Wikipedia:Training/For Ambassadors/Training feedback

You can leave a message here to let us know what you thought of the training.

Detailed, informative, awesome

Rcaveman Talk
...The tutorial nicely laid out what we were supposed to gain from each module at the beginning of each section.
 * What I liked:

...There were a few typos in the training slides that were a little distracting. For some reasons, a couple of the videos in the training stopped halfway.
 * What I didn't like:

...For me, a recap of the learning goals for each module at the end would be helpful to bring it together.
 * What was missing:

...Can't think of anything right now.
 * What was unnecessary:

131.94.186.10 (talk)
... The videos were helpful in learning how to edit a Wikipedia page ...
 * What I liked:
 * What I didn't like:

... It might be helpful to have a practice section where you fill par†s of a page or something like that in order to facilitate the training process. ...
 * What was missing:
 * What was unnecessary:

--131.94.186.10 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NativeForeigner Talk
It seemed like a fairly good summary of core wikipedia policies. 12 week plan was good.
 * What I liked:

Wales/Gardner plagiarism thing seemed out of place. Good point, but an odd way to do it in that context.
 * What I didn't like:

Perhaps a tiny intro to Files & Copyright? In my dealings with users who were working on school assignments there have been a lot of copyright issues regarding images. The current orientation includes mention of copyright and plagiarism, which is good, but it neglects to mention it in the context of Files, specifically images. I think it's something that deserves at least a mention in the broadest sense.
 * What was missing:

Nothing.
 * What was unnecessary:

--NativeForeigner Talk 19:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Benongyx (talk)
...
 * What I liked: it was very holistic and informative

...
 * What I didn't like: nothing really. i like pretty much everything

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Benongyx (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水
...The Powerpointish design is a nice touch, and makes the process much more accessible for students and educators. The Classroom section in particular was a fascinating read.
 * What I liked:

...Very little. However, most of the "core" and "editing" sections are teaching grandmother to suck eggs - anyone competent enough to be an ambassador in the first place knows this stuff, and it's frustrating to have to wade through it again in baby steps. I also have the impression that the ambassadors' course is cobbled together from the student and educator courses; it certainly feels that way.
 * What I didn't like:

...More info on the Image use policy would be a good idea.
 * What was missing:

...As above, whilst explaining Wikipedia's core policies and editing process to students and educators is vital (and the sections do that job very well), it's not necessary for ambassadors, who should be able to recite this stuff in their sleep.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  01:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Thanks! It's more that the Ambassador training is for both Online and Campus Ambassadors, and many Campus Ambassadors are new users themselves (eg, librarians or instructional technology professional at the same institution as a professor they are supporting, who signed up to get trained so that they could help professors and students learn to edit). But the training could make that more clear at the beginning, and give some instructions for experienced Wikipedians about how they should use the training&mdash;as a chance to familiarize themselves with the basic content of the student and educator trainings, as well as to think about how the trainings could be improved for newcomers.

I have plans to add some content about images (uploading and adding to articles, as well as image use rules) to all the trainings, when I get a chance.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

JoyceChou (talk)

 * What I liked:
 * The page of dialogue framed between photos, concerning copyrights. Effective and entertaining.
 * The breakdown of the 12-week syllabus—very helpful and informative.
 * The speediness of the training, thanks to clear and concise wording.


 * What I didn't like:
 * N/A


 * What was missing:
 * N/A


 * What was unnecessary:
 * Nothing. The ambassador training was well-done.

--JoyceChou (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Virginiawhite09 (talk)
...
 * What I liked: The sections on interacting with the Wikipedia community and how this occurs in a classroom project. The built in informational videos.

...
 * What I didn't like: Nothing in particular.

...
 * What was missing: Perhaps more information on licensing on wikipedia as well as advanced editing techniques.

...
 * What was unnecessary: For me, the sample assignment structure. This has already been finalized by the professor of the course I work with. I see tht this may be helpful in other cases though.

--Virginiawhite09 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Drdemartino (talk)
...Short, sweet, to the point. Not too many videos.
 * What I liked:

...Some of the videos were a bit long winded, took some time to get to the actual content.
 * What I didn't like:

...More encouragement to practice. A discussion of what a "Did you know" entry is and a link.
 * What was missing:

...Nothing, as far as a novice can tell.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Drdemartino (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheaal01 (talk)
...all of the resources I can pass on to student editors
 * What I liked:

...going through each week of the 12-week syllabus
 * What I didn't like:

...more about the Did You Know process
 * What was missing:

...details for each week of the 12-week syllabus
 * What was unnecessary:

--Cheaal01 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Charbooth (talk)
...
 * What I liked: I took the draft version of the tutorial in the past and commented on its clarity and simplicity of instructions/messages, which can be used as similar messages to students and faculty. This approach has been preserved and actually enhanced in this version. Great also to have student and educator versions, which I will send around to those I collaborate with in classroom settings.

...
 * What I didn't like: The section with specific learning outcome areas for using Wikipedia in the classroom is very useful/important content, so I'd rather see it as a mandatory page-by-page step through than an optional section. People may not realize that it gives such concrete assignment suggestions and might therefore miss an opportunity.

...
 * What was missing: Perhaps links to diverse examples of successful collaborations and course pages, or interviews with students who have used Wikipedia in an educational context (in addition to the active Wikipedian profiles/videos). Also, more context and specfics on quoting and paraphrasing for students perhaps using good/bad examples from actual wikipedia pages, or screenshots, etc. of revision histories that fixed citation issues (this may be in the student tutorial, haven't reviewed it in detail yet). Attribution is a real gray area for many, I find.

...
 * What was unnecessary: Not much, actually.

--Charbooth (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregatmu (talk)
... Overall, very good training.
 * What I liked:

... I can't think of anything
 * What I didn't like:

...something on creating and managing course pages (or perhaps this is covered in the instructor training). In that case, something about how ambassadors and the other roles - instructor, student interact with one another and the wikipedia course page.
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Gregatmu (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris troutman (talk)
good basic overview, especially the focus on guiding student use
 * What I liked:

Too many clicks involved; more content could have been put on each page
 * What I didn't like:

More best practices from other campus programs
 * What was missing:

nothing
 * What was unnecessary:

--Chris troutman (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oline73 (talk)
The video tutorials were great. The basic structure of reading small chunks of text and moving to the next section was easy and helpful.
 * What I liked:

Nothing really. Some of the stuff about the people and culture was familiar to me so I found the specific, concrete stuff a little more useful.
 * What I didn't like:

Maybe get into a little more depth about creating project pages?
 * What was missing:

The wiki culture stuff is important if someone doesn't know much about the open web and collaboration, but for people familiar with the concepts, that part was not super necessary.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Oline73 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankcjones (talk)
The ambassador training is filled with useful links to additional resources.
 * What I liked:

Nothing, I was very happy with the training.
 * What I didn't like:

Explicit instructions for finding stub and start articles.
 * What was missing:

Nothing, every part provided information and links to other resources that I'm sure to reference in the future.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Frankcjones (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

TucsonDavid U . S . A .
...
 * What I liked: It didn't take long and was very informative.

...
 * What I didn't like: I have nothing bad to say about it.

...
 * What was missing:It could of been more interactive.

...
 * What was unnecessary:Nothing to mention.

--TucsonDavid U . S . A . 18:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Finished!
that it was easy to follow
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Dward2612 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Clanger12 (talk)
I thought in general the training was well done. The videos were concise yet helpful.
 * What I liked:

Not exactly a criticism of the training itself, but navigating through the various Education Program materials is a bit difficult and confusing.
 * What I didn't like:


 * What was missing:

NA


 * What was unnecessary:

NA --Clanger12 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

czar &middot;   &middot;
This is a good introduction, and WP would do well to at least offer this type of onboarding to all new users (an improved welcome message?)
 * What I liked:


 * Suggestions
 * Could use copyedit for concision
 * Needs update for VisualEditor
 * "sandbox edits for new articles": I think DYK mention in the last ¶ should be "AfC", no?
 * "case study 2": "on-going" → "ongoing"?
 * Checklists at the end of each chapter are missing chapter five
 * I think the format is too structured, especially for students (which I believe use a very similar copy). Maybe you have user research that shows that students are getting through it, but I see all the clicking leading to lots of skimming. One really tight and exciting script for a video could be a really great alternative. I'd just cover the principles really fast (with real-world examples), and put the bulk of the editing rules into actual tasks (to follow along) or a tight video that does the equivalent but faster. I'd also put the onus on the students to teach each other, encourage that they pop over to their buddies' articles frequently instead of once for a single peer review.
 * I'll add that maybe that "structure" is designed to reinforce WP's formal rules for teachers/students averse to chaos who think WP to be a black box of anarchy (I presume the former since the training format is very regimented), but I want to really encourage those behind this process to instead equip teachers/students with quick setup guides that get them baseline literate with Wikipedia and throw them into editing within a topic for the first few weeks (instead of allotting five weeks to setup and processing). I'll expand:
 * I defer to your experience on the timeline, but I don't think enough time is given for peer review and the GA/FA process in the model syllabus. It will certainly extend past the end of the semester as it is described. I think a better deadline would be GA nom at midterm (if the intention is building single articles).
 * This (getting admittedly off-topic, but hopefully usefully so) program and its suggestions appear to aim to replace the "college paper" with a WP article, and maybe that's the most convenient change/adaptation for profs, but I think a better strategy is getting profs to write parts of an article first, possibly join a WikiProject in the field, and then serve as WP mentors to students like it's part of their scholarly service. Attitudes have changed enough that this is more reasonable now (than five years ago). Depending on their grading and "student expectations" needs, I'd also encourage students to edit as they wish within a topic related to the class's discussions instead of having a single row to hoe. It would be a greater service for all to advocate for assimilation with the existing WP community as the class's writing/editing requirements (see my "onus on the students" point above).
 * Also I think it would be very shortsighted to limit this program to college students. (Not to assume this hasn't been thought, but I didn't find anything about it online.) I think editing can and should be scaled for high school, middle school, and elementary school students. There are lots of exciting ways to do this, if anyone's interested in discussing them.
 * Videos can also be more concise ("tighter"). I think of it like a safety video before operating a machine (DMV permit test, before boarding a commercial helicopter, etc.) in that it should prepare for single-sitting short attention spans, establish minimal competence, offer a single source for further FAQ, and let the user experience firsthand the basic info just imparted.
 * If the questionnaire/application is new, I don't like it. Unless the extra info is now necessary, it is somewhat invasive compared to the rest of the very private wikiland, and it requires a degree of voluntary self-outing.

-- czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Kolekar Pandurang (talk)
...
 * What I liked: The systematic approach of introducing to Wikipedia. The video tutorial and link pages were really helpful.

...
 * What I didn't like: I liked the entire content of this training.

...
 * What was missing: It was complete guide for new comers.

...
 * What was unnecessary: I didn't find anything unnecessary.

--Kolekar Pandurang (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Lukasaolson (talk)
...The videos were very helpful, especially when they went into more detail than the text.
 * What I liked:

...Occasionally, the content was a little too simplistic and obvious, making the training boring. However, this is not a serious problem because I can see how it would benefit a less familiar individual.
 * What I didn't like:

...Nothing I can think of atm
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Lukasaolson (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Aashaa (talk)
...
 * What I liked:The system of demonstration is quite good and easier for understanding!

...
 * What I didn't like:The option for video streaming of Youtube is not enjoyable for slow internet connection

...
 * What was missing:Nothing :p

...
 * What was unnecessary: every thing is necessary here :)

--Aashaa (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Danw2016 (talk)
I liked that it was easy to follow and understand
 * What I liked:

Nothing about it was bad
 * What I didn't like:

I don't think anythink was missing
 * What was missing:

I also don't think that anything was innecessary
 * What was unnecessary:

--Danw2016 (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)danw2016

DES (talk)
The Overall concept and much of the implemetation
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

In editing, mention of talkback and of the use of notifications via links to user pages and tempaltes ping or U; more specific examples of markup
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--DES (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

jainkunal40
Teaching Style
 * What I liked:

Font
 * What I didn't like:

Images
 * What was missing:

Clicking next button.
 * What was unnecessary:

--117.209.197.223 (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Tanuyeiro (talk)
I really appreciate the effort to making it easier for new comers
 * What I liked:

That we don't have this in Spanish
 * What I didn't like:

More case studies on how to evaluate the students
 * What was missing:

By far everything is necessary
 * What was unnecessary:

--Tanuyeiro (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dsecsuresh (talk)
It is very good concept for make awareness..
 * What I liked:

If i want to move back means we want move slide by slide.if you given option for directly move back to lot of pages means it will be very useful.
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Dsecsuresh (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Emilyck (talk)
...I really liked the videos and the arrows that allowed trainers to move through the pages.
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Emilyck (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

68.49.0.197 (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--68.49.0.197 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

CodyAlanTaylor (talk)
I liked the training because it was concise and provided the most necessary information and not too much else.
 * What I liked:

--CodyAlanTaylor (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Mjbailey (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Mjbailey (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Neelnath (talk)
I liked that whole training was pretty compact and simple. It gives a direct to the point information and focuses on serving the purpose instead on making it long and complicated.
 * What I liked:

It is a little less interactive and can get a little monotonous.
 * What I didn't like:

A little more media, may be.
 * What was missing:

Nothing to me seemed unnecessary.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Neelnath (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comtebenoit (talk)
Very concise and direct
 * What I liked:

nothing
 * What I didn't like:

nothing
 * What was missing:

nothing --Comtebenoit (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What was unnecessary:

Jmespinozab (talk)
... Los ejemplos fueron muy valiosos para entender la forma de estructurar una actividad haciendo uso de Wikipedia.
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Jmespinozab (talk)

AmandaRR123 (talk)

 * What I liked:

Really excellent sample assignment and syllabus -- I can tell a lot of thought went into them. I think the case studies, brochures, and sample grading rubrics will all be helpful.

The videos were all also well-made. A good length (not to long, not too short) and informative. I bookmarked some on YouTube to share with students -- I think the talk pages video will be particularly helpful, as I've found many new student editors are nervous about actually communicating on-wiki.

Thanks to all who created the module.


 * What I didn't like:

I liked it all.


 * What was missing:

I think I could have used a slightly more in-depth look at the course pages themselves, and the software functions. That's the portion I'm least familiar with, and I feel slightly nervous about learning the system functions in real-time. Maybe there's a sandbox or fake course version somewhere I could play around with?

I still have to poke around the case studies a little more, but I also would like an example of how the sample syllabus has been adapted for shorter assignments. I've found that some faculty want to incorporate a Wikipedia assignment into their larger course, but don't necessarily want to make Wikipedia the final assignment, or give the entire semester to it. So I'm wondering what a well-designed 6-week version looks like, maybe shaped around student group projects. Again, there may be examples of this already, I just haven't looked through all the samples yet. But in my (admittedly not long) experience, some faculty seem more interested in giving students a shorter group project than a big 12-week individual project.


 * What was unnecessary:

It was all good!

--AmandaRR123 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers and Thanks, L235 - Talk Ping when replying
I liked the entire package. There was nothing missing(at least starting at the "editing" section
 * What I liked:

I feel there wasn't really anything I disliked.
 * What I didn't like:

I don't really feel there was anything missing.
 * What was missing:

(Once again, as above ;)) I don't really think anything in there was really unnecessary.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Cheers and Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 22:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Megs (talk)

 * What I liked:

The tutorial was written clearly and the design was clean. I also appreciated all videos. ...

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing: It would be great if it addressed best practices for interacting with faculty and students, or offered some examples of sample instruction sessions in addition to the handouts.

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Megs (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nikilada (talk)
It was very well organized and clear at all times.
 * What I liked:

Nothing.
 * What I didn't like:

A few more examples of how to do specific things with coding would have been nice.
 * What was missing:

The videos maybe; I didn't watch them all the way through.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Nikilada (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Msitar (talk)
I appreciated the clarify and brevity of the content. It was just enough information to get started, though much of it was information I already knew from past teaching experiences. I was able to take notes on the information that was new to me. I also really appreciated the case study embedded in it.
 * What I liked:

Nothing.
 * What I didn't like:

Nothing.
 * What was missing:

Nothing.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Msitar (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

1.39.60.96 (talk)
... Approach towards each domain ... Some extra Information ... Student Recognition ... Nothing --1.39.60.96 (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What I liked:
 * What I didn't like:
 * What was missing:
 * What was unnecessary:

Amandastra (talk)
...
 * What I liked: The training is great - It is full of resources that I bookmarked, and I can tell it will be a good reference. I loved the part about Barnstars and student recognition

...
 * What I didn't like: Nothing.

...
 * What was missing: I'll think on this.

...
 * What was unnecessary: Nothing.

--Amandastra (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

G.W. Bill Elliott Jr
Quite nicely laid out, thought out, and certainly well presented. The pages flowed correctly and the content was sequentially accurate, too. Nicely done!
 * What I liked:


 * What I didn't like:


 * What was missing:
 * You told me what you were going to tell me (intro)
 * You told me (content)
 * You told me what you told me (summary)

Missing? Possibly a mechanism for assessment to ensure knowledge transfer occurred. Currently, I am allowed to click through as though I understand the content and grasped the knowledge/experience.
 * What was unnecessary:

--G.W. Bill Elliott Jr 14:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk)
Could skip certain bits if you have enough experience
 * What I liked:

It was OK.
 * What I didn't like:

Ask me in three weeks time
 * What was missing:

Don't know
 * What was unnecessary:

--Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

182.69.126.149 (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--182.69.126.149 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Imaddygupta (talk)

 * What I liked:i really liked the course content and i didn't know i could do this much with Wikipedia.

...
 * What I didn't FDD:


 * What was missing:

--Imaddygupta (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What was unnecessary:i did not find anything unnecessary it was up to point

Dylanndakotaa (talk)
Everything. Very informative.
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Dylanndakotaa (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Archie0401 (talk)
...I like the module format. I like the links out to videos - it allows for different learning modalities. I like the links to other resources.
 * What I liked:

...This is the second training that I have completed, so some of the navigation problems that I had in the first training were not a problem this time. I'm not sure if that is my expertise or a difference in the training.
 * What I didn't like:

...I would like to have known more about what is required of an ambassador.
 * What was missing:

...I would not say that it was unnecessary but given that the 12 week assignment is just one example of how an ambassador could assist, it was somewhat limiting.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Archie0401 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Spyder212 (talk)
Good introduction and methods to link eduction to Wikipedia.
 * What I liked:

N/A
 * What I didn't like:

N/A
 * What was missing:

The editing skills are already included in other introductory training modules I believe.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Spyder212 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nanodudek (talk)
The module was well organized, logical and comprehensive but not overwhelming.
 * What I liked:

The 12 week module was clunky to click around (because of the sub-pages within each week)
 * What I didn't like:

Nothing that I can tell, but when you are new you can't judge what is missing!
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Nanodudek (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)nanodudek

E. Lee (talk)
... Well written training!
 * What I liked:

... The fact that it was blocky webpages. What could improve the training is to have a video version of it.
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--E. Lee (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhumidian (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Rhumidian (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Pcwendland (talk)
I liked that I was able to skip the first section since I am already familiar with Wikipedia's values. The content is presented in a format that's easy to understand and direct, and I think even people with minimal technological literacy could work their way through it.
 * What I liked:

A few times, when I used the back arrow, I got sent to the last page of a different section, rather than my previous page.
 * What I didn't like:

Nothing that I can think of right now!
 * What was missing:

Though some things felt like overkill to me, I acknowledge that people come from all sorts of backgrounds with technology, so the more basic instructions (like how to create an account) are necessary.
 * What was unnecessary:

--Pcwendland (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

--Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 01:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It is explanatory
 * What I liked:

There is virtally nothing I didn't like
 * What I didn't like:

The basic information was covered and nothing significant was really missing
 * What was missing:

Everything I encountered was necessary
 * What was unnecessary:

Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 01:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

DrakeLibrarian (talk)
...
 * What I liked: Good visuals and nice amount of content one each page.

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--DrakeLibrarian (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ras Benjih (talk)
...Creating course page to help the students effectively on how they can contribute expanding Wikipedia.
 * What I liked:

...Nothing
 * What I didn't like:

...Taking trainee to the course page practically.
 * What was missing:

...Nothing unnecessary
 * What was unnecessary:

--Ras Benjih (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

115.248.66.138 (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--115.248.66.138 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ankurg92 (talk)
It tells so much about wikipedia thath i don't know before.It tells about how Wikipedia works .The videos are very good. My respect for Wikipedia the free encyclopedia increased very much.
 * What I liked:

It is a little less interactive.
 * What I didn't like:

I think Wikipedia should give an option to save pages as PDF because it will be easy to use Data offline in PDF.
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Ankurg92 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicho806 (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Nicho806 (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MarkYabloko
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

-- MarkYabloko    08:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

-- samtar whisper

 * What I liked:


 * What I didn't like:


 * What was missing:


 * What was unnecessary:

samtar whisper 13:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Athikhun (talk)
-well informed -brief but precise
 * What I liked:

- can be more appealing - I was expecting interactive tutorials.
 * What I didn't like:

Perhaps an interactive training through the course page.
 * What was missing:

-
 * What was unnecessary:

--Athikhun (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Feynman100 (talk)

 * What I liked:

The simplicity of the slides and the fact that I was not overwhelmed with information was great. The interface was also easy to use which is rare in online orientations.


 * What I didn't like:

I know that some creative examples of what student ambassadors do or have done could have been knowledgeable and inspiring.


 * What was missing:

Some examples of what other student ambassadors have done besides classroom projects.


 * What was unnecessary:

There was nothing extraneous about the orientation.

--Feynman100 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Mase (talk)
... I really liked the Wikipedia Training for Ambassadors Course. It was extremely thorough, and I got a lot out of it. Thank you! ...N/A
 * What I liked:
 * What I didn't like:

...I think the course could use some additional multimedia, but besides that, it was excellent.
 * What was missing:

...N/A
 * What was unnecessary:

--Jonathan Mase (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

MidwestCuttlefish (talk)
The modules flowed logically and the training was a good refresher course.
 * What I liked:

The stock photos are a bit repetitive.
 * What I didn't like:

Some parts should be updated to reflect the newer version of Visual Editor.
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--MidwestCuttlefish (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Martyna991 (talk)
Videos
 * What I liked:

No tests.
 * What I didn't like:

Tests and more videos.
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Martyna991 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Elamoureux (talk)Ambassador
...Formation Ambassador
 * What I liked:

...nothing
 * What I didn't like:

...Throwing Discussions, being neutral, participating in topics,
 * What was missing:

...Nothing is useful to learn
 * What was unnecessary:

--ELamoureuxElamoureux (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Silence.Dogood (talk)
The training module is a solid overview and introduction to Wikipedia.
 * What I liked:

Nothing
 * What I didn't like:

Perhaps a bit more info editing wars/conflict resolution.
 * What was missing:

Nothing
 * What was unnecessary:

--Silence.Dogood (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Noahalorwu (talk · contribs)
I really love the guidelines, it is self explanatory. This is a very great initiative and I hope every school adopt this in their curriculum. Students final year project/research works end up in the trash without been shared to the world. If we share everyone wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahalorwu (talk • contribs)

Cocohead781 (talk)
The training is very through, and covers all of it's bases. I liked the notice of the barn stars.
 * What I liked:

I didn't like the length of it. While the 2nd section (Editing, I believe) could have been skipped, the training could be condensed.
 * What I didn't like:

As stated above, the training is very through. But, some links to go to the next module is missing if the back button is hit.
 * What was missing:

The editing section was unnecessary for experienced editors. At least there is a link to the next section.
 * What was unnecessary:

The Edit source / Edit page has a outdated picture. The Edit tab isn't in beta. --Cocohead781 (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My other comment:

Kota Wharton
--Kota Wharton 19:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Nolan Perry Yell at me!
The Simplicity of the Orientation ...
 * What I liked:
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Nolan Perry Yell at me! 15:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

ChrisD Strummer (talk)
Good overview of Wikipedia.
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

More of an overview of how Wikipedia and other wiki projects (books, source, media, etc.) work together. Wikipedia in the news today.
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--ChrisD Strummer (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Momedzo (talk)ambassadeurs
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Momedzo (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Vis2change
Well explained.
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Vis2change 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

AKU VICTOR ADIGIZI
... Editing articles
 * What I liked:

... presure on void
 * What I didn't like:

... To me,nothing is missing
 * What was missing:

... Nothing
 * What was unnecessary:

--105.112.33.95 (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Assa Abdulazeez (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Assa Abdulazeez (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Rey Halseylin (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Rey Halseylin (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia
I liked to share information to anyone
 * What I liked:

I didn't like if there is hoax information.
 * What I didn't like:


 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Ekayudha88 (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sambuka119 (talk)
easy to read, learned alot
 * What I liked:

wish I had a separate pdf with the codes
 * What I didn't like:

a place to see all the codes
 * What was missing:

nothing
 * What was unnecessary:

--Sambuka119 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sambuka119 (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--Sambuka119 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

...
 * What I liked:I learn much

...
 * What I didn't like:none

... nothing at all
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:none

--BuhleT (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

41.115.44.16 (talk)
...
 * What I liked:

...
 * What I didn't like:

...
 * What was missing:

...
 * What was unnecessary:

--41.115.44.16 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)