Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Co-op/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Co-op

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 18 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1

Mentors for the Co-op Pilot (starting March 4th, 2015)

If you're interested in volunteering as a mentor for the Co-op for our pilot (set from December 2014 - end of January 2015 January 2015 - February 2015 March 4th, 2015), please sign up below:

  1. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Kirill [talk] 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Go Phightins! 01:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I should have sufficient free time IRL in those months. It appears at this time that there is no shortage of mentors signed up, and as I have another major Wikipedia project on the horizon, I think it would be prudent if I "bowed out" of this one, cognizant of the availability and interest of others. I am more than willing to serve as an advisor on an as needed basis. Go Phightins! 19:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  5. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  6. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "...to simplify the whole process of “mentorship” as we know it today." Sounds interesting!
  7. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 23:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  8. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  9. Yunshui 雲水 08:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  10. ///EuroCarGT 22:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  11. I am interested, but would like to know more about how it would work. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  12. I'm interested- I may not be as readily available as much as others due to class, but I'm willing to help out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  13. Realizing that things can change in a few months, and that I might have other demands on my time change in the interim, but willing to give it a try. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  14. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  15. Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  16. theonesean 05:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  17.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  18. AmaryllisGardener talk 14:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  19. Jim Carter 15:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  20. Huon (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  21. Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  22. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  23. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 14:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  24. Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC) I am interested in mentoring women.
  25. ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Flattered that two people have invited me to join this. I actually don't edit in article space much, which makes me wonder how much help I can be. But willing to give it a go.
  26. --Biblioworm 20:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Willing to try this out.
  27. Let's give it a spin. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC).
  28. ...


A few ideas

I know this is maybe my single greatest obsession around here but I very much think that broader development of pages and increased visibility of pages like those at Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles which probably should be renamed as WikiProject Prospectuses would be one of the most generally helpful things we could do. Giving new editors a clearer idea of which extant and not yet extant articles can or do exist and some sources to use in the early stages of development would make it much more likely that articles created from them would not be deleted as often. Also in a lot of cases making good sources more easily available in some specialist topics would probably make development of content in those areas easier and more productive as well. Commons or wikisource could hold a lot of the PD ones. Have we ever asked those involved in the education noticeboard and other places what PD sources they think would be the most useful for us to basically make quickly available to students? John Carter (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We are indeed hoping to drive editors to specific tasks as a component of mentorship, and it's great to have additional resources like the category you mentioned above (although it needs to get filled out a bit more-- religious lists seem to dominate the category right now). As for making clear good and accessible sources for Wikipedia articles, we could definitely make this a part of a resource center we are planning to implement as a part of the Co-op. I think for a lot of article writing though, resources through Google Books and Google News tend to work well so long as editors have the basics down about reliable sources, and we intend for mentors to guide new editors interested in article writing through those policies. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It's dominated by religion and parareligion pretty much because I'm the only person who has done any yet and that seems to me the most problematic areas so I started with it, but I do intend to start one some others when I finish the bibliography of encyclopedia articles. But if anyone wanted to jump ahead of me on them I wouldn't mind at all. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Flow

Thus project is named as one of the probable candidates for the next roll-out of WP:Flow this month (see the Flow roadmap). I can't find any discussion of this at either the grant page or here, so I wonder whether the people involved are aaware of this, and why they think it is a good idea to use an experimental and buggy discussion system as the interaction tool with new editors. On every other talk page, they will have to use the normal talk page style and tools, so confronting them with yet another environment, which will probably be vsatly different from the eventual finished Flow product anyway, seems like a bad move to me. Fram (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Flow isn't being rolled out next month to this space for new editors to use (although our team will be internally testing it to address any issues we run into). The Co-op won't be ready for new editors to use until December 2014 when we start piloting. In terms of how Flow is likely to be implemented, editors won't be required to use Flow to communicate with each other, but it will be an option. So if editors find it too buggy for their purposes, they don't have to use it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't believe that Flow in its current state is fit to give to new users, but we'll see how it looks in December I guess. Fram (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Visual Editor

This is a related question: what about the Visual Editor? For a while it was the default for new users which made it difficult for me to support some of them since I'm lazy and I like the old style editor and don't want to bother with the visual editor unless I really have to. My understanding is that currently it's an "opt in" for US users. So the default is the traditional editor not the visual editor. So I'm guessing we can be pretty confident that most of the people we mentor will still be using the traditional editor. Is that correct? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: Correct, I believe the visual editor has been opt-in as of Fall 2013. I think mentors should gauge how easy it is for learners to grapple with the standard text editor. I imagine in most cases it will be fine, but you can always suggest turning on the Visual Editor in preferences if it seems to be a source of trouble. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Name

Really, another "co-op" (MediaWiki, education)? What's going on?! --Nemo 10:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of these projects, both of which have come up in the last month, whereas this project has been in development since June, and our name since July. The actual name of the project at the Education Program is called the Wikipedia Education Collaborative. The MediaWiki Co-op is specific to MediaWiki users per We are a group of MediaWiki enthusiasts who care about the development and evolution of MediaWiki as a tool for everyone. I'm not really concerned about confusion here considering the scope of these projects is independent from our own. Whatever is "going on" is not really a problem. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mentorship

What is the relationship of this initiative to the existing WP:Mentorship process? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Embarrassingly, I wasn't aware of this particular essay until you posted it here just now! In term of scope and alignment, the Co-op is most closely aligned with the adopt-a-user program in the sense that we are matching editors together for 1-on-1 teaching of editing topics. It is our opinion that AAU has not been successful at bringing editors together because it is not terribly visible and that editors typically have to go through the work of finding an appropriate adopter for them (who is also active and still has the time adopt) or that someone needs to deliberately refer an editor there. We've also noticed that adoptees sometimes drop out midway through. We've also gotten feedback in interviews with adopters that they are burnt out from doing it because there is too much investment involved. This space seeks to resolve these issues.
Some of our other interviews have suggested that this space might be good as a second step beyond initial help spaces like the Teahouse or WP:TWA. One use case might be that an editor who needs help building a userspace or AfC draft has already used advice from the Teahouse (like checking out WP:YFA or WP:RS), but is still having trouble. It would be appropriate to refer them to the Co-op to get matched to a mentor who can provide both specific advice for their article, and guidance on article creation more generally. This is a kind of interaction that's more involved and sustained than those usually found within the Q&A board at the Teahouse. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pre-pilot discussions for mentors

@Cullen328, Kirill Lokshin, Go Phightins!, Calliopejen1, Buster7, Soni, and SuperHamster @Yunshui, EuroCarGT, Anne Delong, Tokyogirl79, John Carter, and MadScientistX11

Hey mentors. My deepest thanks for your willingness to mentor during our pilot, tentatively scheduled for January–February 2015. A more exact date will be forthcoming, as we've only recently started building graphic components for the space. Most of you know me— I'm Jethro, and I'm the project manager of the Individual Engagement Grant to build this space. Soni and Gabrielm199 are also grantees on this project serving in program development and research capacities respectively.

The purpose of the Co-op is pretty simple on the face of it: We want to match editors who want to learn how to contribute to all of you based on what they want to do and what you want to teach. Everything about this space is geared to this basic idea of bringing people together in this meeting place to facilitate learning and meaningful, sustained engagement with the editing community. That's the big picture.

Of course, there are a lot of details, and I wanted to start to get into those details with all of you, so let's get started. You should definitely ask questions, and I encourage you to do so by section, or to create a new section entirely below my comments here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How will the space work?

Here's the basic idea:

  1. Before the pilot, mentors will create a profile in the space. The profile is pretty simple: it consists of 1) What types of editing skills you want to teach (more on this later), and 2) How many editors you want to mentor, maximum.
  2. Once the pilot begins, invitations will be sent out to newer editors (not completely new editors). We are calling these editors learners, who will create a profile similar to mentors that includes 1) The kind of editing they want to learn about, and 2) a brief, more specific description of what they want a mentor to help them with so mentors have an idea what they want to learn. Like the Teahouse, on all profiles, editors can also add a custom image and a little blurb about yourself, but it's not necessary.
  3. A bot will match editors together based on the type of editing the want to learn/teach and direct both of you to a subpage of the learner's profile page. The actual mentoring is left completely up to you; this space is not about dictating pedagogy. We do plan to have a "mentor resources" page that we can build to share ideas and teaching resources.
    We have decided that this subpage will incorporate the new communication system, Flow. However, I want to make it very clear that the use of this system is optional. You can test it out before we go to pilot, and I do encourage you to try it out (which you can do so at mw:Talk:Sandbox). If you find it useful, that's great, and if you do not, you are free and encouraged to use talk pages, e-mail, IRC, or any other means to communicate that both of you find most effective for mentoring.
  4. Once you are satisfied the learner has understood the material you taught them based on their needs, mentorship ends, and both you and the learner are free agents. You can award learners a barnstar indicating they have successfully completed mentorship. You can continue to mentor the editor on other matters or to assist them in a more casual manner, but the point is that there should be a definite conclusion to mentorship. This is to avoid burnout, both for the mentor and learner.

I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How will matching work?

Good question. So, matching is going to be very, very simple. We've created broad categories of editing skills that learners can choose from. We'll be providing a brief explanation of these categories to learners.

Writing
  • Anything related to content creation or clean-up, like starting a new article or doing article clean-up.
Best Practices
  • This is geared toward teaching about WP policies, editing guidelines, and how they work in practice. For example, understanding why some association football teams are notable, and why some are not.
Images
  • Intended for image uploading and related copyright tasks, like adding a new free/fair-use image to an article or replacing an existing one.
Communication
  • Use of talk pages, user talk pages, dispute resolution processes, the RfC process, AfD, WP:REFUND, etc. Also intended for explanations of the pinging system, watchlist, and other systems used to facilitate discussions around content.
Technical
SOS Other
  • This is intended to be for learners who aren't sure how to categorize what they need help with, but just want a mentor to help them. We're using the term "other" to describe this-- they just need help ASAP and can explain everything later.

Mentors will have a similar set of categories for which they can be matched upon for teaching, and can elect to be matched to any of these categories if they feel comfortable teaching broadly about editing Wikipedia.

A bot will evaluate learners who are looking for a match and mentors willing to teach that category who are open to accept a learner. A match will be made, and the mentor is delivered a message to accept the match and begin mentorship. If a mentor does not accept or is idle, another match attempt will be made. Also, if the bot breaks down, matching can be done manually— a list of learners waiting for a match will be listed on a mentor landing page on the Co-op. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • So as far as matching, ultimately learners will not be seeking out specific mentors, rather inputting that about which they want to learn, and a bot matching them to a mentor who might be a fit, and then the mentor accepting that match, thus beginning the mentorship? Or does the learner have to agree also? I am a little confused on the nuances here. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Go Phightins!: You've described the process pretty well. Mentorship would begin when the mentor accepts (and more importantly, actually starts talking with the learner). I think we could prompt for the learner to accept the match once they know who they are matched with, but it might not be strictly necessary given that they've made a profile to get matched in the first place. We're basically trying to eliminate the step where newer editors have to actually go and seek out editors who are willing to teach, have the appropriate experience, and who are also available. The thought behind the mentor getting prompted is that they'll have a chance to see what the learner wants to do (based on what they write in the short prompt) and decide whether they can teach them appropriately. Does that answer your question? I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tokyogirl79: The matching won't be on specific content topic areas like sports, games, literature, etc, but will only be based on the above categories. So if you wanted to mentor on content creation, you would probably pick "Writing." The reason we've decided to not go the topical route is because we have no real way to predict what content new editors want to work on, and no way of ensuring that we will have mentors covered for all the different content topics that could be requested from learners. There are general skills that apply to a broad set of articles, regardless of their particular topic, and can be contextualized for a particular article. That said, if a learner writes that they want to work on say, a B-movie article, and they get matched to an mentor who isn't good with film articles (but who knows that you're good with them), they could refer the learner to you instead. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at those categories, my reaction is: I can and do help on all of them, but only up to a point. My knowledge is broad, not deep. So, for example, I can advise on wikimarkup till the cows come home - but get into complicated table stuff, or image placement, and I'm lost. And similarly in all the other categories. --ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@ColinFine: I think that's completely fine. Like the Teahouse, I think the expectation is that even mentors will not know everything, but can help editors with some editing topics. When a match is made through these categories, the mentor will be able to see why the learner has requested a mentor in the first place before they formally begin. And if you don't feel like you could teach to that specific topic real well (like about tables, for instance), you could definitely ask another mentor who has better experience in that area by using the Host landing page or its talk page. Also, I think even if you only know the basics, getting learners started with even just the basics, like building a simple table, can go a long way. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How will mentoring work?

Keeping in mind this is primarily a gathering space, we're not about enforcing a particular way of teaching, but in my mind, there should be some basic principles. Mentoring is not about pointing people to reading help pages en masse; it's about teaching, and it's about having a conversation. This is more time-consuming of course, but it's also more engaging and shows the learner that you care about them. It's very easy to point editors to a page and say "read this." This is often done at the Help Desk and elsewhere. I'm sure some editors have no problem learning about Wikipedia this way (FYI, that's how I did it), but I expect many editors will want a mentor so they don't have to suffer through endless help pages and jargon.

One thing we will need to talk about are our general expectations for mentors. The Teahouse has a set of expectations for hosts that are pretty simple and clear. Based on those, I'm just going to propose these as our expectations for mentors as an initial idea, and we can revise them as needed:

  1. Welcome all learners when you are matched for mentorship.
  2. Be polite and patient with learners, even when they make mistakes.
  3. Do your best to make yourself available to learners to whom you have been matched.
  4. Avoid mentoring by simply pointing editors to documentation pages on policies, guidelines, etc. Explain these concepts in your own words. Invite and respond to questions the learner might have about a given concept.
  5. Ensure that you notify and send reminders to learners as needed, using the ping system or otherwise.

If any of you have comments on this or have additional thoughts on mentoring, I invite you to share your thoughts below. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

For a new Wikipedian to thrive and grow, s/he has to learn the guidelines. It's easier if they learn a bite at a time, often with an example in context. Is the following what you're seeking?
I met a new and very frustrated editor on the irc help channel. Her second try at getting her article approved at AfC was rejected. The regular irc help crew basically told her to do what was said in the rejection but she obviously didn't understand our definition of reliable sources. I did a quick Google, found one and suggested it. I told her I'd help and see her on her empty talk page. Read the rest of the story on her talk page.
Alas, she hasn't remained active but I still hope she'll return. One or two that I helped are still actively editing. Beware, though, if you aspire adminship. My pie chart looks horrible for RfA regulars because I often guide noobs through making edits to articles via their talk pages rather than making the article space edits myself. Haven't looked recently but I generally have twice the edits to talk than to main space.
Anybody else have examples of helping a newcomer? Perhaps spending less time? DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Doctree: Hey, that's really impressive work, Doctree. I wouldn't be too disappointed that they didn't stick around; I think mentors only have so much influence over a commitment like that. And besides, the article got to be a DYK! I think what really counts here is that you helped the editor accomplish their goal.
Here's my story: Back when the Moodbar Feedback Tool was a thing, I connected with a decent number of editors who might not have communicated with editors otherwise. With one particular editor a few years ago (and amazingly still makes the occasional edit), who had trouble putting in syntax, but was able to fix it on their own. In talking with them, I noticed they were saying things like If I do more (worthy) edits, and other contributions perhaps, will I be able to do Messages like you? and I don't know whether I'm privileged to generate that, or how to with regard to notifying other editors. To me, that suggested that the editor already felt like that fundamental kinds of contributing (that have nothing to do with actual editing permissions) had to be "earned" somehow. That's the kind of thinking we need to undo when we see it because it's contrary to being bold. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with harassment

I have specifically invited you folks to be mentors because our team felt that you have worked cooperatively with with newer editors and have experience in teaching on-wiki. I trust all of you to treat learners with respect, but I do want to discuss how we will deal with situations where a learner is being harassed or otherwise personally attacked by another editor. New editors generally do not have the benefit of knowing how to report this kind of situation at WP:AN/I or otherwise because they do not know it exists, or even if they do, may be reluctant to report. I'll ask that you folks try to help them through these processes. However, it's another matter entirely if another mentor is initiating the harassment. We will need to consider some way to facilitate reporting or otherwise provide an opportunity for learners to give feedback on their editing experience. I realize this situation might seem unlikely, but I can recall some occasions at the Teahouse where hosts became uncivil or hostile to editors. Comparatively, mentors will be working more closely with editors in this space, and there is therefore more potential for abuse, so I think we need to think about how to ensure learners have a way to address this when it comes up. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance role

The Teahouse had this great role during its pilot called the maître d'. While not having any real authority over other mentors, they basically made sure the space was running smoothly during its early stages. In our case, we'd like to have a similar role, to ensure that:

  1. learners are not waiting forever to be matched, especially if our bot ever stops working for whatever reason,
  2. mentors are updated on any changes or news about the space,
  3. any technical issues are addressed quickly, and
  4. questions about the space from other editors are addressed.

Soni and I have elected to take this role on for the pilot, and we are hoping a mentor or two might consider taking it on once the Co-op has been running for a little while and is more established. The Teahouse doesn't really have an official maître d' anymore, because it doesn't need one as hosts pretty much take on those roles on their own. If the Co-op is successful, this role would also be deprecated in time, most likely. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A Clear and Elevating Goal

While our intended purpose may seem obvious to all of us as individuals, I think it is important to have a clear and mutual understanding of our objective as a team before we begin. Studies in the 80's and 90's showed that peak performers in both athletics and business all had one characteristic..."a sense of mission, a common goal". I personally remember how effective a "MISSION STATEMENT" was in keeping sports and business teams I was on focused and clear in the significance of our objective.

  • I might go for something adding developing such editors, so maybe "helping develop good editors that will stay." For the most part, if they sign up here, they would already be, in a sense, "created," so we wouldn't really be involved in that directly. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • So, I don't have a good mission statement to suggest at the moment, but I have some thoughts. Getting editors to be both active and good contributors are desirable outcomes for this space. That said, I've considered that a big part of wanting to be an active editor is a motivation that comes from within. I don't know of any sure-fire formula or methodology that actively gets people interested in sticking around. What I do know is that editors often come in with some project or idea in mind, like improving an article, creating a new one, adding images, or whatever. I think our purpose as mentors is to help editors accomplish that goal (assuming it is not in conflict with what Wikipedia is about). I certainly think we should encourage learners to continue contributing beyond their initial goals. But I don't think we've failed if these editors finish their goal and decide to stop editing. All editors ultimately get to choose how they spend their time as volunteers here, and if learners accomplish what they have set out to do through the Co-op, I think we have done well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Just "cold-writing" here, but how about: "The mission of 'The Co-Op' is to assist new editors in learning that which they want to know about Wikipedia in order to facilitate them achieving their goals of improving the encyclopedia." Go Phightins! 23:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This idea is more consistent with my initial thoughts when developing this project. I think promoting retention as discussed above is important as well, I just think we only have so much influence over that. Anyway, it might be a good idea to incorporate this statement, whatever we agree upon, into our mentor expectations. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Go Phightins proposal looks good to me too, although, because I personally think this is somewhat important, it might be a good idea to expand it to say something about some of the other WMF entities. As I think we all know, not everything everyone wants to add is encyclopedic, or necessarily best placed in wikipedia. In some cases, maybe getting the newer editors help in developing good content that doesn't meet wikipedia standards on one of the other locations might be the best option available. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I like GoP's sentence...especially changing "help" to "assist". It speaks to collaboration which is an all-important early lesson and to the fact that it's the new editor that decides what it is they want to accomplish. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's see if we can integrate John Carter's idea into this statement and pare it down some:
The mission of the Co-op is to assist editors in achieving their goals to improve Wikipedia and other WMF projects.
I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We should probably add some words like "empower" and "facilitate"; all good mission statements need those </tongueincheek>. In seriousness, I like the above wording, although I'm not sure about the "... and other WMF projects" bit, unless we're looking at rolling this out to Commons etc. Yunshui 雲水 12:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons I don't know about, but I could be useful for wikisource if anyone were interested there.John Carter (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we should be least capable enough of explaining (for example), "Hey, there's this great place called Wiktionary that is more appropriate for this term you're writing about." But I've been thinking about the "other projects" bit too. Not all of us are very familiar with other WMF Projects; we should only assist insofar as we know what we're talking about. John Carter, I think the case where a new editor needs to be directed to a different WMF project is fairly uncommon, if Qs at the Teahouse are any example. We will guide editors there to the extent that we can, but I agree with Yunshui that for this pilot the focus should be on en.wiki where mentors will be most effective. Once the pilot is finished, there is a plan to expand this to other projects if we show the space is successful. Given that, I think what we'll go with is:
The mission of the Co-op is to assist editors in achieving their goals to improve Wikipedia.
I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Adjusting pilot start date

@Cullen328, Kirill Lokshin, Go Phightins!, Calliopejen1, Buster7, Soni, SuperHamster, Yunshui, EuroCarGT, Tokyogirl79, Anne Delong, John Carter, MadScientistX11, Dusti, theonesean, Philg88, AmaryllisGardener, Jim Carter, Huon, Missionedit, Cwmhiraeth, Doctree, Lightbreather, ColinFine, Biblioworm:

Hey there mentors. I'll be putting out a formal update sometime tomorrow soon, but I wanted to inform all of you that I've decided push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jim Carter 09:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

News

Previous updates

June – July 2014 (from I JethroBT)

June – July update
The nitty-gritty

Hi folks. Thanks for your interest in this project. It has been a busy first month for us, so let me tell you a little about what's going on.

Most of the tasks we've been handling in this first month can be roughly split into two groups: Program Development (where we craft ideas of what the mentorship space will look like and how it functions), and Assessment Development (where we design measures that will allow us to see whether our space is successful and what impact it has.)

For Program Development, here's what we've been up to:

  • Using resources on Wikipedia and feedback from current mentors, we've built a list of editing skills with accompanying descriptions that learners can choose from.
  • Devised a loose suggestion system by which to introduce new skills to editors based on their goals and what they know already.
  • Developed a categorization system that organizes skills based on what aspect of editing they relate to (e.g. technical skills are generally separated from writing skills) and their difficulty (i.e. what should you need you feel comfortable doing before learning this particular skill?)

For Assessment work, we've...

  • Reviewed research on expertise-sharing and mentorship.
  • Developed a set of broad research questions that ultimately will help us understand if our mentorship space works.
  • Put together an interview protocol that will allow us to look at mentor and learner perspectives of what help spaces are like on Wikipedia now, and where we can improve.
  • Drafted and are revising the quantitative measures we would like to collect for our pilot.

These tasks address very fundamental questions for our project: What can editors learn in our mentorship space? How will we know our space is working or not?

There are also recruitment matters; we've written up job descriptions for our programmer and graphic design positions based on our needs. We have also been able to identify some candidates for these positions.

We have also come up with a name for our space: The Co-op. The term "Co-op" describes any group of volunteers who work together for the sake of mutual improvement. The idea of cooperation is the natural way to think about this name, but in another sense, "Co-op" also conveys the idea that this space, like other projects on Wikipedia, are community-operated. (I actually stumbled upon this name in my head while returning to Chicago on an airplane. I was looking down at some corn fields and thought about the produce co-ops I'm familiar with in some neighborhoods.)

Later this year, we will need mentors in order to effectively pilot this space. If you think you may be interested in helping out with mentoring efforts with the Co-op later this year, please feel free to let me know on my talk page or on the talk page here.

Conversations about my job

So, in my circle of friends, I have a reputation as "that guy who edits Wikipedia." (They have probably seen me wearing the shirt.) I've told many of them about this project and my role in it; the conversations have yielded some interesting results. A good number of folks don't realize there is this whole "backstage" to Wikipedia-- where editors talk to each other; they work together, help each other, debate, and think out loud about how Wikipedia works (and also how it doesn't).

That my friends are not aware of all this makes a lot of sense: readers looking for topical info often have no need to see the article discussions, editing policies, or structural ideas that make Wikipedia what it is. But once I begin describing it a little, my friends usually get curious: "What do people talk about?", "Are there any big debates?", "Can anyone participate in these discussions?" It's quite fun to watch this happen because it feels like they're getting a few steps closer to becoming editors themselves as they ask more and more.

My conversations have left me to wonder if there was something we might consider doing to highlight this internal aspect of Wikipedia where editors can actually engage each other and work together. Our project, the Co-op, depending how we are represented on Wikipedia, may be one kind of bridge by which readers with the aforementioned curiosity can become editors. Just a thought.  :) I JethroBT (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

July – August 2014 (from Soni)

July – August update
See also: WMF blog post, "Reimagining Mentorship with the Wikipedia Cooperative"

Hello everyone. This is Soni here from the English Wikipedia, the program developer for the project. Last month has been very fun and exciting and we worked on a ton of things for the Co-op.

First off, we're glad to bring graphic designer Dustin York to our team. Dustin brings a great deal of design experience to us, particularly with the Wikimedia Foundation’s grantmaking pages and his work with other organizations such as UNICEF and the World Bank. Dustin has already begun exchanging ideas with us and design work will be in full swing in September. We intend to make the space friendly and inviting for both learners and mentors alike, and are confident that we can create a promising look and feel.

On the research side of things, we've finished polishing the protocols and questions for our survey for editors who have used help spaces on Wikipedia. We have begun reaching out to such editors for interviews, and their feedback will help guide our upcoming design decisions.

We’ve also narrowed down the key questions we want to be answer as a part of our grant:

  • How well does the Co-op work?
  • What predicts how well the Co-op works for particular learners?
  • What features work best in various existing programs?
  • Why do learners seek out and continue mentorship?

We also completed our preliminary mentor survey to assess how and why editors participate in mentoring. The key findings from the survey were that mentors...

  • ...were mostly experienced in policy, article development, and formatting.
  • ...were motivated to participate in help spaces because they wanted to share their knowledge and help editors with their needs.
  • ...felt confident in what they were teaching, and that their expertise was helpful for their learners, but were uncertain about what learners want to understand or what their goals were.
  • ...interacted with a specific learner about 2-3 times per month.

Our program has been developed substantially in the past four weeks. We’re just adding the finishing touches to the list of editing skills that will be available to learners in our program. We’ve also completed organizing skills between three levels of difficulty and the type of skill (Writing, Technical, Social, and Policy).

Lastly, our team was busy at Wikimania 2014 in London this August. We had many in-person meetings, sought out prospective programming candidates, and connected with a number of experienced Wikipedia editors to get their feedback and ideas for our project.

My Ideas

Personally, I am very interested in creating a significant impact towards the welfare of newcomers on Wikipedia. I hope that this project helps the editing community make significant strides towards welcoming the newcomers and to ease their integration with the wider community.

The key aspects to our project, in my opinion, will be design and sustainability. I envision that the space, as it comes out, will be self-functional and will continue to carry the work forward even as individual editors retire or move on to other projects. Likewise, I want to build something that’ll help us make it significantly easier for both experienced editors and newbies to interact with one another; and to simplify the whole process of “mentorship” as we know it today.

August – September 2014 (from Jethro & Gabe)

August – September update

Progress

This past month we've turned our attention to design, research, and programming.

On the design end, we started off with some initial discussions revolving around the thematic elements of the space. This turned out to be a tricky place to start out in part because our initial thematic ideas, while sounding good in our heads, did not really come out well on paper. More importantly, we thought it would be prudent to design the interactive and navigational components of the space first (think buttons and menus) to see what kind of space we have to work with for thematic elements. Dustin, our graphic designer, is in the process of creating wireframes of the interface to get a basic idea of what's going to go where.

In research, we've begun to interview mentors and learners who have engaged with various help spaces on Wikipedia, including the Teahouse, The Wikipedia Adventure, Articles for Creation, and the Adopt-a-user program. In these interviews, we're hoping to get a sense of what has worked well in these spaces so we don't have to reinvent the wheel, but we also want to know what we can improve upon in terms of getting editors the help they're looking for. Our project researcher, Gabrielm199, describes one of our interviews below in some detail.

On the programming side, I'm also pleased to announce that Jtmorgan will be joining our team as resident bot wrangler! Jonathan will be preparing HostBot of Teahouse fame to take care of some maintenance in the Co-op with regard to matching editors up, inviting editors to the space, and keeping user profiles organized. We're very thrilled to have Jonathan with us in this endeavor.

Lastly, a big thank you to all the folks who have expressed an interest in mentoring in our pilot so far. You folks are pretty fantastic:

We'll be continuing to recruit, but if there's anyone who may be interested in mentoring for the space, feel free to wrangle them on over here. See you next month, I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

On mentorship ecology

From the moment I heard about this project, the first thing that came to mind was the need to take stock of the evolving mentorship ecology of Wikipedia. Where the experience of newcomers was once described as an informal process of seeking information about the norms that shape the work of Wikipedians (see Bryant et al 2005) a formalization of the way in which newcomers or Wikipedians of any level of experience can seek out answers to questions has evolved. From initiatives like the Education Program that connect experienced Wikipedians with college students editing for the first time, to spaces like the Teahouse, where newcomers can ask questions the best way they know how without any worry of criticism, each of these examples consolidates information-seeking opportunities into a manageable experience.

But what are the respective advantages or disadvantages of such spaces, how do they complement each other and how can we think of such spaces as an ecology for newcomer support? This question has driven our data gathering since we started the project. To date we have conducted a survey with mentors (see update from last month) and recently conducted our first interview with a mentor, with more planned with both mentors and newcomers.

Our first interview came from an editor that supports newcomers via the Teahouse. They find the Teahouse to be a great mentorship resource because it does not require newcomers to fully articulate the problem they are facing. Instead, they are able to start a conversation around the problem and through some dialogue with mentors who determine the nature of the obstacle they are facing. The mentor we interviewed contrasted this experience to newcomers seeking support from a space like the Help Desk where support is more likely to take place if the newcomer knows how to describe their problem in a way that aligns with existing terminology and practice. As such, they viewed the Teahouse as the right location for a newcomer who has just arrived whereas the Help Desk makes more sense once someone has had some experience with Wikipedia. While this interview only reflects the views of one mentor, it is still intriguing as we consider the complementary nature of help spaces on Wikipedia to support newcomers.

Beyond conducting research, I have been brainstorming with project volunteer Aaron Halfaker about how to make the co-op space more accessible to newcomers. In particular we have drawn on social translucence, a design objective for online cooperative spaces that emphasizes making the actions of participants visible so that newcomers can make sense of normative activity by observing the actions of others. In the case of the co-op, we have thought about how transparency might be achieved by making visible popular skills chosen by newcomers or having participants articulate why they chose certain skills. In both cases, such transparency might help orient newcomers towards learning popular skills or identifying skills that address obstacles and challenges that are similar to their own.

Going forward, this project will greatly benefit from hearing from more mentors and newcomers. Hearing from more mentors and newcomers will help us create a unique mentorship experience that fits within the growing newcomer support ecology and reflects the needs of both newcomers and mentors. As such, if you are reading this and see yourself as either a mentor or newcomer, please reach out to us, we would love to hear from you. --Gabrielm199 (talk) Posted by I, JethroBT drop me a line

September – October 2014 (from Jethro)

September – October update

Hey folks. We've posted our full midpoint report on Meta, for those who are interested in really digging into the details. Let me give you the highlights:

Research
Our preliminary report from interviews with participants in help spaces have revealed a number of conclusions:
  • Learners (i.e. new editors) faced the most difficulty with wiki markup (syntax), and relatedly, a reluctance to edit pages because they might "mess things up."
  • They also reported that while they may have been able to resolve editing issues without help spaces like TWA, it would have been "frustrating" and "a nightmare."
  • Mentors (i.e. editors who assist new editors in help spaces) reported that learners only provide enough information about what they want to learn about half of the time; it often takes additional converstion to ascertain their needs.
  • Mentors also acknowledged that the "informality" of the Teahouse was an important factor as to why it is active and successful at in assisting new editors.
Design
Basic layouts for most pages in the space (front page, profile building, actual profiles) have been more or less completed. Dustin will be leaving our team in the next few weeks, so we are on the lookout for a new graphic designer for the space.
Programming
Jtmorgan has joined our team to help retool HostBot the help with maintenance and matching tasks with the Co-op!
We've had difficulties finding dedicated programmers for the space, and it may be necessary to push back our pilot date as a result as we will need time to test the interface. We shall see how this month goes.
We're still looking for mentors for the space, so please sign up below if you're interested in helping to mentor a few editors over the course of a month or so. Mentors get to decide how to teach, and the mentorship itself is directed at a specific topic new editors want help with, so mentoring should not be a large commitment of your time. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October – November 2014 (from Jethro)

October – November update
Very, very rough and abstract draft of one theming idea for the Co-op based on this image

Hey folks. It's been a good, productive month. We've got a fantastic graphic designer, Soujanyaa Boruah (SoujanyaaB) and developer (Sohail Lalani) team on board in terms of building the space who have experience working together building web interfaces. We are starting some theming and design discussions for the space to ensure that it's a space that newer editors are able to navigate and also makes clear our purpose to editors interested in mentorship: to match them with an experienced editor who can help them build an encyclopedia.

We are also grateful to have Frances Hocutt (Fhocutt) working with our team to develop the mechanism to meaningfully bring mentors and learners together to begin learning. She has also offered valuable advice to us in regard to how we might consider preventing and acting on situations where a new editor may feel harassed or otherwise attacked by another editor or mentor. Although these situations may be uncommon, it is imperative to me that editors seeking mentorship who are here to be productive and acting in good faith are welcomed, even when they make mistakes (as we all have) or do not understand everything. Mentors and the Co-op generally need to set an example of respectful conduct.

Soni and I are planning to open up discussion on this page soon with volunteer mentors on a few matters:

  1. Addressing how the space is going to work technically
  2. Discussion of ideas around matching and possible changes / improvements beyond the pilot
  3. Expectations in terms of conduct
  4. Discussion of the exact role mentors will play in the Co-op.

Meanwhile, Gabrielm199 has developed a survey to gather a bit more data beyond our interviews on the current landscape of help spaces on en.wiki to see where the Co-op can fill in some gaps and re-use what features already work well. Initial piloting of the survey has gone well, and we are working with EpochFail about methods by which we can best sample editors.

Current mentors, be look on the lookout to get ping'd for some nitty-gritty discussion real soon!

I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Happy (almost-)Thanksgiving for our U.S. viewers!

November – December 2014 (from Jethro)

November – December update

It's not the final logo, but it's getting pretty close to done. In designing this logo, we wanted an look that conveys the idea working together. We do this often on Wikipedia, whether it's trying to resolve tough issues in an RfC, improving an article in preparation for a DYK, GA, or FA, or even just making some minor copy edits to another person's article. For me, I see two arms locked in solidarity. I see a partnership, and in it, there is the resolve to build an encyclopedia for everyone.

Draft version of the landing page where new editors will arrive when first directed to the Co-op.

Happy end of the year, everybody. We've made a lot of exciting progress on building the space this past month. First of all, thanks to all the new mentors coming in. @Dusti, Theonesean, and Philg88: You folks are great, and I appreciate you being on-board. I know there's a lot of info / conversation below, but read through it at your own pace, and feel free to add in your comments or questions below.

Soujanyaa, our graphic designer, has been taking feedback from Soni, Gabrielm199 and me to develop some really solid ideas for building a place that promotes cooperation and ensures that new editors are quickly oriented to what to what the Co-op is all about. For example, our proposed landing page (pictured) presents three basic pieces of information:

  1. The name and purpose of the space
  2. A clear path to start finding a mentor "Find a Mentor" button
  3. Examples of current mentors and learners and what they are doing (that's the stock 90-chracter text in yellow)

We also have a landing page for mentors in the works that will have a number of features including:

  1. A section for general announcements / questions / concerns
  2. A list of learners who have not yet been matched (in case our bot fails to match them for some reason)
  3. Barnstar templates for awarding at the end of a successful mentorship
  4. Resources for mentoring provided that can be continually developed by other mentors.

Meanwhile, Fhocutt and Jtmorgan have been busy testing the bot functions to make sure our matching process will run as expected. They've been making a lot of progress, and things are looking good with getting people reliability matched and notified based on their work so far. Finally, Sohail is taking the plunge and beginning development work using the mediawiki interface for the first time; he is building the templates we need based on Soujanyaa's designs so far. He's made great progress building the basic structures for profiles, and we'll be zooming ahead in early January to get the rest of the interface built up. Special shoutout to Heatherawalls for making her awesome self available as we navigate through the mediawiki trenches.

The hope is, by the end of next month, we'll be more or less ready to go. As always, we'll keep you posted, but things are looking pretty great. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 – Feburary 2015 (from Jethro)

December 2014 – February 2015 update
Hey folks, it's been a while. The Co-op team has been hard at work during over the winter, so let's get right into what's been happening:
Landing page draft. You know it's a draft when you need to squint at the logo, ha ha.
  • Graphic design work is nearing completion and development work is coming along slowly but surely. The main components of the space, profiles, the landing page, and the mentor landing page have all been built, and we're basically just putting the pieces together. We have close-to-final draft of the landing page, which is currently at User:Slalani/Landing_page, and in the thumbnail to the right. You can check out other components over at User:Slalani if you're curious. Soni, Slalani, and I are working together on some of the front page elements. We've also been doing some testing on test.wikipedia.org for profile building and matching. If you're curious about checking that out, let me know.
  • We've finished up a survey for newer editors to assess their experiences of using existing help spaces (e.g. Reference Desk, Teahouse, IRC, The Wikipedia Adventure) on en.wikipedia. Gabrielm199 is putting together a summary of that survey, and in the meantime, some findings from that survey of 45 newer editors include:
    • On average, editors found contributing to Wikipedia to be easier after using the help space compared to before.
      • However, after using one or more help spaces, only half of editors reported that editing, addressing social challenges, and resolving technical issues were easy or very easy. The other half of editors were either neutral, or reported that these matters were difficult or very difficult.
    • Just under 30% (11 of 38 editors) of newer editors said they probably would have stopped editing entirely had they not received support from the help space they used.
    • Editors frequently reported either 1) that they would not have been learn what they needed without the help space, or 2) That they could have found it, but admitted that it would have been difficult or taken much longer.
  • We will be making one final move of the pilot start date to March 4th, 2015. This is the last move (I promise), because we can't afford to run the pilot any later than that. So there it is: March 4th or bust! But we won't bust, because there are just a few things left on our plate before we can run our pilot successfully. I'll be alerting you about when you will be able to make mentor profiles soon, so when you get a message about that, please take a minute or two to create your profile here (otherwise, you won't get matched to any editors!).

Thanks to all of the new mentors who have joined over the past few months. Big thanks to Missvain to posting about our little project here to the gendergap-l mailing list. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Co-op & Wikimania 2015

Hey folks. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Profiles?

If I remember correctly, mentors were supposed to create profiles before the start of the project per se. That would mean, some time before Wednesday. I'd prefer to do so earlier than at the last minute. The "Become a mentor" button here isn't in working condition yet. What's the plan? Create profiles manually for now? Wait until an announcement in the next few days? Huon (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: Thanks, and trust me, I have been itching to try to get things moving on making sure we are set up. The plan was to have a FormWizard generate a form to create profiles (not unlike how the first "Create Your Idea Button" at IdeaLab generates a form) but this still requires some debugging at this stage and approval as a gadget. Jmorgan (WMF) has kindly put together a workaround for our pilot, which allows mentors to make profiles in more or less manually, which I've implemented at WP:Co-op/Mentor landing. I just made my own profile, and so you can go ahead and do so as well! I'll be making an announcement about this later today. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Created. :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Likewise. Huon (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Also created. Unfortunately, I couldn't get any of my favorite book pictures (the one on my user page, for instance) to fit in the circle. --Biblioworm 19:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Biblioworm: Thanks! Yeah, this is a bug I've brought up here. I'm considering it might be best to just get rid of this circular margin entirely because it is causing more trouble than it is worth. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Instructions for the pilot

Hey mentors, the pilot is coming on fast this Wednesday, March 4th Thursday, March 5th. So here's the deal, there are two automated tasks we had planned for the pilot. For reasons related to debugging and getting approvals from the Bot Approvals Group and folks who check out gadgets we will need to perform these tasks manually. I'll explain both how we're going to perform these tasks manually and how it will change when we get the gadgets and HostBot ready:

Profile creation

  • Manual: There's an inputbox for a username and a button that loads the syntax necessary to create a profile for both mentors and learners. The mentor one is up, and the learner one will go up on March 4th in the AM on Central Standard Time. Fields need to be filled in manually using instructions provided above the editing window and in comments within the editing window.
  • Automated (sort of): The "Find a mentor" button on the mainpage and the "become a mentor" button on the mentor landing will produce a form using the FormWizard to facilitate profile creation and updating using drop-down menus, check boxes, and clear text fields. (Note: Click on the white "create an idea" button here to see what these forms generally look like.) I say "sort of" here in terms of automation because editors will clearly still need to write out profile stuff in either case. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sending invites

  • Manual: We'll need to send these out ourselves using {{subst:Co-op invite}}. I'm planning on using Snuggle as a way to identify editors who are likely to benefit from mentorship. Another good idea is to keep an eye out for editors at the Teahouse who ask more complex questions that can't be answered well in a Q&A format and might be better addressed through mentorship. (e.g. editors looking for help on article building is a prime example.)
  • Automated: HostBot will send these invites out to editors on its own in pretty much the same way it invites new editors to the Teahouse. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Matching editors together and initiating contact

  • Manual: Learner profiles are categorized based on what they want to learn about / how they're looking to contribute. We will all need to keep an eye out on the following categories to make sure these editors have mentors so they're not just waiting around:
Category:Co-op/Requests/Writing‎
Category:Co-op/Requests/Communication‎
Category:Co-op/Requests/Best practices‎
Category:Co-op/Requests/Images and media‎
Category:Co-op/Requests/Technical editing‎
Category:Co-op/Requests/Other‎
I'm open to other suggestions, but my best solution is that we should be checking these categories multiple times a day to look for profiles for editors who don't have mentors yet. Once you find someone you can mentor, contact them on their talk page to direct them where you'll be conducting your mentoring (e.g. on a user subpage, on their talk page, etc.)
  • Automated: About every five minutes, HostBot will look at learners who haven't been matched to someone yet and match them to a mentor who is available and matches the category exactly. Failing that, they'll match them to an available mentor who has "general editing" selected as a skill. Failing that, they will be matched to me and I will mentor them myself. When you're matched to a learner, a Flowboard will be set up at Wikipedia talk:Co-op/(insert learner username here) to which both you and learner will get a notification about that directs you to it. (Note: Mentoring can happen on that Flowboard if you want to try it out, but using normal talk pages elsewhere, IRC, or whatever is most convenient for both of you is fine. Just let the learner know where to go.) I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars & Last thoughts

Once you are finished mentoring an editor (i.e. whenever you feel like the editor has learned/accomplished what they wanted to), give them one of the barnstars we've prepared for their hard work and dedication to learning how to contribute through mentorship.

I trust each and every one of you to teach about editing Wikipedia in a fair and responsible manner. I'm not convinced there is a single best way to learn about Wikipedia and its policies. Take whatever approach to teaching you think is effective, so long as you are not misrepresenting or being dishonest about conduct, policies, or guidelines. Soni and I have compiled a set of mentor resources for your reference that includes some teaching and reference materials should you need them for any number of topics. It's kind of messy, but then again, so is Wikipedia, and we can it better over time.

I think that's about it. If there are any questions before we embark on this little experiment, let me know below. Thank you so much for mentoring. You're all incredible people, and I am grateful that you choose to spend your time here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving the pilot back one day

Hey folks. As it turns out, Wednesday is not really the best day for me to be available during the launch of the space, so I'm going to push it back one day to Thursday, March 5th at 1600 UTC. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op Bot requests status

I just filed the first bot request for the Co-op, this one around invitations to new editors. Please "watch" the request page and feel free to jump in with questions, comments, and especially kudos/support! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright! We got approval for a 1-week invite trial, and the first set of 50 invites just went out (follow the action at Special:Contributions/HostBot). I filed the second bot request for mentor/learner matching about an hour ago. As before, please feel free to comment on the request and ask questions there. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Launch

Hey folks. In allowing editors to create learner profiles, the pilot for the Co-op has officially launched. HostBot will begin sending invites automatically later today, but feel free to send invitations on your own to editors at the Teahouse who might benefit from mentorship or use Snuggle, like I will be doing, to send out invites. You can put those invites on interested editors' talk pages using {{subst:Co-op invite}} ~~~~ I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

:D --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I followed the instructions and created a mentor page. How is it added to the list?—Anne Delong (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I created a completely fucked-up one myself. Any help of any sort would be greatly appreciated. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: I think I fixed the problem with yours. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: Thanks Anne. A list of mentors, a la WP:Teahouse/Hosts, isn't available yet, but will be soon). But as long as your profile is listed under Category:Co-op mentor, it doesn't need to be added anyplace else. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that learner profiles (see Wikipedia:Co-op/Christopher2625649908 for a random example) have exactly two links: UTC and the learner's user page, which particularly for new editors often won't exist. Wouldn't a link to the user talk page be more helpful, either instead of or in addition to the userpage link? Huon (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: Soni brought this same concern to my attention recently as well. I tried to figure out how to add in the talk page to profiles myself, but these links are designed through Module:Co-op profile, which Jmorgan (WMF) designed for us and is written in Lua. I've asked him to check this out on T91999. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done See here. Unrelated: you might want to double check that that learner's username does not contain a number that is tied to their offline identity (like an official tax ID or phone number), and if it is, strongly suggest that they change it ASAP. Cheers, Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Co-op/Archive_1&oldid=1140103107"