Wikipedia:Education Program/Structure proposals/Daniel Simanek proposal


 * Please list your name and/or Wikipedia username.
 * Daniel Simanek  (talk • contribs)


 * What idea(s) do you have for what the new structure for the U.S. and Canada Wikipedia Education Programs could look like?
 * I think campus ambassadors should have much more freedom to implement the program on their campus as they feel is needed. Different schools could then leverage the resources available to them, without worrying about adhering to strict bureaucratic parameters that may not be appropriate to in every situation.
 * Each campus would have a point or lead ambassador. This point person would be responsible for the coordination and scheduling of ambassadors, communicating with the regional ambassadors, training new ambassadors, and outreach.
 * There should be a standing committee of instructors and ambassadors that would receive feedback from both groups and provide recommendations. I think problems need to be brainstormed and solved by both groups together.
 * There should be a formal program in which active instructors are the first contact for new or potential instructors. This would would be done along side ambassador recruitment of instructors and not in place of it.
 * As for a top level structure, I would defer to an expert on organizational design, but I would prefer structure that can be flexible and make decisions quickly.


 * How would you ensure this new structure involves all key stakeholders, including academics and the Wikipedia community?
 * I think this campus-centric structure allows the program to be much more engaged on the campus level. It would allow ambassadors to tap into established resources at the school, and fall back on school-specific philosophies (e.g. the Wisconsin Idea at UW–Madison) that could help drive instructor recruitment. I also think this leverages school pride, and friendly competitions between schools could further drive up involvement.
 * The standing committee could present a unified instructor/ambassador voice that could deliberate and do a better job resolving issues, from the perspective of both groups, than either group could do on its own. This would alleviate frustrations in both camps, and decrease attrition.
 * Having instructors formally assist in recruiting instructors would increase the legitimacy of the first contacts, and could help improve instructor recruitment.


 * What are potential pitfalls of this approach?
 * It requires a charismatic and involved point person on each campus. Campuses lacking this might see a drop in involvement or encounter other issues.
 * Highly engaged campuses might encounter campus politics, or end up answering to two groups (the campus and the program) with differences in opinion.


 * Any other comments about your proposal?
 * I really feel strongly about shifting more decision making/priority setting down to the campus level. As an ambassador at UW–Madison, I've had opportunities to expand the horizons of my role, and engage in outreach that was well beyond the parameters of the program. I think formal support of that at the program level could really be beneficial.