[14:59:50] Hey halfak [14:59:58] Hey tos [15:00:38] Would you by any chance know of any good tools to visualise? [15:00:50] What sort of visualization do you want? [15:00:57] Like create objects and map relations between them [15:01:43] "dia" is a simple free/open source tool that is designed for UML and data flow diagrams [15:01:52] I dont suppose anything major than that, and grouping objects will be reqd [15:01:55] "inkscape" is a general vector editor that does such diagrams well. [15:02:17] Will you be creating the visualization computationally or manually? [15:02:23] Manually [15:02:31] OK. My reqs. are good then. [15:02:53] Also, will either of the tools be sufficient for something as big as 50 objects or so? [15:05:03] tos - Hey Soni! [15:05:10] Hey I_Jethrobot [15:05:19] I was just waiting for you [15:05:31] Yeah, I was running a little late. [15:06:00] tos: both would be fine. [15:06:28] hey halfak. : ) [15:06:44] halfak, What tool did you use for your visualisations (For Workflow of drafts) [15:06:55] o/ [15:06:58] Hey I_Jethrobot [15:07:27] I see you answered that on the other channel. Google drawings also seem like a good plan. [15:09:03] tos - So, three things we should talk about are about profiles (i.e. what they will contain), go Phightins' feedback, and the mock-ups. [15:09:17] Yes. [15:09:34] I have a meeting with a programming candidate in just under two hours from now, so we have to stop there no matter what. : ) [15:09:56] Gotcha. [15:10:39] So, let's start with profiles. [15:12:02] We want our profiles to incorporate some of the attributes we see at the Teahouse, but they will also have a more functional use in that we will use them to match learners. [15:12:18] (match them to an appropriate mentor based on their needs.) [15:13:01] So the question is, what should we include on them to address those requirements? [15:13:56] I_Jethrobot, Have you gone through what Adopt a User mentors generally say on their profiles? [15:15:05] tos - I haven't-- let's take a look. [15:15:50] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee%27s_Area/Adopters Here's a link [15:15:53] ^ I_Jethrobot [15:18:30] Sure, this seems like a decent template to work with for mentors. I think we might consider adding some skills or areas that the mentoring specializes in. [15:19:28] But also having an element where the mentor can describe their work / mentoring in their own words will be important too. [15:19:38] (Like there is here.) [15:20:17] Yeah, I had similar thoughts. One of the things that seemed relevant for our purposes is having the role the editor takes up on Wiki (Gnome/Vandal fighter/Article creator etc..) [15:20:33] Right. [15:20:47] That's one point not on every adopter profile that could be considered we add [15:21:07] *that we could consider adding [15:21:16] Or, a particular project they might have in mind like starting a new article or uploading a set of images. [15:21:26] Right. [15:22:13] Another thing that could become relevant wrt streamlining/speeding up our adoption process is the timezones they are living in/the timings they're usually active [15:22:19] So in addition to skills, we may also want mentors to specify roles and tasks they can teacha s well. [15:22:32] Precisely. [15:23:24] Any adoptions programs that are long drawn could end up in mentor/mentee attrition so I'd ideally want to bypass that by trying to relatively align the "online" timings both of them are active in. [15:24:09] Agreed, being in the same general time zone will allow more frequent communication. [15:26:25] What is your opinion on how templated/rigid do we make the profiles? Are we "suggesting" possible details the mentor could include, or will we ask them to submit a few other relevant details in a textfield of sorts? [15:26:26] I think a lot of this is great for matching purposes, but I also think not all of it needs to be publicly displayed on a profile too. I sort of like how profiles on places like the Teahouse and IdeaLab are simple. [15:26:50] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/People [15:27:06] Hmm, that's an interesting thought. What are the details you think will be non public [15:27:55] Well, I think time zone doesn't necessarily need to be displayed, but can be incorporated into matching. [15:28:16] We can figure out those distinctions later, though, but just something to keep in mind. [15:28:39] Alright, sounds good to me. [15:29:12] I think we would want mentors to try to fill out as many of the profile elements as they can to ensure a good match. [15:29:30] That said, I think having a text field where they can talk more freely is important. [15:30:37] Right. Makes sense. [15:30:48] Another relevant point to be kept in mind is how active the mentor has been. Personally I love the way that Teahouse manages any hosts which are inactive onWiki/on the teahouse [15:31:44] And its also one of the drawbacks of the Adopt-a-user. Most mentors dont update their activity levels when they go offline , and that ended up with the adopters list long and mostly filled with retired editors [15:31:48] Definitely. We can incorporate something to sift through active and inactive mentors as well. [15:32:25] So, in terms of profiles for mentors, it looks like we want to see the following: [15:34:29] Skills / Areas they are able to mentor, broad tasks or roles for which they can mentor, time zone, and a free-text statement to describe themselves. [15:34:29] Sorry I got DC [15:34:39] (no problem, you didn't miss anything) [15:35:24] Also, obviously their username and whether they are active or not will be components of the profile as well. [15:35:49] Yes. I was also thinking in terms of a sample list of suggestions to help mentors decide what they could include in the free text [15:36:10] For example, most mentors tend to include Wikiprojects they are currently involved in [15:36:30] Yeah, I think suggestions like that would be helpful. The last thing I want to see is a blank profile. : ) [15:36:43] Or info about their general editing experience, sometimes how they got involved in editing wiki [15:37:03] Yeah, those are good as well. [15:37:55] OK, so I think that's a good start for mentor profiles. Now, for matching, we obviously want to include similar questions for learner profiles as well. [15:38:44] Well the learner questions would end up being a bit more open ended [15:38:46] These will need to be framed a little differently, but first, is there anything more we should add for learner profiles? [15:39:19] A question on how they got to know about Wikipedia will be a start [15:39:53] *about editing Wikipedia [15:41:30] Or maybe why they started editing? [15:41:54] Exactly. Such questions will end up being very helpful in understanding the background of the learner [15:42:01] Right. [15:42:46] I think one another component we'll need to consider adding is allowing the learner to declare what they know already about Wikipedia. [15:43:10] Another question could be about their interests in general. A sports fan will be much more likely to join sports Wikiprojects so that again gives us a start in helping the mentees [15:43:47] Going back to attrition, I think if learners have to go through stuff they already know, they'll become uninterested. [15:44:23] I agree. But I'll also want to pose it in an indirect way and say something along the lines of "What edits have you made already" maybe [15:45:05] Hm. How about this-- we can incorporate open-ended questions regarding interests and why they started editing in a similar free-text prompt. [15:45:19] (I'm a little worried about profiles becoming too cluttered.) [15:45:25] Yes. I also had something similar in mind. [15:45:55] And I think the framing you suggest for prior knowledge is sound. [15:46:07] Free texts are a good way to give people the liberty of making their own profile while still helping us with the information we require [15:46:18] "What edits have you made already" is a good idea. [15:46:22] Right. [15:48:36] In terms of the other matching components, we need to figure out how to present skills to editors. [15:49:22] To mentors or learners? If it's the mentors, it'd be easy for us to directly ask them what skills/roles they perform [15:49:33] For the learners, I mean. [15:49:36] Ah [15:49:38] Presenting all 50+ at once is probably not a good idea, so I think if we can initially figure out what they want to do, we can narrow it down. [15:50:01] I think the "roles" sheet is a good start for getting that [15:50:17] "Types of activity" I mean [15:51:10] If we can try and narrow down what work they'd like to do on Wiki, that would be a good way of getting them only the skills relevant [15:51:12] Yeah. I think if editors are drawn to those kinds of editing, we can present a more focused and manageable list. [15:51:51] So, that's one option. [15:52:02] Of course, we have to make sure to present it in a way that editors with no specific interests can also understand and decide [15:52:38] Right, I think the "no specific goal" case is something we'll need to consider. [15:54:10] Alternatively, a learner may have a specific project or outcome in mind rather than a specific skill. [15:54:19] Right. [15:54:56] A half-plan I had in mind was to present the kind of roles related to each "type of activity". A "builder" (so to say) will be more likely to end up in content creation while someone who works more into fixing things will be better off with fighting vandals/reviewing things. [15:54:59] And I think in some of those cases, we'll need an actual person to evaluate what they are saying rather than make an automatic match. [15:55:46] Yes. A lot of what we're planning ends up being subjective than objective. [15:56:39] Right, and I think that's OK because we're trying to make this a less rigid system. [15:57:32] The only concern I have about a person doing this is what if that person goes inactive [15:58:03] The learner or the mentor? [15:58:11] Its a long term thinking and there'll be a lot of ironing out to do though, so it might be skippable. [15:58:19] If it's the mentor, I'd like to see them reassigned. [15:58:24] I mean the person evaluating the match. [15:59:01] Well, couldn't the evaluator just be a mentor on the project? [15:59:28] Huh. That actually sounds like a great solution. [15:59:53] Yeah, I don't think we necessarily need a specialized role. I think it's something everyone can do. [16:00:28] Now that I think of it, even teahouse has a similar role of one assigned person every week who welcomes new memebers [16:00:32] Right, [16:01:12] The maitre'd position has fallen out of use there, but we could consider something similar to start. [16:01:27] Ah. I wasn't aware of that. [16:01:58] OK, so I think this is a good start for us on profiles. [16:02:02] I suppose Maitre'd was a similar position to be helpful when the number of hosts werent that many [16:02:07] Agreed. [16:03:04] For learners, we do want to see if they fall into any of the broad roles we've discussed or if they have no specific goal. If they do have something more specific, we'll need someone to evaluate it. [16:04:01] In addition, we'll ask them about name, interests & why they are editing (in a free text box), and time zone. [16:04:10] username*, that is. [16:04:18] Yes. [16:04:35] Fantastic, thanks Soni. [16:04:59] Just be sure not to ask just for timezones, because editors like me can be editing in times different from their own zones. [16:05:02] :) [16:05:21] Right. : ) [16:05:34] In fact, now that I think of it, most editors currently studying ought to have similar time zones [16:05:43] So, let's move on. Have you had a chance to read over Go Phightins' feedback? [16:05:47] Yes [16:06:07] I've been taking notes on most on it and matters to discuss about it [16:06:44] Good. I know I wrote a lengthy reply, so you know some of my opinions about it. What did you think of what he had to say? [16:07:11] It was some very good points. [16:07:40] Like Yunshui, GoP ended up pointing out a significant fact we'd missed while we were planning the skills [16:07:57] i.e. the article creation vs article development focus [16:08:34] About a couple of the other points, I got a feeling that we'd already factored them in while deciding [16:08:49] But overall, it was very sound and helpful [16:09:35] Yeah. Some of the consolidation we had already started. [16:09:45] I agree that adding more article development skills will be helpful. [16:10:16] I did want to ask about what you thought about his suggestion on removing the "advanced" skills we've laid out. [16:11:13] I mean, this question really comes down to about who we're trying to reach out to. Is it newcomers? Or is it everyone? [16:11:20] Well, before that, I'd like to get an idea of how much harder will it be to maintain mentorship for advanced skills in addition to maintaining them for beginners [16:11:48] tos2 - Yes, that's definitely something I thought about when reading GoP's feedback. [16:12:35] And what's your opinion on it? [16:13:28] tos2 - It might actually be a lot wiser of us, rather than offer a broad range of advanced skills for which we might not have many mentors available... [16:14:26] ...to simply allow learners to specify those needs on their own using the free-text options we are incorporating. That way, these skills can be offered as-needed. [16:14:42] I see. [16:15:01] But there is a drawback to this in that learners may simply not become aware of these advanced skills and would not think to ask about them. [16:15:56] tos2 - I'll be right back. Just going to get a little something to eat. [16:16:04] Sure. [16:20:21] mmm oatmeal. [16:20:24] tos2 - OK, back. [16:20:48] Right [16:20:59] My thoughts went along similar lines to this. From what I could see, the two things we required when setting up any lesson was a qualified mentor willing to teach the lesson, and getting the mentor to create a lesson plan (or something along those lines) for teaching that particular lesson [16:21:22] Yeah. [16:22:31] I was of the opinion that both these tasks were relatively light weight but ended up giving us a rather significant benefit in terms of keeping options open for us [16:23:19] As an example, I personally know a good bit about GA process but definitely nothing about how to make sure the article I'm writing will become GA standards [16:24:05] I actually ended up reaching out to one particular editor who was willing to teach me that. Eventually both of us got busy so I couldn't learn it yet [16:24:39] But in this scenario, your point about "They reach a point where they could learn it themselves" became rather relevant. [16:24:46] ^ I_Jethrobot [16:24:54] Yes, there is that as well. [16:25:38] I do believe that, after spending enough time on Wikipedia, many editors feel confident to in figuring stuff out on their own. [16:25:55] strike that "to" [16:26:08] (Also, some editors start that way.) [16:26:13] Yes. What I like to think is that even then there are cases where they dont [16:26:42] (I personally know a number of old timers who could be benefitted by the lessons on Template Basics) [16:27:52] Overall I agree with keeping newer editors and beginner/intermediate skills as our primary/most important goal but I personally like an open ended approach where we are willing to help newcomers learn the advanced details/help experienced editors know about some specialisations they dont. [16:28:35] OK, I'm convinced we should keep the advanced skills, then. [16:28:54] +1 [16:29:38] But we should definitely add some more with article improvement like GoP suggested: Disambiguation, handling maintenance tags, etc. [16:29:45] Also, we don't have one on DYK. : ) [16:29:51] I had a different plan for that. [16:29:54] So I think that'll have to get added in. [16:30:19] Personally I dislike the DYk project, no offence, because it encourages a different kind of hat collection [16:30:32] woah, really? [16:30:52] I didn't know you felt that way. [16:31:59] Yes. From the number of encounters I had with the project I always got a feeling there were a good number of editors just trying to create the article of that particular length requirement instead of checking for correctness or whether those details are necessary [16:32:41] (Disclaimer - At one point even I considered doing something similar but eventually I ended up steering rather clear of article creation in general) [16:34:10] Well, I've had some involvement with DYK, and as such I've reviewed some articles. I agree that nominations can be problematic sometimes, but I think there is a lot of good content coming from there. [16:35:28] Agreed. But given how similar hat collection is to focusing on quantity more than quality I end up being uneasy about the lack of something similar to peer-review or some stringent quality management. [16:35:49] That being said, it does bring up some relevant points about Hat collection itself that we might want to consider [16:36:28] For one, I remember noting your point on "How hat collectors will find out about editing rights anyway" [16:37:11] I'm not actually convinced there are a ton of editors who are out there just to seek status. [16:37:33] But for those who are, like editing permissions, they'll find out about DYK anyway. [16:37:39] I mean, it's on the front page. [16:38:42] Well if my prior experience with problematic editors is any guide (and there have been a good number of them), they almost always are well intentioned but too hasty to try things without learning about them [16:39:08] Why is it dangerous to teach folks about the process, particularly if we have experienced folks doing it who know the difference between a nomination that's just trying to be barely passable and a good one? [16:39:37] That's a similar characteristic to editors who apply for all editing rights at once, or those who end up reverting 100+ edits in an hour [16:40:01] Ah, I just realised we were still talking about DYK than hat collectors in general. [16:40:34] It's fine, I know the situation you are describing. [16:41:31] Well I see no significant reason we shouldnt be teaching the lesson. After all, if you end up making sure those who end up at DYK actually know how to roll out a good stub, it will be a significant benefit to help reduce the issues with DYK editors in general [16:41:50] ^+1 [16:41:59] tos2 - Anyway, I have to get ready for my nest meeting. We'll have to pick this up later. Could you let me know when you are available this week? [16:42:08] next* [16:42:18] (Either here or by e-mail is fine) [16:42:24] Well, I guess I'm mostly free, I_Jethrobot. When do you want to meet? [16:42:44] How does 15:00 UTC tomorrow work? [16:42:55] Sounds like a plan. [16:43:03] Alright, I'll mark it down on the calendar. Thanks! [16:43:10] But arent we having the measures meeting then, I_Jethrobot? [16:43:15] Oh, right...hang on. [16:43:47] Actually the measures meeting is yet to be scheduled so you need to do that too I_Jethrobot [16:44:31] Yeah, still waiting to hear from Steven. [16:44:58] So, let's schedule ours for 15:00 for now. That actually doesn't conflict with the other suggested times so far. [16:45:09] Alright sure. [16:46:22] Alrighty, thanks Soni. [16:46:31] I'll talk to you tomorrow. [16:46:39] Sure thing