Talk:Program Capacity and Learning

Active discussions

Program Capacity and Learning

Criteria to prioritize Program Capacity and Learning workEdit

Proposed Projects for Program Capacity and LearningEdit

Other commentsEdit

Process: GLAM-Wiki SupportEdit

Positive Support
  • Long overdue, need for coordination and support at some level +++
  • Long overdue advocacy of technical change and support +
  • Scoping as “GLAM” instead of broader “partnerships” including STEM ++
  • Does allocating staff time to a coordinator make sense, especially when most of the needs are largely technical? +
    • Could the role be filled by something different than one person?
Challenges & Risks
  • Risks identified by team are reasonable, especially concern for technical capacity
  • Needs Clear smart goals (worked on in Annual Plan)

From Daria via email: "GLAM-Wiki support looks promising because of not having that much centralised support in recent years."

Tool: Wikimedia Knowledge HubEdit

Positive Support
  • Easy navigation of learnings would be helpful +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
  • Keep it community crowdsourced +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
  • Having some paid staff support would keep it maintained +1 +1
  • Easy access to toolkits and easy search of existing content
  • Better curation of and context for where learnings are applicable +1 +1
  • Focus on interaction and peer exchange not just static documentation (like Q&A) +1
  • Needs active networking and contacting of community leaders and affiliates--so hub is timely and discoverable
  • Hire person like a paid technical writer to help volunteers produce their own documentation (interview them and do the formalization for them)
  • Unclear who will manage and have access to change it
  • Staff-controlled portal could become sterile and overly polished rather than active and evolving--feel foreign and disconnected from volunteer experience +1
  • Hub won’t accommodate less formal groups like “Women in Red” or smaller usergroups +1
  • Already many pre-existing hubs--evaluate the merit of those first to avoid worsening the problem +1 +1
  • Mediawiki is not great at supporting real-time interaction... (Wiki Ed Q&A for example does better)
  • Centralization could stifle innovative learnings and not support new approaches +1 +1
Challenges and risks
  • Translation and language barriers +1
  • Unclear documentation of risks and success criteria

Tool: Program and Events DashboardEdit

Positive Support
  • Top priority +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
  • Crucial tool for scaling +1 +1 +1
  • Consider privacy standards for this tool
  • Consider translation of materials
  • Make cleaner version of the Dashboard (current one has too many features to be usable for all programs)
  • Enable tracking of articles rather than tracking of users +1
  • See if we can integrate ORES tool into Dashboard
Concerns Questions raised are answered here.
Challenges and risks
  • Question about how we define success

Process: Outcome MappingEdit

Total community editors to topic 5/22 total community editors

Positive Support
(4 editors)
  • 4 out of 5 editors shared an general endorsement
    • "I think I see where this is coming from, and I definitely support more, and more systematic qualitative outcome tracking (a challenge the FDC affiliates are already trying to master in their reporting)" +1
    • "I would support in principle having "more consistent measures and observations for our qualitative impacts as well as our quantitative."
    • "Looks like a very good project."
Suggestions Needs more description and examples (3 editors total)
  • I'm unclear on the purpose and benefits of "outcome mapping" as explained here. Some examples would help. +1 +1
  • I think I understand the intended purpose of the Outcome Mapping. To be sure, I'll put it in my own words. :-)
The Outcome Mapping will be a community engagement exercise led by PC&L team to define a set of qualitative outcomes. The qualitative outcomes will not be pre-defined by PC&L. And the point of the community engagement is not to train affiliates about how to use a particular set of pre-defined qualitative measures. Instead, instead, PC&L will assist people in the community to draw on their own knowledge and experience to create them.
Once the Outcome Mapping is complete there would be wikimedia movement wide list of qualitative outcomes to be used to report on impact of programs, events, projects, etc. The emphasis is on changes in behavior and relationships instead of products.
  • 1. "This framework should be simple for grantees to undergo and for grant committees to understand."
  • 2. "The process should add clarity to grant committees as they are making funding decisions."
  • 3. "I'm hoping that some simplification and clarification can be done."
  • 4. "I also hope that the grants committees will be asked for their comments on this proposal."
  • Fund existing volunteers to help with efforts and administrative burden and allow more volunteers to contribute in ways that match community demand. … If you do outcome mapping, do not hire aliens to manage it! Support community to do it.
  • "Do we have a place for systematic quantitative data gathering? It would be great to do both in the same space.
  • I really hope this system proposes an easy, stress-free system.

(1 editor total)

  • Adding to the reporting burden of affiliates and grantees
  • How is this different than what we are already doing?
  • Is the goal to provide a new set of vocabulary, analysis tools, and measurements?
  • What value do grants decisions makers see in qualitative data?
Challenges and risks

(3 editors total)

  • This model seems too vague to be very useful. +1 (Note this was before the explanation page was added)
  • I am wondering if this new model is more complicated than necessary. +1

Outstanding questions:

  • What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Outcome Mapping, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them?
  • How will you know if Outcome Mapping is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success?

Process: Affiliate PartnershipsEdit

Total community editors to topic 6/22 total community editors

Positive Support

(1 editor total)

  • Generally, I like the approach of the WMF to finally take over some responsibility for facilitating the development of the affiliates – a lot!
  • Striving for more staff support for affiliate development and organizational effectiveness is kind of an old hat and has been discussed for many years. I am glad to see this finally condense into a clear mandate (and resources) of the PC&L team. A lot of these issues have been examined in the course of the Chapters Dialogue. If you read through the insights, you will see that these challenges are still persistent and that the wish for more support from the WMF is a very strong one.
    • Chapters Dialogue/Insights/Organizational and Chapter development
    • Chapters Dialogue/Insights/Role of the WMF
    • Chapters Dialogue/Insights/Perceptions (see the “Empathy” section: “This is exactly what many of the interviewees wish for: overcoming the old narrative. “I don’t want to walk on the paths of those old trauma. I want to make it different”. All people in the movement wish for mutual recognition and approval. They wish for relationships that are based on trust, empathy and appreciation. History can’t be wiped out – but mistakes can be forgiven and let go of. Forgiving hasn’t been a strength in the Wikimedia community, though. While code and technology can always be considered (and tackled) in a rational way, human relationships need more than that.”)
  • I also welcome the long-waited support for the Affiliations Committee. Especially, I would like to see the AffCom as a guide for new, young, small affiliates, based on its extensive knowledge and understanding of local communities, for example by supporting them to finalize their "on-boarding handbook for new organisations", professionalizing their liaison model, and developing the fourth affiliate type for “movement partners”
  • I fully agree and welcome the approach to “maximizing the value of conferences, site visits and high potential events and opportunities to extend movement wide impact and reach” which fits closely to what WMDE already practices and I would like to see more in the Wikimedia movement.
  • On a more general level, I would like to express our pleasure with the WMF's apparent shift towards partnership, trust and esteem based relationships with its affiliates. The movement is growing closer together, I hope; more dialogues and channels are introduced for communication, collaboration, and mutual support.

(3 editors total)

  • This section sounds a bit vague to me. Can you list SMART goals for this group of initiatives?
  • While building a better relationship between WMF and affiliates is certainly much needed, I feel compelled to point out that not everyone working in the program space is an affiliate. If support is limited to affiliates, please work with AffCom to create affiliate models for non-member organizations — the current options exclude from affiliation organizations like Wiki Ed, Consumer Reports, academic associations, universities, GLAMs, and other institutions actively supporting developing free knowledge on Wikimedia projects. There's a lot of really important work happening in Wikimedia projects led by non-affiliates too.
  • The description does not really take into account that a lot of affiliates already work together on a bilateral basis, without the necessity of direct support from a central body. A comment I have made in the grants consultation still applies: I think that what could foster the collaboration among affiliates are cross-organization grants that support movement relevant programs/projects and encourage partnerships.
  • Our strong wish is that the WMF provides the movement with a healthy and decisive leadership

(2 editors total)

  • How do we plan to support groups and programs that do not neatly fit into current status quo guidelines? Wiki Learning is an education program AND an affiliate, which needs advice and support to continue its quite monumental growth. Right now, I don’t see a clear path forward with the usual WMF set ups.
  • An important aspect that needs more thinking here, though, is the conversation around global and local responsibilities as well as shared tasks. In my view, we cannot just draw a strict line between global and local tasks by simply assigning global tasks to the WMF and local tasks to the Affiliates.
Challenges and risks

(2 editors total)

  • ?
  • What I miss in the description, though, are words like enabling, empowering, decentrality that embrace such a diverse and colorful network of groups and organizations like the Wikimedia movement. One thing that runs like a golden thread through several conversations around roles and shared responsibilities is the fine line between paternalism and empowerment. My advice would be to regularly reflect on the challenge to provide leadership without being too bossy.

Outstanding questions:

  • What do you see as potential risks and barriers to success for the Affiliate Partnerships program, and what steps are you taking to mitigate them?
  • How will you know if Affiliate Partnerships program is successful based on the criteria you identified? Will you have other measures of success?

From Hangout:

There is another question: You see yourself and the re-organising of your team(s) aligned with the new strategy process of the WMF. As I suppose you've been heavily involved in designing these approaches, can you answer me what "Align efforts between our affiliate organizations and the Wikimedia Foundation to increase local language and community coverage on key initiatives." means? (I know, parts of this approach are covered by other CE teams, but parts also by your team) How do you want to "align"? And what are "key initiatives"?

Process: Community Listening ProjectEdit

Positive Support
  • Already being one in DACH region, would be great to do this in a broader scale.
  • Peer exchange about surveys could be extremely useful.
  • Also great to discuss choosing best methods for community input (already seeing survey fatigue and consultation fatigue)
  • Should not be a top-down approach!
  • Should be integrated with learning patterns
  • Make sure to coordinate survey initiatives across the board (affiliates & WMF); towards a collection of survey resources
  • Make sure to reuse and document existing information about communities rather the continuously asking communities the same questions when new staff arrive

(No concerns found, e.g. cautions/risks)

Challenges and risks

(Edward: Time and alignment - I worry about other organizations may not have this as high as a priority)

From Daria via email: ”Community consultation may be useful if you've got a model that we can work out in chapters”.

Process: Peer Mentoring and LeadershipEdit

Positive Support
  • Good concept +1
  • WMF can be helpful in facilitating connections and fostering discussions.
  • PC&L should take the lead on organizing peer mentoring. +1
  • Partner with affiliates, who have boots on the ground and are context-embedded +1
  • Encourage the Aff-Comm to communicate best practices and facilitating conversations.
  • Dedicating grants to have affiliates do this work +1
  • AffComm and PC&L have different skills to contribute to this project.
  • How will we integrate the Organization Development tool?
  • Offer a SWOT analysis and Measures of Success.
  • Shouldn’t be top down from WMF +1
  • WMF is not in the best position to do this: Cultural gap / lack of global view +1
  • Affiliates don’t have the capacity to organize and promote peer mentoring and learning.
Challenges and risks
  • Leadership of the board has to be solved first.

Main discussion is who should hold this project: affiliates or WMF team?

Community ManagementEdit

Return to "Program Capacity and Learning" page.