On Jul 30, 2012 7:18 AM, "Tilman Bayer" <tba...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Florence Devouard <anthe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On 7/28/12 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at > >> > >> > >> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf > >> > >> accompanied by a Q&A: > >> > >> > >> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers > >> > >> The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in > >> Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the > >> Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff > >> meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video > >> recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical > >> difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon. > >> > > > > Slide 8 : "How are we doing against the 2012 targets" > > > > I was stopped by > > > > "The Global Education Program is now the largest-ever systematic effort of > > the Wikimedia mouvement to boost high quality content creation, with a > > projected addition of 19 million characters to Wikipedia through student > > assignements 2011-2012" > > > > OF COURSE, we all know that WMF needs to glorify what it is actually > > initiating/in charge of. And that's fair enough. > > > > But seriously... I would feel fine with us trying to claim that the GEP is > > the largest system effort to INCREASE the number of articles. It is probably > > true. > > > > But we all know that the result is... so and so. Possibly good content, but > > also lot's of crap being reverted and deleted afterwards. Claiming it is the > > largest effort to boost high quality content is not only disingenous... but > > I actually find it counter productive and a tiny bit offensive toward the > > actual community. > > > > High quality content simply does NOT come from newbie students. > > Over the last years, the Foundation has been trying to base decisions > and evaluations more often on objective data and research rather than > on personal opinions and impressions. > > Of course, here the term "high quality" does not necessarily mean, > say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured > articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but > instead refers to comparisons with average contributions. > > Someone from the Education Program will be able to give a more > thorough overview of the efforts to evaluate its results, but for > example I'm aware of > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/19/wikipedia-education-program-stats-fall-2011/
Ive asked for more info at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Education_Program_evaluation#random_sample > . The quantitative method used there has its limitations, but similar > methods are employed in independent (i.e non-WMF) research about > Wikipedia in the academic literature. Do you have links to any relevant studies of the GEP? -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l