The following is a transcript of an interview conducted by Skomorokh for The Signpost with Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program community liaison Rob Schnautz over IRC on March 9, 2012. The transcript has been edited to remove parenthetical comments, with minor alterations to phrasing and sequencing for coherence. It is made available by the express consent of both parties. For the edited interview which ran in The Signpost's March 12, 2012 edition, see here.

The Signpost: You've just been hired as the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program community liaison. Can you tell us a little about your background as an editor?

Rob Schnautz: Sure. Back in 2004, I heard there was an encyclopedia anyone could edit, and I vowed never to touch it. But in 2006, I broke that vow when I looked up antimicrobial pen. I was pretty impressed that Wikipedia had an article on something that wasn't covered anywhere else, and just HAD to join it. So my first few edits were pretty unconstructive, but by the following summer I was uploading photos on backlogs. Since then, I've become one of the 3,000 top editors, an administrator (in 2009), a regional ambassador (in 2011), and now online communications contractor this month. Most of my personal free time work is on templates and paleozoology stubs. And I enjoy making SVG maps.

Templates, stubs and image creation sound like lonely areas to work in; what have been your most discussion-intensive activities besides the education programs?

Back in 2010 I heard Martin Smith was working on a project called the automatic taxobox. Scientific classification uses a sort of database-like structure, so this is something the logic-minded folks at the Tree of Life had been talking about for years. So I decided to get involved with that, and I've been helping change the face of organic life on Wikipedia since then. It involves a lot of drama at times, since it is relevant to a large percentage of articles.

What motivated you to become involved in the education program initially?

I was doing some research on brown recluses one day, and noticed the banner at the top of the page wasn't asking for money, so I decided to read it; the Foundation was looking for people interested in motivating professors and students to use Wikipedia for educational assignments. So, I figured it couldn't hurt to see what that was about, and requested more information. Before I knew it, I was filling out an application and getting an interview set up for the role of regional ambassador in my region.

Volunteering for such a task requires a significant investment of time and effort; what was it about the idea that appealed to you?

I'm one of those guys who has to stay busy. Graduation was just around the corner, and since I like the education environment, it looked like a good way to stay involved. This isn't the first time I've volunteered; I volunteer for lots of things and usually enjoy them; it's satisfying to help someone purely to help them.

Last year you took on the role of regional ambassador for the Great Lakes region of North America; what has that experience been like?

To clarify, two regional ambassadors were selected for the Great Lakes region, the other being Chanitra Bishop. Since we don't live near each other, we decided to split the region into two subregions, the Central and the Reaches. I've been working with the Reaches, which includes Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The regional ambassador role is a lot like your typical middle management job. I recruit campus ambassadors throughout the region, as well as professors, and make sure we have the resources we need to support their classes. I also check on individual groups of campus ambassadors and professors (we call these groups "pods") throughout the semester to make sure they're on track and to let the Foundation staff know how things are going so they can make their reports and make adjustments to the program if necessary.

What is the extent of the programs that are engaged with the English Wikipedia in the current academic year? How many courses/professors/universities?

The Great Lakes Reaches subregion is actually the most active one with ten classes this semester at six universities. I actually was temporarily responsible for Ontario as well from November to February, since the Steering Committee decided they wanted to try having a regional ambassador pilot in Canada. Ontario has been more active than any state, to my knowledge, so it was sort of a relief to find out at the end of February that someone else would be taking over managing Canada this month. Oh, and you asked how many professors; we currently have six in this region.

And beyond the region, what is the scope of the programs involving English Wikipedia?

I don't have global figures available for Canada or the pilot programs around the world, but I can tell you there are over 50 classes affiliated with the United States Education Program this semester. We've also launched pilot programs in Brazil, India, and Egypt. Various groups outside the Foundation have been so impressed with the successes of the United States and Canada Education Programs that they are making efforts to start programs in Germany and the United Kingdom as well. Also, Mexico, Macedonia, Russia, Israel, and the Czech Republic have some volunteers stepping up.

The Wikimedia Foundation has made the education program one of its top priorities for 2011-2012 [cf. the mid-year report]; can you explain to our readers just what the primary goals are? Is it first and foremost concerned with editor recruitment, content creation, building relations with academia, or what?

Editor recruitment is certainly one of the big goals here. The Foundation is recognizing a shrinking number of editors, and we're not sure whether that's necessarily a good or bad thing. Content creation goes hand-in-hand with editor recruitment. If we have a steady input of editors, we get a steady input of content as well. After all, without editors, there's no new content. Editors are also required in order to update old content and patrol recent changes. In terms of the Education Program, the Foundation has recognized the India Education Program's shortcomings, and because of that, we're realizing we need to refocus exactly how we're doing it before we can bring it on as strong as it was last semester. This need to refocus the IEP is perhaps the biggest reason the Education Program is being given so much attention this year.

So, to clarify, the Education Program sees editor recruitment as the primary vector for improving the health of the project, and through that, the content of the encyclopaedia?

Both improving and maintaining the health, yes. Without editors, Wikipedia becomes one of those old websites that no one can really use anymore. An encyclopedia has to be kept up-to-date. I actually just pushed my 1965 World Book Encyclopedia out the door since its topics are hardly even relevant today.

The education program is two years old now, and there have been several pilot schemes of varying success. What have organisers learned from the experience thus far?

We've learned that the most successful pilots are those taught in a language the students are fluent in, and we've also come to understand a bit more about the academic cultures of various parts of the world. For instance, we didn't expect to learn that in India, plagiarism is a concept most students are unfamiliar with. We've also learned that bigger isn't necessarily better, which is why we've begun enforcing a new policy that requires at least one Wikipedian supporting every 15 students.

How are the issues of students' difficulties with Wikipedia's content policies such as no original research and plagiarism being addressed?

Our campus ambassadors have been taking on the responsibility of identifying what areas their assigned classes are struggling in and working to improve that to the best of their ability. We also have made various resources available on the Wikimedia Outreach website, designed with these students in mind. One resource you may have noticed that's actually been implemented at the Wikimedia Commons is the new image that appears when you're getting ready to upload an image, which serves to help students learn what's free and what's not. Campus ambassadors were informed about the plagiarism dangers when the risk was identified in India, and I'm happy to say that (at least in my own region), this has been effective. When we're working with science-related courses, there's a tendency for instructors to want to have their students publish their research in an article. We've been making sure this doesn't happen by suggesting the instructor have students do synthetic research around the topic they're researching and publish that instead.

So you're relying on focused direction from campus ambassadors and instructors to ensure students do not submit unencyclopaedic material?

Exactly. Without our volunteers, this program would fall through the floor! All of our regional, campus, and online ambassadors are volunteers. The paid staff don't usually come in contact with the students or the instructors.

Are there any other procedures in place or planned to monitor or curate student edits?

Each course has its own course page on the relevant Wikipedia. This course page includes the course syllabus and a list of everyone involved with that course-- instructors, ambassadors, and students. Each student is required to list any articles they are working on for their assignment. That way, it's easier for campus ambassadors and professors to review their articles. As an added bonus, the Wikipedia community can use these lists to find out what's being worked on as well.

Can you explain the criteria according to which campus and online ambassadors are selected, what training they receive, and what guidelines they operate under?

Online ambassador recruitment is something I haven't been involved with, but I can talk about campus ambassadors. Campus ambassadors submit an application to their regional ambassador, who interviews them if they seem qualified. A qualified campus ambassador would be someone who has some sort of experience teaching others, knows how to edit Wikipedia (or is capable of learning in a short period of time), has good communication skills, and is comfortable working in the academic environment. The training we provide them with shows them what they will be responsible for teaching students in the classroom, and offers tips on how to go about teaching these concepts. If the campus ambassador is unfamiliar with Wikipedia (and we take special care to make sure they are at least technologically competent enough to use Wikipedia), we introduce them to it and show them how to do the things they'll need to teach. Campus ambassadors are expected to take all responsibility for teaching students to edit Wikipedia. As we like to say, they "guide students through their first 100 edits". The idea here is that the professor shouldn't have to teach the students anything Wikipedia-related in order for the class to be successful. Campus ambassadors play a huge mentor role, and that's why the 1:15 ratio I mentioned earlier is important.

Specifically, what minimum standards of understanding Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms are required of ambassadors?

Ambassadors are expected to respect the same guidelines that any respectable editor would respect. The folks we choose as campus ambassadors aren't your typical Wikipedia editor, though. We take care to make sure their social side is well-developed.

Are there guidelines or codes of conduct for ambassadors in particular?

We tell them that they're basically going to be the "face of Wikipedia" for the students they support, since these students have never met a Wikipedian before in most cases. However they present themselves is how the students are likely to view Wikipedia as a whole. We don't have any code of conduct that I'm aware of, but I've so far only worked with Americans and Canadians, where professionalism is pretty well-defined.

You mentioned requiring students to publicly list themselves and the articles they are working on for review. What role do ambassadors have in evaluating edits by students? Should they act as intermediaries between the students and regular editors, or allow the student submissions to be judged by the community directly?

The campus ambassadors take on a mentor-type role, offering pointers and help, but not fixing the actions of students. When conflict arises between a student and the community, the student is encouraged to stand up for him- or herself, and the campus ambassador will offer suggestions as needed. Also, the campus ambassadors are expected to review the edits of students and provide feedback on the edits. I usually tell my campus ambassadors to encourage students to find their niche in Wikipedia. If they're going to become a full-time editor, it won't happen by simply writing an essay.

So the ambassadors have a responsive role, coming to students' aid when needed but otherwise leaving them to navigate the project independently? The ambassadors' feedback is directed at the students, with the edits themselves to be handled by the editing community?

Yes. We want them to have the full experience any other Wikipedian would have. Plus some, of course.

Ambassadors don't act as intermediaries between students and other Wikipedians, rather they are guides.

Exactly. Teachers and guides.

Aside from education on best editing practices, what is the procedure for addressing problematic student contributions?

Depending on the level of the problem, the campus ambassador may be able to address it alone. However, sometimes there are bigger issues, like an article being deleted. When that happens, campus ambassadors are asked to get in touch with the instructor and the regional ambassador to discuss whether and how to resolve the issue.

Could you elaborate on the path of response on the encyclopaedia/community aspects of the problematic contributions?

Sorry, can you clarify your question?

Perhaps with an example.

Are regular editors expected to resolve the encyclopaedic impact of situations where students' contributions have been suboptimal? So, if a student adds originally-researched content to a medical article, for instance; who is tasked with addressing that?

If a regular editor finds it, it'll get deleted immediately. If a campus ambassador finds it, they warn the student of the consequences of this, with the hopes the student will correct it before someone else finds it.

'What procedures are in place to monitor ambassador performance, and how are issues with ambassadors' conduct addressed if they do arise?

If an ambassador isn't displaying optimal performance, I do what any manager would do: make it a point to discuss this with them and come up with some sort of way to improve the situation. If they're unresponsive, we ask them to step down from the role.

So the best way to address such issues is through the chain-of-command, if direct engagement with the ambassador in question is unsuccessful?

I'm not familiar with that terminology, but I'm not aware of a better way to address issues with individuals.

What is your brief as Education Program community liaison?

My role is to bridge the communication gap between the community of Wikipedia and the Education Program. In general, the staff at Wikimedia are usually not experienced Wikipedians, but are qualified in other ways (managerial, accounting, programming, etc). Following the recent discussions on the English Wikipedia, the Education Program staff have realized they aren't very effective in communicating with Wikipedians. That's why they've contracted me, an active Wikipedia contributor who happens to be very familiar with the Education Program. My support of the Education Program and my relations with the community are essential for someone communicating between the two parties.

The report by Tory Read on the India Education Program found that "the majority of problems that emerged during implementation could have been largely avoided by engaging the Wikipedia community as a partner in the pilot project planning process". How do you plan to change the culture of communication surrounding the eduction programs, to reach out to and encourage feedback from the community?

The changes you'll notice in the "culture" here are that the communication with other Wikipedians will actually be done by a Wikipedian rather than someone who doesn't really understand the ways Wikipedians communicate. I'll do my best to make myself available if there are questions or concerns, and if there is something that we can use the input of the community, I'll go out of my way to get that input from the community. For example, I'm hoping you've noticed at least one of the many notices I put out about the new MediaWiki extension that we're inviting the community to beta-test.

Sure, although there is a question hanging over the system of announcements from program organisers; to refer to the Read report again, the locations used for announcements were deemed ineffective and scattered. At the moment, announcements of initiatives relating to the English Wikipedia education programs are being posted separately at the different national project talkpages, as well as on various mailing lists, with much of the documentation and development taking place off-wiki (i.e. at outreach wiki/mediawiki). As these talkpages show, English Wikipedians have been largely unresponsive to these cross-postings lately. Is there any plan to consolidate these communications, for example using a newsletter or noticeboard, so as to facilitate focused discussion among English Wikipedians concerned with the education program? Read report: "Wikipedians recommend ... that each announcement include a link to planning documents and a central communications page on English Wikipedia". Is this being implemented?

There are so many platforms (mailing lists, noticeboards, village pumps, hundreds of talk pages) for communication among Wikipedians, and it's hard to find a combination of ten or twenty that all relevant Wikipedians use. I'm working on figuring out which platforms are effective for reaching the folks I need to reach out to. One of the goals in the next several months is to consolidate the program's pages so they're easier to navigate, with the hopes that this will also help centralize related discussions. We currently send out a newsletter that goes to people involved in the Education Program, but sending that same newsletter to interested Wikipedians sounds like a good idea. I'll make a note to talk to the appropriate person about that.

What do you think the most pressing issues for the education programs are in the coming year, in terms of community engagement and otherwise?

The current state of things is that Wikipedians don't trust the Education Program staff. If all goes well, my role as online communicator will complement any actions the Program makes. We've gotten into a sort of rut with the IEP, and hopefully this new style of communication will help us get back out as we plan for the second IEP pilot.

What would your message be to those editors who feel frustrated at the impact of the programs to date, who resent being asked to deal with the influx of student edits, or who are skeptical as to whether the programs are worth continuing?

Our attention is increasingly shifting from numbers to quality. We're taking preventative measures as we gear up for the coming semester. Classes will be smaller. Experienced Wikipedians will be required in every classroom. Also, keep in mind the influx of new editors also means in influx in experienced editors, since many students end up liking to edit Wikipedia. That's where experienced editors are born.

So one of the things both the program organisers and the community learned from the pilot program was that which courses are selected for inclusion in the programs, and especially how large and well-supported they are, is an important predictor of success. Can you outline the main learnings on this point?

We've found that larger courses became more difficult for campus ambassadors and instructors to effectively manage. After all, it's a lot of work to review an article, especially for someone new to Wikipedia. As a result, and per input from the community, we decided on a set of guidelines for course selection. Those guidelines have been in effect since the beginning of 2012 and can be found at outreach:Wikipedia Education Program/Participation Requirements. To highlight a few of these, we're requiring experienced Wikipedians to be in the classroom, and we're imposing a limit on the number of students allowed in a course. As the class gets larger, more ambassadors are required. For every 15 students, at least one ambassador is required.

What impact do program organisers hope the revised participation requirements to have?

We're hoping that we see higher quality in student contributions.

The Wikimedia Foundation is also developing a software extension to facilitate the education program. What motivated this and how is the extension intended to help?

To date, anyone participating in the program has been dealing with an interface that's hard to navigate and seems to require a lot more effort to maintain than it's worth. For instance, instructors who have never used Wikipedia have been expected to use macro-style templates that the average experienced Wikipedian might have difficulties figuring out. You can see an example of what we've been using at WP:United States Education Program/Courses/Present. As a result of the difficult-to-use interface, important details are often omitted, like what articles are included in a class, and sometimes a class might not find its way to the directory in the first place. The MediaWiki developers have been working on solving this problem for us by developing a new extension for MediaWiki, specifically designed to function as a sort of database software for managing the Education Program data. I've been testing it out this month and it's a very slick piece of art; it'll really simplify things.

As we wrap up, do you have anything to say to readers interested in learning more about or engaging with the Education Program?

I do want to emphasize that my presence online doesn't mean the staff won't be online. They'll still be available to the community, and even helping make sure things don't slip past my attention. Also, the pilot programs in Brazil and Cairo have been modeled after what we've learned from the first pilot in India. We absolutely can't have the same problems happen again. As we enter the second India Pilot, we will not proceed without input from the Wikipedian community. The staff is committed to correcting their mistakes and doing better next time.

If you'd like to have a Wikipedia Education Program course at your institution, let us know!

Rob Shnautz, thank you very much for speaking with The Signpost.

My pleasure, thanks.