# Talk:WikiMaster

## Contents

Wikitrainers014:55, 3 July 2010
Right of passage?013:55, 26 June 2008
Pre-requisite skills?106:32, 12 March 2008
Sharing Credentials103:15, 12 December 2007
Some proposals regarding the WikiMaster concept015:41, 21 November 2007
The "W" looks great222:17, 18 November 2007

## Wikitrainers

Are there any plans of creating the criteria required to be a WikiTrainer?--Benjamin Stewart 14:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

14:55, 3 July 2010

## Right of passage?

I haven't been active in this node, so I didn't want to make a change without knowing the background, but shouldn't the caption read "rite of passage" rather than "right of passage"? Or, since there are multiple levels, shouldn't it be "rites of passage"?

13:55, 26 June 2008

## Pre-requisite skills?

Interesting idea. Having a way to show that one has certain skills and is willing to help others is great.

Having to go through each stage is a hassle for a wiki veteran with months or years of work on wikis, but who is new to this site. How about some fast tracking for some of the skills? E.g. allow the applicant to point to work done on other wikis. --Chriswaterguy 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

02:26, 11 March 2008

Chris: I think you're right and that we should essentially be able to do a kind of interwiki skill verification. I just found Appropedia the other day and have mentioned it to the guys doing the Permaculture design course. Countrymike 06:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

06:32, 12 March 2008

## Sharing Credentials

I like the idea of having formal levels of 'credentials'.

Just trying to figure out how they might align with existing Wikimaster 'credentials' (kudos) on other Wikimedia projects. E.g-- 22:33, 11 December 2007 (CET)

Am also trying to figure out how you give kudos to the tool makers/improvers/developers. E.g. We're having a play with liquid threads, which seems promising. You might also be aware of the IRC tool which Chrisworks on.

Many real innovations come about by the interaction between users and tool makers. The greatest challenge we have is, by training people to use the existing tools, we may be frustrating them due to their preference for others. At the same time the tool makers, if they're not given recognition for making a tool easier for newbies, will have no incentive. E.g Chris has created a simple web interface for 3 IRC Wikipedia channels. Simplifying the interface by adding more radio buttons for all the other channels would be useful, and time consuming. So we need to have some equivalents. Simonfj

21:33, 11 December 2007

Hi Simonfj,

Nope -- I'm not aware of Chris' IRC tool -- will certainly take a look. Most folk on WE use their own IRC clients, eg Xchat or log in through our Web interface.

The barnstar concept is certainly worth pursuing -- so any suggestions you may have in how best to align these with other WMF projects are most welcome ..;-).

Chat to you soon.

03:15, 12 December 2007

## Some proposals regarding the WikiMaster concept

• Is this a reasonable classification of the skills and levels required?

Yes, I think this typology of skills for participation in WikiEd is reasonable.

• Do we need a system to recognise and acknowledge different skillslevels within our community?

Yes, we do. But we should consider these thoughts:

For me, the wiki way is learning by doing.


While I practice developing content or participate in discussions, I learn how to do this or to improve my skills. That means, for me active participation is the focus of my interest, and learning editing skills is only a by-product. I had to learn already too much in my life, and if someone comes to me and tells me I have to learn this or that, I easily get aversions. And I’m afraid there are more teachers who feel the same like me. That does not mean I’m unwilling to acquire new skills, it’s the other way round! In fact since I bought my first good computer December last year, my computer skills have expanded enormously (in my view). But I used only my internal motivation.

The alternative for me would be to stimulate the internal motivation of the wiki newbies by asking them about their dreams. Which content would you like to see on the Internet? Let’s say there is a sports teacher who would like to hand out the rules of volleyball to his students. He should start with this, typing it on his user page. But then, he’ll want to create an own page for this, so he has to learn to create a new page and to link it well in WikiEd. And therefore he has to investigate the content structure in WikiEd, and doing this, he’ll discover pages where he likes the layout. He says wow, I also want to have illustrations like photos or drawings! So he is motivated to learn how to do this and then he’ll start imitating the corresponding procedures.

And because he wants it to learn, he’ll learn it, either by doing the corresponding tutorial or by simply puzzling around until he has got it. You understand what I mean? I, personally, I confess that until now I’ve not done even one of the tutorials. I prefer to learn by trial and error. And in school including university studies, what took about 19 years of my precious life, I learned a lot and passed millions of exams, but I estimate that only about 20% of what I learned I can recall actively. So, f. ex. if someone creates once a link to another wiki page, he’ll probably have forgotten how to do this in less than a month. Continuing practice is the only way to acquire skills in a sustainable way.

So my proposal: Let quantity and quality of contributions to WikiEd be the only measure to earn “community kudos”. And there, I would differentiate between content development, participation in community tasks like discussions or giving feedback, and technical development.

If we give kudos for editing skills, we have to call them like that, f. ex. MediaWikiEditingArtisan. This also demonstrates the fact that these skills are applicable in MediaWiki wikis. These technical skills are not sufficient to define a good WikiEducator. But I would be in favor of acknowledging progress in wiki editing skills, because it will be a certain motivation to learn for those, who can be motivated by attaining titles or certificates.

But on the longer run I still think we need a system of financial remuneration for authors. If stakeholders in education departments of governments of CoL member countries get the evidence, that WikiEd really works, they will be able to get funds for paying authors. This should be our aim. As long as we don’t have the possibility to pay the authors, we will get only those who can afford to work without payment. And in so called developing countries, this will be much less than in industrialized nations.

So once again my formula in short words:

1. Yes, we should give titles for MediaWiki editing skills like “MediaWikiEditingArtisan”, and get all other MediaWiki wikis to use the same system.

2. Yes, we should give “community kudos” for participation in discussions and decision taking processes as well as content development. The measure for this should be quantity and quality of contributions. The titles could be called “WikiEducatorKudo bronze”, “WikiEducatorKudo silver” etc.

3. We have to clearly separate these two.

• How do we "certify" different levels? Do we work on a web-of-trust model (we can always validate based on the wiki history)? or do should we require certification from a trusted member of the community (e.g. someone who has legitimately attained a higher level.)?

1. For the editing skills: How if we use the web-of-trust model? A user who wants to demonstrate his MediaWiki editing progress puts the corresponding label on his user page. He like that announces to the community: Look, I’m able to do all what is required for this level. And if no one objects, he is permitted to use this title.

2. For community kudos: I think it should be the task of the WikiEd board to honor the work of an active user.

Greetings from frosty Bavaria, Günther
--White Eagle 16:41, 21 November 2007 (CET)

15:41, 21 November 2007

## The "W" looks great

Wayne,

The "W" looks great....my only preference at this time, is that it would be black, not grey.

Otherwise, it looks very nice.

--Randy Fisher 18:31, 18 November 2007 (CET)

22:17, 18 November 2007

Thanks Randy,

I think you're right - black would be better. Anyway - I'm going to leave this for the graphics professionals in WE to fix and improve. My graphic design skills are atrocious -- at least the source files are in svg format and hopefully someone will take on the challenge in doing some magic with the graphic.

Cheers Wayne

22:17, 18 November 2007

Graphic design skills atrocious, you say?

I dunno, methinks you've done a great job!

-)

Truly...

- Randy

22:17, 18 November 2007