Wikipedia:Education Program/Structure proposals/Bryan Cox proposal

Please list your name and/or Wikipedia username.

What idea(s) do you have for what the new structure for the U.S. and Canada Wikipedia Education Programs could look like?

In order to figure out what the Programs could, or should look like, it's important to identify the priorities of the programs first. The substantive priorities are established already, they are essentially to promote the use of Wikipedia in the classroom, and the concomitant engagement of students with Wikipedia. I believe that the work of the working group will focus upon the question of what procedural and functional blocks exist that could interfere with the substantive priorities?

I anticipate that a recurring theme for the working group will be the debate between centralization and devolution of leadership, initiative, authority and responsibility. Centralization and devolution each have their advantages, and will be appropriate for different circumstances. I believe that it is important to apply the right tool to the right situation. In order to do this, proper identification of the situation or issue is imperative, else everything will seem to be a nail.

The four pieces I identified fall into two groups: leadership and initiative on the one hand, and authority and responsibility on the other. The first two, if developed improperly, could lead to stagnation through apathy, where the program retreats to a minor niche effort and fails to meet its full potential. The second two could have the same effect, either by being too draconian and crimping the freedom of Wikipedians, academics, and students and thereby destroying their willingness to participate, or by being too weak, and leaving the organization open to internal strife and conflict, diluting and diffusing its effort so that it can have no real impact.

The working group should seek to identify the avenues and conflicts that can cause each of the above effects - and any other detrimental effects as well. The proper tool should then be applied to the right extent in order to avoid negative side effects. If the working group creates a program that only has a hammer with which to solve its problems, some of the problems will not be solved.

For this reason, I strongly advocate that the programs not sacrifice either a traditional, permanent structure, or a formal, discursive, representative body entirely. At the same time, I believe that the power of Wikipedia lies in the people who put it together. If we use the right tool, in the right place, for the right job, we will all win.

How would you ensure this new structure involves all key stakeholders, including academics and the Wikipedia community?

By tapping into the respective expertise of the members of the working group, by filling any gaps in the working group's perspective through solicitation of further input, and by ensuring that the future of the programs provide for continued input, change, and evolution of the programs at the behest of the interests of every stakeholder.

What are potential pitfalls of this approach?

The potential pitfalls are that the working group gets it wrong, or that the working group gets now right, but not later. For this reason, there must be a mechanism for renovating the program's structure to fix it or bring it up to date.

Any other comments about your proposal?

Castles in the sky are just that. The people who will be selected for this working group will, no doubt, have significant experience in the education programs and will each come to the table with their own perspectives and their own priorities as to real issues that hinder the programs' effectiveness. The solution to one issue will likely affect another. In order to develop a win ning program, the working group really needs to start by collecting and understanding these issues as a whole, rather than as seemingly independent pieces.