Talk:Wiki Education Foundation

Much to talk about

There is of course much to talk about and ask regarding this draft. I'd say it's a pity that it's on Meta rather than (as with everything else previously connected with the Working Group and now the proposed WEF) on Wikipedia. There'll be much less traffic here.

OK, but here's a first question: this seems to be rather a drastic change. Can someone explain the thinking here? --Jbmurray (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Jon! Thanks for taking a look through this. It's here on Meta because that's been the precedent for thorg proposals. Since the other one was sort of a "proposal" to WMF to get input on whether any involved folks had insights into the organization based on their expertise, and this one is to seek affiliation, the proposals have different audiences. I think AffCom is likely much more concerned about program work/governance/community involvement (and I am too!). So this one is here now to soon ask for review from AffCom, and I'm sure we'll have a lot of questions to answer at that point. I hope you'll continue asking your helpful questions in the meantime, too.

As for this change, I think Mike Christie will be adding our approved minutes from this past weekend by the end of the week, but I'm not sure it will specifically address this. The wording was recommended by our lawyer, who said the board essentially appoints members based on recommendations, in the legal sense. Somebody may want to clarify if I misunderstood this, so please chip in if necessary. The board is still committed to approving nominated members, assuming the member fits the requirements of board members (e.g. skills need, duty of care, duty of loyalty, etc.). It follows the precedence of WMF bylaws, too. Hope that makes sense! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And uff to this, as well: "assuming the member fits the requirements of board members (e.g. skills need, duty of care, duty of loyalty, etc.)" What, for instance, is meant by "loyalty" here?! --Jbmurray (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

These phrases come from Delaware law (we propose to incorporate in Delaware, which is the most common state to incorporate in). They refer to obligations the law places on directors. Googling the following phrases will get you some background: The duty of care requires directors to act in good faith and with the care of an ordinarily prudent person in a like position under similar circumstances. The duty of loyalty requires directors to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest and to act in the best interest of the company and its members, rather than for any other reason. The duty of obedience requires directors to only act within the scope of the powers conferred on them by the certificate of incorporation, the byelaws, and federal and state law. Mike Christie (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So these are the legal obligations of the board members. Fair enough, but I'm not sure that has much to do with whether or not the proposed organization accepts the results of elections to nominate members. It would be easier and clearer simply to say that the foundation "is committed to approving nominated members." --Jbmurray (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I would paraphrase the WMF byelaws I linked to as saying "The board intends to approve the board members selected by the community, and will do so unless approving them is in conflict with the law or the byelaws". That's why I'd support similar language in the WEF's byelaws; it seems unambiguous to me. Mike Christie (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes re the minutes; at work so I'll just quickly add that we haven't approved the language here yet but are discussing making those clauses look more like the WMF bye-laws, which are more specific. Both the before and after diff linked above are similar to what the lawyer proposed for reasons I can go into later tonight. Mike Christie (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of interacting issues here. One is organization; see this para for some background. If we became a membership organization (see the link) the members elect the board, but we couldn't come up with a sensible way to define who the members were that would apply to all the constituencies we are interested in. Having thousands of members is expensive -- there are legal requirements to notify everyone and hold an AGM and so on. The lawyer recommended that the best way out of that was to have a self-selected board but to pass board resolutions about the selection procedures. That gave us language something like you're seeing in this draft: the board will have three Wikipedia representatives, "nominated" by Wikipedia. With a self-selected board there is no way to get around the fact that the board can approve or not approve a new board member; the board can change by-laws, after all. So there's not a lot of point in trying to add language saying the board is forced to accept an outside nomination; it isn't forced to. However, just saying "nominated" doesn't indicate that it's the intent of the board to accept the nomination, so it was suggested that we use language similar to language in IV.3.(C) of the WMF byelaws, here. We ran out of time to get to consensus on that article but it is likely to get resolved quickly because we need byelaws for affiliation. Does that answer the question? Or in other words, what Jami said. Mike Christie (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think much more clarification is needed. Before, it was clear enough: there would be a number of constituencies, each of which would elect a certain number of board members. When I read the new language, it sounded as though the various constituencies would merely nominate candidates for election. It turns out (if I understand what you're saying aright) that you envisage elections among Wikipedians to choose board members (as before), but that the Board reserves the right not to accept the elected candidates. is that so? If so, say it. If not, say what you envisage the process to be.

Meanwhile, the change from membership organization is surely a big one. Uff. --Jbmurray (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the change from a membership organization is a big change. I can't speak for others on the board but I'd be happy if we could come up with a way to make this work as a membership organization, but I see that as both expensive and actually disenfranchising, particularly for the educational community we want to serve. Expensive because of the legal requirements for notification and meetings; disenfranchising because it limits voting to members, whereas by specifying a franchise in board resolutions or byelaws we can expand the franchise. This is what the WMF has done, for example; the byelaw I cited above specifies how an external constituency nominates candidates that the board then approves. As discussed above, the board can choose not to approve. I don't think that's ever happened, and I wouldn't expect it to happen with us. Do you see any way that we can be a membership organization and include wide ability for educators to vote without paperwork that would be a barrier to their franchise?

Personally I would like to bring language like the WMF's into our byelaws. (We are still working on the byelaws.) I would be in favour of adopting something like the WMF byelaws but removing the language about an approved voting method, procedures, and qualifications for voting, though I suppose we could simply emulate WMF qualifications for franchise. In any case, the goal is to have the educators and Wikipedians both vote on both sets of nominations. I would expect the board to approve whoever is selected by any reasonable method. Mike Christie (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I see the difficulties you have. But perhaps the program can have members, even if the foundation doesn't? I dunno. Indeed, the proposal is rather vague about the program, though that should be the easiest thing to describe in that (as far as I understand it) you are mostly merely continuing the WMF program without making many if any changes. --Jbmurray (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The program can have members so long as they're not members in the legal sense of being part of a membership organization; and those members can then take part in elections for board members. The difference is that since the members are not Members, the board subsequently has to approve those selections.

The program content is something we are in the process of fleshing out, but initially I doubt we'll have any budget to do more than the existing program is doing, as you say. I suspect we won't get enough money from GAC to do more than that (indeed I can't be sure we'll get enough to reliably do that), and will have to go off and raise more funds. Lots of other ideas have come up, and some of that should be visible in the grant proposal since we'll be submitting a three year budget there (that's a requirement, I gather). Ideas I've heard from various sources include expanding the role Jami currently fills to more than one person, since the EP keeps growing; developing resources for the classroom to complement the work the WMF is already doing in that area; having staff who can provide direct training to campus staff such as professors, librarians, and instructional design staff -- the training could be both in the mechanics of editing Wikipedia and more broadly in how to use Wikipedia successfully in the classroom; and hosting a conference such as the Boston conference that was, I believe, funded via the PPI grant, in 2011. There are also suggestions that we should be involved with Wikipedia studies, and host an interdisciplinary journal. We need to figure out where a physical office would be as well, and my favourite answer to date is that we should be embedded at a university -- that would avoid a good deal of adminstrative overhead (accounting systems, HR, and so on). This isn't a complete list. Please add anything you think we should be doing, or comment on anything you think we shouldn't be doing. Mike Christie (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, after all that fuss, it turns out (in another change with a very misleading edit summary) that this will be a membership organization after all. So all the above is moot. Is this page going to be changed accordingly? --Jbmurray (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify, Jon? All Mike did was remove the wikitext version and link to the PDF copy of the bylaws to avoid confusion about versions. No change re:members was made. Pjthepiano (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was wrong about this. I saw "The Corporation shall be a Membership Corporation" and had in mind the discussion above and Mike's arguments as to why it couldn't be such: "I'd be happy if we could come up with a way to make this work as a membership organization, but I see that as both expensive and actually disenfranchising." But I see that was in the wiki version already, though added after the discussion.

I do still think it's a pity that you've moved still further away from working on-wiki. It's not as though the by-laws are likely to be changed often (they were added on April 9, i.e. two weeks after the last contribution to this discussion above, and haven't been changed since); when and if they are, the wiki version preserves the history of the changes, which is one of the wiki's many advantages.

Anyhow, we're certainly a long way from the "guiding precepts" articulated here, and still further from Pharos's comment at the RFC that "The important thing is that we structure this program for deep community participation at all levels, which is a lesson that I believe has been learned from the experience of past stages, both in North America and globally. And we must ensure the community fully joins in planning the next stage of this structure as it evolves beyond the top-down approach of the pilot programs."

But yes, so far as I can see I was wrong about the relationship between wiki version of the by-laws and the PDF version. Mike, I apologize for suggesting otherwise. --Jbmurray (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing section contents

Pharos, I assume you didn't intend to leave "Support participants of WEF" blank? Is this the place to discuss what the WEF can do to benefit the volunteer community directly, or did you have something else in mind? Mike Christie (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This was adapted from the 'Support for participants' section in the earlier draft, and I think the section heading was just doubled accidentally in the process. Of course, more on support for the educator and Wikipedian participants would always be welcome.--Pharos (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Another big change

This is also quite something, not least in explicitly eliminating mention of monitoring student contributions. Someone want to talk through the thinking here?! --Jbmurray (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention also this line: "Direct support through training, mentoring, on-boarding and customer service for those volunteers in both the high education and Wikipedia communities that are providing direct support to the goals, programs and initiatives of the WEF." Who, incidentally, are the "customers" of the WEF product?! When do you plan to charge for it? Quite some language to use. --Jbmurray (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't say i'm too hot on the "customer" term either, but the idea is that we'll provide a point of contact for those having trouble. "On-boarding" sounds way too much like "water-boarding" - the WMF has adopted this term, not sure if we should follow that lead. The Interior (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And what does "on-boarding" actually mean? Is there a regular English term that can be used instead?! --Jbmurray (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this will enlighten you! [1] --Mike Cline (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I will expand on this thought by labeling this comment: and what does "on-boarding" actually mean? Is there a regular English term that can be used instead?! as uninformed criticism that gives no credit to the expertise and experience of those individuals who've been working on this for the last 9 months.

First, as I linked above, Onboarding has a fairly comprehensive Wikipedia article and it is in English. But let’s explore the motivations of the above comment further. I can only speculate that because one or a few individuals don’t know what on-boarding means, they assume no one else knows what it means and that it’s not something that anyone they are aware of uses or would even chose to use. Yet when one explores this particular website: EDUCAUSE, a non-profit with a remarkably parallel mission to the one we are undertaking, one finds the term on-boarding used in exactly the way it is intended to be used. A quick search of the site returned 49 entries that either included the term “On-boarding” in the title or in the substance of the entry. A purely random search: “On-boarding new Doctors” returned 1000s of entries of which this was one: [2]. Thus I conclude that it is indeed an appropriate term, with a clear meaning in English and is widely used to describe the type of activity it is intended to describe.

What I find problematic in the type of comment I quoted above is that as a community, we constantly berate new editors with the mantra: “find the sources first”, yet as individuals many of us speak first without doing our own research.

I would have much preferred to answer the question: What does onboarding mean? and I would have much preferred to discuss whether or not it was the correct term for the activity contemplated once I was confident that those participating in the discussion understood the meaning of the word and how it is used in everyday language. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike, it's clearly jargon, and I mean that in no particularly pejorative sense. If you want to berate me about "finding the sources," why not check a reliable one, i.e. the OED? There the only meanings for "on-board" are as follows: adj. 1. That is on board a ship, aircraft, spacecraft, etc. 2. a. Computing. Designating or controlled from a facility or feature (esp. a memory) incorporated into the main circuit board of a computer or computerized device. b. In extended use: designating any facility or feature that is an integral part of a device, as opposed to an added-on optional component.

More generally, I'd have thought that the point is to try to write in plain English as far as possible, and to explain terms where they are absolutely necessary.

And more generally still, can I ask you to be slightly more civil? Your failure in this regard is rather troubling. --Jbmurray (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jon, I am not surprised that you find my perspectives unwelcome and desire to label my attempts to defend them as uncivil since in the past you yourself have shown utter contempt for me and the perspectives I bring to this initiative. You’ve shown zero respect for the expertise that I voluntarily bring at the behest of WMF to the formation of this new independent organization and have very vocally said so on more than one occasion. [3] and [4] are just two examples from the RfC. That contempt continues in the way you have phrased the discussion above. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike, the issue here is not your perspective(s), but your language, which is full of jargon and (partly but not solely as a result) confused and unclear. This comment came as part of a concerted attempt on the part of several people to persuade you to "talk like a Wikipedian" (as Ironholds put it). More generally, and to use your own terminology, it appears that your "on-boarding" into the Wikipedia culture is less than complete.

Anyhow, do you want to respond to the issues and work to improve the proposal, or would you rather dwell on old resentments? --Jbmurray (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, it's not simply a matter of producing a proposal that is straightforward, coherent, logical, and clearly articulated. As I've said before, there's a lot at stake here. Indeed, if anything my main issue with the working group and now the putative board is not its lack of transparency and lack of accountability, but rather that they have been insufficiently ambitious, concerned with management issues and technicalities rather than conceiving their role in much broader and more significant terms. But again, your jargon militates against such thought, precisely because it is a form of technocratic blinder. --Jbmurray (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page, Mike! Anyhow, it doesn't seem to me that use of that term adds anything that isn't in the previous bullet point: "Making available training (on-line or in-person) focused on: Wikipedia editing basics; Wikipedia community norms, policies and guidelines; Collaborating with the Wikipedia community." As such, it's jargon for the sake of it, no? --Jbmurray (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

On-boarding as an activity goes well beyond just training. That is patently evident in its definition and application as demonstrated above. I do however find statements like this offensive: As such, it's jargon for the sake of it, no? because the term Jargon is used as a Pejorative in an attempt to discredit others' expressions when in fact "on-boarding" is not jargon, but a wide-spread, well defined activity in all types of enterprise. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"That is patently evident in its definition." What definition? If you feel it essential to use the term, then please do define it. --Jbmurray (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of time tonight; will add more tomorrow if I can. Mike Christie (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Jon's note about monitoring student contributions: this is something that simply won't scale. If the WEF spends all its time monitoring student contributions, and fixing problems, it won't be preventing the problems from arising in the first place. I think there will be some level of monitoring going on, but I don't know how much direct intervention the WEF will be able to afford to do. I'd rather spend that time and money on teaching professors and librarians how to properly support a class that uses Wikipedia. If the US/Canada EP is the sum of the classes that sign up, and the admin needed to run it, then then WEF and the EP are different things -- the admin piece will be done by the WEF, but the WEF should, in my view, be doing other things too, many of which won't be visible on Wikipedia -- training, developing resources, communicating with campus professional such as librarians and instructional design experts, providing support to professors, and so on. Jon, in another forum you were surprised to hear me say that much of what the WEF will do won't take place on Wikipedia. Do you still think that's the wrong approach? Mike Christie (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there has to be some level of monitoring, as you say. See the discussion on en.wiki about an ombudsman, for instance. The question is only what level. See the conversation about Colin's proposal for more. And yes, I do think that any proposed organization should try to embrace Wikipedia principles, which include the transparency of doing as much of its work on wiki as possible. This seems rather obvious to me. --01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that discussion. The problem with an ombudsman role is that an ombudsman (I spent years as a corporate ombudsman) has to have authority to go outside the established hierarchy; if they have no more authority than any other editor, what good can they do? I would like to see the WEF be part of the solution to the problems caused by classes like Steve Joordens', but I honestly don't see what the WEF can do as far as being a recourse: it will have no authority whatsoever either over the Wikipedia community or over professors. The best I can see is that we become a respected resource and develop relationships with professors which lead them to take our advice seriously. I'm not opposed at all in principle: I think if we can get clear on how it would work in practice it's a role we should look at. What do you see us being able to do, given that we'll have no authority? --Mike Christie (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there are two things. One, monitoring what's going on with classes within the program (or other activities supported by the WEF). There has to be some level of monitoring going on there. Now, I don't think that the WEF can or should be held responsible for everything done under its aegis, but it should accept a certain level of responsibility and have mechanisms to monitor and try to ensure that there aren't too many bad experiences. There will be some, I'm sure: you can't promise that everything will go swimmingly. And monitoring is also a way to learn from mistakes. (This connects with discussions currently going on at the Education Noticeboard.) It's another issue altogether what role the WEF might have regarding projects that take place outside of the program. Some are no doubt lost causes. Others, however, may run into problems that are not specifically their fault. I'm thinking of the "Cricket and Englishness" experience, for instance. And ideally, the WEF will have some moral authority to intervene in such cases. This is why I rather disagree with this edit (though there are no doubt other ways to put things): I don't think it's an optional extra that the Board should have people with good connections and social capital both in academia and (perhaps especially) on Wikipedia. I think it's absolutely vital. --Jbmurray (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Relatedly, I'm rather surprised that nobody from the proposed board has commented here. I think it's rather disconcerting that so many of the current board members are so removed from the active discussions about education programs on Wikipedia. Do they plan to continue to be so disconnected?! --Jbmurray (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others but I can tell you why I haven't commented there: I don't see my role on the WEF board as giving me any special authority or insight, and I haven't come up with useful comments that haven't been made by others, so I haven't posted. I don't want to just post because the WEF needs to weigh in on every issue; that would be ascribing an importance to our views that we haven't earned. And it would be pompous to post just to say we don't have any special ideas. Mike Christie (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have certainly been engaging on that board, so no problems there. Regarding Colin's specific proposal, though, I'd have thought that these are ideas that, if they got traction, would have significant impact on the Education Program and/or on the proposed organization's other activities. Again, I find the silence very odd. --Jbmurray (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As for transparency, yes, but that wasn't what I meant. Suppose, for example, that the WEF hires a full-time trainer who goes from campus to campus training librarians, instructional designers, and faculty. In what sense would that person's activities be visible on Wikipedia? Or take a communications person who is involved in managing publicity, setting up conferences, and so forth -- how much of that day-to-day activity is visible on Wikipedia? Of course the organization should be transparent and open, and I take that to include things like publishing minutes, allowing board representation from the communities it serves, providing communication to and answering questions from those communities, and involving them in its planning. But most of what will be done on a day to day basis simply won't be happening on a keyboard pointing at en-wiki. This seems so obvious to me that I suspect we're in agreement on this, and just have a terminology problem. Mike Christie (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, that seems fair enough. I guess that my stress is on the planning, discussion, and strategizing. I think it's to the benefit of all involved that this be done on wiki. I think, for instance, that this proposal would be much stronger if it had been developed on wiki rather than by relying on a few people working elsewhere. Obviously, it's a little scary to give up control to such an extent. But that's the Wiki way: and the Wikipedia experience has been that being inclusive and transparent can lead to quite impressive results. --Jbmurray (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Why just higher education? (Among other questions)

A lot to ask about to in these edits. First, why just higher education? Second, we return to the issue of "information fluency" (capitalized here for some reason), which is nowhere defined. What does it mean? Third, there should no doubt to a distinction made between the Education Program and other forms of interaction between Wikipedia and education. Here, it is all mixed in together. --Jbmurray (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We have not made any big decision to confine our scope to higher education only. However, given that there is a large existing program in higher education that we will already be responsible for administering, this area will be our focus for the medium term. The addition of programs with e.g. younger students is certainly an option for the future, though.--Pharos (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Which is why I find it odd that the proposal restricts itself to higher education only. Again, it'd be worth clarifying and noting that you are open to expanding the program to high schools. Why tie your hands with this proposal? --Jbmurray (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Organization Name

Jbmurray, I just wanted to address your question about the organization's name, which you had raised in one of your edit summaries. We had originally agreed on Wiki Education Foundation - U.S. and Canada. However, our counsel said that if we incorporate with that name in the U.S. then we could find it difficult to incorporate with the same name in Canada. For that reason, we've chosen to incorporate with Wiki Education Foundation (WEF). Once we incorporate in Canada we can change the name if needed. In the mean time, we are free to operate in Canada and use the "U.S. and Canada" bit on letterhead, logos, etc. Hope that clears up any confusion. Pjthepiano (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My only point was to be consistent. You had one name in the lead, another in the body of the proposal. --Jbmurray (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike Cline's reverts

Regarding this edit (and edit summary). 1) I think (as I've said) that you should define "information fluency." Jami agreed. 2) It seems to make sense to differentiate between the Education Program (which you are taking over from the WMF) and other initiatives. At present, this is rather confused. --Jbmurray (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Information fluency" is a term I had thought was common enough to be used without definition. Here's a definition I found on the web that corresponds to my understanding: "Information fluency is the ability to apply the skills associated with information literacy, computer literacy and critical thinking to address and solve information problems across disciplines, across academic levels, and across information format structures." (From this website which cites it to "Callison": probably "Callison, Daniel. Key Words, Concepts and Methods for Information Age Instruction: A Guide to Teaching Information Literacy. LMS Associates. 2003.") The intent is that the students should gain something from working with Wikipedia that goes beyond the discipline of the class they are enrolled in; the course should make them aware of how Wikipedia works, and give them a better understanding of, and confidence in their ability to work with, the digital infrastructure of the modern world. I've gone ahead and added a version of the text above to the page; I hope that helps.

Is there a specific place where you see confused references to the EP and the WEF? I will scan for that; hadn't noticed it. One wording point that we'll have to be careful of: we're not taking over the EP, only a large part of one geographical area. For example, although the WEF will, I'm sure, want to create its own training resources, the WMF will continue to do that too, for the benefit of other countries, some of which are English-speaking. Clearly we need to take over Jami's tasks, but we shouldn't say "the EP" where we only mean a part of it. Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As for specific places where there's a confusion between the EP and the WEF... this is all over the place. Here's one example, in the section on the "board of directors," which is described as "represent[ing] the program's many communities." Is the "program" really what's meant? Only, surely, if the program is all that the WEF handles. Plus of course I've already mentioned this edit. --Jbmurray (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about this discussion about information fluency, in which it seemed that at least one member of the proposed board (Mike Cline) was rather confused as to the meaning of the term. His response was "As far as its exact definition and whether Literacy and Fluency overlap or Literacy is a component of Fluency, that is for academics to debate." Jami's response was much more measured: "Jbmurray makes a good point that we should clearly define what it means." --Jbmurray (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And yes, the text that you added is helpful. --Jbmurray (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And then regarding this revert: 1) I'm not entirely sure why you want to confine yourselves to higher education; 2) all the other objects of the verb are people ("educators, Wikipedians, Wikipedia Ambassadors, students, and other volunteers"). What exactly are you adding when you add "institutions"? Do you mean "administrators"? In what manner do you anticipate "institutions" (as institutions) to participate in the education program? --Jbmurray (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pharos responded above to your first point, and I agree with him on that. What we've talked about with regard to the institutions is acceptance and institutionalization of the use of Wikipedia in the classroom. I heard recently from a tenured professor who happened to run into their university president and mentioned that they were working with Wikipedia; the president was apparently horrified. I'd like to see us progress to the point where this is not the expected reaction any more, and I hope the WEF can be part of that change. Mentioning the institutions, as opposed to the individual professors who teach in those institutions, indicates that our goals go beyond any one professor. Can we say it better? Mike Christie (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suggested "administrators." This also works in terms of the logic of the sentence. --Jbmurray (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I was hesitant about this but I think your recent copyedit makes this work. Mike Christie (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally, this edit perpetuates, I think, the confusion between the education program and other possible initiatives. I suggest this requires rather more clarity. --Jbmurray (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Jon, I'll try to respond to these points, if not tonight then probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Educators on the board

I'd like to hear opinions from the community on how educators should be selected for the board -- should they be selected only by other educators, or by educators plus the Wikipedia community, or by board nomination? Mike Christie (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

EP and WEF

A couple of times above, Jbmurray has commented that there is apparent confusion in this draft between the EP and the WEF. Here are my thoughts on where the two differ and where they overlap.

The Education Program (EP) is partly a global initiative by the WMF, and partly a set of tools, pages, and associated activity on-wiki. The WMF is continuing to fund many aspects of it, but on 1 July 2013 will stop providing a full-time resource to coordinate the US and Canada classes (USCEP). The WEF plans to supply a full-time resource to take over that role. The USCEP is not just that role: the classes themselves, with their students, and the work their students do on Wikipedia, are the most important part of the USCEP. In that sense the USCEP is not changing -- it was never just a WMF initiative, and it is not a WEF initiative now. All that is changing is that a valuable support role is moving from the WMF to the WEF.

The WEF's goals (listed on this proposal) are intended to support the USCEP and make it more successful. We are not the USCEP, though, and never can be; we are a support organization. The USCEP is primarily an activity of the community, not the WEF or WMF, and decisions about it should be taken by the communities it involves. The WEF board is structured to have community representation because the support it provides to the USCEP will affect the communities it serves, so those communities need to be involved.

I'll read through the proposal again and look for ambiguities, and try to fix them. Do others agree with the division between the USCEP and the WEF as I outline it here? Mike Christie (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is very helpful and clear. It would be good to have a similar level of clarity within the proposal. I fear, however, that that might require quite a bit of restructuring. At present, the proposal is still too full of vague and abstract (and often rather opaque and repetitive) statements of broad principle, rather than outlining concretely what the WEF would actually do. --Jbmurray (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had a crack at this; let me know if that helps address your concerns. I restricted my changes to the first couple of sections in the hope that definitional clarity would resolve some of the later ambiguity. Mike Christie (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick scan for the word "program"; it seems to be consistently used to refer to the USCEP or the EP overall, not to the WEF. I think that's appropriate. Jon (and others), let me know what you spot that is inconsistent. One example Jon cited above is this edit; I've made some changes that I hope fix the problem there. Mike Christie (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

US/Canada only?

I gather the Wiki Education Foundation will only focus on the U.S. and Canada, as did the former education programme of the WMF. I wonder whether it will be possible for educators outside North America to join the Wiki Education Foundation? I'm a sysop on German Wikiversity and I have been taking part in Wikimedia Deutschland's education programme since 2010. – Thx.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, Aschmidt. While we are only going to be directly supporting classes in the US and Canada for the near term, we are committed to resource sharing and dialogue with people working on the education/Wikipedia interface worldwide. We would love to have you on board, and would like to hear about the German experiences so far. One of weaknesses of having separate regional programs is that there is a lot of duplication of effort, and successful (and unsuccessful) approaches to student editing need to be shared across communities. The Interior (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, The Interior. Of course, I'd be happy to join the new group. I have added my name to the list of "Interested participants" for now.--Aschmidt (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I know many people outside the US and Canada interested in doing this sort of work who might love to join. I'm glad that this is an open question. Groups in many of those countries may be able to organize sources of support - in-kind and financial - for their work as well. –SJ talk  02:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Global Education Program team at WMF has been working with program leaders/managers around the world to eventually set up a "cooperative" where people participating in various countries and on different languages can share experiences and best practices. I envision that WEF will be a part of that group, once it's established. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that U.S. and Canada also includes lots of places outside of north america, since it seems to include US military personal, who seem to be pretty much everywhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Wiki Ed"

I just heard it called "WikiEd foundation". We already have "Wiki med", please don't use this shortcut. :( --93.62.222.115 08:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Anon is referring to Wiki Project Med. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Wiki Ed is ok. Nothing should be called "Wiki Med", that is much too confusing. –SJ talk  02:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Change language to include Wikiversity and Wikibooks?

The language here is very Wikipedia-specific. Consider including Wikibooks and Wikiversity as well. Both have been used in various languages and countries as part of successful class work, and both are intended to host work by students and teachers. Every time I have been in touch with a class that was involved in the Education Project, and mentioned either WB or WV to them, they started thinking of new and interesting ways to work with those projects. So simply letting them know that Other Projects Exist can help them frame new ways to share knowledge that they already generate or analyze in their classes. –SJ talk  02:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WG/board composition

Jon Murray added a note about Annie Lin being added to the board; I took it out as it's a bit misleading -- there have been multiple changes to the WG and then the board, with several people (Mike Cline, Rebecca Burdette) leaving, and others joining and then leaving the board (Jami Mathewson, Rod Dunican). The details are in the minutes of the meetings, so I just added a note saying the composition had changed, which I agree is worth noting, and put in a link to the minutes. If someone wants to come up with detailed history with dates showing the composition changes, that would be OK, but it's a lot more work than I feel is worth it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to correct things further, but my point is that the current statement of things is rather misleading.

a) the working group disbanded some months ago; it may have delegated members for an initial board at the time, but (as you point out) the composition of the board has since changed considerably. As a matter of accuracy, I'd suggest fixing this.

b) there's an inconsistency in the way in which the latest board member to arrive is described, compared to the others. "Board member" is at best redundant, and in any case applies to everyone on the list. Moreover, the others are described in such a way as to explain their presence on the board (professor in the Education Program, Campus Ambassador, Regional Ambassador, representative of university librarians, and so on). It's odd that no such justification is attached to Annie's name.

I'm presuming that the problem you're having with this is that i) you want to stress the connection between the current membership and the working group; and ii) you want to distance yourselves from the WMF. (If I'm wrong, you can explain to me why it's so.) But you should be able to do this in a way that is not misleading, surely. --Jbmurray (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone and deleted the misleading rationale, so cutting the Gordian knot that Mike invokes. --Jbmurray (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear why you feel the paragraph you cut is misleading -- can you explain? No, I'm not trying to distance the WEF from the WMF -- in fact we're currently talking to them about a fiscal sponsorship that could allow us to office in their space. I know there are some people who have a negative opinion of the WMF, but I've never felt that way. Re your point (i): no, I hadn't thought of that, and don't think it would be a good rationale for an edit -- the explanation of why someone is on the board should stand on its own. I voted to add Annie to the board because of her prior experience with the GEP, and because she had attended some of the WG meetings and I was impressed with her capabilities. Speaking personally, I think it would be OK to say "former WMF Global Education Program XXX" with XXX replaced by whatever her title was, since that does give information that's relevant to why she's a suitable board member, but I don't think it's necessary and would rather leave it off. PJ, what do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph was misleading because it suggested that the board members were all "delegated" by the working group, upon its disbanding. But (as you point out), things are a little more complicated than that, and Annie is on the board despite the fact that she wasn't a member of the working group or chosen by it. It's merely a matter of getting the history right. --Jbmurray (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually think we should just list the Board members with their names and no descriptor. There are many reasons why a person may be qualified to be on the Board in addition to their relationship to the education program. If we wanted to include titles for the officers then that'd be fine. Really though, I think we've already spent more time debating this than the issue probably deserves so I'm flexible. Pjthepiano (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

And this is fine by me, too. On the other hand, I'm presuming the descriptors are there in anticipation of the day in which there will be slots designated for representatives of the Wikipedia community, educators, and so on. Which is useful enough. Not, as you say, that it matters a whole hill of beans at the moment. --Jbmurray (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There has long been talk that various seats of the board are reserved for various stakeholder communities. I would prefer that it always be clear which communities each board member is representing. I do not like the current descriptors so I changed them to reflect which board position a person is taking. Feel free to correct any mistakes I made if I misunderstood. I did this based on the precedent of how other chapters give official titles rather than personal attributes in listing their boards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this is even more misleading: none of the current board were nominated by Wikipedians etc. --Jbmurray (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I readded the same thing, except left all the board assignments vacant. I still feel that the seats available are more significant than personal attributes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also I am not sure what is meant by "nominated by Wikipedians". Maybe they were or maybe not. They all have some Wikipedian support. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually hold off on adding the seats. Some things have changed since we submitted our proposal in November - for example, the WMF opted not to nominate someone to sit on the Board. We'll have more on this coming soon. Pjthepiano (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Widthdrawal of application

I gather that the WEF has withdrawn its application to be accepted as a Thematic organisation for the time being. Could you please give us some information on the reasons for this? – Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You might find that over at the en:WP:Education noticeboard or at en:WP:WEF in the monthly updates (or minutes), but I've emailed the person who will be the first employee and I've posted at the the noticeboard about your inquiry. Biosthmors (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the links and for your query on the noticeboard.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)