User talk:ClemRutter/proposal

Participants

--ClemRutter (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leutha (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Very good idea![reply]

Task list

Suggestions for dataitems?
Suggestions for Wikidata?
February's Education Summit?
Contact London Grid for Learning?
Set up an official project?

(please add and edit)

--ClemRutter (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging 5 million articles

Tagging 5 million articles is a humungous project, keeping such tags accurate and up to date even more so. I would suggest a more selective approach where educationalists assess ones that they deem relevant, much of the sport and popular culture parts of the pedia will have no educational relevance for decades, perhaps centuries. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if we had one course tagged with suitable pages it would be a step towards having half a dozen such courses . . . . Leutha (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My in built prejudices say the sport and popular culture sections of WP can be safely ignored. But unusually my prejudice is wrong. Read [filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-4810-W-SP-14.PDF AQA double double module Media Studies GCSE]]- starting at page 12. As part of the course work the students have to Analyse the opening three minutes of a specific film or television programme. How does the film or programme engage the interest of its audience? I don't expect WPdians to express an opinion on how the course should be taught- but indicate the availability of contextual material within the definition of the GCSE. I would hope that a group of teachers would rigorously evaluate the WP article and assess quality and suitability leaving comments and links.

I think this is a good demonstration of serving the needs of our users-

the teacher who has to prepare the students, and leave multiple examples in his lesson plan and deliver a lesson that is as relevant to the 'my little pony' group, the Oxbridge aspirant (they are doing the wrong course!) and knuckle-walkers.
The non-specialist head of faculty who has to assist an NQT prepare te course for the first timew
The teaching assistant who is doing one-to-one supporting a special needs child
The parent who has to support the child in producing the coursework at the last minute- or the one who thinks that an A is just not good enough.
The child who is keen and interested- or the child who has to manage the course with only non-specialist supply teachers.

All of these are our users, and the examiners take Media Studies theory very seriously- lets not do our self a disservice by underestimating the value of our material. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clem, I don't dispute that people would find such assessments useful if the work could be done and kept up to date. I just don't see realistically how such a huge task could be done. Maybe in future by AIs, but it looks to me as big a task as our existing article assessment workload, and that is widely embedded across hundreds of Wikiprojects and I dread to think how many participants. Yet it has a permanent backlog both of unassessed pages and those needing reassessment. How many people do you think this needs? How much time are you allowing to assess each article? Ϣere SpielChequers 04:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely agreed that WP is poor in attracting younger editors

I know that as do you, but I'm not sure how widely it is known or agreed. The old image of Wikipedia as a teenage hangout persists among many people who haven't noticed the changes of the last few years. It is worth pointing out that Wikipedia has gone through a huge community change in less than a decade. I think in part it is that the founding generation have grown with the project and the adolescents of ten to fifteen years ago are now in their twenties. Part that the expectations for citation that came in circa 2007/8 made the site less welcoming to teenagers and adolescents, and part with the rise of the Ipad and Smartphone - this last factor perhaps the biggest. To the smartphone generation Wikipedia is a broadcast medium not an interactive one.

There is also the question of whether we want to deliberately recruit teenage editors. I'm very tolerant of those we've had, especially those adults we have who started as teenagers and adolescents. But I'm not sure I would deliberately target under 18s as a source of new editors. By all means show them how to use Wikipedia, but for editors I would rather we were recruiting silver surfers. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point you're getting at, Ϣere, but wjat I pick up from Clem's proposal is that it is about context, and I feel that if we were to repose the question in terms of how could we develop a context in which recruiting teenagers for Wikipedia would likely be a positive experience for all concerned, then I think this proposal should fit the bill. Not only that but a similar methodology could be used for adult learners doing evening classes or residential educational weekends. About two years ago WMUK had some discussions with the WEA about precisely this, and I believe some feelers were sent out in the U3A direction. Whether there is any appetite for pursuing these by WMUK is another matter. But I do feel that one outcome of this initiative might work for adult learners as well. So I would be happy to support this initiative.Leutha (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are some bright kids who would take to it like ducks to water, and it wouldn't surprise me if we have some around today. I doubt we have any admins under 18 on EN wiki anymore, but among the editors yes there could be some whose real age would surprise us. There are some roles such as photography and video that I think teenagers would be ready for. There are plenty of articles on windmills and the like where a short video would be very appropriate. But if you want to do outreach to that group then I think you need to be realistic as to the two big things that have changed since the days when teenagers ran the site. Firstly; nowadays most of them interface with the web over smartphones and tablets, but you really need some sort of PC to edit. Secondly; we now expect citations and uncited material is liable to be rejected as unsourced; I'm not sure at what age teenagers get taught about citation, but I'd rather we were doing outreach to them after they've been taught that rather than before. U3A, WEA are as you say a completely different sort of opportunity. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence was "It is widely agreed that WP is poor in attracting younger editors- and servicing the need of users in primary and secondary education." and it is the second phrase I am trying to address. I feel that discussing editor recruitment and retention could be addressed elsewhere. Perhaps the first sentence should be "It is widely agreed that WP is poor servicing the need of users in primary and secondary education."

Thanks Clem, how about: "It is widely agreed that Wikipedia poorly services the needs of users in primary and secondary education." Ϣere SpielChequers 04:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]