[15:01:03] Hey halfak [15:01:12] Will you be there for the measurements meeting? [15:01:13] hey tos2 [15:01:45] Yes, but there's no way I'm going to be able to stay for 1.5 hours. [15:02:32] Ah, alright. [15:03:55] tos -Hey Soni. [15:04:17] Hey I_Jethrobot [15:04:29] Did you check my mail asking you to extend the time? [15:04:30] I got your message. [15:04:41] And yes, we can certainly talk a bit longer. [15:04:49] Cool. [15:05:00] So what's the agenda for today's IRC meeting? [15:06:25] I think we can start by talking about the mock-ups. I haven't checked the drive yet today, but have you been able to work on your mock-up? [15:07:15] Yeah. I wasn't sure what format you needed the mockup to be in, so I got them done on a separate drive [15:07:26] *Separate GDoc [15:07:30] But before that... [15:08:33] While I was trying to get an idea about the mockups, I realised how a spreadsheet was pretty counter intuitive in getting a good idea about which lessons are important and whether we're marginalising others [15:09:56] The categorisation of each skill set, to some extent, while being absolutely helpful, also ended up being not very reliable when it came to understanding the pathways the user could work on. [15:10:38] So I created a Rough schematic of the current workflow based on the Excel sheet in the form of a diagram. [15:11:25] While it's obviously not as clean or complete as I'll hope to be, I think it gives a better feel of things and helps in further planning from a program perspective [15:11:46] I'll just pull up the link in a sec and you can check it out [15:11:48] I_Jethrobot, ^ [15:11:59] Yeah, I'd be interested to see your ideas in this diagram. [15:12:24] Well, it's not my ideas per se; but just the relationships as marked in the excel sheet. [15:12:26] https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/169Je22cZuFqrK8gaRI8vrdyDRx-dHwU16veR4nA_o9k/edit?usp=sharing [15:12:30] Here ^ I_Jethrobot [15:13:48] Right, so I'm immediately seeing one skill just floating out there without anything connected to it... [15:14:01] Give me a minute or two to look this over. [15:14:04] Sure. [15:14:34] The legend on the right should give you an idea of how things are coloured. [15:18:34] (Sorry about the colour changes, I was trying to make the green slightly less obstrusive [15:18:35] ) [15:21:13] No problem, I think it's an improvement. [15:21:22] Actually Soni, this is pretty great, and I think it gives us a much better perspective on our system. [15:22:07] (That is, compared to the mock-ups for a specific goal that I made up.) [15:22:47] So what do you think? [15:23:15] I can see why you wanted more than an hour to discuss things! : ) [15:24:32] Yeah. I ended up having a bit extra time so I could fine tune and think about the visualization in some detail. [15:24:38] So, your comment from before on how categorization isn't particularly helpful in pathways... [15:26:22] ...I think that's OK s fine. As we have it now, there is a good mix of each skill set at every level. [15:26:45] hah, that's OK fine was a little silly of me to write... [15:28:54] Agreed. What we had was indeed a good start. [15:29:14] But looking at the visualisation I think there are some areas we could improve upon :) [15:29:56] I also notice that AGF and RS are this "leaping off point" for most intermediate skills. [15:30:00] er, S-B [15:30:20] Yes. [15:30:35] So is CODE-W for a number of tech skills [15:31:10] Right. [15:33:19] I do like how things are handled for the beginner skills, I think it's when we move into intermediate and advanced territory that there are some gaps. [15:33:32] Yes. [15:33:44] So let's start by addressing some of those. [15:34:18] There are a number of skills like RATING, MOS, and to an extent Gadgets, which are not well connected at all. Atleast some of them could end up with better leads to with others. [15:34:39] Exactly. [15:35:04] So, let's start with Rating. [15:35:23] Also, before I forget, there's one more important fact I didn't tell you about. If you open up the original sheet, you'll notice I've marked some cells on the draws from and leads to in colours (Orange and Green) [15:36:24] The reasoning behind it was if Skill 1 drew from 2 and 2 drew from 3, then making an additional 1 draws from 3 would end up being a redundancy. So I marked them as Orange and kept them off the map for now. [15:36:38] Got it, thanks. [15:37:12] Likewise, there were certain skills where 1 drew from 2, but 2 also led to 1. In those cases, I marked the "leads to" relationship as Green and again kept them off the map. [15:38:28] Good, thanks for checking those out. [15:38:45] Lastly, most of the leads to relations ended up working the same way both the directions (because of how we're defining the relationships. Draws on = Requirement, Leads to = Connected). So instead of 1 leads to 2 and 2 leads to 1, I ended up defining a single "1 is connected to 2" relation between them on the map. [15:39:38] That's most of the main points about the map as of now. [15:39:46] Yeah, I agree we don't need it both ways. [15:40:52] So would you want to discuss and build up on the map right now, or maybe let both us look into the details and then discuss them on a later day? [15:41:08] *map vis a vis the skills spreadsheet. [15:42:16] Let's work on the map right now. You've mentioned three specific skills we should better integrate into the system, and I think we can take care of those. [15:42:25] Alright, sure. [15:42:39] That said, we'll also have to consider the additions we are making based on GoP's feedback. [15:42:48] But, let's get to our existing skills first. [15:42:51] Yes. [15:43:23] We'll start with Rating, where editors learn about GAs and FAs and WikiProject rating systems. [15:44:26] I think being able to recognize high / poor quality sources is definitely important for these, so for "draws on", I think S-B would be appropriate. [15:45:51] I'd say S-I makes for a more effective leads to connection, because it focuses more on the quality of the source [15:47:17] Because I think we'd be informing the learner about rating systems and how they work, NPOV and OR would also end up being useful leads to connects [15:47:54] Yeah, I think you have a good point on using S-I as a "draws on." [15:48:10] And certainly, those editorial policies are going to be important as well. [15:48:15] Actually I said leads to, not draws on. [15:49:13] The only other policy I can see being relevant is MOS, because all articles end up require adherence to the specific Style of writing [15:49:30] So i'd say another leads to with MOS [15:50:37] Yeah, I think MOS is appropriate as well. [15:50:39] So, no particular prerequisites? [15:51:30] Doubt it. Its only an introductory course about the ratings system, so I guess that works fine. [15:52:06] Sure, I think that's reasonable. [15:52:31] Alright. So let me add it on the map. Can you do the same for the spreadsheet? [15:52:56] Yeah, I will do so right now. [15:53:52] RATING - Leads to S-I, MOS, OR, NPOV. Thats all, right? [15:55:37] Oh wait, I'm misunderstanding. [15:56:15] I think the issue for me was how learners can get to RATING, and that RATING would be a "leads to" under S-I, MOS, OR, and NPOV. [15:56:47] As a suggestion for what to take next. [15:56:51] Uhh... Thats the difference in the map. It treats both leads to as the same, for now. [15:57:11] Do you want us to bifurcate between the two types of leads to? [15:58:00] Hm, no. That'll take up too much of our time. As long as they're connected on the map, I think it's alright. [15:58:21] (For reference, the definition of leads to I am currently working on - After completing lesson 1, if we want the learner to try out/look into lesson 2, they're connected) [15:58:31] Ah, alright. Whatever you think is best. [15:59:18] OK, let's move on to MOS. [16:00:42] Well MOS is another fringe case because while it's essential in article creation, there are no skills per se that can be linked to "Create your own article" as of now [16:01:12] It's connected to RATING, and I believe it could be also leading to CITE. [16:01:49] Yeah, I think there are some MOS considerations in how citations can be presented / formatted. [16:02:37] Other than these two, I dont see any other connections except if we introduce a skill on article creation specifically. [16:03:16] what do you think? [16:03:47] I agree that we'll add some content-building skills for which MOS will be helpful (maintenance tags, disambiguation) [16:04:26] So do we only add an extra connect to CITE for now? [16:04:32] Yeah, for now. [16:04:48] +1 [16:05:09] Done for the map [16:07:11] And the sheet. Shal we go to the next one? [16:07:43] Ah i didnt notice you already put up the connection. My bad [16:07:56] Yeah, sorry, just had windows switched. [16:08:06] Didn't get a chance to say so. : ) [16:08:27] OK, Gadgets. [16:08:36] Hmm, what do you think? [16:08:54] Yeah, this one was tough when I was thinking about it, so I just moved on... [16:09:38] Right. I believe that if the lesson gives a preliminary idea about how gadgets and tools are, it would be a useful connect to AWB and snuggle [16:09:55] Probably a prequisite. [16:10:09] And to a lesser extent, Twinkle [16:11:54] Let me look over the gadgets real fast that are available right now... [16:12:12] Alright, sure. [16:13:38] Ah. Looks like Gadgets are different from what my perception was. [16:14:01] So, as I'm reading these over, a lot of these gadgets just change how things are presented while editing or viewing Wikipedia. [16:14:05] Yeah, exactly. [16:14:18] Twinkle is an exception, but that's fine. [16:15:00] Hmmm... It seems like the lesson is named Gadget but the description is more broader to include external tools too [16:15:36] My bad, the lesson is also named "Gadgets and External Tools" [16:15:36] Yeah, I don't know about the external tools thing. I'm not really sure what that looks like. Why don't we just stick with gadgets? [16:16:08] Well my idea is Huggle, Snuggle, Twinkle, Dabfixer etc fall under External Tools. [16:16:20] And something like ProveIt falls under gadget [16:16:26] And things like reflinks as well... [16:16:48] Yes. Or HotCat. [16:17:53] OK then, let's keep them together, then. [16:18:06] Sounds good to me [16:18:57] But in terms of connecting Gadgets a little better, I think a lot of these gadgets can be helpful early on. [16:19:00] If we're keeping them together, then that ends up connecting GADGETS with AWB, SNUGGLE and TWINKLE [16:19:36] Where gadgets is a prereq for each of those? [16:20:25] That's what I think, yes. [16:22:35] I_Jethrobot, So we'll add it? [16:22:48] Yup! [16:23:32] Then we'll also convert Huggle to a pre-requisite then, I_Jethrobot [16:23:34] ? [16:24:29] Yeah, I think so. [16:24:33] I'll make that change. [16:27:01] Done. [16:27:21] Excellent. [16:27:45] I_Jethrobot, So what do we do next? [16:28:02] Let's incorporate some of GoP's ideas next. [16:29:03] I_Jethrobot, What exactly did you have in mind? [16:29:20] So, I see a few ideas he advanced that I think we should incorporate: [16:29:55] Expanding an existing article, doing article clean-up, and disambiguation. [16:30:53] Hmm... Well I had a thought process about how we could do that [16:31:04] Sure, let's hear it. [16:31:23] For one, some of those tasks would end up being end results of some of the skills already existing [16:31:41] Like maintainance tags [16:32:08] A user who completes S-I course could then be pointed towards "Citation needed tags" [16:32:18] And they could help fix those. [16:32:23] *learner, not user [16:33:46] In a similar manner, a number of the "article development" things could end up being part of one or the other skills as the "task" after the skills [16:34:42] Copyediting is one such valuable thing that is part of article development. In my oppinion, it would be similar to a task for NPOV and MOS. [16:35:57] That's true, but we could just as easily say that Snuggle and the Teahouse are the "tasks" after the MENTOR-I skill, and yet we have them included. [16:37:16] I think we should keep them there, of course, but I think there is a difference between learning the principle and actually doing it in practice. [16:37:27] Fair point. [16:38:39] The major difference between a task and a separate skill, in my opinion, is how much one needs to know more than the original skill to perform it. [16:39:33] If it's nothing major, then I'd be inclined to put it as a task, like fixing {{Weasel}} tags after going through a lesson on NPOV or something similar. [16:40:08] While if it involves learning more about the lesson, like Disambiguation, my personal opinion would go for a skill [16:41:05] ^ Thats the distinction I was thinking about. Your thoughts? [16:44:40] So, I'm with you on disambig, but I really think we ought to put in a discrete skill for clean-up. I expect that sometimes, tasks will be included in NPOV, but mentors may decide to stick to principles. [16:45:48] Hmmm... Thats an interesting thought. [16:46:08] Again, we won't be telling the mentors exactly how to teach. [16:46:32] And clean-up just seems like such an important and complex activity on Wikipedia; there are a ton of tags that editors can encounter, and even when there aren't tags, I think there is a lot to teach about just reading the material that's there. [16:48:09] Naturally, clean-up would require learners to have a decent grasp on things like NPOV and MOS. [16:49:17] And it's a natural way to suggest things like vandalism work, rollback, and reviewing. [16:49:42] Er, at least vandalism work. [16:50:07] (Since Rollback and Reviewing are based on VAND) [16:50:27] Sounds logical. [16:52:20] Though I think we could benefit from a future conversation on whether its useful to have sggested tasks inbuilt in the course [16:53:07] Sure. I can bring that and the idea about S-B up to Gabe and Steven later today. [16:53:25] Alright cool. [16:54:57] So, I only have a little bit of time left, but I'm going to add these three skills to the Excel sheet. [16:55:31] And I'll think about their connections and descriptions. [16:55:36] Alright. What are the three skills again? [16:56:05] Disambiguation, article clean-up, and expanding an article. [16:56:37] Sounds good enough to me +1++1 [16:57:02] OK, great. [16:57:42] So, I'll work on these today. Can we meet tomorrow again around this time? [16:58:08] I can also meet earlier if you'd prefer. [16:58:44] Tomorrow same time looks good [16:59:21] Awesome. Also, can you share the Skills visualization diagram in the Reimagining Mentorship folder? [17:00:53] hey I_Jethrobot, I only have a half hour I can spend on the measurement meeting. [17:01:04] I'd like to maximize the usefulness of that half hour. [17:01:22] halfak - Yup, I got your e-mail and responded. I think being there the first half hour will be best. [17:01:28] I_Jethrobot, Done. [17:02:04] Bummer. I was going to suggest the second half hour. [17:02:13] I have another meeting that overlaps. [17:02:32] halfak - Ah, OK, I wasn't aware of that. Then let's do the second half hour. [17:02:52] Thank you! [17:03:03] Sorry for the pain. :/ [17:03:23] halfak - No problem, I know you have other obligations. : ) [17:04:33] halfak - Come prepared to tie in quant-related questions to the broad research questions that Gabe and I established (and that you had a chance to review). [17:05:21] halfak - If there are other concerns about the broad research questions themselves, we can take a little time to talk that over, but I do want to get this quant / qual mixed approach set up more concretely. [17:07:36] tos - I've sent an invite for our meeting tomorrow. [17:07:44] Alright sure [17:08:13] Thanks again for your hard work on the visualization. I'll make sure to share it with Gabe and Steven at the meeting today; it's very impressive work. [17:12:26] tos - I'm not sure if you're coming to today's meeting, but if you cannot, I can run you through how Gabe is planning to conduct interviews. [17:12:40] I'll be there, I_Jethrobot [17:12:47] tos - (I realize the meeting is not at a great time of day for you.) [17:13:15] No 2 am is the finest hour of the day for me [17:13:24] : P [17:14:24] Anyway I've got my schedule figured out so I dont think there'll be issues with me attending :) [17:14:38] Steven has had a hard time getting in on our discussions, so we wanted to try to work things out for him. [17:14:52] OK, great. I'll see you there, then. [17:14:59] Sure thing [18:31:22] I_Jethrobot|away, Whenever you get the time, please check out the rest of the preliminary interview. I had the chance to complete it today and get their feedback on the current mentorship program as well as Wikipedia adventure, so there are a couple interesting takeaways from there for us to consider [18:31:31] The link's at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LPdnUaOKwlIsFKEUyWb5Lg8Di9w5jwTd8cg7CWDimd8/edit#
https://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wpmentorship/20140717.txt
bots.wmflabs.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-18
19574
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:EHKKJ7N7RKXHJF2JIM42P6ML2HABBGNW
<urn:uuid:83bd9bde-ec95-4410-9093-18d064b629e6>
2019-04-22T02:40:53Z
185.15.56.49
text/plain
sha1:MEE7TJ2RWMAPVSNYTYHQ65OHUWCNZ2QL
<urn:uuid:03698d3a-518b-4eca-9171-7aaf96f052c4>
https://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wpmentorship/20140717.txt
response
<urn:uuid:15119b5f-3b6c-4ad6-8586-a21bdd70354b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-18
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-150-79-29.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/