Grants talk:Project/Rapid/Pine/Continuation of educational video and website series

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Welcome to the talk page for Pine's tutorial on "Citing sources with VisualEditor"

Newsletter subscription

Would you like to receive notifications on your talk page regarding project updates?
You can subscribe to the project newsletter by following the instructions at this link.

Talk page archives

Project notes

Do you have a question or comment?

Please write your question or comment in a new section below!

Trademark use[edit]

@Pine: Thanks for reaching out to ask about this. As best I can tell from your description of the project, your use of the Wikimedia marks would be allowed under section 3.3. of the Trademark Policy. It's also covered by section 3.1 to the extent you publish the materials on Wikimedia Commons. However, please share the materials with me by emailing trademarks@wikimedia.org if they are Wikipedia-branded: I would want to do additional review, and potentially ask you to sign a trademark agreement, if you present the materials in a way that makes them seem "official", such as by saying that they are "by Wikipedia" or "from Wikipedia", using a title like "The Wikipedia guide to…", or opening a video with a shot of just a Wikipedia logo. --Charles M. Roslof (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@CRoslof (WMF): that is okay with me. I plan to communicate in the video that it produced by me with financial support from WMF. I would want to avoid presenting a video that says something like "The Official Guide to Wikipedia Referencing" because, in my view, a label of "official" could only be legitimate for this video if the video received community consensus like a guideline. While my goal is for the video to be widely used and I hope that people will choose to include it in community help, guideline, and/or policy pages, I don't think that there is a need for me to include a label like that in the video. --Pine 03:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Measures of success discussion, copied from this page on English Wikipedia[edit]

Pine, do we have any statistics on what percentage of editors are currently using Visual Editor and/or MediaWiki edit toolbar? One would hope that a video tutorial increases the numbers, but what is our starting point? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon, thanks for your question. I think that instead of looking at a change in the percentage of people who use VE as a measure of success for this project, I would prefer to look statistics such as (1) the persistence of new editors, with the hope that increasing their success with editing Wikipedia will increase the average number of edits and/or number of text characters that they edit before they stop editing, and (2) whether people who help new editors think that the video is a good resource that makes helping easier for them. My guess is that in the short term there will not be large variances with (1) as a result of this single pilot video, but over time and if more video tutorials are produced then I would hope that it will be possible to show statistically significant improvements in editor retention.
User:MMiller (WMF)'s team is also working on improving the usability of Wikipedia's interfaces.
It might be possible to use analytics to determine whether new editors who watch this individual video have higher persistance than editors who do not watch the video, but my guess is that WMF would not want to spend the time to do that type of research for a single video. However, I am very interested in getting feedback regarding both the draft video script and the finished video from people who help new editors, and I included that type of feedback in the measures of impact when I proposed this project for funding.
Thanks again for your question. If you have additional questions I would like to request (emphasis: this is not a requirement) that you place them on the project's talk page so that other people who are interested in the project can also see your question and participate in the discussion if they would like to do so. I will copy this discussion to that page. Thanks again, --Pine 23:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Those do seem like better metrics, especially persistence of new editors. I would still like to know what percentage of editors are currently using Visual Editor and/or MediaWiki edit toolbar, though. Does anyone have any statistics on that? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon, I think that one of the WMF Research people might be able to answer that question. I'll ask LZia (WMF). --Pine 21:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you get a reply? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon, not yet. I left a message in a new section on LZia (WMF)'s talk page. However, LZia is probably is plenty busy, so I suggest waiting another few days before you or I send another message. --Pine 02:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
No hurry. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I asked Leila about this via email. Hopefully we'll get an answer within a few days. --Pine 23:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I asked about this again on LZia (WMF)'s talk page, and pinged you there. --Pine 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1[edit]

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 1

Good news: the (lengthy!) script draft 1 is complete![edit]

Hello, I am happy to share that script draft 1 is complete and ready for public comment.

The script (link to the Google doc) is much longer than I anticipated, at almost 21 pages!

Although I think that the 21 page script would be a very good introduction to referencing policies and workflows, I am considering dividing it into two or more smaller scripts that would be produced as separate videos. For example, one script could focus on policies and a different script could focus on how to use the citation tool. I am considering this for three reasons:

  • People may be more willing to watch shorter videos that have more specific focus.
  • Shorter videos may be easier to search for an answer for a single specific question.
  • There is a possibility that if I attempt to produce a single video from almost 21 pages of script that I might exceed the budget for this mini-project. I would like for both WMF and the community to be satisfied with the results from this mini-project, and I think that dividing the script into smaller scripts which could be produced separately would be a good way to ensure that the budget for the current grant is not exceeded. While there is a reasonable possibility that I could finish production of the entire 21 pages of script within the current grant, I think that dividing the script would be prudent. After one of the smaller scripts is fully produced within the currently available funding, remaining script could be considered for production within the current grant if there seems to be adequate remaining funds, or could be saved for possible production with a future grant.

Request for constructive criticism and comments[edit]

I would very much appreciate constructive criticism and comments regarding the script, preferably by March 10 at 11:59 PM UTC. This is a shorter time window than I would like to provide, but the planned end date for this project is March 14 and I would like to finish video production by the end of March 13 so that I have 24 hours for communications before the grant period ends. If you would like to review the script or make other comments but the end of March 10 is too soon for you, please let me know that you need more time, and I will take that into consideration as I plan for final production and consider whether to request a date extension from WMF. (Extending the finish date for the project would not involve requesting additional funding for the current grant.) I would prefer that the video be done perfectly a few days late than that the video be done on March 14 but have an important error that was not caught during a rush to the finish.

I have three specific requests for feedback:

1. Please find errors in the script. This is a great time to find problems with my work, before the script goes into production and problems become more expensive to fix. Please go to this link in Google Docs and use the Comment feature in the Google Doc.

2. Do you have comments regarding whether the script should be divided, and if so, how it should be divided? Please let me know on the project talk page.

3. How do you feel about the name for the video? Do you prefer "Referencing with VisualEditor" or "Citing sources with VisualEditor", or a third option? Again, please comment on the project talk page. However, if I divide the script then I will create new names for the smaller videos.

Closing comments[edit]

Thank you for your interest in this mini-project. I am grateful to be working on a project which I hope will help Wikipedia contributors to be more efficient and effective, and indirectly help to improve Wikipedia's quality by teaching contributors how to identify and to cite reliable sources. I believe that the finished video will be good, and I hope that the community and novice contributors will find the video to be very useful.

Yours in service,

--Pine 07:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions/Thoughts regarding draft 1[edit]

From Barkeep49[edit]

Just going to bullet a few thoughts:

  • Nowhere in the script does it explain how to edit an existing citation. This seems to me to be something that should be added
  • I would suggest that no video be more than 3 minutes and ideally bite sized videos of roughly 90 seconds would be even better in terms of quick use to learn about a particular need
  • Conceptually I would love if you would consider use of an open source AI voice rather than a human narrator. This way when Visual Editor is updated/changed the video could be updated accordingly without having to rerecord the entire thing. I don't know if there are open source voices that would have the level of engagement and interest you're looking for but it feels worthy of testing/consideration. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Barkeep49:,
  • I will probably follow your suggestion to add information regarding how to edit an existing citation. I previously skipped that topic due to time considerations, but I agree that it's a good topic.
  • I think that sectioning the current script into 3 minute segments could be challenging. It might be doable, but I'm concerned about the possibility of going over budget on this project. Within the scope of the current budget I think I can divide the script into 2 to 4 segments.
  • Awhile ago I researched artificial voices, and I didn't find options that I thought were good. I found one that was willing to license the voice for commercial reuse only with a significant fee. Within the scope of the current grant I'm likely to use a human voice, but I agree that using an artificial voice is worth considering for the future.
  • Thanks very much for the constructive comments. --Pine 00:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pine: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm going to push again on one of thoughts. In the video training field, something I know about in a small way because of what I do professionally, you have longform videos and you have shortform videos. Longform videos require a level of production we're not likely to get here. Instead this kind of training is far more similar to the kinds of nuts and bolts training done well in shortform videos. It is my experience that most of the commercial operators in this space have switched to videos that are less than 5 minutes in length. I know this could be a challenge but from a novice perspective they can always move on to the next video if they want to learn a lot. However if they want to learn just one part of something a shorter video meets their need better since they can get the knowledge they seek and move on. I don't think there would be substantial changes needed to the script content to get to shorter lengths, just a mindset to do it that way. Anyhow thanks again for your work on this project and I wish you the best as you move forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, I think that within the context of the current grant, five minute segments might be achievable. I don't hear anyone objecting to the idea of dividing the script into smaller segments, and I too think that smaller segments would be preferable, so I am planning to divide the script into two or more segments. I will test a few different divisions before I settle on a final arrangement. Later this month I hope that you will watch the finished videos and let me know what you think. --Pine 02:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

From Nosebagbear and Barkeep49[edit]

  • I would strongly suggest at least 3 videos - those individuals willing to watch a lengthy "cover all" video are probably keen enough to use the textual sources. Additionally, we want beginners to pick up the bare basics (thus solving the biggest issues) and improving editors to be able to go straight to what they're looking to find out.
I would suggest the following division:
  1. Bare basics - what a source is, why we have them, where to look for good sources (short form), how to do a basic reference in VE
  2. Proper explanation of "reliable, independent, verifiable", sources to avoid (interviews, blogs etc)
  3. What if opinion, what if uncertain/controversial, how to handle a more complicated reference, "If we want to copy or refer to information from a different Wikipedia article",
I'd imagine it's worthwhile including your "where to get help" content in each one
  • I'm not sure I agree with the AI voice one - they generally sound/pronounce strangely, and I don't think it will help the humanising, we aren't uber-technical, appearance.
Finally - Wow! That's a lot of work, and with such detailed filming instructions too! Nosebagbear (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure I agree with it either. However the opportunity to be able to keep the videos current rather then them becoming obsolete has some value. Enough to outweigh the downsides? I dunno but it's why I was hoping for at least an exploration of the idea. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nosebagbear,
  • I agree that it might be good to create a shorter version of the existing script, but I'm concerned that attempting to produce the current script in one or more segments, and creating a shorter version of the script, would make me exceed the budget for the current grant. However, I can propose creating a condensed version for a future grant, especially if feedback from helpers and helpees who watch the finished video(s) is that they would prefer a version that has less information. I would want to be careful when selecting which subjects to cover in a shortened version.
  • I think that your proposed division of subjects makes sense. I'll think more about how to segment the script. If I try one way of segmenting and the feedback that I receive from the people who use the videos is that a different way of segmenting the videos would work better, then I can propose a new arrangement in the future.
  • I agree that putting "Where to get help" content in each segment is probably good.
  • I commented regarding the possibility of using an artificial voice in response to Barkeep49 above.
  • Thanks very much for the feedback. --Pine 00:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments copied from Nick Moyes originally at English Wikipedia's Teahouse talk page[edit]

@Pine: Thanks for this update. I've skimmed through your script, but only have time to make general observations and constructive criticism here, I'm afraid. It would have been easier if I could have judged your approach against a clear and succinct "Aims and Objective" for the video. I looked for one across the two separate pages you linked to, but was unable to quickly find anything which clearly identified primary purpose of video, its target audience, intended duration, topic coverage etc. So my responses here could well be off-beam a bit:

1) I'm unable to offer detailed feedback on the script at this time, except to comment that it sounded like it was being delivered in a classroom to college students - very formal and impersonal. Maybe that was one of your objectives, but I found very little that said "you" can do this, or here's how "you" can do that. So, for me, I think it could perhaps engage more directly and personably with the viewer. I didn't like 'hearing' the narrator repeat the section titles word for word (it's like speakers who read from a PowerPoint bullet point). Far better to say the same thing in a slightly different way for added interest - two bits at the cherry, if you will.

I didn't particularly like the introductory explanation of references, citations and sources. I thought it might be a bit confusing. It could have explained, first, that you should only add new facts to a Wikipedia page if you can prove it comes from a reliable SOURCE such as a book or newspaper. You add these to the article as REFERENCES (which appear at the bottom of the page), and you link them to the right bit of the article by inserting it as a CITATION immediately the relevant fact. And then perhaps go on to say that on Wikipedia most people use References and Citations to mean the same thing, and that's quite OK.

Automatic: One additional step that I find is essential when automatically adding references in WP:VE is the need to check and add in anything that's missing or garbled. So often the automatic process mixes up or misses off the authors, misses off the page number, date etc. I think that optional check step should be mentioned.

2) My feeling was that there is are many learning elements for one video. If split into two shorter parts, all the learning outcomes could be listed in Part one, but only the basics need be given in that element as to why and how a reference is added. It could say that Part Two will expand on quality, reusing references, getting help, etc.

My one strong dislike was to the example of adding "citation needed" to the statement that "the moon is made of cheese". This is such a bad example, and so patently absurd that any editor should swiftly remove it, without tagging it for someone else to deal with. Why not use a related example such as "Water has been discovered on the moon"? This could be right; but could be wrong - so it seems a perfect demonstration case for [citation needed]}

During your end credits, why not also display links to the Help Desk and Teahouse so they're on screen for longer, plus a link to the online VE instructions, if these can be simply done.

3)Titling. Being English, I normally like to use the word 'References' than 'Citations' BUT on this occasion, I have to say that I feel "Citing sources with VisualEditor" is considerably better than the alternative. It does what it says on the tin.

If I do get time, I'll go through the Google docs and leave further detailed suggestions. Hope this helps a bit, at least. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes,
  • Agreed that having the slides be different from the spoken narration might be preferable. I'll give it a try, most likely by shortening the bullet points.
  • I like your explanation of the differences between sources, references, and citations. I'll try to edit that section of the script in a way that doesn't require significant time to rewrite.
  • I agree that checking the automatically generated reference is a good idea. I'll work on adding that to the text of the script.
  • OK, I will change the cheese example.
  • Yes, adding links on a slide is relatively straightforward. However, I wanted to minimize the number of help options that I suggest. I agree that adding a link to the VE help page would be good, so I'll do that.
  • Thanks for the comment regarding the title. I am continuing to think about this. I am likely to make the script be two or more segments.
  • Thanks very much for the detailed feedback. I hope that you will have a chance to review the finished video(s) after publication. Best wishes, --Pine 00:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Glad that was of help. I will definitely check it out once its finished. Sorry I can't give you more time. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for date extension[edit]

Hi I JethroBT (WMF) and WJifar (WMF), I would like to continue working on this project. I request an extension of the finish date to March 31. I hope to finish by the end of next week, but I am proposing March 31 to allow for contingencies. I am not requesting a change to the $2000 ceiling, but I plan to use the $500 contingency that was included in the original budget. The biggest unknown for me is how much time will be required to produce the final scripts into finished video. Fortunately I am not planning to do a lot of animations and effects, which should make the videos be easier to produce than some of the other scripts which focus more on how to accomplish on wiki tasks, so I continue to aim to finish the project within the $2000 limit. If I exceed that by a small amount then I won't request reimbursement for the difference from WMF. Once I start the production process, if I think that there is a significant mismatch between hopes and realities, then I'll consult you regarding how best to adapt to that. Does all of this sound okay? I heard some information that implied to me that you may be unavailable this week, and if that is the case then after March 14 I will wait to do further work on this project until I hear back from you. Thanks, --Pine 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Approval of date extension[edit]

Hello Pine thank you for requesting for additional time here. I am approving your request for the project to end on March 31st. Your new reporting deadlines will be April 30, 2019. We don't need to do anything with the budget since it's part of the approved amount. Best regards, WJifar (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Pine 22:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2 short version[edit]

 Video tutorial "Referencing with VisualEditor" – newsletter issue 2


Hi! The full version of this newsletter issue has a lot of information. I am sending a short version to talk pages.

The most important information to know is that draft 2 is finished, that the single long script has been divided into many smaller scripts, and that portions of the script have been prioritized for production.

Due to budget constraints, not all scripts can be produced within the scope of the current pilot grant, but the other scripts will remain available for potential future production. (This project feels somewhat like doing a vehicle repair when the mechanic starts to work on the engine, and once the mechanic gets under the engine and starts to work, they discover that accomplishing their objective requires twice as much time as they first had estimated.) However, nothing is lost, so do not fear. Overall, my assessment (me being User:Pine) is that this project is producing a lot of good output and is generally a valuable pilot project.

For more information, including my requests for your feedback, please see the full version of the newsletter.

Thanks very much. --Pine(✉) 22:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments regarding draft 2 of Scene 3[edit]

Here is some feedback on Scene 3, sources. I'm preferring to answer here vice at Google Docs with my other online identity.

Why say "generally" at the first bullet (reliable, verifiable, independent)? The exceptions are so fleeting (e.g. a company naming a new CEO or a BLP referring to subject's preferred gender or religious identification) that I don't think we need to confuse new editors with this. In other words, the 'should' in "sources should..." gives us enough wiggle room.

"Academic textbooks" might be better phrased "Recognized standard textbooks" (following WP:MEDRS) so as not to suggest only academic topics are worthwhile. E.g. a textbook for chefs would be just fine to cite information on kitchen work.

Might want to call out (briefly) especially high requirements for BLPs and MEDRS.

The grouping of poor secondary sources could be better. I'd create one subgroup for all the self-published sources, to include self-published books, social media, business' own websites and press releases, blogs, and blog-like online media (forbes.com/sites for example), and unreferreed/unreviewed research. The common element here is no editorial review by another party. Again we have an exception that probably would just be confusing to mention to beginners: blogs by recognized experts.

You didn't mention that sources need not be online. This is a common misconception and I'd be super happy to have more editors going out to physical books and archives to retrieve stuff that routine Google-fu doesn't find.

Good work so far. This is a tricky subject to cover succinctly because there are so many legalistic exceptions-to-exceptions and so forth. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Bri:
  • I prefer to leave "generally" in.
  • Thanks for the comments about "Recognized standard textbooks". I'll change that.
  • I am trying to avoid overwhelming newbies with information or intimidating them, which is why I did not mention MEDRS or BLPs. In my original big picture plan for LearnWiki I was planning a module that focused on medical and psychology topics in Wikimedia, including MEDRS. I was planning to mention BLP policy under the module "Wikipedia policies for contributors". I remain hesistant to add info about BLP and MEDRS into Scene 3 because of its introductory nature. What I could do is break up the medicine and psychology module into a scene regarding sourcing and a separate scene regarding everything else that I had planned in that module. Also, I could create a scene for BLP policy. Maybe what I'll do is include these in my list of potential future scenes.
  • Regarding grouping the poor sources, I like the grouping that you suggested. I'll consider that further.
  • I used examples of offline sources in scene 6A, but I can add statements from the narrator that makes this point clearer in both 3 and 6A. I agree that this would be preferable.
Thanks for the very helpful comments. --Pine(✉) 06:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Plans for the next few months[edit]

Hi WJifar (WMF) and I JethroBT (WMF),

I'd like to provide an update regarding plans for the next few months.

The funds from this grant are nearly exhausted, and I am using more time on this project than I expected, but generally I am happy with how this pilot project is going. I intend to complete the two selected pilot scenes (Scenes 3 and 6A) without requesting additional funding. I will be tracking these hours and I intend to include this information either in my final report or in an amendment to that report. Because this project has taken more time than I anticipated, and because I have important non-Wikimedia tasks that are scheduled for April, I might take a few weeks to finish production. I plan not to use WMF funds beyond March 31 from this pilot grant.

I think that it will be good to observe how the community responds to and uses the finished videos. I plan to do some light promotion of the videos to encourage the community to use them. I will want to gather information regarding the community's use and responses to the videos for several weeks before making a decision about whether to request funding for production of additional videos, possibly including adaptations of videos for additional languages. If I request funding to produce additional videos then I would probably make that request for June or July.

For the the next several months, if I request additional funding, I think that continuing to request funding from Rapid Grants would be preferable to requesting funding from Project Grants. My understanding of how to manage scope for this type of project continues to improve, and I believe that I can continue to divide the larger project into pieces that are small enough for funding through Rapid Grants. However, a concern that I have regarding continuing to use Rapid Grants is that I need for the turnaround time for WMF's processing of Rapid Grant requests to be somewhat short and predictable. If WMF can process Rapid Grant requests within approximately three weeks, and if I can request more than one Rapid Grant in parallel, then I think that I can probably continue to work successfully with Rapid Grants. I could potentially have more than one Rapid Grant in parallel and I can stagger them in a way that allows me to have continuous funding.

Thanks for your interest and support of this pilot project. Overall I am happy with the pilot, and I am hopeful that the community will make good use of the videos after they are published. Please let me know if you have questions or comments.

--Pine(✉) 21:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)