Public outreach/Academy/Questions for the host

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IRC meetingsGoalsSurvey (pre-Academy)ScheduleQuestions for the hostPre-Academy communications with scientistsUseraccountsS.F. Kick-offOn-site logisticsPresentationsWorkshopsPost-Academy evaluation surveySustainability

Please add your questions below (only questions that our partner is able to answer):

  • What prompted the NIH to request this seminar? Awadewit 03:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What concerns does the NIH have about inviting Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Awadewit 03:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Does the NIH have any data on how many of its scientists edit Wikipedia? Awadewit 03:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Are NIH scientists required to include public outreach as part of their research activity? TimVickers 15:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • From NIH's perspective, what would you consider to be a successful Academy? (And if that could be measured, would you be interested in the Foundation helping to measure it?) John Broughton 18:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm nervous about scaring them off by hinting we may want more from the agency itself than a 1-day affair. Of course we want more than a single day from the participants. But suggesting they help do metrics might make the organizers skittish. Just an opinion. Jennifer Riggs 18:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We probably agree that 2-way communication between NIH people and experienced Wikipedians, both before and after the workshop, would be a good thing. What mechanism(s) would the NIH prefer? Proteins 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We know a lot more about possible methods than NIH does; it's probably best for us to decide what to try, rather than present a set of options and let NIH (unfamiliar with all of them) puzzle them through. For possibilities, see Sustainability. John Broughton 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What are the NIH's goals for the workshop? What would the NIH like us to teach? Proteins 01:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm think that the folks organizing this with us don't know enough about Wikipedia and Wikimedia to form good expectations about what we would teach. I think this question is asked by the 5th question about what would be success for the NIH. We will get the specific goals and teaching topics (which may vary widely) from the participants - through the survey.Jennifer Riggs 18:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What audiovisual facilities will be available during the morning talks and afternoon sessions? Would it be possible to have two screens, one for the Powerpoint slide presentation and another showing a browser connected to the Internet? Alternatively, could we have 1 screen and a switchbox that allows us to switch between PowerPoint and the live browser? Proteins 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
yes
  • How early can we get in to the NIH to check that the AV stuff and our presentations are working? Could we do it the day before or very early in the morning of the 16th? Proteins 02:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
yes
  • Some participants may have questions that we don't have time to answer at the workshop itself. Would it be OK to set up a place where such participants could go (completely voluntarily) to have their questions answered? Perhaps in the evening after the workshop or a pre-work-hours breakfast on Friday? Proteins 02:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Could we bring a small number of trusted Wikipedians into the NIH to assist the six teachers of the three parallel afternoon sessions? That would reduce the participant-teacher ratio and allow better one-on-one training. Proteins 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
yes - Frank is recruiting

Under consideration[edit]

  • 1.5 hours is a very short time, if the participants would like to be trained in editing. Would it possible to meet Wednesday afternoon or Friday morning with participants interested in learning editing? Proteins 01:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We'll be on the plane on Wednesday afternoon. The NIH asked for a one-day workshop --Frank Schulenburg 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me, but our planned itinerary isn't a compelling reason, is it? Have the tickets been purchased already? Surely some of us can manage to get to Bethesda by Wednesday afternoon. On the other hand, if the NIH doesn't want its participants to have more training, of course we can't force them; I would just find that surprising. Several of us have volunteered to spend more than one day, if it will contribute materially to the success of the workshop. If we're taking off a week of work to volunteer our time for the NIH, it seems strange to spend only one day on the workshop. Proteins 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No - the NIH has asked that we fit it in to 1day'
  • Because of the short time, it's almost a sine qua non for our afternoon sessions that participants who'd like to learn to edit get a user account before the workshop. Can we ask such participants (or at least most of them) to get an account beforehand? We'll do everything in our power to make it a trivial task. Proteins 01:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In our last IRC meeting we decided to ask the participants to get an account beforehand. Lennart committed to work on the script for the screencast. --Frank Schulenburg 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think we've all agreed on that. The question is whether Marin considers that a feasible request? And what steps should we and the NIH take to ensure that it happens? Proteins 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
If this is a big problem, we should consider creating "stock" user accounts, and give the scientists slips of paper with individual account names and passwords which they can then use during the conference, example "User:NIH/no12". A similiar thing was tested at a Swedish university, when students used Wikipedia as their exam forum. This had the added value of the teacher having a much easier time finding the students in the article history instead of having to look the individual user names.//svHannibal 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes- stock user names will be auto-confirmed and handed out on paper with randomized passwords

Questions for the participant survey[edit]

What would the participants like to learn? (not necessarily the same thing) Is there heterogeneity among the participants as to what they'd like to learn, e.g., with some wanting only a general picture and others wanting to be trained to make significant contributions to Wikipedia? Are the relative percentages known, even roughly? Proteins 01:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) In Survey

The NIH does not yet know who will attend. Therefore it is not possible for them to determine what the participants like to learn. Hopefully we will get answers by making the survey part of the registration process. --Frank Schulenburg 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a little surprising to me that the NIH has no idea what the likely participants would like to learn. But I agree that's a good question for the participant survey. Proteins 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you estimate the range of Wikipedia experience of the participants? Are the majority likely to have never edited a Wikipedia article? Do you know of any particular experiences, good or bad, of the participants? Proteins 01:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This question will be is part of our survey. --Frank Schulenburg 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)