Talk:Education/Countries/Greece

updating outreach

Hi! We on the Education Team noticed that our list of countries and programs needs updating. Will you help us by updating the information available on your country page? If you need some ideas about what to include, let us know. Some great information to add or update includes: institutions, numbers (courses, students, educators), key contacts and any links to other documentation on wiki (in any language -- English summaries are helpful but not required).

If you have any ongoing programs we would love to hear more about them! You can always get in touch with your regional focal point on wiki or by email. Here is our contact information:

Tighe Flanagan (Africa and the Middle East) tflanagan wikimedia.org

Vahid Masrour (South America and Europe) vmasrour wikimedia.org

Nichole Saad (Asia and the Pacific) nsaad wikimedia.org

--NSaad (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia School in Athens, Greece

Γεια σας. :) I noticed this PEG grant application on Meta -- for a Wikipedia School in Athens, Greece and added this to the main page. Yassas, Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anna! In fact that is a selfcontained series of workshops that are located inside a school but not during class time or for the students of the school (in fact it is for adults). It has the title "Wikipedia School" but it is outside of the educational process. -Geraki (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Efharisto, Geraki. I appreciate you letting me know. I'm pinging @AWang (WMF): my colleague Alex in Grantmaking, so that she's aware, too. Yassas, Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

typical of Geraki. Too bad I caught on to this comment nearly 2 years late. Facts:

• The school has fully embraced Wikipedia editing in class, see main page
• who says adults are not entitled to training in Wikipedia editing? Marios and I have been doing it for years.
• The "Wikipedia School for adults" program may be outside of the formal educational process, but it is clearly within the scope of the Wikipedia Education Program. At least from my viewpoint. Input from the WMF on this would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, it would be really nice dear Geraki if you finally stopped attacking any training and outreach activities that you (or the Community User Group Greece) do not control. You guys are doing a fantastic job in your activities! But guess what: you're not alone. It would be nice if you would actually support activities by "my" school, "Marios's" school, "Manos's" school... I know that's asking too much so could you at least please stop spreading lies about a perfectly sound outreach and education initiative that is contributing tremendously to the growth of Greek Wikipedia. Thanks, looking forward to seeing you in Esino Lario

Pinging @AWang (WMF): as Anna is no longer with the Foundation... Alex, I had pinged you in 2015 about Geraki's attack on Manos's grant report; now I realize how far back his offensive has started. Nevertheless, the Foundation is the ultimate judge of whether a grant or an Education Program initiative is acceptable and in line with the principles laid out by its officers (and Manos got a rave review from the reviewing officer User:KHarold (WMF)). Really looking forward to the WMF's input on this. Thanks, best from Greece:) --Saintfevrier (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• This moral harassment is a case study. It was well known before the time of these posts, as it was already approved as part of the grant, that "Wikipedia School" program would run in parallel also for secondary education students inside the same physical school lab. In CEE Estonia I was informed about this man's accusations against Wikipedia School during Wikimania 2015, but this post is a lot earlier.
• This exact moral harassment has also come form another member of this man's user group, who is a public educator himself, by attacking me and Ttzavaras through accusing us for not being educators (Ttzavaras had just retired as an educator). This has happened last year, during a meeting of educators discussing Wikipedia implementation in secondary education. The School Councilor responsible for the meeting, seeing his accusation tone and overall attack, stopped this man's talk and forbid him to speak any more, as he knew Ttzavaras' work for years and me having participated twice as a speaker during the Councilor's official yearly meetings of professors of informatics, talking for Wikipedia and our Wikipedia School program in secondary education.
• This important publication during the 2016 annual national-wide conference of Greek educators of informatics can answer better the accusations. This approach of usage of Wikipedia inside secondary schools as an education tool has never been published, worldwide, from any educator. The title "Wikipedia School" has not only been earned but should be also coined for its innovation in education.
• As part of our Wikipedia School program we run a second school in Penteli, Ahtens, teaching Wikipedia to secondary educators since last school year, and this year under the aegis of the Ministry of Education. As far as I know only 2nd Gymnasium of Kaisariani has been running a secondary education Wikipedia program during the 2015-1016 school year in Greece. This should change and we are trying for it.

--ManosHacker (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Saintfevrier, you are talking about an "attack" with such a tone...

• The concept of Wikipedia Education Program was discussed long ago before the creation of the series of workshops under the title "Wikipedia School". Which series of workshops was not the first held in a school building. Ttzavaras program and many others' projects had the same concept. Even though they were held by real educators, they were all announced by the schools and municipalities as cultural programs and cultural activities, including the one held by Manos in Kaisariani. The Kaisariani High School website and the Municipality's announcement are very clear on that: a "cultural activity". Not "educational".
  • As an educator yourself, you know first hand that in order to include such a project in the school curriculum one would need permission from the school counselor. Under request from an educator. The fact that Manos needed permission from the Municipality and not from the school counselor highlights the fact that it is not part of the school curriculum. The permission was needed to use the school facilities (building) after school hours, in a way that exists in all school buildings within Greece. In my own daughter's school building there are many activities after school hours, including yoga classes with a permission from the municipality and no control from the school institution itself. The School itself does not organize yoga classes or even endorse them, it cannot even deny to give a room for this activity. The school institution is not the owner of the school building.
    • Making it clear: if it was part of the school curriculum the Municipality could not have a word on it, if it is part of the Municipality's activities the School cannot have a word on it.
  • Again: these workshops are held to train people to edit Wikipedia. Which is something fine. More than fine: Excellent! We do that for years.
  • The disagreement was for the label of "Wikipedia Education Program" and not for the usefulness of Wikipedia training for adults in general. As I have written, we had discussed the concept and label of "Wikipedia Education Program" long ago, I think in 2012, when EEL/LAK had expressed the will to create series of workshops using the "WEP" label but far from the concept of it. As Education/About says "The idea behind the Wikipedia Education Program is simple: educators and students around the world contribute to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in an academic setting. Wikipedia is being used as a teaching tool in education around the world". The idea of naming a "Wikipedia Education Program", any type of workshop was not found to be useful. It is much different to train pupils or student to edit Wikipedia for their course assignment, and much different to train people to edit Wikipedia as the main goal. The first case is indeed using wikipedia as a teaching tool, within an academic (at least educational) setting, and involves at least an educator, a class, and the syllabus of specific course. The second case is something that does not need to involve an educator, it is not essential a class but a group of trainees, wikipedia is the subject - not method, and can be held anywhere. EEL/LAK was planning to do the latter, workshops anywhere, by any trainer, and any audience, naming them "Wikipedia Education Program".
    • And here is how they and Manos were "lost in translation": Education and training are both translated as "Εκπαίδευση". But these are much different concepts. While Manos is training people to edit Wikipedia (great!) for all other related terms he is actually using the terms as he is "educating" them. Then, those who are attending the workshops are called "students" and "pupils" - "μαθητές" (instead of trainees-εκπαιδευόμενοι), he is calling himself (and asks to be called) a "teacher" - "δάσκαλος"(instead of trainer - εκπαιδευτής). Then, the workshops were called "Wikipedia School". AFAIK Manos is not an educator anywhere. Not in that high school, not in any school. He is a wikipedia trainer (εκπαιδευτής) but not an educator (εκπαιδευτικός).
    • As it was stated in the "WS" report and announcements, there is not even a curriculum that is followed in "Wikipedia School". Per Manos' statements training is held in a "fractal way", there is no program, he is just opening the room waiting for people to appear and ask and do anything.
• Not only I have never said that "adults are not entitled to training in Wikipedia editing". On the contrary, I have been training university students (which are adults) as part of their course, together with their teacher since 2010. That is a Wikipedia Education Program. I have also held series of workshops for groups of adults, who were not a "class", there was no "teacher", and no "course" other than Wikipedia. That was not a Wikipedia Education Program. That was Wikipedia training.
• And probably you forget that I was the first one that supported and endorsed you, and introduced your own work to the community, as I have supported Marios and many others, educators on not. Manos is the one who initially joined and immediately left the community user group, because he was never willing to change or even discuss his ideas. And since he got a grant he never needed support. Community participation was exchanged with spending money. Discussion with the wider wikipedia community was exchanged with creating an audience of new users who would not challenge any of his ideas and suggestions. Manos suggests that whoever is not supporting 100% of his ideas is against him. Not true. I believe that pointing that the measures of success were different in the grant proposal and report, is not an attack, but something to be corrected and be noted for the next project. I believe that pointing that something costed $2000 but there was a free alternative, is not an attack, but something to be useful for the next project.
• Again. There are good things and bad things around that project. It is not fair to demand 100% support and mute every concern about it. Mixing different concepts such as the "Education Program" with a wider concept such as "Wikipedia training" will harm both of them. These have different scope, different methods, different needs. A university class with a course assignment edited on Wikipedia is much different from a place where a group of people gather in afternoon, talk about wikipedia with no specific program but it is called a "school". Sorry, education and training are not the same. We approach institutions with specific proposals, and creating extremely vague definitions around these terms does not help.

--Geraki (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

So, Geraki, you are establishing your case on one word: SCHOOL. And how Manos's activities are not education, but training. Fair enough, there is a lot of - and perhaps more - training, involved in the Wikipedia School of Athens. BUT Manos is also 1) training teachers to introduce Wikipedia editing to their syllabus 2) collaborating closely with Kaisariani High School, who HAVE introduced Wikipedia editing into their syllabus. Are these or are they not activities perfectly in line with the principles of the WEP? Furthermore, let me give you another example: I recently wrote a draft post for the Education Newsletter - expected to be out on June 1st - describing how I blended my work at the Argostoli Evening School with my Wikitherapy participants to achieve an end result that would be difficult to accomplish in any other way (the Wikitherapy participants have plenty of free time, whereas my working students do not). What was I supposed to do? Say "hey guys at the WEP, I have a project going on that involves syllabus and non-syllabus participants. Am I entitled to put this project under the WEP umbrella?" Or another scenario that you may encounter in the future: A hospital doctor gets really excited about your work with the medicine students at the University and decides to participate in your training sessions. What do you say? "Sorry, this is off limits to you because it's the WEP and we have a syllabus to follow?"

The bottom line is something you always tend to forget: Wikipedia is all about people creating sharing knowledge. And people are not robots, they have feelings. And they should not be segregated into indivisible groups, especially when such groups overlap (e.g. three of my Wikitherapy participants are directly related to Argostoli Evening School: one is currently a student, one graduated a few years ago and another's mother is an 11th-Grade student who participated in my 2012-13 Commons project. In your rationale I should have said: "OK, you you and you, you're free to work on this joint project. The rest of you, sorry, Wikitherapy is one thing and the WEP is another, tough luck for you").

As for your outlook on adults: plain copy-paste from your comment above: (in fact it is for adults). If a 15 or 16-year old student of the school decided to attend Manos's after-school classes, would that change your argument? Or would Manos have to say: hey, you you and you, OK, since you're students of the school in the morning you can say that you're attending a WEP course. The rest of you sorry, tough luck."

Finally, regarding your support: perhaps you forget that I had been editing Wikipedia in my classes WAY before I even met you, way before the WEP was introduced in Greece. Our first Wikipedia school project was presented at the University of Patras in 2007. After 2 years of maternity/child-rearing leave I returned in 2010 with a school project that was presented at a national conference at Athens Concert Hall (Μέγαρο). And in 2011 it just so happened that I had just completed the guide I had written for my students, in perfect timing with the "National Year of the Digital Encyclopedia" initiative at the Ministry of Education, and alas, yes! That's when you introduced my guide to ELLAK and it was adopted as a reference tool at the workshops all over Greece. You DID NOT introduce me to the community, you DID NOT endorse my work (remember how fiercely I was challenged by you and your clan when I dared to write an article about Argostoli Evening School on Greek Wikipedia, when ironically ALL secondary schools are notable for at least a stub on English Wikipedia), you do not even endorse Wikipedia editing by secondary school students (if I had more time I would retrieve links that testify to this).

Just ran out of time, have a good evening.--Saintfevrier (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Saintfevrier,

• AFAIK no teacher in secondary education is allowed to include anything else in the official syllabus and make derivations from the official national curriculum established by the Ministry of Education. They just can't do that. You know that. It would be great, but there is no chance that a school counselor would approve for a teacher to teach "Wikipedia" instead of "Chemistry" in the classroom. There is also no chance that a teacher would ask for the chemisty assignments to be uploaded to wikipedia. There is also no chance that a teacher could bring a Wikipedian in the classroom during school hours with no permission from the school counselor. You know that.

Geraki, please see my replies inline from here downward:

• perhaps you are a bit too confident in your knowledge of how the Greek Education System works than your occupation warrants? Just listen to yourself: "They just can't do that," "You know that," "there is no chance," "there is also no chance," "there is also no chance," "you know that". How interesting.... in 6 lines, 3 x "there is no chance", 2 x "you know that" and 1 x "they just can't do that". What's the point in arguing? It's obvious that you know the rules of my profession better than I do

• No, a 15 or 16-year old student of the school attending Manos's after-school activity would not change the argument. Children of the same local area are expected to join activities in the same area and attend the same school. A 15 or 16-year old student of any school participating in any sports, dance, yoga activity does not make that activity part of the school's educational program. An educational program has some essential ingredients: a class, a course, an educator, within a school institutional setting. The gathering of a group of people (irrelevant of their age) in a school building is not an educational program. Again: yoga classes in my daughter's school building are not educational and not related to the school itself, even if they are attended by the students of the same school.

• oh really? Well, like I said before it seems you know the components of an education program much better than teachers do. I suppose there's not a lesson to be learned from this random example of how interweaving daytime primary school and middle school with after-school activities and other community efforts led to the development of a national model for incorporating coding into K-12 curriculum... (some people like to think out of the box, others stick to formalities. It's quite obvious which side you're on, and how "in sync" it is with the contemporary education landscape).

• Saintfevrier, I am sad that you not recognise that your guide was printed because I personally forwarded and promoted it to more people, who yet did not know Mina. I recall my mail from 26/01/2011: "Πρόκειται για εξαιρετική περίπτωση που μπορεί να αποτελέσει παράδειγμα και αξίζει στήριξης." In a later email Yiannis Giannarakis mentions me by name as a contributor to the printing of your guide. I am sad that you lowered the debate in the area of notability and even more about an article you wrote for your own school. I recall that it was not even proposed for deletion by myself but Tony_esopi. Is Tony_esopi my clan? Are you ready to insult him also?

• Really, who cares if they "yet did not know Mina?" What makes you think that my purpose in life is to become known? It seems however that you care a lot about Yannis Giannarakis mentioning your name as a contributor to the printing of my guide. To be frank, if I had known then what a bunch of money-grabbers ELLAK were, I never would have contributed my material. It really annoys me that my name is on a book whose back cover is "plastered" in EU-funded stamps and seals, and every time the guide is mentioned I have to go out of my way to stress that I had no earnings whatsoever from the printing of 10,000 copies of the guide. Mind you, I know it wasn't your fault that the ELLAK Wikipedia initiative turned out to be what it was - an "αρπαχτή", I'm afraid there is no word that can compare in English! Remember, the situation was so out-of-hand that we had to bring Asaf Bartov into the debate. We were all united on that one. But please don't go around saying or thinking that you did me some kind of big favor by forwarding and promoting my guide to more people. As illustrated, quite the contrary. As for Tony Esopi.. ahhhh... yes indeed he was the one that proposed it for deletion. And indeed he upset me. But we talked it through and we resolved all bitterness and we've been close friends for years. As for insulting him, don't worry: you and your clan have done a great job at that already, by looking down on him for not having completed secondary education. Or is this not so?

• "I do not even endorse Wikipedia editing by secondary school students"? That would be a good text to read.

• You'll have to wait for that one, it's late and I'm tired and I'm an invigilator at "EPAL" "Panellinies" tomorrow. However I can give you a hint: what's your opinion on whether recipes should be included in Wikipedia? goodnight! --Saintfevrier (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

-Geraki (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It concerns us a lot to see such an attitude from people who are part of Wikimedia Movement. In the Technological Educational Institute of Athens, where FOSSCOM 2015 was hosted in November 2015, there were a series of presentations from WCUGG, and one from Wikipedia School of Athens presenting the unique Wikipedia School concept and its results. It is legitimate to receive critique after a presentation on a method so innovative that fuses Wikipedia and Education through the UNESCO guidelines for education in the 21st century, something even active educators are not familiar with. But the criticism applied by WCUGG that the Wikipedia School courses and its overall approach are actually useless was something that took aback the Chairperson of the Technological Educational Institute of Athens to the point that she asked the WCUGG members directly, in lively tone: "You really do not wish people to come and contribute to Wikipedia?" --ManosHacker (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

ManosHacker It seems there's no point in waiting for Geraki to offer an answer to our legitimate concerns: your last post on this page is dated 1 June, mine is 30 May and Geraki is nowhere to be seen. Alas however, he has shown up in the Greek Village pump, two whole days after fellow Wikipedian User:Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής expressed his concerns about the scoring of the Europeana Art History Challenge in Greece. We both know that Geraki is an admin on Greek Wikipedia, and that he is always quick to respond to discussions; why is it then that this time he showed up only after Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής repeatedly complained about the competition, frustrated at how the results were miscalculated and the rules were broken by certain users by including edits on articles that were not part of the challenge? I'll tell you why: because the rules had indeed been bent, as he was forced to finally admit. Now, you may wonder "why is this so important?". I'll tell you why: for the Wikimedia Projects Geraki is not only an admin, sysop, Global Renamer (and the list goes on), he was also the contact point for the Europeana Challenge in Greece along with Pavlos1988, as one can easily see from this page. Common sense commands that he - along with Pavlos - are the people responsible for replying to any questions or comments from the community on the outcome of the challenge. I do not know Pavlos so I can assume that he is not active in the Greek Village Pump; Magioladitis, who is not even a regular of the Village Pump, tried to calm Ανώνυμος down by saying that it's no big deal and what counts is participation. Which indeed is true! The true joy is participating in the Wikimedia movement, in creating and sharing knowledge. But we both know how much Geraki does not withstand "the breaking of rules" (and there was a whole league of Greek Wikipedians who were eager to support Geraki when he attacked FocalPoint's application to become a Global Renamer by accusing you, Manos, of canvassing, Focal of bending Wikipedia rules and so on and so forth, and in the end he got his way: the discussion was closed by "no consensus: too many concerns").

But look what happened in this case with the ubiquitous, rule-defending Geraki:

1. he obviously did not display the due diligence in tallying the scores, leading to the discontent of an active editor who stated that he will never again participate in such challenges;
2. even though he was active on the WM projects during the 2 days Ανώνυμος was waiting for an answer, he refrained from replying and left Marios to try and handle the situation alone;
3. only when he was pinged did Geraki appear, to admit that the results had indeed been miscalculated and the second place winner had changed (he maintains first place).
4. he had the nerve to ask Ανωνυμος why HE (Ανωνυμος) didn't inform User:DaftRose (the former second-place participant) that he was editing articles that were not in the challenge, when Geraki himself had posted interim statistics on the progress of the challenge! I would imagine that the national contact point for an important Wikipedia competition would have noticed that certain registered edits were not in the scope of the competition, especially when such contact point is as "diligent" and adherent to rules as Geraki claims to be. I mean, if no one was looking at where the edits were coming from, what's the point in having coordinators?

I really would not be wasting my time on writing if I didn't believe that Geraki is a threat to community health on Greek Wikipedia; as regards this latest incident, pinging User:Wittylama as I gather that he is the most competent to speak on behalf of Europeana. I really hope I am not forced to come back and write on this page again, as I am planning a Wikipedia event for this Thursday and THAT is where I should be channeling my time. It's just that I can't stand by and watch while fellow Wikipedians get disappointed again and again - this time I repeat to the point of saying "never again", see for yourself here - from Geraki's selective and arrogant manners on the Greek projects. Have a good evening.--Saintfevrier (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not actually sure why I am being tagged in this conversation... clearly there is an internal political fight going on within the Greek Wikipedia community and the competition that I coordinated (which had prizes allocated to Greece) is being used as a proxy battle for that ongoing argument. I have posted my reply regarding the controversy about 2nd place in the Art History Challenge over on the el.wiki Agora. Wittylama (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Liam you are right about that: there's much more to this discussion than the controversy on the Art History Challenge results. I was originally planning on posting my reply in the Agora but it's better to write here as I see that you have resolved the issue in the most reasonable and fair manner and yes, going on with the discussion over there would potentially kindle the fire for a further waste of time for all of us. I am pleased that all three contestants will be awarded prizes and I am certain that there are no hard feelings on the part of any of them, nor on the part of Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής who brought the matter to the attention of the Agora. So let me just say that the reason I brought you into this conversation on Outreach was to give you some background as to how the same person (Geraki) is quick and eager to exercise harsh criticism on his fellow Greek Wikipedians for "bending the rules" - often with bitter consequences, I won't go into that again as you have understandably stated that you don't want to get involved in the internal issues of Greek Wikipedia - whereas when the rules have been bent by himself, not only does he dismiss the issue as non-important, in addition he attempts to shift the responsibility to others. Personally I believe no more than a sincere apology was in order, and that is what the other national contact Pavlos humbly offered, very much to his credit. Perhaps the best way for me to leave this discussion is by expressing the faith that there are lessons to be learned on this page on what community health is all about. Believe me it will be a major breakthrough if in the future Geraki stops to think twice before assuming the role of the ultimate rule-defender of Greek Wikipedia, while hurting people's feelings along the way: if this long and time-consuming discussion leads to such a refreshing outcome then it will not have been a waste of time after all.

(That said, I read on your page that you are involved in some interesting GLAM projects. I am currently running an IEG program titled Wikitherapy and on Thursday we're holding an important outreach activity at the local library; if there is a good turnout this could potentially lead to exciting things in GLAM. I've already exchanged ideas with Alex (Stinson) and I love the enthusiasm that the GLAM projects and people are showing (I've been more active in the Education program so far: I'm a computer science teacher). Will you be at Wikimania this year?

Wishing the best, thanks for taking the time to help in resolving the Art History Challenge issue:) Mina --Saintfevrier (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

To respond to the specific question - yes, I will be at Wikimania Esino Lario, (and so will so I'll see you there! The Wikitherapy project does indeed look very innovative. I hope it's successful. Wittylama (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Liam! See you soon in Esino Lario!--Saintfevrier (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)