Wikipedia talk:Online Ambassadors/Mentors

Online Ambassador Approval Process
It's came to my attention from User:Pharos that there has been a vacuum and lull in the Online Ambassador Approval Process since the demise of the Steering Committee and the advent of the Education Working Group. At the most recent Meeting I volunteered to take responsibility for this action as no one was doing it. As I was trying to assemble a small team to do this in a more steamlined fashion to prevent burn-out, I came across an idea. Idea: Have the current online ambassadors be the approval team for potential online ambassadors. This is a good idea because a) they have best knowledge of the position, b) are the biggest stakeholders in their success, and c) are most active in the landscape to talk to new ambassadors.

What do you think? Since I took the reins because there was no one else doing it, and no objections at the time. I'm not sure the best way to go about selecting people, but I do know 2 other things. It's important, and I'm not the best person to decide. You are.

You can reinvent the process, or follow the old one which I've linked below. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, Max, but your proposal is actually identical to the current process. Nothing new here. In essence, the current OAs have always been the application approval team. The Online Ambassadors at large either approved or disapproved of applicants, based on their response to a selected list of questions. We were generally looking for proven experience and involvement in welcoming and assisting new editors, significant content contributions, ability to interact well with others, and availability. The Ambassador Selection Team was established in an effort to alleviate any fears of potential OAs who hesitate tossing their hat in a potential RFA three-ring circus. If they failed to meet the approval of the selection team, applying through email allowed applicants to "save face". In order to effectively develop any sort of team involved in the WEP, it is essential to lay a solid foundation. The history of the WEP has shown that any attempt to form a team or subcommittee without first establishing the role and responsibility of each player will result in widespread apathy and resentment. The lack of players that showed up to review applicants was most likely a reflection of apathy in the camp. I would recommend developing processes that serve to address the apathy and provide ways in which to empower, rather than coerce editors to participate. Sadly, this was the reality over the past school year, after which several editors just threw their arms up in disgust. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 21:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Useful old resources

 * The most recent active process Online_Ambassadors/Apply
 * People that were involded in it and have experience Online Ambassadors/Selection process
 * A Proposal for a new Process WikiProject Academical Village/Online Ambassador Selection Process

Formation of new subcommittee of Online Ambassadors to run Online Ambassador selection

 * sign up

switching to Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile
Hey folks. Now that the education program extension is up and running, we can move away from this ill-maintained list and instead make profiles using Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile. See my post here for details. The nice thing is that it will automatically track which classes you are supporting (based in which ones you've signed up as an ambassador for on the course page), and only list current courses.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentoring
Hiya.

I suppose the new name for the job is cute. You missed some hyperlinks. Mentor_(disambiguation) LantzR (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)