Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Comments

Was I supposed to be the ambassador? First I heard of it. Other editors were trying to be nice, but I reacted with a meat cleaver. Sorry.

I hope we don't do this sort of thing again, or much. It was a heck of a lot of work, with well-intentioned students throwing garbage into an article and either leaving it up to me to sort it out, or getting peeved at me when I did. In the meantime, my voice was rising. The article, which will remain nameless, is improved. It is probably 2-3 pages. Was one. Took ME hours of work. I suppose the original contributor cut and pasted some garbage he found online. Not sure at all he even understood rewording was important, though the article was not flagged, so maybe he did. But I reworded it as a normal part of rewriting everything.

So it worked to improve this article.

I would rather have some random ox try to improve it than to have someone "designated" again, if I had my choice. The poor student who was figuring on "improving" the article probably had similar feelings. The other editors might have pointed me to this page (which was in the banner, I admit). I don't remember being designated as an "ambassador." Maybe I missed that. Or maybe they should have told me to leave it alone til January 15, 2011 or something. That might have worked. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you weren't supposed to the be ambassador (although if you want to be an Online Ambassador next term, I really encourage you to apply); ambassadors are the people listed at Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Mentors, who have volunteered to serve as mentors to students who are assigned to edit Wikipedia.

This was the first term of the ambassador program, and many things didn't go as planned; we didn't do well enough to communicate expectations to professors, so some of the assignments haven't been very conducive to working smoothly with the community. But things will be a lot better next term.

The class with the student whose work you ran into (if I'm thinking of the right one) is one where there actually weren't mentors matched up to most of the students; each student pairing up with an Online Ambassador as a mentor will be requirement for most of the classes next term. (The assignment was also unfortunately prone to conflicts-of-interest; students were asked to work on an article about a community they have been a part of.)

There's nothing wrong with ruthlessly editing contributions students make; if they aren't improving Wikipedia, their work should be treated just like anyone else's. That's different from treating the student him or herself kindly, and with perhaps a little more patience than a typical unproductive editor, since we know more about why they are editing and what they are trying to do. The role of the ambassadors is supposed to be to watch out for the newcomers, making sure they don't get bitten and gently setting them right in terms of working productively with other editors and within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But as I said, this first term didn't go as smoothly in that regard as it hopefully will next time.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania scholarship deadline: 31 January

The deadline for applying for scholarships to Wikimania 2011 (4-7 August in Haifa, Israel) is coming up on 31 January. If you're interested in attending, I strongly encourage you to apply for a scholarship.

http://wikimania2011.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships

Although there are no definite plans yet, we hope to do a number of things at Wikimania related to improving and spreading the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, so it'd be great to have as many ambassadors there as possible--especially Campus Ambassadors and Online Ambassadors who are interested in being Campus Ambassadors. Also, Wikimania is really fun.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First Ambassadors newsletter underway

Beginning this week, we're going to start a regular newsletter, to be delivered to ambassadors on their talk pages, to keep everyone informed of what's going on. The draft is in progress here, and anyone is welcome to help with it. I hope to deliver it on Friday.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thread at ANI

Please see this thread at ANI, which looks right up this project's street. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File sharing

A recent thread on the wikipedia-ambassadors mailing list has brought up the possibility of a WMF-hosted FTP site to share documents in formats currently not accepted on Commons and/or too large to transfer by email. While it is unlikely the WMF will approve an FTP site, we should discuss alternatives if/until a reconfiguration on Commons occurs. Several people suggested using Dropbox to share large files, but it may also be worth requesting the enabling of local uploads on the Wikimedia Outreach wiki for the time being. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dropbox seems like a good option. I'll poke around and see if we can get a way to host files on a Wikimedia site, although it seems like a long shot. If we go with Dropbox, we can catalog links to files in public folders, so people could use their own Dropbox accounts. I'm sure other Ambassadors who have accounts (like me) will be willing to upload files for others who don't want to create an account.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Have there been that many documents that large? What are you transferring? ;) Banaticus (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

working with the Association of Psychological Science

On Friday, Piotrus and I met with Bob Kraut and his colleague Rosta Farzan, who are working on the Association of Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative (APSWI). The project is partly an effort, led by the society's president and with plans for heavy promotion in the coming months, to get psychologists to improve psych converage on Wikipedia. There will be an email sent out to leaders within the organizations likely this week, then one to the organization's 25,000 PhD members in a few weeks, followed by another to the 100,000 student members in PhD programs in a few months. After this early phase of getting APS members to contribute to Wikipedia, they plan on shifting to encouraging the use of Wikipedia assignments for undergraduates for the Fall 2011 semester.

The APS Wikipedia Initiative is also partly a research project, led by Kraut and Farzan, to study what works and doesn't in terms of onboarding newcomers to Wikipedia. (This follows up work Kraut did studying how long newcomers were likely to stick around based on what their first interactions on the site were--whether a personal welcome, an automated welcome, or some kind of warning.) Kraut and Farzan are designing an online system for orienting and organizing APS volunteers to contribute to pyschology content on Wikipedia. They will assign these volunteers to experimental groups, to test things like the effectiveness of different discussion venues (on-wiki walled gardens vs. off-site forums vs. just talk pages vs. existing WikiProject spaces), the effectiveness of different kinds of first tasks, retesting the effect of first interactions with better controls, and more.

You can see their portal here: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative

If things go well, there may be strong potential for the APS Wikipedia Initiative to work closely with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Kraut is already shifting to using a serious Wikipedia assignment (drawing from what PPI participants are doing) in his class on "The Social Web", in preparation for trying to get other psychology professors to use Wikipedia assignments. And at the local level, it looks like he's interested in participating formally with the WAP in fall 2011, and he thinks his students "The Social Web" will be a strong pool of potential Campus Ambassadors for Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh. We talked about holding an interest meeting for other professors in the area in early summer, and hopefully a Campus Ambassador training in Pittsburgh in mid-summer.

I suggested to Kraut and Farzan that the Wikipedia Ambassador Program could probably support the APS at this point with the #wikipedia-en-classroom channel. Any objections? It seems like we'll be able to keep up with that channel in terms of students in participating classes, and it shouldn't be too much trouble to also help out the stray psychologist who is getting started. And if things do get too busy because of the APSWI, we can always change things up.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing Fridays article for 11 February 2011

--Guerillero | My Talk 04:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Things to do?

Sage, the newsletter suggests we do GA reviews. I did one for Me and Juliet, which is now promoted to GA status. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Very cool! Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You should see the Non-Free Content mess on my talk page... Dr Aaij (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST involvement

There is a discussion over at WP:MILHIST about possibly starting a side project of both the WP:AMBASSADORS project and WP:MILHIST project to combine our two goals by involving official military public affairs and history offices in Wikipedia. Please share your thoughts.--v/r - TP 21:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for a "step-by-step guide" for how newcomers should approach articles of varying popularity

User:Jaobar, the professor for one of our classes, has requested that someone write up a "a step-by-step guide that describes how students should approach articles of varying popularity", so that they have a better idea of when it's necessary to discuss possible changes before making them and/or cite sources. Anyone want to take a crack at this? It could be useful as a handout for other classes, too, so it's probably something worth trying to do nicely.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Popularity is not a particularly relevant factor when considering whether to go to Talk before editing; it's the amount of controversy that is really key. Look for Article probation etc. on the talk page. And don't let people bully you; just edit, if you have the WP:RS to back up your changes. GlitchCraft (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's more or less what I told Jaobar. But he's looking for something a little more formal and step-by-step that newcomers could use to get an of what to expect when they start editing a given article.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Then start the essay in a public forum rather than user space, or else put it in your user space and invite others to join in... Let others collaborate... Oh, I followed your link. Request was made to place it in school space. I think that's not the best forum (too limited an audience), but I guess it could be transcluded there later...GlitchCraft (talk)
      • If someone (or multiple someones) does it well enough that it's worth using more widely, then yeah, we can find a nice permanent place for it. I don't think it much matters where it gets drafted.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oh me oh my. Someone told me I should go to the Talk page before I edit. What should I do?
  1. Get reliable sources for your edits before you edit. Write your edit in your user space (or on a text file on your computer, if you prefer), then add a correctly formatted reference (or at least an almost correctly formatted one). After that is done, you are more than half protected (in most cases).
  2. Use common sense. Everyone knows some topics are controversial; those are the ones in which your edits are most likely to be reverted. In the articles that handle topics that are really hot potatoes (usually, political ones), you actually probably should go to talk first, at least before adding anything that is even the least bit controversial. Look for Article probation, templates warning people to be calm, etc. on the talk page for an indication of a danger zone.
  3. Another problem is WP:OWN: editors who feel a sense of ownership. For example, meaningful changes to any Featured article will definitely be watched carefully by at least one or two editors. However, these areas, while watched vigilantly, are usually less contentious, and any talk-page discourse much more civil.
  4. Don't let yourself be bullied (but remain civil). It certainly helps if you learn a little alphabet soup... learn how to use Wikipedia jargon like WP:BOLD, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. Invest some time in reading the texts that those shortcuts link to. Correct use of shortcuts such as these does three things:
     1. it adds to your credibility factor
     2. it adds an explicit appeal to a recognized written authority
     3. it can sometimes crystallize an entire logical argument into eight or nine keystrokes... now that's economy of effort!
  5. While navigating through the collaborative editing experience, Wikipedians realize that there's a hierarchy among the codified rules of editing and interaction: Policy trumps guidelines, and guidelines trump essays, but linking to essays such as WP:CYCLE or WP:COATRACK is often useful. Read WP:DICK, but avoid linking to it. Sometimes the best weapon is to disarm your opponent by disarming yourself via civil and constructive behavior, transforming an opponent into a collaborator.
  6. If all else fails, call for help from an admin or Wikipedia Ambassador. They are quite happy to help.
  7. Wikipedia's external interface is an online encyclopedia. Many (probably including Larry Sanger) would argue that its true constitution is as an online community that happens to produce an online encyclopedia as a side-benefit. Learning how to function well within the (sometimes) rough and tumble but (sometimes) easy breezy smooth sailing of a collaborative editing project is one of the real underlying lessons that can be gained from editing Wikipedia. GlitchCraft (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Might want to add a reference to WP:CYCLE in there somewhere, though. That's always a good starting point for explaining the concept of consensus.--Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a great start to me. Thanks very much. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Jaobar (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've added a bit more. Later. GlitchCraft (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are no obvious indicators of ongoing controversy on the talk page or disputed tags on the article page, I would look at the edit history. If, aside from vandalism and vandalism reversions, there are a lot of recent edits, and in particular, any number of reversions of non-vandalism edits, take it as a sign that editors have strong opinions about the article. Of course, editing an article that has no recent history of controversy may trigger some editor's ownership. -- Donald Albury 12:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of [WP:OWN]], any article that is an WP:FA is definitely owned by someone... I added that to my list above.... GlitchCraft (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for all of your help. Will communicate this discussion to the class. Jaobar (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Update on how each of the PPI courses are doing in mid-March

This is a survey of how each of the Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. I've tried to flag any significant problems or shortcomings I've noticed for each class. On the whole, there is a range of statuses, from classes going very well to classes going quite poorly. For the full list of PPI courses, see Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses. If you've been involved with one of these classes or have more to add or clarify about any of these summaries, please update or comment accordingly.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Courses

• David Weil - This class is right on schedule. BasketOfPuppies is mentoring all of the students, and they seem to be on the ball and following the timeline. They are due to move out of sandboxes now.
• Idel Iskandar - The course page just has the boilerplate assignment timeline. There's been just a smattering of student activity since early February. CutOffTies, along with Rob and PJ, are the Campus Ambassadors. No updates have been posted, although CutOffTies was very active on-wiki with the course through early February, and is a very active Wikipedian. It looks like no students have requested mentors.
• Rochelle Davis - Some students are starting to get active and requesting mentors, but most have not done so yet. This is the highlight so far, an expansion of Iraqis in Jordan: [1]. It's a small class, but it should be in good shape with Professor Davis and several students who are veterans of her last class. The timeline is short and lacks assignment details, but lists what appear to be group work on several important articles at different points, in addition to the main individual projects.
• Alex Jones at Harvard - No course page.
• Anh Tran, International Trade and Strategy - Awadewit reports that Professor Tran seems to have de-emphasized Wikipedia in his classes and made the Wikipedia part optional. This one still lists the timeline as "forthcoming". Some students have gotten active with making constructive edits to articles other than their listed main projects. A few have requested mentors.
• Anh Tran, Approaches to Development - This class is in essentially the same state as Professor Tran's other course. A portion of the students, maybe 20%, are starting to become active and making edits, and some of them have requested mentors and in at least one case, started talking with mentors about choosing an appropriate article.
• Ken Richards - This class has a well-developed timeline, although it's not very optimal in terms of taking a while before students start making substantive contributions on-wiki, with too much time for the early stages. Most students have mentors (not all listed on the course page), and most have listed their projects. Students are working in small groups. Most have posted outlines. DYK is officially part of the assignment, which may cause a few headaches for groups that are starting from developed articles. Some are working on much too high level articles, like invasive species (already a Good Article), pesticides, biodiversity, and others. But a number of groups have nonexistent articles, as well. The next two or three weeks are scheduled as the make or break ones where students get to DYK and post major work.
• Maria Papadakis - A grad student (possibly the TA), User:Cjfrysinger, has been pretty active. The timeline looks like they are just about scheduled to start working with mentors and building starter articles; it looks like no students have yet requested mentors. There is no indication that the class is off track, although we've had no updates from Campus Ambassadors.
• Cindy Allen - With Sadads as coordinating ambassador, this class is running very smoothly. All students have mentors, and nearly all have articles listed. Many students have been starting to make significant contributions to articles, beginning in mid-February. This class has aggressive goals (Good Article nominations for each student's article), so this is a class may be worth paying special attention to. The students are mostly working on existing articles, though, so don't expect many DYKs.
• Robert Mann - This class seems to be more or less on track, with a solid timeline. Dylan Staley is basically taking on the mentor role, and about half the students are at the point of having drafted short versions of their articles in userspace. All or nearly all posted so far look like good DYK potential.
• Ray Castle - This class has no list of students, and we've had no updates from Campus Ambassador Dylan Staley about it. It looks like from the concise timeline that the plan is essentially to dump finished work onto Wikipedia by May 3.
• Johannes Bauer - Almost all students have mentors, and most have made constructive edits to articles other than their main topics. They are scheduled to start drafting contributions to their main articles and working on their main articles this week. Professor Bauer is active on-wiki, giving constructive feedback to students first edits.
• Jonathan Obar - This class is a bit chaotic because of its size, but all 30 groups currently have mentors, with Neutralhomer providing logistic support as the Coordinating Ambassador. Students are starting to make their edits to non-project articles. It's still unclear what the main contributions from these students will involve, but the first substantive milestone (250 words per student, presumable toward a draft of the group article) is due 15 March.
• Kristen Ruppel - With Mike Cline in the lead as a Campus Ambassador, this class is blazing its own path. The updates are regular, and over half of the students have mentors. Some recently started building content in sandboxes, and one of the grad students started their article: The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (1952). After spring break, they will do the bulk of their article expansion in late March and early April, shooting for Good Article nominations in April with plenty of time left to wait for feedback and respond to it.
• Evan Hill-Ries -This class has basically been inactive since mid-Febuary. Pharos and Drew Lynch are the Campus Ambassadors. Pharos says they are moving along with the scheduled plan (there are no dates on-wiki), but it's not very agressive in terms of getting students active on-wiki. But the next phase should involved active contribution.
• Sheldon Gen - Max Klein and Derrick Coetzee are the Campus Ambassadors for this small class. We got a report after Derrick's first classroom experience, but none since. However, most or all of the students have gotten active building content in sandboxes in early March. Although there are no specific dates on the timeline, it looks like the next step, in a week or two, is moving out of sandboxes and shooting for DYKs, followed quickly by major expansion.
• Eric Goldman - No course page, but we weren't counting on one.
• Marlene Fine - This class seems totally on track, with Dominic and Antony-22 as Campus Ambassadors. All students have sandboxes, nearly all have lists of sources compiled for their articles. In mid- to late March, they are scheduled to draft DYK-able versions of their articles, move them into mainspace, and nominate them for DYK, wtih Good Article nominations as a later goal for April.
• Carol Dwyer - Campus Ambassadors Dominic Grifo and Bonnie Kong are supporting this very small class (3 students). Students have recently gotten active for the first time, making small edits to live articles. I Skyped into class on Friday, 11 March; the students have put together articles on local and regional policies, which they will be moving to Wikipedia soon.
• George Mitchell - Students did some learning exercises with sandboxes in mid-February, but have been almost totally inactive since then. The course page still contains the default timeline, and we've had no reports about what the course plan is. CA Gabriel Mugar reported last week (1 March) that students would be contacting mentors the following week; they have not started doing so.
• Byron E. Price - Most students haven't made any edits. It looks like they are working in fairly large groups on a handful of articles. One student has started drafting material in a sandbox for one of the articles and has been adding bits in early March. There's nothing but the example timeline on the course page, and we haven't heard anything from Campus Ambassadors Lisa Spiro and Kinu.
• Ellen Rosell - Campus Ambassador Tony Garrett has been keeping us up to date, and there's a full detailed timeline on the course page (although not that aggressive in terms of getting students active and contributing early). Students have their first substantive Wikipedia milestones in late March, including small sandbox drafts (one for each of the five groups), revisions, then moves into mainspace. Although the schedule indicated that they would work with Online Ambassadors, the students have not contacted ambassadors asking for mentorship. Other than that, the class seems to be going according to plan.
• Brian Carver - This class is going pretty much like it has in past terms: great. Some students have created their articles and many nominated them for DYK in early March. All students have created articles, it looks like.
• Dan Schnur (Berkeley) - No course page.
• Max Klein and Patrick Berger - This class has done no major article work that I can see yet, but students and facilitators are more active with Wikipedia than last term. It looks like there's even some independent activity from one of the students, who's trying to clean up an apparent hoax and remove mentions of it from major articles. The course page is excellent, with tabs and a lot of useful structure (although probably overwhelming for classes that are less wiki-centric). It looks like the main assignments are actually relatively minor, with an "automatic pass" for students who get a DYK or make 50 contributions and add 3 sources to USPP articles. Groups are supposed to raise their articles' ratings by two levels, with at least two major improvements to the article per student.
• Eugenia Toma - A few students started making substantive edits to existing articles in late February and early March. There's only the example assignment timeline, and little activity beyond the few active students since early February test edits. From updates from CA Ben Norton, it looks like they are figuring out the assignments as they go; so far, students have been assigned to make substantive edits to existing articles, but it's unclear what the major assignment will be. No mentors have been contacted, and there's no indication of whether that is part of the plan.
• Aaron Frank - No course page. This is a short class that doesn't coincide with a the terms of other classes, so it may still be right on track and simply not have started yet.
• Dan Schnur (USC) - No course page.
• Matt Dull - Only 8 students are listed. Some have been getting a bit active, making small mainspace edits in early March. Each student is listed with multiple articles, some of which are listed for multiple students. The assignment overview is vague, and there is no timeline. We've not had any updates from CA Epicadam.
• Christopher Cooper - This class has a complete and aggressive timeline, but they seem to have fallen well behind, and didn't match up article choices with feasible DYKs, which were part of the timeline. Students generally have mentors, and have many have made some substantive, if awkward edits. There's a bit of confusion about signature; students are trying to add four tildes to their edit summaries, or just using tildes as the edit summary. We haven't heard from CA Laura Cruz since a late January update after her first time in class.
• Kara Lindaman - Students started building major articles in sandboxes in late February. The timeline and assignment are pretty solid; there's an indeterminate region for all of March, with a Wikipedia lab planned for explaining how to create high-rated articles and how to move out of sandboxes. Most or all students have mentors, and some have interacted a bit, although not as much as it seems they were supposed to based on the timeline by now. We've not had any updates from CA Elissa Hall yet.

  I've communicated with Ellissa Hall on her talk page. We're waiting for mentors now. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Approval discussion starting for steering committee election process

Your input is sought on the proposed elections process for the next iteration of the Wikipedia Ambassadors Steering Committee. A straw poll is underway.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Information for Ambassadors about January - May 2011 term

NOTE: This message is also being sent to the Wikipedia Ambassadors mailing list Google Group.

Hi Ambassadors!

The new term is upon us! We apologize for this long message, but it's very important, so please read on, and read carefully. Returning Ambassadors: Please note that we've changed several policies from last term, and there are some important changes in how we're going to use the Google Group and what other discussion and feedback channels we're going to focus on, so please pay close attention as well.

Logistics for Campus Ambassadors

Thanks for all you've done so far! Here are a few logistical matters that Campus Ambassadors need to know now:

• Set up meeting with professor if you haven't already!
• Campus Ambassador training slides are available online:
• The four modules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Resources#Classroom_training_slides
• Day 1 & Day 2 of Campus Ambassador Training: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador/Training
• NOTE: if you'd like these files in OpenOffice/PowerPoint/Google Docs, ask your trainer or email LiAnna.
• Add yourself to the Campus Ambassadors page on the WikiProject if you haven't already done so! Instructions are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Campus_Ambassadors/Trained_ambassadors#Adding_your_profile
• The "Welcome to Wikipedia" brochures can be mailed to your school. Campus Ambassadors from the fall semester universally reported that students preferred printed copies, so we are happy to send those to you.
• Online version of the brochure: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Welcome2WP_English_082310.pdf&page=1 (feel free to use, share, and edit it as you would like)
• Do you want printed copies? Email Mishelle Gonzales (mgonzaleswikimedia.org) if you do, with the following details:
  • How many brochures do you need?
  • What address should they be shipped to?
  • Do you need them urgently (FedEx) or is regular shipping okay?
  • If you would like printed copies, please let us know as soon as possible but no later than next Tuesday (Jan. 25)
• Email access to students: Please ask the professor to give you access to a class mailing list, to the class "Blackboard" equivalent / class blog, or students' individual email addresses. Professors agreed to this as part of their Memorandum of Understanding with us. Limit your emails to students to a few key reasons:
  • Survey dissemination (see below).
  • Reminders of out-of-class labs.
  • Critical changes to assignments/syllabus or new reference materials that are developed during the term.
• Course pages on WikiProject: Remember to work with the professor to populate the course page as soon as possible! (linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses)
• WestEd surveys: We're working with the nonprofit research organization WestEd, who are evaluating the impact of our work on student learning. They need to administer some surveys at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. Look for an email shortly from LiAnna Davis with a link that you'll need to send out to the students ASAP (ideally before they begin the Wikipedia assignments).
• Online Ambassador Mentors: Professors were given the choice of whether they'd like to assign their students to choose a mentor or if they wanted us to assign mentors to their students. Ask your professor which he or she prefers, and pass that information on to Sage Ross.
• Swag packages: You should all have enough stickers for your class. If you'd like to start a student club or host outreach activities on campus and want more swag, or if you need more stickers, email LiAnna.
• Media Inquiries: You most likely will be contacted by student newspapers, university PR departments, and local/national media. Be enthusiastic! Share what you're doing. And ALWAYS let LiAnna (email) know when you've talked to someone.
• Confused about whom to contact? If you're ever unsure whom exactly at Wikimedia you should contact for particular questions/concerns, please always feel comfortable emailing Annie Lin. If she's not the right person to answer the question, she'd be happy to forward your message to the person who is.

Logistics for Online Ambassadors

• We need more Coordinating Online Ambassadors, who are the liaison for the class (you don't need to be mentoring anyone in that class; you just need to volunteer to be a resource for Campus Ambassadors and the professor). Talk to Sage if you'd like to be a Coordinating Online Ambassador, or just update your entry on the Mentors page.
• We need more Online Ambassadors, too! Please invite people you know who would be good mentors to apply.
• Mentees: Students may start asking you to be their mentor by leaving a message on your talk page. Please respond to them quickly! Sage may be asking you to take on additional mentees for classes that are asking us to assign their students mentors rather than letting students pick. Be sure to update your mentee count on the Online Ambassadors page.

Where to Get & Give Help

Discussion page of course page

Students have been directed to leave any questions on their course page's discussion page (on Wikipedia), and then alert their Online Ambassador mentor by leaving a message on his or her talk page. But Campus and Online Ambassadors are encouraged to add all the relevant course pages to your watchlist and answer questions as they come up!

IRC

IRC is the online chatroom we showed Campus Ambassadors during training. All Ambassadors are encouraged to hang out in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-classroom, where students will come to get help, and #wikipedia-en-ambassadors, a backchannel chatroom for discussion among Ambassadors, whenever you can. Check out the IRC Guide for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/IRC/Guide, or ask Sage Ross for help.

Google Group

We've already subscribed (almost) all ambassadors to the Ambassadors Google Group. Here's more information about how we're planning to utilize the Google Group in the spring semester.

The volume of traffic was somewhat overwhelming to some last term, and now we have more than doubled the number of ambassadors, with more joining in the coming weeks. So we want to focus more on limiting discussions to topics that shouldn't be discussed on-wiki, such as problems with professors or students.

Goals of the Google Group

• To keep Ambassadors informed about critical information, such as important on-wiki discussions and how classes are going.
• To provide a venue for discussions that need to happen off-wiki for privacy reasons.

Use the Google Group for

• Sending periodic updates about how things are going at your university. Campus Ambassadors who are paired with a professor should send a short update each time you do an in-class presentation /lab or when you anticipate a lot of on-wiki activity from students due to a deadline, etc. Non-paired Campus Ambassadors should send monthly updates on outreach activities.
• Starting discussions on issues of broad relevance to Ambassadors. If you want to bring up a topic with the group, post it to the relevant talk page, then send a message to the Goolge Group alerting your fellow Ambassadors that you've started it and including a link. The rest of these discussions will then take place on-wiki:
  • For questions related to a particular course only, please use either the course page's discussion page or Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors (this is the talk/discussion page for the WP:Ambassadors page)
  • For discussions about working in the classroom, issues that could affect multiple classes, recruiting new professors and Ambassadors, planning for the future of the program, and most other broad Ambassador Program issues, please have the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors
  • For discussions about the Online Ambassador role specifically, please go to Wikipedia talk:Online Ambassadors
  • For discussions about students' article contributions and other content issues that aren't limited to specific article or a specific course, use this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy (that's the talk/discussion page of the WP:USPP page), or use the discussion page of a more relevant WikiProject
  • IMPORTANT NOTE: if you begin a discussion on-wiki, or substantially change the direction of an on-wiki discussion, please remember to send a message to the Google Group so that everyone knows this has happened. Do not assume that Ambassadors will always check both the Google Group and wiki pages for ongoing discussions.

• Notifying Online Ambassadors of IRC times for office hours and in-class sessions. If you'd like to ensure that Online Ambassadors are available to give aid during a class lab, send an email to the Google Group asking for staffing of the IRC channel at that time. Be sure you also add it to the "IRC Schedule" wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/IRC
• Having professor-related discussions that shouldn't be public, such as problems, conflicts, or complaints.
• Sending/receiving Ambassador Steering Committee reports (which will also be on-wiki and discussions should be centered on wiki).

Don't use the Google Group for

• Continuing lengthy discussions: Continue the conversation on-wiki unless there are privacy concerns.
• Questions for Wikimedia Foundation staff: Send the questions to us individually.
• Socializing with fellow Ambassadors: Reply to people individually (off the Google Group list) if you'd like to be social!

Other Communications

• Update newsletter: LiAnna produces a weekly newsletter for people interested in the Public Policy Initiative. Add it to your watchlist or email her to subscribe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Update
• Ambassador newsletter: New for this semester, we'll be creating a weekly on-wiki newsletter specifically for Ambassadors with an update on where we are with courses and more, delivered straight to your talk page. Sage and LiAnna are starting it, but we'd like Ambassadors to help contribute! Let us know if you're interested.
• Facebook page: We have a Facebook presence! Check out: www.facebook.com/WikipediaonCampus. If you're on Facebook, please "Like" the page. If you have a spare moment in class, pull it up and encourage your students to "Like" it as well. The page contains information about new reference materials and tips on editing aimed at newbies, as well as information about what is happening on different campuses. If you have events you'd like mentioned on the Facebook page, let LiAnna know (email).

Once again – THANKS! You're what makes this Initiative a success, and we truly couldn't do it without you! Please let one of us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely, the Public Policy Initiative team:

• Annie Lin - Campus Team Coordinator
• Sage Ross - Online Facilitator
• LiAnna Davis - Communications Associate
• Amy Roth - Research Analyst
• Mishelle Gonzales - Project Assistant
• Rod Dunican - Education Programs Manager
• Frank Schulenburg - Head of Public Outreach

--16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Leadership opportunities in Ambassador program

Hi Ambassadors!

This is just a quick heads up that over the next week or so, we are going to announce a few new, exciting leadership opportunities within the Wikipedia Ambassador program, and we highly encourage you to apply/run for the ones you're interested in (definitely feel free to apply/run for multiple roles)! The time commitment for most of these will be similar to the time commitment for the Campus and Online Ambassador role - about 3-5 hours a week. These opportunities and roles make up a huge part of our effort to transition more and more of the central leadership in the Ambassador program over to you, the Ambassadors, especially as interest in using Wikipedia as an educational tool rapidly expands both within the U.S. and abroad (thanks to your work!).

So keep an even more careful eye on this Google Group mailing list and/or Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors (this page) over the next week or two, so you don't miss any of these announcements! Again, we strongly encourage you to try out for some of these new opportunities and roles if you can. This is a crucial moment in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador program, and in Wikipedia-in-education efforts in general, and y'all are quite literally the future of the program. As always, you folks are the core of this effort and we need your active participation more than ever to keep this going! So we're calling on all of you who are willing and able to help bring the program to the next level.

Thank you very much!

Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope this won't be too much off-wiki; I'm trying to follow the Google groups, but it is not easy. Please keep anything important on-wiki, so we can all see it. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  08:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting articles in mainspace?

(This is a continuation of the mailing list discussion, of sorts. Moving it here per Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors#Google Group so we don't spam the list or lose this discussion in the future.)

There's been a lot of great discussion going on about whether students should start their articles directly in the mainspace. To keep this discussion accessible to professors and other non-ambassadors, I'm starting this thread onwiki. Although probably not the best for every class, how can we make this idea work for more professors/courses, or should it not be encouraged, and why? Also, please share any course activities/plans that might be relevant (HstryQT, Awadewit, Piotrus, anyone else, do you mind also copy-pasting below what your respective classes have done/are organized?).

Lastly, I think a chart might be helpful, so see below. Benefits (getting involved in the "community editing" idea) or concerns (less chance of DYKs) should be recorded so we can review this before next semester starts.

Thanks everyone, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just went through all the mails in the list now, and I have to echo Chris' views. We have to let the students get adjusted to this community, and its not going to happen in one semester. I am a Freshman (2nd Semester) undergrad student myself, and I know that it is important that some hand-holding be done for the students. So I guess its better if they start doing it in their sandboxes, as opposed to creating it in the mainspace and incurring the wrath of some tags inserted by an AWB user. Such a thing will only demoralise them. Yes Michael? •^Talk 18:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just echoing MikeLynch, I really worry about scaring students off if we force them to start in the mainspace (or move them there too fast). Just as much as you need to learn to walk before you can run, I can't repeat enough that we should be focusing on the long-term and trying to keep new editors, instead of throwing them out into the wild because of some naive notation that they must (and will) conform 100% to Wikipedia. With undergrads in particular, it's sad but true, but the "undergrad experience" that often occurs in the 1st/2nd year of college, is going curb some of our good intentions and we need to instead focus creating quality content (that is easy to grade and submit to DYK...). To do this we need to provide that extra bit of hand holding (or kick in the ass when appropriate) that can only be found in drawing out the sandbox method longer than might occur for any regular user. That being said, graduate students can move faster towards the mainspace, but if we want to use the DYK process, as a selling point in the classroom, we are going to have to allow sandboxing for a longer period of time then some might prefer. Epistemophiliac (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting articles in the mainspace

Pros/cons	What to do about it
Collaborative editing experience	Class exercises/activities for practice (example?)
DYK is harder to achieve	Start in sandbox but have a set time limit for it to be a live article
Other	Other

Though these are undergraduate and graduate courses, it's unrealistic to assume that the students would know how to collaborate online, let alone on academic subjects here. It's best to allow students to first get familiar in a sandboxed environment before going live. However, the majority of the their edits should be in the actual article mainspace as opposed to a sandbox. Otherwiser, they're not getting that "collaborative" benefit.The lengthy mailing list discussion reminds me of early LISTSERV threads.=PSmallman12q (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This is out of sequence, so I'll just quote my comment from the thread:

This is a side issue, but if anyone wants to see students' new articles go to Did You Know?, writing in a sandbox is almost a requirement. While getting an article in DYK is a nice reward for students, such articles have to be 'finished' (able to stand on their own without further work) within five days after first appearing in main space. I think it is unrealistic to expect new editors to write an article that meets DYK requirements in no more than five days.

One possibility for students working in a group to create a first article would be to leave it in one student's sandbox for a few days, while everyone in the group edited on the article, but set a deadline for moving the article to main space. This would provide an opportunity to bring an article to a state that would avoid nominations for deletion and/or the slapping of all kinds of problem templates on the article.

Expecting students to have much opportunity to edit collaboratively with non-student editors may be unrealistic. My experience from starting more than 200 articles is that it may be weeks or months (and sometimes years) before another editor makes any kind of content edit (not counting typo corrections, formatting changes, etc.) That includes stubs, DYKs, and a few fairly substantial articles. It is hard these days to find a hot topic(that doesn't already have a WP article) that will attract collaborating editors.

-- Donald Albury 02:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

View from others

I always encourage editors to make articles live, as soon as possible.

The only caveats being,

• It should, of course, be well-enough written as to avoid deletion. But that can be done with just 3 sentences, 3 good references
• It can be worth holding back until it is DYK-ready; but even that is not too hard.

The reason I advocate early moves is, Wikipedia is fundamentally a collaborative project; anyone can edit - so why not make it live? It also avoids ownership problems.

One thing I fear, in this programme, is people thinking articles "belong" to them, in some way. They do not. Every time you click "save", you irrevocably agree to release your contributions to the ravaging hordes. The sooner students accept that fundamental fact of Wikipedia, the better.

Whilst a page is in user-space, people are admittedly less-likely to edit it - although they still can.

If you're only editing your own page in user-space, that's not really using Wikipedia at all; you could do the same thing off-line, in e.g. MS-Word.

So, I encourage new Wikipedians to embrace the collaborative nature - and, to paraphrase, "Move early, and edit often."^[ref]  Chzz  ►  08:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chzz, people should start editing "on-wiki" as soon as possible. This doesn't necessarily mean in mainspace. I think new people should use the Article wizard to get started. Sure, you can use an off-wiki source like Word to edit the article, but that discourages inline citations (as you'd have to redo them all) and inline citations, or inline references, should be great desired. Simple question: Which is better, a paper with no footnotes and a large bibliography or a paper with footnotes which references a large bibliography and demonstrates how that bibliography was used? This is why inline references (good use of the <ref> tag) should be preferred to a static reference block at the end of an article, in my opinion. Banaticus (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to reply to the "it's unrealistic to assume that the students would know how to collaborate online" sentiment that a person expressed earlier. Come on, this is the Facebook/Twitter generation. Unless they've never really used computers before (which is true for the rare wikt:odd one out), they all know how to chat online and that's what collaboration basically is, chatting online about what you're doing and what needs to be done. True, Wikipedia collaboration is asynchronous collaboration -- you have to give people time to reply as everyone isn't all on at the same time, but that's true for most online services. I be fairly confident when I say that your students understand that some people check Facebook in the morning, some check it at night, some check it every few days, and some Facebook addicts (or Wikiholics) check "it" all the time. ;) Banaticus (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Leadership Opportunity: Wikipedia Regional Ambassador role!

Hi Ambassadors!

I would like to formally announce - and encourage you to apply for - a new leadership opportunity within the Wikipedia Ambassador program: the Wikipedia Regional Ambassador role. Please see this on-wiki page for more details about the role, the time commitment, and how to apply.

Here's a brief description of the Regional Ambassador role, extracted from the wiki page I just mentioned: Regional Ambassadors are crucial leaders in the Wikipedia Ambassador program, and represent a huge step in efforts to transition more and more of the central leadership roles in the program from Wikimedia Foundation staff to Ambassadors. We have divided the U.S. into different "regions" based on expected Ambassador activity levels in different parts of the country (with focus on balancing the activity levels across all the regions as much as possible), and each region will be coordinated by one or two Regional Ambassador responsible for that area... [I]n a nutshell - Regional Ambassadors will be in charge of coordinating professor recruitment and check-in, coordinating Campus Ambassador recruitment and performance, and facilitating communication among different stakeholders (professors, Campus Ambassadors, Online Ambassadors, Wikimedia staff, etc.).

The estimated time commitment for this is about 5 hours a week - very similar to the current time commitment for Campus Ambassadors - and the term is approximately from May to December 2011. We strongly encourage all Campus Ambassadors and Online Ambassadors to apply. This role is separate and distinct from being a member of the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee, for which we are also currently seeking members (to be a Regional Ambassador you have to apply, and to be a member of the Steering Committee you have to stand for elections). These two roles are by no means mutually exclusive, and we encourage you to try out for both.

I attached the .doc format of the Regional Ambassador application to the email I just sent to the Ambassadors Google Group mailing list (with almost identical message to this one). More instructions on the application process are available from the link above. The official application deadline is April 15th, but I would encourage you to turn the application in as soon as possible!

Thank you very much. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions!

Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Newsletter

The newsletter seems to me to be sort of a lot to just drop onto my talk page. Instead of getting each published edition, could I instead just get a link telling me that there's a new version available? Banaticus (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The newsletter gets delivered to talk pages in this form: Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Newsletter/3/Deliverable. The format could probably be slimmed down more, if someone with design skills takes a bit of time to improve it. The main point is just to highlight the main headlines with a sentence or so per section. But don't worry, you won't get the full newsletter delivered to your talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Help wanted improving Example Syllabus for future courses

[also posted to the Wikipedia Ambassadors group mailing list]

If you're interested in best practices for Wikipedia assignment design, please take a look at the updated version of the Example Syllabus: outreachwiki:Education/The_Syllabus

The point of this is to offer a coherent and well-thought-ought example of a course plan for a full-term Wikipedia assignment, which new instructors working with us can use as a basis (in part or whole) for their own assignments and which explains the thinking behind the design. Frank Schulenburg will be using this updated Example Syllabus to create a second printed/printable edition (in the style of other Bookshelf brochures) that can be used for recruiting instructors.

So please help polish and improve it. The end of this week is the deadline before it moves into a less-easily-adjusted version for print.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility

As an on-wiki continuation of the discussion that started on the mailing list:

• What problems with civility and civility enforcement have you observed in terms of interactions between students or instructors and the rest of the community?
• What role can / should the ambassador program have in improving civility and the general editing atmosphere on Wikipedia?

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I will reply here as I seem to be the locus of the conversation. Despite policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:EQ incivility, personal attacks and lack of etiquette are present on Wikipedia. Sometimes this comes from anonymous and random people, other times it comes from long-stand contributors. With the latter, I do not know if they think the rules don't apply to them or what, but the issue remains as thus: being a bully is scaring people away from editing Wikipedia. The above policies seem to be entirely unenforced and without any teeth when they are. As ambassadors, how are we to reply and respond to our students, professors and community-at-large when these violations occur and nothing happens? Basket of Puppies 00:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone is stating that an ambassador is bullying a student, they need to supply diffs. As for long-standing editors bullying newcomers... despite what you may think, it is not always a black and white issue. Newcomers have WP:BITE to quote as protection (think of it as wolfsbane). Certainly newcomers deserve patience... but the truth is, newcomers also need to be circumspect in their dealings with established editors. The latter are often (but not always!) the ones who know how to handle the editing problem correctly, but sometimes don't have enough patience with new editors, who may be way behind the curve on certain issues... Think of it as a (hopefully) polite dance, as both people resist the urge to lash out, and instead feel out their respective positions.
• On a personal note, if anyone feels BITTEN, drop me a line. If it seems that you need a WikiGryphon, I'll take on that job. • Ling.Nut (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to the first bullet point: after having had five adoptees now through the USPP program (in three different courses), I've not had any issues with them having to face incivility. I suppose that leads me to believe it hasn't been an issue for any adoptees, which I'm sure is not the case. So far, my adoptees have more or less only interacted with myself, their teacher, and their class peers. There has been little interaction between them and other Wikipedians. My first three mentees were all pretty inactive, but they did do some mainspace editing. The articles they were editing were not wildly controversial. One of my current mentees is editing a page that hadn't been edited for over six months beforehand, and the other has been working mostly in her userspace. I guess what I'm trying to say is that no, I've not had to try to help my mentees with incivil users, but that my experience may not reflect that of everyone else.

In regards to what the ambassador program can do, I think we really need to stress that all users need to AGF—even those on the receiving end of hostility. I think that most college students in this day and age are pretty familiar with some of the nastiness that can be found in other parts of the Internet; who hasn't watched a music video on YouTube with heated arguments in the comments? I think that the issue with the students would be understanding why they're on the receiving end. A new user might not understand why adding a piece of original research or an uncited fact to a page can result in a hostile, bitey response, because the new user does not see the big picture of Wikipedia quite so much. On one of the IRC office hour channels we discussed how vandal patrollers can get jaded seeing so many vandal edits, and start seeing uninformed or mistake edits as an intentional form of vandalism. If this happens to a new user in the ambassador program, we really need to try to explain to the student that they need to AGF even if the patroller didn't, and assume that the biteyness was a misunderstanding. Clearly there is a line where biteyness turns into all-out incivility and attacks, but this could probably be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Now, that being said, I also think we should stress that some users react differently to different things. I personally saw the edits that prompted this whole discussion as being no more than a frustrated user reacting to some difficulties with another user. I mean that in no way to belittle your reaction to the situation, BoP, but am simply saying that I would have probably responded to the whole situation much differently. Although I would avoid calling somebody names in a response to a question, there are some users that are more vocal in expressing their frustration. In the same vein, different people take offense at different things: one might as easily be offended by being told not to be a dick as by being called a moron, and yet one of these is more or less accepted on Wikipedia. Not everyone has the same offense threshold, I guess you could say, and we should make sure that mentees understand that a user that is coming off as abrasive may not actually be attacking them. Anyhow, that's just my $0.02. I hope it's relatively coherent. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ling Nut. I'm not making a judgment about this case, but, in my experience, established users are more likely to be victimized by bullying and personal attacks than newbies. Wikipedia attracts trolls and people with strong POVs, grudges and general bad attitudes, and any administrator or other experienced user who tries to deal with such becomes subject to often sustained campaigns of vilification, vandalism, and even attempts to harm them in the real world. I have personally been threatened with a law suit and with implied physical harm when I reverted edits that violated NPOV and anti-spam policies. I fully understand why active editors often develop impatience (a short fuse) after dealing with such problems. In my opinion, the Wikipedia community has failed to protect experienced users from the incivility of trolls, anons and sockpuppets far more than it has failed to protect newbies. -- Donald Albury 11:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

...Having said that, we need to calmly watch out for the ones we have under our wings via the Ambassador program, or mentorship. :-) • Ling.Nut (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! Incivility (and worse) is a persistent problem in WP, and we all need to work at reducing it. However, new editors are more likely to encounter incivility if they push too hard without understanding the rules, or if they try to edit articles involved in a lot of controversy. New editors are likely to be reverted for edits that violate some policy or guideline. That, in and of itself, is not incivility, despite attempts to paint it so. Some new editors take such reversions badly. Part of the problem may be that new editors don't understand the use of edit summaries and talk pages. The sad truth is, though, that editors have to have a fairly thick skin to keep editing. It is hard to protect someone who easily takes offense, especially given the anarchist elements in the WP culture. -- Donald Albury 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Presence and Presents, Wikimania 2011

Hi Ambassadors,
With the goal of having a big, positive, and coordinated presence at Wikimania in August, we can plan ahead here. These are my ideas for some presentations/panels we can present in Haifa. Please add your ideas... ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There are two related big researchy ideas we need to present and represent at Wikimania:

1 - the success of the Public Policy Initiative

• Assessing article quality with the Initiative (the development of the quantitative metric, it aligns nearly perfectly with 1.0 Assessment ratings, Wikipedians rate articles more consistently and tougher than subject area experts.) - Amy and Sage will present possibly have an assessor co-presenter, anyone interested?
• Content Improvement through the Initiative (a quantitative analysis showing the impact of student work on public policy content) - Amy is looking for an assessor or assessor/ambassador to co-present, anyone interested?
• Structure and Function of the Initiative model (number of classes, students, ambassadors and how it all worked together) - Annie present? anyone interested in co-presenting?
• Lessons learned about Wikipedia in Education (what worked and didn't work in the classrooms, and some success stories) - LiAnna present? anyone interested in co-presenting?
• the professor experience/perspective on the program -
• ???

2 - The Amazingness of the Ambassadors and about the Program

• who and what the Ambassadors are, the roles of CAs vs. OAs - anyone interesting in presenting?
• the ambassador experience, why do you volunteer to do this, what is rewarding and what is hard - user:Sadads, did I sort of get what you want to do
• Administering ambassador programs, how to develop interest and create volunteer groups to support the program-User:Sadads
• the potential for Ambassadors to impact Wikipedia culture, the type of people drawn to the Ambassador program are the Wikipedians who will help drive the community culture shift to welcome new editors, (this idea relates to the Editor Trends Study, and problem of swiftly declining numbers of new editors) - anyone interesting in presenting?
• the powerful impact the Ambassadors have on content, a collection of success stories from the mentors - anyone interesting in presenting?
• the problem of discouragement in mentoring programs and what we can do to keep ambassadors/mentors rejuvenated and make sure they get positive feedback for their work (Maybe this should be tied into the experience presentation?)
• "Wikipedia as a LMS": how Wikipedia can be used for coursework and discussion that isn't part of the Wikipedia assignment. For instance WP:USPP/PoP2011 migrated the entire course to Wikipedia projectspace and used pages and discussion for all homework. I ,User:Maximilianklein started this idea and it greatly increased Wikipedia fluency in the course because there was no divide of parts of the class that is on Wikipedia versus parts that were on off it. I'd love to give a discussion/tutorial on it's benefits and drawbacks.
  • I think this is a great idea. On a related note (but not really relevant to Wikimania), it might make sense to create some sort of wizard for building complex course pages like yours for instructors who want to take this route.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Other Wikimania ideas

• T-shirts - I think we should all coordinate to wear ambassador T-shirts, I like red, a nice red, or maybe a nice happy spring green but I think we should have a color that stands out so that people see us and know we are ambassadors and can talk to anyone in a t-shirt, but also a color we are not embarrassed to wear later.
• a designated meet-up place for us to gather during the conference in spare time
• a specified time and place for Ambassadors to hang out and get to know each other
• ???

Collaboration Space

How do we want to go about remotely building these (possibly merged) presentations? We could

• Create new wikipages for the presentations and develop them on-wiki
  • in the spirit but isn't built for remote presentation development
• or create on Google Docs
  • in a closed-source environment but better sharing, commenting, and real-time editing tools with chat.

Any thoughts? I'm happy to set-up either one, and am leaning towards Google Docs myself. Maximilianklein (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Google docs are good, but I found them limiting with regards to presentations. The presentations don't work with embedded videos and some flash stuff, and they tended to rearrange my graphs and tables. But we could use Google docs to create the basic presentation and then add in the other stuff when the co-presenters meet up. I ended up using Apple's Keynote. Unfortunately, sometimes the proprietary programs work better. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've created the page outreach:Wikipedia in Education: Wikimania 2011/Ambassador Presenation as a fork of this discussion to try and properly orchestrate meshing all these topics into a single integrated track of presentations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilianklein (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal that might affect CA-supported classes

Hey folks! :) This proposal requiring the WP:AUTOCONFIRM flag before one can create an article might have an affect on CA-supported classes. Kaldari noticed this and raised the issue there. Basically, if this passes then it might technically prohibit students from creating new articles until they have met the 5 day, 10 edit threshold which results in becoming an AUTOCONFIRMed editor. Administrators have the ability to grant this flag sooner than normal, which would be the solution to the program. I think it would be good for the CA program to discuss this and formalize a "view" to be included on the RfC. Maybe Sage or Annie or someone else can add this view to the RfC and hopefully it will be added into the to-be-developed policy that would say something like "Admins are requested to grant the RfC flag to students in Campus Ambassador-supported classes sooner than the normal autoconfirm flag requires." Thoughts? Comments? Ideas? Basket of Puppies 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do they need to start their articles in the mainspace on their first edit anyways? I think we should see this a a great thing and have them make 10 edits the first week of class to figure out how the coding works. Or if they want to start their article at the beginning, they will still be able to make a userspace draft of it. This is really an advantage for us.--Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All my students started their articles in their sandboxes, but I think autoconfirm requires 10 mainspace edits, or is it any ten edits? I do see the advantage, but also see a possible issue. Basket of Puppies 01:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Its 10 edits anywhere onwiki--Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

10 anywhere, cool. Ideally they would get that and many more before needing to take their articles 'live', but I also think it's not a bad idea to have a solution in place for the inevitable time that this become an issue. Basket of Puppies 02:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the more hoops and barriers we put up to creating new articles, the fewer professors are going to think it's a practical assignment to add to their courses. We already have enough trouble convincing academics that we're a worthwhile project to participate in, so it's not like it'll be hard for them to be dissuaded. Also, keep in mind that a lot of Wikipedia-related classes don't operate through the campus ambassador's program (like the Poverty, Gender, and Human Development class at Rice University). Who's going to shepard them through the process to make sure all of their students can create articles? Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, you bring up a really excellent point. The classes that are off the CA-radar might be an issue only for as long as they are off the radar. Once we become aware of them we can easily apply my suggested solution to the students in the course without requiring those classes to necessarily become a formal part of the CA program. The hurdles are there for a reason and it's clearly a double-edged sword. Do you think my proposed solution is the right way to go (as it seems the autoconfirm requirement is going to become policy)? Basket of Puppies 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fortunately, for many (most, even) classes, students are required to make a certain number of edits first, to get used to WP. Most will probably still stick with using sandboxes for articles, as well. I don't foresee that RfC as being a huge issue right now, especially as a compromise solution may still be worked out. However, we should definitely watch for developments. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

True and agreed. Do you think my proposed request is a reasonable response to the autoconfirm-to-create-articles policy? I think it might be a non-issue based on the sandboxes, but there might be students who wish to immediately start developing on-wiki. Basket of Puppies 02:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the RFC page to avoid fragmentation, how do you expect other editors to seriously take this into account if you are talking about it here and not on the RFC. But on a side note this would either force School projects to register thier involvement or they would just have to make 10 edits. I just had an idea about recommending school accounts be created via ACC and allowing account creators to make pre-autoconfirmed accounts. That would actually be a really neat sollution.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I raised the topic here so the ambassadors could determine what our response would be and then to put it on the RfC as a "view". It seemed like a good idea to first have the conversation here to find out what issues the proposal might present for ambassadors. I apologize if that was the wrong thing to do. Basket of Puppies 05:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can understand and respect that, my apologies for not thinking of that, a unified response might be best to reduce excessive numbers of views. But in any case, you have spotted a potential issue (have a cookie!) and it would be beneficial to everyone if that was made clear on the RFC sooner rather than later.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't claim any credit for figuring out this issue. That's Kaldari's cookie. I just started this thread is all. Basket of Puppies 05:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's my thought: if, by chance, the proposal requiring autoconfirmed does go through, what prevents admins from giving those student-accounts confirmed status, so that they may be able to create an article? Given the degree of accountability here, I think that would be an easy thing to do. –MuZemike 07:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue would be those student projects which are not explicitly supported by this initiative. Currently accountcreator is all one needs to get a class off the ground and creating articles (and that only if they make accounts in class); this would require an administrator to do the same thing. sonia♫ 09:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

afterthought: Promethean's idea about creating pre-confirmed accounts should be explored further, but might possibly work better with an "ambassador" userright. Having entire classes request through ACC might get unwieldy compared to having a CA have the ability to do it in class. openstrings 20:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldnt see an "ambassador" user right happening, there's really 0 chance of it because all of a sudden Ambassador would change from something that is a great community initative to something the flagwhores will be all over like a magnet. Furthermore it's a direct overlap of ACC when ACC would be better suited to creating accounts for various reasons including: Checkusers are on ACC, ACC avg wait time is easily below 5 minutes, ACC is multiuser and can make many accounts very quickly if need be, ACC already exists, ACC has strict requirements and logging that wouldnt exist for CA's. To be honest, if 100 students all requested an ACC account at the exact same time, it would take less than 20 minutes for ACC to process all of them whereas I think it would take a CA several hours, the more requests the faster they get done in general. There is absolutly no reason that a different process is required for Schools and Universitys as we already deal with most of the school project account requests and nothing stop's CA's from applying to join ACC either. On a side note however, this has given me some ideas on some feature changes we might make to ACC to better faciliate the Ambassadors program including optional notifications to an ambassador when someone from his or her institution registers (using the email address to figure it out) so you can take the time to welcome them yourself etc, auto tagging as a school project where appropriate and such.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If there really are professors who want their students to immediately create articles in main space, then i suspect they are more likely to be turned off of Wikipedia by seeing many of the articles immediately speedy deleted, then by the students having to become at least a little bit familiar with WP before creating an article. I personally think it would be a bad idea to give students in classes an exemption to this proposal. We want the students to know at least a little about what they are doing before they hit the wall. -- Donald Albury 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just popped in from the other page - If someone is creating a set of accounts for their students, then that person will be autoconfimed - so they can also create all the users subpages, each with a simple sandbox template - once the subpage is created then the student can edit to his/her heatr's content. Creating a another user's subpage is not limited to admins. Simple.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

However, the original point was to allow students to start contributing to a new article almost immediately after account creation. True, it likely isn't such a great idea, but it could work with enough instruction by ambassadors. Of course, sandboxes for articles are always a good idea to use before an actual article is created—a DYK would also be possible if sandboxes were heavily used, if the article is well-cited and has an interesting hook to it. The possibility of an ambassador right to be implemented is very small; Promethean makes a good point above. —mc10 (t/c) 05:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Steering Committee election process starts now

Hi Ambassadors!

I'm please to say that the election process for the next iteration of the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee is underway! We worked out some of the bugs in the election process, and almost everyone who commented was supportive of the basic plan.

The timeline now is that nominations (and questions for candidates) are open for the next week. Please sign up now if you'd like to be on the steering committee!

Then there will be a week for everyone to continue asking questions of the candidates, discuss their ideas, and figure out how they fit in as potential steering commmittee members. After that, we'll have ten days of on-wiki voting, where any eligible voter can support or oppose as many candidates as they wish.

If you want to run, please sign up here: Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Steering_Committee/Elections/Candidates.

If there are any questions, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(From Ambassador mailing list) Discussion re. regional boundaries for Regional Ambassadors

A very concise summary of the questions raised so far: what's the rationale behind the way the regions have been mapped out for the Regional Ambassador role? In particular, isn't it rather strange and inconvenient to group Alaska/Hawaii into the same region as the Lake area (Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota)? Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been suggested, Region 10-Northwest might be the best geographical fit (or maybe Alaska in that, and Hawaii in Region 12-Southern California), but I don't think Alaska/Hawaii are exactly beating our doors down yet anyway :P--Pharos (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am going to draw up a map based on this and some of my personal idea. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed kind of strange that Alaska and Hawaii are in the same region as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Geo-politically and geo-culturally speaking, the regional divisions are kind of odd, and I recognize that some regions span huge distances right now. However, the rationale behind the regional boundaries is expected workload, i.e. decently balanced distribution of classroom/Ambassador activity across the regions. In drawing out the regions I focused first and foremost on expected activity level (Regional Ambassador workload) for the next academic term, and then tried to create regions that would or likely could have similar activity levels. That's why southern California is its own region: even though there is only 1 participating class in that region for the spring 2011 semester, there are so many colleges in that area and we're starting to get quite a few leads in that area that I think there is very likely to be a lot more activity next semester. That's why Washington, DC is its own region: we know from the current and past semester that there is a lot of interest and potential in this much smaller geographic area. That's also why Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada make up one region: there are just fewer colleges in this area, and we haven't really kick started any activity yet (we haven't built momentum here yet), so I think the activity level here for next semester is likely to be similar to the activity level for southern California, even if the latter is spatially a much much smaller area than the former.

There was no fool-proof scientific calculation that went behind the regional division process, and I acknowledge that my speculations of future activity levels could be incorrect, but I was basically making educated predictions of how much activity/work would occur in each region based on what we've experienced in the past and also the interest level we've recently seen from different parts of the country.

As for inconveniences around communication, I do agree that this particular region has the disadvantage of having states that are five time zones apart. However, as Bart points out, we expect that a lot of the communication can/will occur via email. This is particularly true for recruiting professors/Ambassadors at brand new universities and brand new locations - which will be the main type of work at Hawaii and Alaska, where we (the Ambassador program) have no activity at all yet. The Skype/phone conversations are important, but can just happen periodically, i.e. only a couple of times throughout the semester.

In addition, I would like reiterate what Alex Stinson mentioned in his email (on the Ambassador mailing list): we're not necessarily expecting the Regional Ambassador in charge of the Lake Area + Non-Continental region to recruit professors/Ambassadors in every single state within the region. If this person can make a good amount of new activity happen in the region as a whole, at this point it doesn't matter whether all those activities happen within one state or are spread out across different states. And right now we simply do not have enough activity in either the Lake area or the non-continental area - nor can we really predict a skyrocketing amount of activity to happen in either one - to justify splitting the two from one another into separate regions. Doing so, in my opinion, would only make it a lot more difficult for us to find enough Regional Ambassadors (enough for every region), and could mean that some Regional Ambassadors would be bored or would have a much harder time hitting the same "productivity level" as other Regional Ambassadors who are in charge of areas with much more activity level (for example, would it be fair to hold to the same standard a Regional Ambassador overseeing the DC region and a Regional Ambassador overseeing only Hawaii/Alaska?). I do fully agree that the Lake area should be split off from the non-continental areas eventually, but I don't think we're quite at that point yet (I think a lot of us will be really excited when we do get to that point!). When there starts being so much activity for one Regional Ambassador to handle, I definitely think we should further divide and/or reconfigure the regions.

Sorry for the super long response. =) Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is my proposal. I think it reconciles points that everyone is making. It adds no more ambassadors just cuts up the area a tad differently. I did this by redistributing region 6 into the surrounding regions. With the extra region to play with, I created a pacific north west region + Alaska. In all no region in my proposal should cross more then two time zones and should be geographically linked. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it... Why not give Hawaii its own region, though? Or keep the area on hold till we have a tieup with a Hawaiian university? ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 03:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I have to agree with Annie's original division and reasoning - people are the constraining resource, and consequently we don't have the luxury of avoiding culture clash or minor time zone differences. We have Online Ambassadors from all over the world, but nobody seems concerned about the time difference between students and volunteers in NZ or Australia or the UK. Geographic proximity isn't a big concern except for meetups between all volunteers in a zone, which I expect to be rare. A bigger concern is that one zone will contain so few interested volunteers that it will end up stagnating or being deserted. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that we might benefit from a flatter structure in which we have even larger regions but with multiple supervisors in case one goes missing. Dcoetzee 04:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Guerillero - your map-making skills are seriously very impressive. =)

I would like to point out, though, the importance of balancing expected activity levels across the regions (see my comment above)... The Regional Ambassadors page has more information about how much activity is already happening right now in each region, and we have been in contact with professors from different parts of the country interested in participating next semester. I am concerned that a region containing Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky (which altogether contains 12 Campus Ambassadors and 6 classes this semester and possibly more next semester) would be too much for a Regional Ambassador to handle. The Ambassador Steering Committee decided that each region should contain only 5-10 Campus Ambassadors and 3-5 classes, and that we should divide/reconfigure the boundaries once a region goes beyond that point. Also, the Regional Ambassador for Nevada/Utah/Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico will likely have a much more difficult time because there just isn't any Ambassador activity there at all right now and we don't have many new leads there either, so expected activity for those five states is low. It would be hard to hold this Regional Ambassador to the same standard as the Regional Ambassadors for the other (much busier) regions.

I am not opposed to reconfiguring the original regional borders, but I do want to point out the importance of keeping various Regional Ambassadors' workload decently similar. Annie Lin (Campus Team Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why it might make sense to just play with the position of Alaska/Hawaii (see my comment above), since both of these have fairly negligible potential so far.--Pharos (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of responsibilities

The whole idea of being an ambassador for my campus seems very intriguing, though I'm not sure whether I've already got too much on my plate to add this duty as well. Can someone provide insight on what exactly the average campus ambassador does on a day-to-day or week-to-week level? I'm not looking for the extreme examples where someone does more than what's expected; just a general idea of what I should expect if I were to do this at the University of Southern Indiana, which currently has no ties with Wikipedia in any fashion (other than banning using it for term papers-- not exactly the image I like to see given to Wikipedia, however accurate it may be). Any insight would be helpful; thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I was an extreme and I was putting in between 3-8 hours a week at the end of last fall doing the following:

1. Supporting a class (which primarily included responding to e-mails and showing up for a 1 hour office hour each week, which wasn't well attended but I used to review what the students had done during the week)
2. Recruiting 2 professors to do teaching assignments for this spring
3. Running a club meeting each week at the library for working with the Campus Ambassador candidates I had on campus
4. Giving occassional talks and workshops

My impression is that the typical ambassador has a few weeks where they put in 3-5 hours talking with the professor, giving presentations and responding to e-mails, and a lot of weeks between 1 - 1.5 hours of responding to things. If you are going to start something from scratch though, you will need to be reaching out to a large number of people, which means a little more time figuring out who to reach out to and how to do it, Sadads (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Improving communication with students

On the Google Group mailing list, Manish suggest that enabling email notification for English Wikipedia would be helpful for communicating more effectively with students, since often they won't log in for long periods and so won't know when new messages have been left for them by mentors. Bejinhan agreed, noting that it's time-consuming to try to make sure students received the messages. Let's continue the discussion on-wiki, rather than clog up the mailing list.

As I understand it, enabling email notification for English Wikipedia would mean that either our servers end up on a lot of spam blacklists, or we spend a lot of staff effort making sure our servers get removed from blacklists as soon as they are added. So at this point (from what I've heard from Wikimedia tech staff) that's probably not an option.

One alternative could be a javascript gadget that sends email at the same time it posts a talk page message. That's what User:Kaldari/wikilove does quite nicely, and it probably wouldn't be too hard to modify that gadget to simply leave a message and send an email (rather than leave a barnstar).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I second this notion. I've tried repeatedly to get in touch with my adoptees, with minimal results. Though they seem very receptive, they don't log on as often as is helpful. I've never even interacted with one of the three, despite several talk page edits and a sent email. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia:Syndication should be explained during classes; the email new messages feature is disabled on large WMF projects for performance reasons. Because the devs make the ultimate decision for that, someone will need to convince them, not WP:VPT. Personally, I don't think it will change the fact that students are not editing/checking talk pages actively. I like the script idea, though. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think such an option should be good. I've had a nightmare trying to communicate effectively with my mentees. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is several fold:

• students are asked to interact in a new, unfamiliar way
• most courses don't require them to do anything substantive till the last few days so they have no need to do so
• once they need to, they might have forgotten they have mentors
• some will not care either way, because they don't care for the assignment/course

This is a reason why in my newest course (and updated wikisyllabi) I now make interaction gradeble. That said, in my past courses, student in the surveys did say they log in every one-three days, but then, even my older courses were already structured to enforce some regular wiki activity... PS. Out my two mentees this term, none has bothered to contact me yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this could be incredibly helpful in the short term, but detrimental in the long term. It really would be useful, as I fully understand the desire to be able to check in only one place for messages. When I have student or business emails, the first thing I do is try to set it up to autoforward everything to my "real" email so that I only have to check once to see whether I have any messages. However, most of Wikipedia doesn't use emails to communicate and getting people used to the idea that all their Wikipedia communication will come by email could be detrimental in the long run.

In addition to performance reasons, I think there are quality control reasons. Some people believe that there is a Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2005/Cabal (or the real Wikipedia:Cabals) -- some sort of secret organization which actually controls Wikipedia. I think these people are somewhat right, there are "cabals" (what else would you call the WikiProjects), but they don't generally operate in secrecy. Everything is above board, openly discussed and interested parties are invited to jump in and start contributing as they can (although some things do require a bit more knowledge and experience). The important thing is transparency. We lose that transparency when communication starts happening solely by email. I recently took over mentoring a few students for an Ambassador who retired -- it would have been more difficult to jump right in if there had been an undisclosed amount of prior communication (which I would have had no way to access). I'm happy that, in the email list we use, we try to move discussions on-wiki and basically only use the list for a quick question or announcements. If there's a tool which copies a message to a user's discussion page and also emails the user (which appears to be the case), then that's great -- I really don't have any objection to its use (other than possibly breeding bad habits down the road). I just think it's important to avoid the appearance of being a "secret group". Banaticus (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, if students are creating their articles on-wiki (which I advise, as then you don't have to redo any in-line references that you're using and section headers and images are literally WYSIWYG), then whenever they come to edit at the top of the page they'll get a notice that they have a message, that their talk page has been edited. That notice basically won't go away until they check their talk page, so even if they're not checking the talk page regularly we can be fairly confident that during those times that they've set aside to work, they're also getting their messages. Banaticus (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What the gadget below does is simply email the fact that they have a message, not the content of the message. So they have to come back to their talk page to actually view the message, and can then reply there.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)