Wikipedia:Training/For Ambassadors/Training feedback
You can leave a message here to let us know what you thought of the training.
- What I liked
...The tutorial nicely laid out what we were supposed to gain from each module at the beginning of each section.
- What I didn't like
...There were a few typos in the training slides that were a little distracting. For some reasons, a couple of the videos in the training stopped halfway.
- What was missing
...For me, a recap of the learning goals for each module at the end would be helpful to bring it together.
- What was unnecessary
...Can't think of anything right now.
- What I liked
... The videos were helpful in learning how to edit a Wikipedia page
- What I didn't like
...
- What was missing
... It might be helpful to have a practice section where you fill par†s of a page or something like that in order to facilitate the training process.
- What was unnecessary
...
--131.94.186.10 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
It seemed like a fairly good summary of core wikipedia policies. 12 week plan was good.
- What I didn't like
Wales/Gardner plagiarism thing seemed out of place. Good point, but an odd way to do it in that context.
- What was missing
Perhaps a tiny intro to Files & Copyright? In my dealings with users who were working on school assignments there have been a lot of copyright issues regarding images. The current orientation includes mention of copyright and plagiarism, which is good, but it neglects to mention it in the context of Files, specifically images. I think it's something that deserves at least a mention in the broadest sense.
- What was unnecessary
Nothing.
--NativeForeigner Talk 19:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
- it was very holistic and informative
...
- What I didn't like
- nothing really. i like pretty much everything
...
- What was missing
...
- What was unnecessary
...
--Benongyx (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
...The Powerpointish design is a nice touch, and makes the process much more accessible for students and educators. The Classroom section in particular was a fascinating read.
- What I didn't like
...Very little. However, most of the "core" and "editing" sections are teaching grandmother to suck eggs - anyone competent enough to be an ambassador in the first place knows this stuff, and it's frustrating to have to wade through it again in baby steps. I also have the impression that the ambassadors' course is cobbled together from the student and educator courses; it certainly feels that way.
- What was missing
...More info on the Image use policy would be a good idea.
- What was unnecessary
...As above, whilst explaining Wikipedia's core policies and editing process to students and educators is vital (and the sections do that job very well), it's not necessary for ambassadors, who should be able to recite this stuff in their sleep.
--Yunshui 雲水 01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Thanks! It's more that the Ambassador training is for both Online and Campus Ambassadors, and many Campus Ambassadors are new users themselves (eg, librarians or instructional technology professional at the same institution as a professor they are supporting, who signed up to get trained so that they could help professors and students learn to edit). But the training could make that more clear at the beginning, and give some instructions for experienced Wikipedians about how they should use the training—as a chance to familiarize themselves with the basic content of the student and educator trainings, as well as to think about how the trainings could be improved for newcomers.
I have plans to add some content about images (uploading and adding to articles, as well as image use rules) to all the trainings, when I get a chance.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
- The page of dialogue framed between photos, concerning copyrights. Effective and entertaining.
- The breakdown of the 12-week syllabus—very helpful and informative.
- The speediness of the training, thanks to clear and concise wording.
- What I didn't like
- N/A
- What was missing
- N/A
- What was unnecessary
- Nothing. The ambassador training was well-done.
--JoyceChou (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
- The sections on interacting with the Wikipedia community and how this occurs in a classroom project. The built in informational videos.
...
- What I didn't like
- Nothing in particular.
...
- What was missing
- Perhaps more information on licensing on wikipedia as well as advanced editing techniques.
...
- What was unnecessary
- For me, the sample assignment structure. This has already been finalized by the professor of the course I work with. I see tht this may be helpful in other cases though.
...
--Virginiawhite09 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
...Short, sweet, to the point. Not too many videos.
- What I didn't like
...Some of the videos were a bit long winded, took some time to get to the actual content.
- What was missing
...More encouragement to practice. A discussion of what a "Did you know" entry is and a link.
- What was unnecessary
...Nothing, as far as a novice can tell.
--Drdemartino (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
...all of the resources I can pass on to student editors
- What I didn't like
...going through each week of the 12-week syllabus
- What was missing
...more about the Did You Know process
- What was unnecessary
...details for each week of the 12-week syllabus
--Cheaal01 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
- I took the draft version of the tutorial in the past and commented on its clarity and simplicity of instructions/messages, which can be used as similar messages to students and faculty. This approach has been preserved and actually enhanced in this version. Great also to have student and educator versions, which I will send around to those I collaborate with in classroom settings.
...
- What I didn't like
- The section with specific learning outcome areas for using Wikipedia in the classroom is very useful/important content, so I'd rather see it as a mandatory page-by-page step through than an optional section. People may not realize that it gives such concrete assignment suggestions and might therefore miss an opportunity.
...
- What was missing
- Perhaps links to diverse examples of successful collaborations and course pages, or interviews with students who have used Wikipedia in an educational context (in addition to the active Wikipedian profiles/videos). Also, more context and specfics on quoting and paraphrasing for students perhaps using good/bad examples from actual wikipedia pages, or screenshots, etc. of revision histories that fixed citation issues (this may be in the student tutorial, haven't reviewed it in detail yet). Attribution is a real gray area for many, I find.
...
- What was unnecessary
- Not much, actually.
...
--Charbooth (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
... Overall, very good training.
- What I didn't like
... I can't think of anything
- What was missing
...something on creating and managing course pages (or perhaps this is covered in the instructor training). In that case, something about how ambassadors and the other roles - instructor, student interact with one another and the wikipedia course page.
- What was unnecessary
...
--Gregatmu (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
good basic overview, especially the focus on guiding student use
- What I didn't like
Too many clicks involved; more content could have been put on each page
- What was missing
More best practices from other campus programs
- What was unnecessary
nothing
--Chris troutman (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
The video tutorials were great. The basic structure of reading small chunks of text and moving to the next section was easy and helpful.
- What I didn't like
Nothing really. Some of the stuff about the people and culture was familiar to me so I found the specific, concrete stuff a little more useful.
- What was missing
Maybe get into a little more depth about creating project pages?
- What was unnecessary
The wiki culture stuff is important if someone doesn't know much about the open web and collaboration, but for people familiar with the concepts, that part was not super necessary.
--Oline73 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
The ambassador training is filled with useful links to additional resources.
- What I didn't like
Nothing, I was very happy with the training.
- What was missing
Explicit instructions for finding stub and start articles.
- What was unnecessary
Nothing, every part provided information and links to other resources that I'm sure to reference in the future.
--Frankcjones (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
- It didn't take long and was very informative.
...
- What I didn't like
- I have nothing bad to say about it.
...
- What was missing
- It could of been more interactive.
...
- What was unnecessary
- Nothing to mention.
...
--TucsonDavidU.S.A. 18:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Finished!
- What I liked
that it was easy to follow
- What I didn't like
...
- What was missing
...
- What was unnecessary
...
--Dward2612 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
I thought in general the training was well done. The videos were concise yet helpful.
- What I didn't like
Not exactly a criticism of the training itself, but navigating through the various Education Program materials is a bit difficult and confusing.
- What was missing
NA
- What was unnecessary
NA --Clanger12 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
This is a good introduction, and WP would do well to at least offer this type of onboarding to all new users (an improved welcome message?)
- Suggestions
- Could use copyedit for concision
- Needs update for VisualEditor
- "sandbox edits for new articles": I think DYK mention in the last ¶ should be "AfC", no?
- "case study 2": "on-going" → "ongoing"?
- Checklists at the end of each chapter are missing chapter five
- I think the format is too structured, especially for students (which I believe use a very similar copy). Maybe you have user research that shows that students are getting through it, but I see all the clicking leading to lots of skimming. One really tight and exciting script for a video could be a really great alternative. I'd just cover the principles really fast (with real-world examples), and put the bulk of the editing rules into actual tasks (to follow along) or a tight video that does the equivalent but faster. I'd also put the onus on the students to teach each other, encourage that they pop over to their buddies' articles frequently instead of once for a single peer review.
- I'll add that maybe that "structure" is designed to reinforce WP's formal rules for teachers/students averse to chaos who think WP to be a black box of anarchy (I presume the former since the training format is very regimented), but I want to really encourage those behind this process to instead equip teachers/students with quick setup guides that get them baseline literate with Wikipedia and throw them into editing within a topic for the first few weeks (instead of allotting five weeks to setup and processing). I'll expand:
- I defer to your experience on the timeline, but I don't think enough time is given for peer review and the GA/FA process in the model syllabus. It will certainly extend past the end of the semester as it is described. I think a better deadline would be GA nom at midterm (if the intention is building single articles).
- This (getting admittedly off-topic, but hopefully usefully so) program and its suggestions appear to aim to replace the "college paper" with a WP article, and maybe that's the most convenient change/adaptation for profs, but I think a better strategy is getting profs to write parts of an article first, possibly join a WikiProject in the field, and then serve as WP mentors to students like it's part of their scholarly service. Attitudes have changed enough that this is more reasonable now (than five years ago). Depending on their grading and "student expectations" needs, I'd also encourage students to edit as they wish within a topic related to the class's discussions instead of having a single row to hoe. It would be a greater service for all to advocate for assimilation with the existing WP community as the class's writing/editing requirements (see my "onus on the students" point above).
- Also I think it would be very shortsighted to limit this program to college students. (Not to assume this hasn't been thought, but I didn't find anything about it online.) I think editing can and should be scaled for high school, middle school, and elementary school students. There are lots of exciting ways to do this, if anyone's interested in discussing them.
- Videos can also be more concise ("tighter"). I think of it like a safety video before operating a machine (DMV permit test, before boarding a commercial helicopter, etc.) in that it should prepare for single-sitting short attention spans, establish minimal competence, offer a single source for further FAQ, and let the user experience firsthand the basic info just imparted.
- If the questionnaire/application is new, I don't like it. Unless the extra info is now necessary, it is somewhat invasive compared to the rest of the very private wikiland, and it requires a degree of voluntary self-outing.
--czar · · 08:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
- The systematic approach of introducing to Wikipedia. The video tutorial and link pages were really helpful.
...
- What I didn't like
- I liked the entire content of this training.
...
- What was missing
- It was complete guide for new comers.
...
- What was unnecessary
- I didn't find anything unnecessary.
...
--Kolekar Pandurang (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I liked
...The videos were very helpful, especially when they went into more detail than the text.
- What I didn't like
...Occasionally, the content was a little too simplistic and obvious, making the training boring. However, this is not a serious problem because I can see how it would benefit a less familiar individual.
- What was missing
...Nothing I can think of atm
- What was unnecessary
...