiversity page I maintain for 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"  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:leighblack...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
> *To:* kerry.raym...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* wikimediaau-l@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"  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@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Tony Souter]

Someone mentioned the social aspect of face-to-face edit training vs 
professionally produced training videos. Face-to-face can be an important 
aspect, but will always be limited in scope and relatively expensive (as Craig 
has pointed out, especially for a country like Australia).

There are two limitations in scope for face-to-face training, I think: the 
sheer volume of skills, dimensions to WP editing, that we'd like to get across 
– when there's only so much you can fit into a single session, or even multiple 
sessions; and (2) the fact that WMF sites need numbers ... lots of new editors, 
more than we can pump out in occasional room-based events. And looking at 
Australian-related articles, we need lots of new Australian editors. And it 
would be nice to reach out to people in Australian regions, and the 
Asia-Pacific (in English), whom we just couldn't possibly involve in 
face-to-face training.

The trainer in me is also aware that conveying skills and knowledge in more 
than one mode is often very reinforcing for recipients – face-to-face and 
online vid and even online/skype mentoring? BTW, WMAU face-to-face sessions in 
a number of cities are going to be funded by the Australian Research Council as 
part of the Linkage project on disability in sport (John Vandenberg is 
organising, I believe).

As for specifically Australian content/angles, they're not essential: just 
showing the way generically for the rest of the WM movement would be a good 
thing to do.

T





On 21/07/2013, at 3:03 PM, Kerry Raymond 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:leighblack...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
> To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
> Cc: wikimediaau-l@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"  wrote:
> In
>  
> 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 profe

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Kerry Raymond]

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:leighblack...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
Cc: wikimediaau-l@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"  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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Leigh Blackall]

Another idea for the list. .. sorry if this is already in there.

Australian Response to WMF campaigns.  Riding on the shoulder of relative
giants, when WMF run something like Wikimedia Loves Monuments, WmAu somehow
knows in advance and runs WmAu Loves Monuments. Same for the video series
Impact of Wikipedia, and so on.
On 21/07/2013 2:53 PM, "Tony Souter"  wrote:

> "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"
>
> I was assuming WMAU would hire a contractor for the tech side. There are
> skilled individuals who have the right equipment/software at home and are
> prepared to produce an excellent product. Nothing less than professional
> will do nowadays, and it could be really slick, which sends a good message
> about WMF sites. WMAU's input would be in designing and writing the vid,
> probably in consultation with the contractor. And in the first place
> deciding on what aspects of editing are the targets – and whether they'd be
> Australian-specific.
>
> All I know is that I've not yet seen a really good, attractive vid about
> editing WP. If someone has, please link me to it.
>
> Gillian White probably has a good knowledge of what is available already,
> and might be able to identify ways in which we could fill an important
> niche.
>
> T
>
>
>
> On 21/07/2013, at 8:43 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
>
> In
> ** **
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
> *___*
> *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*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Tony Souter]

"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"

I was assuming WMAU would hire a contractor for the tech side. There are 
skilled individuals who have the right equipment/software at home and are 
prepared to produce an excellent product. Nothing less than professional will 
do nowadays, and it could be really slick, which sends a good message about WMF 
sites. WMAU's input would be in designing and writing the vid, probably in 
consultation with the contractor. And in the first place deciding on what 
aspects of editing are the targets – and whether they'd be Australian-specific.

All I know is that I've not yet seen a really good, attractive vid about 
editing WP. If someone has, please link me to it.

Gillian White probably has a good knowledge of what is available already, and 
might be able to identify ways in which we could fill an important niche.

T



On 21/07/2013, at 8:43 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

> In
>  
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

___
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









___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Richard Ames]

More videos are not needed.  More hands on mentoring probably is.

On 21/07/13 08:43, Kerry Raymond wrote:

In






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).


This does not ring true to me   I am a volunteer and could support 
more sessions. I don't think there is the call for them


Richard.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Leigh Blackall]

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"  wrote:

>  In 
>
> ** **
>
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

[Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Kerry Raymond]

In 

 

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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l