User:Churn and change/sandbox/EP

Consensus to support RFC. The core objection was the Education Program (EP) had failed, and the two sides supported their stances with an equal weight of words. Only the proposers produced substantial data to back their words.

Additional points worth highlighting from users:


 * DGG mentioned the EP setup had been too bureaucratic, jargon-ridden, and perhaps too elaborate; it would be best, on the organizational front, to start over and have the new organization be limited to fund-raising and "providing an umbrella."
 * The PPI metrics, matching against similar editors, can be applied to evaluate progress on this initiative too.
 * Proposers have promised they will try to stop problems before these get out of hand. Problems can still be reported to the Education Noticeboard.
 * The WMF is clear editor retention is not a required goal of the EP initiative and, by extension, of this proposal; article improvement is. Nevertheless, the issue was brought up repeatedly and is of concern to the community.

Detailed summary of objections
The central objection came from users Fluffernutter, Ironholds, Rschen7754, Courcelles, Starblind, MER-C, Sven Manguard, Legoktm, Steven Zhang, and Risker, all claiming the EP had failed and its continuation, implied by the RFC, had to be looked at. The data presented were two diffs from talk pages; a PRODed page; a link to a Canadian EP experiment with a class of over 1000 students, large by any standard; and a link to a review of an EP course by 13 editors, of whom seven spent time cleaning up student contributions, with two being standard improvements and five true cases of a clean up. The Indian EP (IEP) experience was cited as an objection, but some objectors themselves agreed the educational, cultural and social contexts could not be compared. The main rebuttal was data on article quality on student contributions, posted on October 2. The posting was followed minutes later by one question from Ironholds on who had reviewed them. A list of reviewers posted immediately after adequately addressed this. DStrassmann posted her list a few hours later on articles her students had written. Mike Cline posted a list on articles by MSU students. Cline started a burden analysis on student contributions on October 13, and posted a completed draft on October 21. All of these showed EP's being a net positive to the encyclopedia, with a net expenditure, mentioned by DGG, of one-and-a-half staff members. Arguing we would get similar results with similar effort expended on an outreach to the "general community" is an unusual claim, and as in Wikipedia article space, needs cited support. While RFC discussions are not an adversarial process, that the proposers' data stayed unchallenged means the objection EP is a failure is weak. I checked the data and found no obvious or serious issues.

Risker objected the community may not support the group if it is separated from the WMF, and wanted to know if Wikipedians would have a voice in its governing council. Arguments where individuals predict what the community would do cannot be given strong weight; the governing council issue seems still open, with proposers asking for input. Risker and others also wanted an RFC first on whether EP should be continued. The supporters pointed out people voting in such an RFC would want to know the alternatives, and this would lead right back to this RFC, as DGG described in a separate section covering alternatives.

Stuartyeates and Toddst1 asked about the restricted geographic scope, and there was related discussion on French-speaking Quebec, joined by Bouchecl and others. The response was that the project had to start somewhere, and the US was the best as hosting the most editors. Canada's educational system and social infrastructure were similar enough to the US. Quebec would be part of the scope, though details have not been presented. I see the response as carrying more weight; all organizations and businesses start somewhere and then expand geographically. A single trans-national infrastructure from the start will likely be seen as the US-dominated Wikipedia imposing on others.

Me-123567-Me asked why Canada was included and received no reply. The similarity to the US system mentioned elsewhere seemed the implicit answer.

Piotrus worried about more bureaucracy; Student7 did not want Wikipedia to be skewed, in content and style, by focus from academia; and My76Strat opposed an adversarial and segregatory relationship with academia, a position supported by somebody posting with an IP address. The Land and OhanaUnited addressed some of these concerns, pointing out the plan was not to keep academia at arm's length but to reach out, and that credibility for the encyclopedia required academic participation, a goal of EP in general. Cindamuse complained of not enough details about the structure, functioning, and accountability of the organization. The proposers have promised to involve the community in deciding the accountability part, specifically in how elections and elected seats should be structured. Gigs opposed thematic organizations in general, claiming they pushed their points of view and had conflicts of interest. This seemed an individual view, with no ayes to back it.

Votes
The voting showed the proposal supported by a two-thirds majority. However Gigs and Risker had to be counted as nays. On the supporters' side, The Land and OhanaUnited did not explicitly vote, and some working-group members too seemed to have sat it out. As to the issue of voting and comments by some students with few edits, I notice one, Virginiawhite09, contributed significantly to a Good Article; I directly checked the contributions of the ones in the link inside the retained part of a supplementary comment; I confirmed they are Wikipedia editors not here just for the vote. The vote was hence roughly two-thirds in favor, and the popular will matched the presented evidence.