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.


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 [] 
> Sent: Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
> To:
> Cc:; 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
> 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 mailing list

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

Reply via email to