Talk:Public Policy Initiative Learning Points
- The instructors section does not mention the problems with instructors not editing themselves, being inexperienced with Wikipeida, and that getting them trained as proper editors would be vastly beneficial to everyone involved. --Piotrus (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
1. Document is sort of hard to parse to find the real scoop on what worked/didn't. That said I parsed it a couple times and info is there (not a big deal, just something to consider).
2. Were any GAs or FAs created during the initiative? Which ones? Tout them and link to them!
3. How many man hours of volunteer time were used? It is helpful to have some sort of investment/return overview and would be good to have that in there.
4. How about editor capture/retention/translation to editing in other areas? We need that data to evaluate the return of the program. Even if it is negative (or you don't care per Frank), let us know. Lots of the community does care. They see these programs as about increasing participation, not about taking on a further task of helping schools.
5. (Good) It looks like the typical new article progressed to a B and the typical existing article moved from start to B. That's fine and positive.
6. Is there a category or project tag for the PPI articles? I would like to muck around and look at them and see what I think of their progressions (just a quick double check of the reports here).
7. It would also be good to have some comments about page views of the improved articles. I suspect that the new articles are very low view (and always will be). For the others, it is useful to know if we are improving content that is well viewed or obscure. It's just another aspect of investment/return calculations. IOW, those huge stacks of paper next to Sue when she talked about the program's success...how many people look at those articles?
8. I do see how the CA role may not require as much expertise. And that it may attract and benefit from people that are pleasant and poised as opposed to Wiki savvy. Salesperson versus worker, so to speak. That said, I wonder if this division is good long term. People like this are less likely to be involved with the program long term or to be able to internalize successes and failures. Also, if the exercise is required, how important is it to have a sales-y type person giving the first intro?
9. Also, a bit worried from the tone of the posting that it is biased to declaring success.
10. It would also be interesting to have some sort of view of factors that lead to success (so classes can be prioritized). Are certain schools better than others (like higher end ones)? Seniors versus freshman? How important is instructor comittment to the program versus inherent student capability? Etc.
22.214.171.124 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- To add:
- There is no mention of the amount of support/cleanup required by the general community. Given that community patience is running out regarding later EPs, it is imperative that this is included.
- The quantitative metric is flawed: it does not subtract points for copyright violations, close paraphrase and deleted or redirected articles. While this wasn't a major issue in the PPI, an analysis of the IEP by this measure will be highly misleading and overstate article quality. MER-C (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Also, could we give a little information on what "Public Policy" is as an academic major? I have found this very hard to understand (and yes, I looked at the Wiki article). What do the kids study and what sorts of jobs are they qualified to do?
12. Also, reference a few of the articles PPI worked on. Wikians are article people. That is our product. We care about that stuff...honest. We want to see what sort of content is coming out. With JbMurray, we know we got the famous Spanish writers and all. With Jimmy Butler, we get en:Banker horse and en:Loggerhead sea turtle and such. Give us some taste, flavor of what this project did. Even done promotionally, it would still be helpful!126.96.36.199 17:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)