Wikimedia UK - User contributions [en]

Engine room

2014-07-23T19:55:19Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): /* Naming of pages in dated series */ bot task?

Talk:Expenses 2014-2015

2014-07-16T23:30:28Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Jon accidentally signed with too many tildes.

== Purpose of expenses? ==
Hello. Thanks for sharing this record of the CE and trustee expenses publicly. :-) A notable change from last year's page, though, is the lack of detail about what the expenses were actually for, which is crucial for proper transparency (e.g. "OK, you spent £100, but was that spent on a reasonable charitable activity or was it spent on a duck pond?"). Will this detail be coming soon? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:19, 2 June 2014 (BST)
:+1. In terms of demonstrating meaningful transparency and openness meeting [[Mission#V4_Transparency]], this is going firmly backwards. Could we have less politics and more core values please? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 05:02, 3 June 2014 (BST)
:Hi Mike! The board are going to discuss an appropriate level of transparency at the board meeting this Saturday. The ARC recommended that it be made more transparent than it currently is, but I have to wait for the full board to give their views and make a decision before I can change the page. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:21, 3 June 2014 (BST)
::This is Govcom, not ARC actually. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:23, 4 June 2014 (BST)
I had no idea that the board of trustees had ordered that expenses were not to be reported in detail, going against [[Mission#V4_Transparency|the charity's value of transparency]], rather than this being a decision of Chief Executive. A detailed report of expenses was done in 2013, but now apparently requires a vote of trustees in order to do exactly the same thing this year. Could someone provide a link to the minutes that have the original decision recorded, i.e. to suppress the information from the view of members of the charity? I find it bizarre that the board of trustees appears to think it is a good thing to be seen to be less transparent year on year.

As this is a trustee matter (apparently) rather than a matter for the Chief Executive, I have flagged it at [[Talk:Agenda 7Jun14]]. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 06:45, 4 June 2014 (BST)
: I am puzzled that it apparently didn't need a board decision to make this page less transparent, but it does need one to return to the previous level of transparency... I must be missing some of the background here. :-/ Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 09:05, 5 June 2014 (BST)

:: Thanks to the member who reminded me that this has not been answered. The answer is that the board has taken the view that to drill down in such detail is an inappropriate use of precious staff resources. The page was updated today. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Expenses_2014-2015. On balance they feel, and I agree, that this gets the balance of transparency vs. there being too much detail about right. They will all be at the AGM so you can discuss it with them there. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] 14:38, 16 July 2014 (BST)

User:Thryduulf

2014-07-15T14:49:49Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): userbox

Hello!

I'm Thryduulf, also known as Chris McKenna. I'm a volunteer editor and have done some IRL volunteering for WMUK too. Since May 2014 I've been working for Wikimedia UK to support the delivery of Wikimania 2014 - see my staff user page: [[user:Chris McKenna (WMUK)]] for more details.

If you want to know more about me I suggest you look at my [[:en:User:Thryduulf|user page at the English Wikipedia]], although I intend to improve it I've been saying that since 2005! [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 00:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
{{member user box}}
[[Category:Wikimedia UK volunteers]]

User:Thryduulf

2014-07-15T14:49:21Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): update

User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)

2014-07-15T14:43:24Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): membership userbox, more recent image

{{Staff userpage
|name=Chris McKenna
|job title=[[Wikimania support contractor|Wikimedia UK Wikimania Support]]
|short quote=The essential things in life are seen not with eyes, but with the heart — Antoine de Saint Exupery
|imagename=File:Chris McKenna - 04 June 2014-crop2.jpg
|hover text=Chris visiting the WMUK office as a volunteer in August 2013
|bio=I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since December 2004 and active on Commons and the English Wiktionary for nearly as long. An active community member and volunteer, I am a trained trainer and have organised and assisted at several editathons around the country.
{{Member user box}}
|work=<br />
* Chris is supporting the Wikimania 2014 team in delivering the Wikimania Conference, which this year is being held in London.

::''[[Wikimania_support_contractor|...more]]''
|contact=<br />
*Email: {{nowrap|Chris.McKenna{{@|12px}}wikimedia.org.uk}}
*Phone: 0207 065 0990
*Mobile: 07548 103 782
*As a volunteer, my username is [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] and I'm presently active at [[:en:User:Thryduulf|English Wikipedia]], [[:commons:User:Thryduulf|Commons]], [[:wikt:en:User:Thryduulf|English Wiktionary]] and [[:d:User:Thryduulf|WikiData]].
}}

[[Category:Staff]]

UK Wikimedian of the Year 2014

2014-07-09T16:49:30Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "UK Wikimedian of the Year 2014": no need for a non-sysop to move this page ([Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

{{2014 AGM}}
The '''UK Wikimedian of the Year''' is an annual award given by Wikimedia UK to thank those in the UK or abroad who have helped the UK Wikimedia movement. These volunteers and institutions have gone above and beyond the call of duty to help bring open knowledge to all.

The prizes were [[UK Wikimedian of the Year 2012|first awarded]] at [[WikiConference UK 2012]] at the Science Museum on 12 May 2012. They were [[UK Wikimedian of the Year 2013|awarded again]] in 2013 - the purpose of the awards is to recognise achievement, and inspire efforts for next year!

==Categories==
[[File:UK Wikimedian of the Year 2013 - Chris Keating and Robin Owain 1.JPG|thumb|Chris Keating presents the award for the National Library of Wales to Robin Owain]]
*UK Wikimedian of the Year
*GLAM of the Year
*Educational Institution of the Year
*Honourable Mention

==When==
To be awarded during [[:wm2014:|Wikimania 2014]] at the [[:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]].

==Nomination==
Please add your nomination on [[UK Wikimedian of the Year 2014/Nomination]] or email your nomination to {{nowrap|katie.chan{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk}}. The deadline for nomination is Sunday 29 June.

[[Category:2014 AGM]]

2014 Annual Report

2014-07-09T16:49:05Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "2014 Annual Report": Official page ([Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

__NOTOC__
{{2014 AGM}}
[[File:WMUK Annual Report 2013-14 (Signatures Redacted).pdf|right|250px|border|link=//wikimedia.org.uk/w/images/7/7f/WMUK_Annual_Report_2013-14_%28Signatures_Redacted%29.pdf]]
The '''Wikimedia UK Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 January 2014''' covers the 2013-14 fiscal year. For a more accessible overview of the year, see the corresponding 2013-14 annual review (to be published).

;Download the 2013-14 annual report
*'''[[Media:WMUK Annual Report 2013-14 (Signatures Redacted).pdf|PDF (933 KB)]]'''

== Previous reports ==
=== 2012-13 ===
*[[:File:WMUK Annual Report 2012-13 (Signatures Redacted).pdf|2012-13 annual report]]
*[[2013 Annual Review|2012-13 annual review]]

=== 2011-12 ===
*[[2012 Annual Report|2011-12 annual report]]

=== 2010-11 ===
*[[:File:Wikimedia UK annual report 31 January 2011.pdf|2010-11 accounts]]
*[[:File:WMUK Summary, WikiConference UK 2011.pdf|2010-11 activities summary]]

=== 2009-10 ===
*[[:File:Wikimedia UK annual report 31 January 2010.pdf|2009-10 accounts]]

[[Category:Annual Reports]]

2014 Annual General Meeting/planning

2014-07-09T16:48:25Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Room has been announced

The [[2014 Annual General Meeting]] will be held on Saturday 9 August at 4pm, in Frobisher Rooms 123 on the 4th floor of the [[:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]].

==Deadline & TODO list==
{| class="wikitable" style="line-height:200%;"
|-
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | Deadlines
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | Item
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | What
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | By whom
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | Notes
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | Progress
|-
| June 2013
| [[WikiConference UK 2013/AGM Minutes|Minutes of 2013 AGM]]
| Type up and circulate for correction
| RS
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
|
| Venue
| Decide location and book venue
| Board
|
| {{done}}
|-
|
| Date
| Decide date and book venue
| Board
| Less than 15 months from last AGM
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
|
| Agenda
| Outline basic agenda
|
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 17 April
| [[2014 Annual Review|Annual Review]]
| Text written
| SB
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| Beginning of May
| Annual Review
| Text to designer
| SB
|
| {{done}}
|-
| Early May
| Audit Clearance Meeting
| Review results of 2013-14 audit with UHY
| Jon Warsop, GD, JD, RS, DJ
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 21 May
| ARC meeting
| Endorse draft Annual Accounts as audited and Annual Report as drafted, for Board approval and endorse draft Annual Review for Board agreement
|
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 23 May
| AGM Agenda
| Circulate drafts of AGM Notice, Agenda & Resolutions for Board comment
| Secretary
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 27 May
| Deadline for board papers
| Deadline for papers to the office for distribution to trustee for 7 June board meeting
| Office
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 7 June
| Approve Annual Report and audited Accounts
|
| Board
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 27 June
| Registration
| Registration page set up
| Office
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 27 June
| Warning notice transmitted by email
| Include deadline for resolutions
| Tellers & Secretary
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 28 June
| Agree agenda
|
| Secretary & Chair
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 28 June
| Agree 2013 minutes
|
| Secretary & Chair
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 30 June
| Agree board resolutions going forward to AGM
|
| Secretary & Chair
| With input from Tellers
| {{done}}
|-
| ''04 July''
| ''Earliest day for notice of Director nomination to be received''
|
|
| ''[[Articles of Association#17.3|AoA#17.3(b)]]''
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 06 July
| Deadline for members to propose resolutions to AGM
|
|
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 09 July
| Formal notice of AGM transmitted by email
| {{plainlist|
* Circulate AGM Notice, Agenda, copies of the approved 2013-14 Annual Report & Accounts, and auditor's report to all company members, directors, and the auditors
* Include remainder to update address
* Include request for board candidates
}}
| Tellers & Secretary
| [[Articles of Association#26|AoA#26]]
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 11 July
| ''Formal notice of AGM legally given''
|
|
| ''[[Articles of Association#6.1|AoA#6.1]], [[Election_Rules#Request_for_candidates|ER]]''
|
|-
| 18 July
| Deadline for Notice of Director nominations
|
|
| AoA#17.3(b)
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 18 July
| Deadline for amendments to proposed resolutions
|
|
|
|
|-
| 20 July
| Agree Annual Review
|
| Board
|
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 21-22 July
| Register of members
| {{plainlist|
* Print register of members
* Print voting forms, agenda, resolutions etc.
* Envelope stuffing
}}
| {{plainlist|
* Tellers & Secretary
* (Office)
}}
|
|
|-
| 23 July
| Notice of Directors election transmitted by post
| Include voting forms & resolutions
| {{plainlist|
* Tellers & Secretary
* (Office)
}}
| AoA#26
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 25 July
| ''Notice of Directors election legally given''
|
|
| ''[[Articles of Association#17.4|AoA#17.4]], [[Election_Rules#Balloting|ER]]''
|
|-
| End of July
| Annual Review ready
| Published in all formats
| SB
|
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| End of July
| Annual Report ready
|
| RS, DJ, Board & Auditor
|
|
|-
| 28-29 July
| Delegate packs
| {{plainlist|
* Print agenda, feedback sheet
* Prepare delegate packs
}}
| Office
|
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 05 August
| Delegate packs
| Print badges for attendees
| Office
|
|
|-
| 07 August 4pm
| AGM proxies appointment
|
|
| [[Articles of Association#11.3|AoA#11.3]]
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 09 August 4pm
| AGM
| Ensure that stewards helping out with Wikimania are instructed to allow members access to the Barbican and to the meeting on presentation of a voting form (ie a ticket to attend Wikimania is not required)
|
|
|
|-
| 09 August 4:30pm
| AGM quorum
| Greater of 10 or 10% in person or proxy. (~30)
|
| [[Articles of Association#7|AoA#7]]
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| ''31 October''
| ''Annual accounts filing with Companies House <s>& circulation to members</s>''
|
|
| ''[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/424 CA2006#424], [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/442 CA2006#442]''
|
|-
| ''30 November''
| ''Annual return filing with Charity Commission''
| ''Include Annual Report & auditor's report''
|
| ''[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/section/163/enacted CA2011#163]''
|
|-
|}

[[Category:2014 AGM]]

2014 Annual General Meeting/planning

2014-07-09T16:45:56Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "2014 Annual General Meeting/planning": Official page ([Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

The [[2014 Annual General Meeting]] will be held on Saturday 9 August at 4pm, at a room at the [[:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]] to be announced.

==Deadline & TODO list==
{| class="wikitable" style="line-height:200%;"
|-
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | Deadlines
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | Item
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | What
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | By whom
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | Notes
! style="background-color:#EFF5FB" | Progress
|-
| June 2013
| [[WikiConference UK 2013/AGM Minutes|Minutes of 2013 AGM]]
| Type up and circulate for correction
| RS
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
|
| Venue
| Decide location and book venue
| Board
|
| {{done}}
|-
|
| Date
| Decide date and book venue
| Board
| Less than 15 months from last AGM
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
|
| Agenda
| Outline basic agenda
|
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 17 April
| [[2014 Annual Review|Annual Review]]
| Text written
| SB
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| Beginning of May
| Annual Review
| Text to designer
| SB
|
| {{done}}
|-
| Early May
| Audit Clearance Meeting
| Review results of 2013-14 audit with UHY
| Jon Warsop, GD, JD, RS, DJ
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 21 May
| ARC meeting
| Endorse draft Annual Accounts as audited and Annual Report as drafted, for Board approval and endorse draft Annual Review for Board agreement
|
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 23 May
| AGM Agenda
| Circulate drafts of AGM Notice, Agenda & Resolutions for Board comment
| Secretary
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 27 May
| Deadline for board papers
| Deadline for papers to the office for distribution to trustee for 7 June board meeting
| Office
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 7 June
| Approve Annual Report and audited Accounts
|
| Board
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 27 June
| Registration
| Registration page set up
| Office
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 27 June
| Warning notice transmitted by email
| Include deadline for resolutions
| Tellers & Secretary
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 28 June
| Agree agenda
|
| Secretary & Chair
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 28 June
| Agree 2013 minutes
|
| Secretary & Chair
|
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 30 June
| Agree board resolutions going forward to AGM
|
| Secretary & Chair
| With input from Tellers
| {{done}}
|-
| ''04 July''
| ''Earliest day for notice of Director nomination to be received''
|
|
| ''[[Articles of Association#17.3|AoA#17.3(b)]]''
| {{done}}
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 06 July
| Deadline for members to propose resolutions to AGM
|
|
|
| {{done}}
|-
| 09 July
| Formal notice of AGM transmitted by email
| {{plainlist|
* Circulate AGM Notice, Agenda, copies of the approved 2013-14 Annual Report & Accounts, and auditor's report to all company members, directors, and the auditors
* Include remainder to update address
* Include request for board candidates
}}
| Tellers & Secretary
| [[Articles of Association#26|AoA#26]]
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 11 July
| ''Formal notice of AGM legally given''
|
|
| ''[[Articles of Association#6.1|AoA#6.1]], [[Election_Rules#Request_for_candidates|ER]]''
|
|-
| 18 July
| Deadline for Notice of Director nominations
|
|
| AoA#17.3(b)
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 18 July
| Deadline for amendments to proposed resolutions
|
|
|
|
|-
| 20 July
| Agree Annual Review
|
| Board
|
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 21-22 July
| Register of members
| {{plainlist|
* Print register of members
* Print voting forms, agenda, resolutions etc.
* Envelope stuffing
}}
| {{plainlist|
* Tellers & Secretary
* (Office)
}}
|
|
|-
| 23 July
| Notice of Directors election transmitted by post
| Include voting forms & resolutions
| {{plainlist|
* Tellers & Secretary
* (Office)
}}
| AoA#26
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 25 July
| ''Notice of Directors election legally given''
|
|
| ''[[Articles of Association#17.4|AoA#17.4]], [[Election_Rules#Balloting|ER]]''
|
|-
| End of July
| Annual Review ready
| Published in all formats
| SB
|
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| End of July
| Annual Report ready
|
| RS, DJ, Board & Auditor
|
|
|-
| 28-29 July
| Delegate packs
| {{plainlist|
* Print agenda, feedback sheet
* Prepare delegate packs
}}
| Office
|
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 05 August
| Delegate packs
| Print badges for attendees
| Office
|
|
|-
| 07 August 4pm
| AGM proxies appointment
|
|
| [[Articles of Association#11.3|AoA#11.3]]
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| 09 August 4pm
| AGM
| Ensure that stewards helping out with Wikimania are instructed to allow members access to the Barbican and to the meeting on presentation of a voting form (ie a ticket to attend Wikimania is not required)
|
|
|
|-
| 09 August 4:30pm
| AGM quorum
| Greater of 10 or 10% in person or proxy. (~30)
|
| [[Articles of Association#7|AoA#7]]
|
|-style="background-color:#FBEFF8"
| ''31 October''
| ''Annual accounts filing with Companies House <s>& circulation to members</s>''
|
|
| ''[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/424 CA2006#424], [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/442 CA2006#442]''
|
|-
| ''30 November''
| ''Annual return filing with Charity Commission''
| ''Include Annual Report & auditor's report''
|
| ''[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/section/163/enacted CA2011#163]''
|
|-
|}

[[Category:2014 AGM]]

Wikimedian in Residence 2014 review

2014-07-09T12:28:10Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "Wikimedian in Residence 2014 review": no need for a non-sysop to move this page ([Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

Wikimedian in Residence programme review - Wikimedia UK 2014

''by Chris McKenna (volunteer reviewer) and Daria Cybulska (Programme Manager, Wikimedia UK)''

=Summary=

This report assesses the Wikimedian in Residence programme supported by Wikimedia UK over 2012-14 and provides recommendations in order to improve how it is delivered.

'''It will be useful to any institutions considering hosting a Resident; to current and prospective Residents wanting to know more about the programme in the UK; and to anyone keen to learn more about the process of evaluating a programme.'''

Wikimedia UK is a charity registered in England and Wales that supports and promotes Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects such as Wikimedia Commons. Our mission is to ''help people and organisations create and preserve open knowledge, and to help provide easy access for all''. We do this by supporting volunteer editors and contributors, by working in partnership with cultural and educational institutions (particularly UK based ones), and by acting to advocate the benefits of open knowledge generally.

‘Wikimedian in Residence’ project is one of our key programmes that contributes to this mission by building partnerships with other institutions.

''Having a Wikimedian in Residence at the Natural History Museum coincided with a paradigm shift in how we think about our digital content and the start of a project to rapidly digitise the museum’s collection of more than 80 million specimens at an industrial scale. Having an advocate for Open Science and a culture of reusable content helped us to frame these projects in a context that makes this work useful to a wider audience.''

- Vincent Smith of the Natural History Museum about their 2013/14 Wikimedian in Residence.

This valuable programme has been run for several years in the UK, however, it has not been accurately reviewed. With considerable investment of time from staff and volunteers, and resources from Wikimedia UK, it is very important that we are sure that the programme delivers to our expectation. It is also crucial to be aware where improvements could be made so that the programme is most effective. Overall, such reflection has not taken place so far, meaning we lacked awareness of the points above.

The report is timely as Wikimedia UK, in 2013-14, has been focusing on reviewing its strengths and looking to build on programmes that deliver most impact.

;The analysis of the current programme found that:
*The programme strengths lay in good reputation of past projects and Wikipedia ‘brand’.
*It combines the prestige of host organisations, their commitment to open agenda, working with the web and digital projects.
*The programme is faced with several challenges:
**Obstacles within the host institution
**Insufficient tools for demonstrating metrics
**Community can support a limited number of projects
**Small pool of potential Residents
**Limited capacity from Wikimedia UK to support and help resolve the issues above
*For detail of the analysis see [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Initial_survey|here]]. See [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#SWOT analysis|here]] for the SWOT analysis.

;Delivery of the projects is already strong in several areas:
*Residents create broad awareness through media coverage, and more targeted training and outreach events.
*They advocate for change internally, and externally via connecting with other organisations in their networks.
*They produce resources about open knowledge which are useful for the host organisations, but also the global Wikimedia movement.
*They facilitate crucial content improvements by supporting media uploads, distributing content already available, and supporting article creation on Wikipedia.
*See [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Project_delivery_-_overview_of_the_residencies|here]] for detailed descriptions of each of the residency, and [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Project_delivery_-_summary_of_impact|here]] for the summary.

;To address the challenges, and build on the potential impact of the programme, we are putting forward a series of key recommendations:
*We believe that the Wikimedian in Residence programme should continue as it has been one of Wikimedia UK’s strong areas of activity.
*Duration of residencies - residencies should be six months long at minimum for small institutions and 9-12 months minimum for larger organisations with an ambition of changing the institution’s culture.
*Supporting the programme - in the light of the gaps in support for the programme outlined throughout the report, Wikimedia UK should find additional capacity for supporting the residents and the programme.
*Sharing of information and best practice - set up a forum for the sharing of advice, information and best practice between institutions and between residents.
*Project goals - consider reevaluating goals of the project, potentially creating individual sets for each residency.
*Project format - consider alternative residency formats to increase the potential resident pool.
*Resident skills - ensure the skills identified in the review are reinforced in the job description.
*See [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Key_findings_-_recommendations|here]] for the full list of key recommendations for the future of the programme.

This report will be useful for any organisation considering having a Wikimedian in Residence within their organisation, and any Wikimedia Chapter wanting to run or improve the overall programme in their country.

=Background=
[[File:GLAM-Wiki Infographic.PNG|An international take on the WIR project|400px|right]]

A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a role in which a Wikimedia editor accepts a placement with an institution to facilitate close working relationship between Wikimedia movement and the institution through a range of activities, both internal and public-facing. They can work on facilitating content improvements on Wikimedia projects, but even more importantly serve as an ambassador for open knowledge within the host organisation.

Their activities can include:
*Organising outreach work to encourage understanding and development of Wikimedia projects internally and externally
*Exploring sharing institution's digital resources on Wikimedia Commons
*Organising events to create or expand existing articles about notable items or subjects of specific relevance to the collection and the organisation's expertise
*Working with institution's staff to explain Wikipedia's and sister projects' practices and how they might be able to contribute. This can be done via events, workshops, producing case study and documentation content
*Developing other projects supporting open knowledge

Wikimedian in Residence projects in the UK have been run with varying degree of support and supervision from Wikimedia UK since the first ever WiR position at the British Museum in 2010, as well as [[wmuk:ARKive_project|ARKive]] WiR in 2011. These residencies were initiated after contacts between Wikimedia UK volunteers and board members, and the institutions, with support from the chapter. During 2012, Wikimedia UK sought to build on these successes with a systematic programme of residencies supported by the newly-established Wikimedia UK office. In this light the British Library residency, which began in May 2012, was a transition case where Wikimedia UK staff we were progressively more involved with the resident. In November 2012 for the first time we ran a call for applications to attract institutions wanting to host a Wikimedian in Residence. Please see [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/11/were-looking-for-wikipedians-in-residence/ here] and [[wmuk:2012-13_Wikipedians_in_Residence|here]] for background. We received a good response of 15 applications from a range of institutions, from which we chose, in the first round, the organisations listed below. The projects were delivered or started in the 2013-14 activity year.
* Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums (residency took place between March-June ‘13)
* Science Museum, arranged by Wikimedia UK to be combined with
** Natural History Museum (March ‘13 - July ‘13, then extended)
* National Library of Scotland (July ’13 - Feb ‘14, then extended)

National Library of Scotland had a delayed start, which then overlapped with the second round of institutions in 2013-14 activity year (chosen from the original applications received in late 2012):
*York Museums Trust (October ‘13 - April ‘14)
*The Royal Society (January ‘14 - June ‘14 approx. - deferred from original October ‘13 start to suit internal timelines of the host institution).

The staggered start of the residencies allowed for better management, as the setup process is resource intensive.

Most of the institutions above belong to the cultural sector, but this is not a requirement of the programme. We also set up a Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador (July ‘13 - April ‘14) which followed some of the elements of the WIR model and will be included in this analysis. Therefore we are looking at a group of 7 projects in this report - British Library, Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums, Science Museum with Natural History Museum, National Library of Scotland, York Museums Trust, The Royal Society, Jisc, with 7 residents and 8 host institutions.

The operational details of current, past and potential residencies are kept on Wikimedia UK’s office wiki.

Before the first round of the projects was set up in November 2012, there was no standard agreement that would codify the cooperation between the two parties - Wikimedia UK and the host institution - and serve as a guide for key procedures. There was a need for a document that would clarify the expectations towards the project of both sides including expected outcomes, but also serve as a binding document explaining procedures such as termination, institution’s obligations, funding details, and trademarks.

A draft was created by Saad Choudri, board member of Wikimedia UK, which was commented on widely by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK volunteers. This document was trialled with the first round of the institutions - following their comments the Agreement is undergoing iterations to make it clearer and more effective. Current version can be found [https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/w/images/6/60/Example_WiR_agreement.pdf here] - this is adapted to fit individual projects.

Over 2013-14 a stronger support structure was created for the programme, not only including the Agreement document, but also application forms, job descriptions, induction day structure, monthly reporting templates, review meetings.

The WIR programme has been seen as one of the key ways we can engage with external organisations, extending Wikimedia UK’s scale of activities and outreach. These residencies are often a considerable investment for Wikimedia UK (£2-10K) and at the same time, there is a risk of low impact if they are not conducted in a focused way.

=Aim of the review=
We agreed to reflect on the programme’s successes and challenges through a review. With a year and a half since the agreement’s introduction, we should not judge too quickly - by May 2014 only three institutions completed their residencies - however we can learn a lot already.

We are aiming to review the programme to date, focusing on the feedback of the residents and host institutions as for the successful models for the residencies, and analysis of key obstacles to greater success.

This report is to produce recommendations for future development - progress or cessation. The recommendations are to be shared with wider community in a number of ways (e.g. Wikimania related presentation, blog post, mailing lists).

=Methods=
* Questionnaire for the residents (both completed and current residencies)
* Questionnaire for residents’ line managers, or other key staff at the host institution
* Questionnaire for the UK Wikimedia community, and Wikimedia UK staff working with WIRs
* In person brainstorm for the residents to discuss SWOT and open to wider dialogue
* Existing data gathering - analysing the available residents’ monthly reports and available final reports

Additionally:
* Working with the Programme Evaluation and Design team
* Producing final report for wider dissemination

==Timelines==
* From May 2012 to April 2014 - investigated period of the WIR projects
* Jan 2014 - work with Programme Evaluation and Design team to improve the questionnaire and survey approach. Shared with staff and GLAM committee for comments
* March-April 2014 - consultation with relevant parties (WIRs, host organisations, community). Surveys, additional phone or person meetings as needed
* 5 April 2014 SWOT analysis meeting
* May/June 2014 - creation of the review document
* Q2 and 3 of 2014 - dissemination

=Key issues of consideration=

;Model
* Length and any other considerations
* Cost analysis and funding model - initial conclusions

;Hosts
* Who should we be working with (potential, types, locations)
* Assessment of Wikimedia UK involvement - setup, documentation, support for the host organisation
* Perception of effectiveness of the residencies vs initial goals

;Residents
* Assessment of needed skills
* Experience of the project
* Wikimedia UK support for the residents
* Documentation / reporting

[[File:Wikipedian in Residence Infographic.jpg|thumb|Statistics of the first two years of the international programme (2010-2011)]]
;Benefits of the programme
* Are the residents delivering on objectives as set by Wikimedia UK
* What do residents/hosts/community see as the benefits of the programme
* Analysis of impact delivered so far, and the potential impact

;Measuring the programme
* Assessment of the objectives vs needs of the programme, and vs the delivery by the residents <ref>As a part of the agreement signed between Wikimedia UK and the host institution, an overall list of objectives is provided. This, for most of the residencies analysed here, was a standard list including: 1) Functional relationship established between Wikimedia UK and the Institution; plans for sustainability once the project finishes. 2) Engagement with the Wikipedia community at large. 3) Increased the number of contributors to Wikimedia projects. 4) Facilitating content improvement of Wikimedia projects (uploads, events). 5) Case study produced. It is now being considered whether this should be more tailored to each project, and linked to Wikimedia UK’s strategic objectives. The tension here is creating firm objectives at the start of the project, and allowing for flexibility (seen as useful by the residents in particular, but some host institutions as well). </ref>

=Initial survey=
Once the key issues for consideration were specified, we created survey questions to start the consultation. Survey creation was supported by the Programme Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Three surveys were created to explore issues specific to 1) Residents, 2) Host institutions, 3) community opinions of the programme.

Here are the questions for the survey:
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1zEm53qtdRvnB4-fpQ6pIOAODYol69AEpFXxkCZRV-UA/edit# Residents]
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/123dO-6Yh7ZAG50uiGr0MYAdI0OIK2V7Xviw4btQ7D1I/edit# Host institutions]
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1gv8Dt6cyAqkNAWO84hGFhavA8EfLu87ZIsU9gPgB2qI/edit# Community]

The surveys were circulated over March-April 2014.

==Results - the residents==
[[File:UK Wikimedian in Residence discussion meeting.jpg|thumb|400px|The participants of [[wmuk:Brainstorm_meeting_to_review_the_WIR_programme|a brainstorm meeting]] ]]

Responses from all 7 residents were received. The summary of points raised is below:
* Length. 57% felt the project’s length was about right, with 43% feeling it was too short/far too short (5 out of 7 projects were part time). However, later in the survey it is often mentioned that the timing was not sufficient to meet their objectives for the project.
* Meeting objectives. 5 out of 7 residents felt they fulfilled the objectives moderately, 2 - completely. This was explored in further questions later.
* Support from the host institution. It was judged to be at the right level.
** Improvement. It was suggested that it would be helpful to have a better connection with the department heads within the host institution. Residents working within big organisations mentioned that in a context of many departments and internal changes, their project was prone to have little visibility.
* Support from Wikimedia UK. It was judged to be at the right level. Event support (materials, promotion) was seen as by far the most important support area. Induction meeting was judged as useful, with various areas of it flagged as helpful (e.g. Conflict of Interest considerations) depending on the knowledge level of the resident at the start.
** No significant improvements suggested.
* Challenges faced during delivery of the project. Many residents focused at the difficulties with the host institutions.
** Organisational structure, the number stakeholders involved, staff’s resistance to the project and the openness in general were seen as hindrances.
** Not enough time to deliver the objectives.
** Not enough skill to deliver the objectives.
** Community buy-in and caution around paid editing.
* Solutions employed by the residents to address the above:
** Focusing on achievable actions and timetabling.
** Connecting with local open knowledge community.
** Working with the host institution to get the project’s events more visible.
* Objectives. Residents were provided with key areas of delivery for their projects (Engagement with the host institution; engagement with the Wikimedia community; increase number of editors; facilitate content improvement; produce case study and documentation). The residents assessed their achievements, most of them stating that they have been moderately successful at delivering on the objectives, with most confidence around facilitating content improvement. <p> The residents flagged their achievements in the areas:
** Engagement with the host institution - change in policy, significant awareness raising of open knowledge within staff.
** Community engagement - modest connections made between the host institution staff and the editor community.
** Increase number of editors - respondents were counting on continued editing of editathon attendees
** Facilitating content improvement - delivered content mostly pending at the time of the report, but the residents mentioned improvements during editathons, and smaller scale image donations.
* Biggest achievement. Residents were asked about what they judged to be their biggest achievement over the residency. A wide range of projects were mentioned: licensing change at the host institution, delivering workshops at universities; running an editathon which created a lot of awareness, facilitating a DYK article.
* Further remarks
** What residents enjoy most about their projects vary from person to person. Working with many partner organisations was often mentioned, delivering training and linking with the open knowledge community.
** Residents found it useful to be open to the possibility of changing objectives during the course of the project.

==Results - host institutions==
[[File:Share Your Knowledge, Conferenza di maggio.jpg|thumb|400px|Cultural institution hosting a Wikipedia event]]

The residencies are designed so that after the initial setup work they are largely managed by the host institutions. That is where the key line management structure sits - it is important then to analyse the host institutions’ assessment of the programme.

A combination of online survey, phone or in person interviews were conducted - focusing on line managers. Responses from 8 people were received, from 6 of the residencies. Some of the interviews did not follow the survey questions exactly to allow for variances between projects (e.g. British Library did not have some of the documentation in place; some residencies started before we introduced induction meetings).

The list below is the summary of the responses to the survey questions (both online and interviews):
* Setup and format of the residency assessment. Managers were asked to comment on the application process, setup, skills of the resident and length of the project. The opinions were mixed, with many improvements suggested - particularly for the residencies early on.
** Application process was judged as unhelpfully open by several institutions (e.g. in terms of what would Wikimedia UK expect from this project). <ref> Being open to innovative ideas and formats vs giving clear direction to potential hosts is one of the tensions of the programme. </ref> Another aspect is that the setup can take up to a year, which can give institutions useful preparation time, but is cumbersome.
** As a note from Wikimedia UK’s perspective, the institutions which enjoyed the openness of the process were the ones that were most proactive during the setup stage, reaching out to other institutions and residents to learn more about the possible projects. They were often more successful in later delivery.
** Length. Suggested longer than 4 months; part time (even 1 day/week) seen as useful for pilot work. Some managers mentioned slow rate of change at the institution as a factor to consider.
*** Often at the setup stage institutions feel that 6 months will be sufficient to deliver their plan; however in hindsight it is usually seen that longer residency would deliver stronger results.
* Support from Wikimedia UK. Initial meetings (before project start) and recruitment support were flagged as key and very useful.
* Challenges during the planning stages of the residency. Managers mentioned a range of problems, including low response to the advert (some identify that the skill set of the potential resident is very specialist). Selling the programme internally (and explaining the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia) can be challenging as well.
* Challenges during delivery of the project. Again several areas were outlined:
** Resident focused on personal topic interests.
** Finding time to line manage and increase skills of the resident.
** Internal resistance to the changes proposed by the project, lack of staff understanding around the function of the residency (especially if residency coincided with internal restructuring of the host institution).
* Solutions offered to these difficulties included arranging networking with other WIR managers, and finding time for the line management meetings.
* Objectives. Managers were provided with key areas of delivery for their projects (Engagement with the host institution; engagement with the Wikimedia community; increase number of editors; facilitate content improvement) to assess. Their overall rating for all of them was ‘at least moderately met’. Managers were also asked if they needed to change the objectives during the residency, and 4 managers who answered these questions stated that changes were not necessary. This may suggest that objectives were broad enough that they still included modifications that were introduced.
** Engagement with the host institution - positive, training and events for staff were useful, together with a possible guidance explaining how staff could engage with Wikimedia. Policy change was also mentioned.
** Community engagement - positive, public events were important.
** Increase number of editors - events were mentioned as a tool to gain contributors.
** Facilitating content improvement - facilitating article creation was mentioned, although answers focused on low impact projects (e.g. ‘two articles were improved’).
* Biggest achievement of the residency. A range were identified:
** Raising awareness of openness and possibilities of working with Wikimedia was seen as important (this included event work, e.g. final ‘dissemination workshop’).
** Changes in policy was also a very significant element.
** The residency creating case studies and toolkits that could then be used by other organisations, thus spreading the impact of the project.
** Being (seen to be) involved in a new, innovative project.
* Further remarks
** Institutions were grateful that they had an opportunity to explore ways of working with Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia UK.
** Limited staff resources, time, dedication, skill or organisational change meant that often staff were not able to engage with the project fully.
** Sustainability was seen as a difficult element to achieve.

===Interviews with hosts===
Phone interviews were conducted with two of the host institutions, which included the survey questions, but also allowed for exploration of broader themes around the residencies. Below are the key points raised relevant to this review.

* There are 3 prerequisites for a Wikimedian in Residence project at any organisation: technical infrastructure to support the project, existing content generation project in place, environment within the institution (e.g. various departments working together).
**When any of these areas are not ‘mature’, the residency can focus on raising awareness. When the areas are mature, a project can work on concrete content creation projects - this would also allow for a shorter residency.
**When deciding on a host institution for the project, we need to assess its maturity, especially in terms of attitudes to open licensing.
*One institution marked tactfulness, ability to work independently and understanding of the internal structures of the host institution as important soft skills of the resident.
* For best chance of success, the resident needs support from two people in the organisation: 1) Line manager who is well networked laterally within the institution. 2) An oversight from somebody who works with senior management.
* Organising the residency as a joint project between several institutions can be challenging. With a bigger number of stakeholders the processes take much longer. It is also likely that one of the partners’ objectives will be given more weight than the other’s, leading to conflict or dissatisfaction with the project.
**Joint line management, regular appraisals from all stakeholders and jointly agreed work plans could be solutions to this.

==Results - the community==
[[File:GLAM-WIKI 2013 attendees.jpg|thumb|500px]]

23 people responded to the community consultation survey, which was promoted on the UK mailing list and the Watercooler. It was also mentioned on the international GLAM-related mailing lists, and twitter. Of those who indicated their affiliation, the vast majority were linked with Wikimedia UK. Questions were broad enough to be applicable to the overall Wikimedian in Residence programme, not just the UK one.
* Benefits of programme. Various threads were identified: around creating open knowledge, raising awareness of Wikipedia and open knowledge, increasing reputation of Wikipedia, increasing cooperation between institutions.
**Are residencies effective in achieving their goals? Largely, yes.
* How could the programme be improved? Several areas were identified: have clearer objectives; better reporting, clearer metrics (which would help to involve the community and increase dissemination); work on sustainability (longer length of the project).
** Community work - it was commented that the projects have been a good catalyst for community when they worked well, but at the same time the organisers should be careful not to overburden the community.
* What institutions should host WIR projects? Many respondents were positive about the range of institutions worked with so far. London focus is an issue, while some people recognise the reasons for this bias.
** Factors to be considered when choosing the host institution were: Commitment to delivery of the project; open knowledge enthusiasm and commitment; commitment to sustainability after the residency finishes; relative importance of the institution.
* What skills should WIR have? Several key areas were mentioned, particularly ability to teach Wikimedia skills, tactfulness, experience of editing Wikimedia projects.
* The community was asked how they would like the programme to develop. Areas mentioned were, particularly, longer length residencies, focus on fuller reporting, creating residency ‘teams’ rather than having one person responsible for the whole project.

=SWOT analysis=
Brainstorming meeting to analyse the SWOT elements of the programme was organised on 5 April 2014 (see [[wmuk:Brainstorm_meeting_to_review_the_WIR_programme|here]]). The residents who took part in the first survey were present to discuss the programme in person.

Key questions considered were:
* What is the SWOT of the Wikimedian in Residence programme
* What are the recommendations to amplify the strong parts of the programme and tackle the weak ones
* summary of survey results, including host organisation challenges - how Wikimedia UK can we help with these
* Sharing learning

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|<big>'''Strengths'''</big> - ''What advantages does this programme have? What does the residency programme do better than other activities? What unique resources can we draw on while being residents, that others can’t?'' <br><br>

*Backed by a strong brand - Wikipedia
*Good record of successful projects (although something that works in one residency may not work for others)
* Resident can utilise the reputation / prestige / profile of the host institution to generate event attendees and leverage projects with other organisations
*Strategic. Can be linked to the open agenda
*Host institution use it as driving force of change towards open knowledge. Residency has a push factor for evaluating host institution’s open commitment
**Can have high impact on the institution
*Flexible. Resident can release content or work on groundwork - open policy, creating a system for opening in the future
*The community involvement, trainers support
*Generates toolkits, materials
*Wikimedia UK’s support
*Has a system of reporting, contracts

|<big>'''Weaknesses'''</big> - ''How could you improve in the residency? (internal factors)'' <br><br>

;Host institution-specific
* Staff are too busy to engage
* Staff are against the project (e.g. image releases) or support is mixed. Enthusiasts are not always the decision makers. Lack understanding of the project aims (especially if it wasn’t introduced well). It can be difficult for Wikimedia UK to know the institution’s attitudes before the project starts
* Technical competencies of staff are very varied
* Institution can misunderstand the aims of the project initially and expectations are not fulfilled. Institution isn’t clear on what it wants the project to deliver once it starts
* Wikimedia policies (e.g. conflict of interest) can be hard to understand
* It is difficult to engage staff in editing Wikipedia
* Involving institution’s volunteer group can be seen as driving them away from their original tasks
* Wikimedia metrics are not included in the institution’s metrics (e.g. they only consider page views of their own website, and does not include Wikimedia Commons)
* Changes take a long time

;Tools and metrics
* Wikimedia GLAM tools are not reliable nor are they documented well. Seen as the biggest ‘top down’ problem of the programme
* Policy change and culture change is hard to measure. Targets for each residency should be set individually

;Wikimedia UK
* Limited capacity to support projects once they start
* We have less leverage than the partner organisation – we are usually the junior partner
* Wikimedia outreach materials are hard to find and out of date. Residents create materials, but they are not shared well

;Community
* An small intersection of people from the community are interested in a Residency project, especially the in person events ( editor + interest + able to attend event). Community can support a limited amount of projects
* Engaging community/communities – the biggest bottom up challenge

;Other
* Small pool of potential residents
* Projects too short
* Project is very dependent on the individual resident
*When working with multiple institutions but physically based only at one, the other organisations may get less attention and thus less benefit
* Flickr can be a better solution for some GLAMs than Wikimedia Commons
* Legacy difficult to attain

|-
|<big>'''Opportunities'''</big> - ''What good opportunities can you spot? What interesting trends are you aware of? (technology, policy, social, cultural)'' <br><br>

;Host institutions
*Sector is keen on opportunities - open agenda is important. Focusing on open policy could be a fruitful area of work
*Cultural institutions use web in an increasingly forward thinking way – Wikipedia can be employed in these strategic objectives
* Because of lack of clear idea for the project in the host institution, residents can shape their work

;Community
* Community offers a potential
* Access to experts in the host institutions, their volunteering community
* Resident can help grow local community

*Wikimedia UK could develop resources used more widely by the movement

|<big>'''Threats'''</big> - ''What obstacles do you face? What are your ‘competitors’ doing? (external factors)'' <br><br>

;Host institutions
* Financial cuts
* Restructuring within the organisation interferes with the residency
* Rate of change is very slow

;Community
* Interaction between GLAM professionals or newcomers and community can be tense and again may need to be moderated by the resident
* Support for a given project is very contextual and need to be maneuvered by the resident.
* We need to be careful not to oversaturate it
* Cannot be directed - projects can’t be entirely reliant on support

|}

==In depth discussion==
As a part of the SWOT analysis workshop, we went beyond these points and worked on recommending solutions to the issues flagged up above. These have been grouped in sections around Host institutions, Wikimedia UK and the resident, depending on who do they relate to most.

;Host institution
[[File:Dunhuang manuscript digitisation.jpg|thumb|400px|Digitisation project at the British Library]]

*Prepare infrastructure beforehand (technology for the resident and events; staff support). Hot desking should not be expected (but it could also be beneficial)
** Think about what department the resident will be based in. Digital team may work well but is often separated from other departments.
* Think about how the resident will be handled once they start. Structured induction is important, but ongoing contact with staff and inclusion into the organisation is vital
* Make key department heads aware of the project’s strategic opportunities
* Both the line manager and senior staff need to act as ambassadors for the project. Directorate support is key, especially in case of hostility to the project
* Be open to flexible work patterns for the resident

;Wikimedia UK/host institution
* Make sure host organisation knows what to expect - initial excitement can be unhelpful if not managed well
** Create a document outlining what an institution should/shouldn’t expect from a WIR. Include past examples
** Institution needs to see the value of getting involved in an openness project, rather than choosing to be involved for a particular benefit
**Need to be clear about whether the goals are focused on engaging institution’s staff or public, generating content for Wikimedia projects, changing the internal culture of the institution in favour of free content, etc. This can help with getting the right people with the right expectation
**These goals needs to be clearly articulated in language that senior managers and other relevant staff can understand, ditto job description of WIRs. Make it clear we cannot guarantee community engagement
** Be strict in asserting the expectations in the job description <ref> There is a tension between expecting the potential resident to be well versed with the Wikimedia community, policies and tools, and assuming that these skills can be gained later. </ref>
** Be clearer on metrics and objectives. Not expecting editor recruitment may be an area to consider
* When the residencies are set up, use a checklist to ensure the infrastructure is in place

;Resident/host institution
* Organise regular curatorial meetings to identify who can support your project
* Project focus. Be flexible and not get tied in to one project idea. Have exit strategies for unsuccessful projects. Exclusive project focus can be harmful – it can make it easier to sell the project and give early success, but you may become an assistant to that particular project
* Don’t assume community engagement

;Resident
* Engage with the host organisation once you are appointed, ideally even before the project starts (e.g. put events in the calendar)
* Building on wider community can be helpful (e.g. wider open knowledge community). Having a persistent presence within a community can help it grow
* Have specific groups to pitch events to – it will increase attendance
* Be cautious against planning to do too many kinds of work

;Resident/Wikimedia UK
* Resident’s role consists of 1) facilitating content creation 2) internal consultation for policy change, ambassadorial awareness raising 3) working with the community, for its benefit. This can be seen as three different jobs, and the remit can be confusing for a new starter. Wikimedia UK should be clearer on articulating these different expectations
* Be flexible about projects to be delivered
* Consider creating a portal for the residents. Include toolkits and past materials
* Ask the host institution for a public statement about the residency to be used in publicity

;Wikimedia UK
* Consider choosing institutions where the resident is not fixed to sit within a very specific project may work better. This allows for work across various departments
* Run fewer residencies but longer – at least 6 months (the first 2 months is for the resident to find their feet)
* Organisational structure of the host institution can be hard to understand before starting on the project. Assess if the person advocating for the project is the best to run it. Assess the place of the department within the organisation
* Residents need confidence in running Wikipedia events. Offer support
* Note that ‘outpost’ residencies, geographically separated from other hubs of activities, bring up risks. Building community takes longer and it is harder to deliver on the objectives
* Run exit interviews for the residents and host institutions to assess the project and extract learning points

=Economics of the programme=
[[File:Library Science Talk @ Swiss National Library 20140624.jpg|thumb|400px|The resident at the National Library of Scotland has been co-funded by Wikimedia UK]]

In [[wmuk:2012 Activity Plan/Wikipedians in Residence|2012-13]] activity year, we have budgeted £15,000 for the Wikimedian in Residence activities. This budget remained largely unspent, partly due to the big British Library project being fully externally funded, perhaps partly due to some potential partnerships not being developed. There was no dedicated staff to oversee the programme. The budget was allocated to support other activities within Wikimedia UK's programme.

The lack of spend in the budget lead to increased effort to manage the programme and budget of this area, a first step of which was the November 2012 recruitment drive as described in the background section of this review, managed by the WMUK Events Organiser with support from a volunteer working group. Seeing the potential of many organisations getting in touch with Wikimedia UK and being interested in cooperating with us, in [[wmuk:2013 Activity Plan/GLAM Wikimedians in Residence|2013-14]] we had a new budget of £30,000. This was fully allocated to the projects delivered, by and large to the residencies discussed in this report.

An average grant from Wikimedia UK was £5,000 which allows for a pilot project of a length of several months. Due to the budget flexibility of Wikimedia UK which is often larger than the host institution’s, this seed funding was often essential to start the project.

The residencies can attract co-funding from the host institutions, particularly for project extensions (once the institution had time to organise internal funding). This is usually explored and encouraged by Wikimedia UK if the project is seen to be delivering strongly and there is a potential for a larger future impact during a review meeting.

The WIR projects consistently attract outside funding; approximately 70% of the projects are funded or co-funded by the host institution. Two of the projects delivered in the UK so far were fully funded by an external grant secured by joint bids from WMUK and the host institutions.

==Detail==
;British Library
*AHRC - £30k for salary in two tranches; £3k allocated for AHRC workshops
*BL - £3k allocated for events and promotion; £4.7k for overheads
*Event allocation was not fully spent.

;Natural History Museum and Science Museum
*NHM - £2.5k for salary + in-kind overheads
*WMUK - £17k for salary in two tranches, est. £500 for events

;Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums
*TWAM - in-kind overheads
*WMUK - £2.5k for salary

;Jisc
*Jisc - £15k for salary + in-kind overheads
*WMUK - £15k for salary; £500 event support (was a separate budget head)

;National Library of Scotland
*NLS - £9.5k for salary + in-kind overheads
*WMUK - £9k for salary (from a separate Scotland outreach budget)
*Costs are ongoing due to extensions, the residency is current

;The Royal Society
*RS - £3k in-kind overheads and estimated event costs
*WMUK - £3.3k for salary

;York Museums Trust
*YMT - in-kind overheads
*WMUK - £5.5k for salary

=Project delivery - overview of the residencies=
==British Library==
[[File:Cree Indian (HS85-10-13885) edit.jpg|thumb|400px|Image from the Picturing Canada collection - [[Commons:British Library/Picturing Canada]] ]]

Full time May 2012-May 2013. <ref> The Wikipedian in Residence program was a full time year-long project (May 2012-May 2013) by the British Library to develop ways of working with online volunteer communities through an in-house liaison, supported and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The project focused on two main aspects: firstly, skills training within the Library and the broader academic community, to build experience and confidence in engaging with these communities; and secondly, working to help make some of the Library’s existing digital collections more visible to new audiences. The start of cooperation between Wikimedia UK and British Library was marked in January 2011 with a two day editathon. </ref>

*Media coverage [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/BL#Press_coverage| summarised here]]. Additionally, two articles oriented towards librarians were commissioned and published during the program:
**Wikipedia in the Library. Refer 29 (2) Summer 2013. [co-authored with Max Klein, OCLC]
**Wikipedia and Information Literacy: a springboard for research. The School Librarian 61 (1) Spring 2013.

*Toolkits and resources. A series of guidance documents for academics and researchers interested in working with Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects were produced, notably [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Participation_by_academic_projects|this resource]].

*Content improvement. The content-oriented program within the library aimed to use Wikimedia projects to distribute material from existing digitisation programs more widely. This was carried out alongside the development and release of the Library’s existing Access and Reuse Policy, which was seeking to support the release of material by curators. Over five thousand images from the British Library’s collections were made available with full metadata and cleared licensing through Wikimedia Commons. The residency skillfully built on policy change within the host institution.
**The residency gave an opportunity to repurpose material which had been digitised but never publicly released, or to use information produced by the Library’s projects to enrich Wikipedia. Projects worked on included The Library’s Nineteenth Century Books Collection, Picturing Canada (several thousand culturally important photographs) and the International Dunhuang Project, amongst others. Thanks to the resident being based in house and being able to interact with various staff, it was possible to discover these projects and use them to contribute to open knowledge.
**By the end of the residency, around 3,000 Wikipedia pages used images related to the British Library in some way, 750 of which used images known to be sourced from its collections and provided with full metadata and catalogue links.

*Training and advocacy. 62 Wikimedia awareness and editing training delivered for 15 different high profile institutions within the ‘Skills training programme’ of the residency. Around 400 people attended the practical sessions - mostly targeted were researchers (because of the link with AHRC, the funder) and librarians, two key audiences for Wikimedia projects. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/British_Library/Events#2012-13| This list]] gives an idea of the range of events. Model for a training session on “Wikipedia as information literacy” was developed that could be used within the Expert Outreach work.<ref> Wikimedia UK is working with scientists, scholars, learned societies and funders to help experts improve Wikipedia and its sister projects, bringing that expertise to the widest possible public. This work, called Expert Outreach, complements WMUK's partnerships with galleries, libraries, archives and museums as well as its support for higher education ([[wmuk:Expert outreach]]). </ref> In fact, much of the resident’s advocacy fell into the Expert Outreach work, an area that is often supported by the Wikimedian in Residence projects, but otherwise not strongly delivered within Wikimedia UK.

*Outreach and events. The residency supported the three-day [[wmuk:GLAM-WIKI_2013|“GLAM-Wiki”]] conference in April 2013, hosted by the British Library for 120 attendees from the cultural sector. This was the highest profile event of Wikimedia UK’s in 2013 and would not be possible without the residency being based there. Many other Wikimedia UK outreach events were supported by the resident over the year.

==Natural History Museum and Science Museum==
[[File:John Cummings in front of giant sequoia at NHM.jpg|thumb|350px|John Cummings, the Resident at the Natural History Museum]]

Joint residency April 2013 - January 2014, 4 months full time and 4 months part time (0.5FTE). See the full case study report [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1MRuUKbHwDiUToOchvujd__wwIlLGeLSWa9ZSxO-Rl7o/edit# here].

*Toolkits and resources. The resident created a series of improved process documents (e.g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:YouTube_files#Download] or [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/14xGYv9l_4MpzFkBzgS4kbg-WijFNgH9A-QWhtiZFMq4/edit]). However, some of these (like a report on open licensing for the Natural History Museum and Science Museum) have not been finished and shared with the community. This was at least partly due to lack of feedback received on the content, and support in producing the documents.

*External partnerships. The resident focused on working with external organisations on open knowledge initiatives, many of which lead to further cooperation with Wikimedia UK. Among partner organisations were London Zoo, Office for National Statistics (presentations to high level staff, resulting in [[Commons:Category:Content created by the Office for National Statistics|valuable infographics donation]] and an indication of further cooperation, Imperial College (possible Wikipedia classroom assignment project in the future), British Computing Society, Medical Research Council, Collections Trust, United Nations, Royal Society of Chemistry (triggering a WIR project), Royal Society, Department for Culture Media and Sport, Cabinet Office, Wellcome Collection and Royal Veterinary College.

*Content improvement.
** [https://www.flickr.com/photos/94013650@N07/sets/72157633348739594/ A trial release of Natural History Museum archive content] under a Wikimedia compatible open license which was then added to Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource.
**The Science Museum has started to open its collection with [[Commons:Category:Images from the collection of the Science Museum (London)|50 images]] of significant objects which around 20,000 people are viewing on Wikipedia each day.
**400 photos from the National Media Museum (part of the Science Museum Group) were released to Wikimedia Commons ([[Commons:Category:Images from the National Media Museum collection|see here]]).
**As part of GLAM-Wiki Conference 2013, a guided photography visit to Blythe House small object store produced [[Commons:Category:Blythe House, Science Museum small objects storage|130 images]].
**3 videos from Science Museum’s Pain Exhibition were released under an open license (e.g. [[:File:No pain. Science Museum Painless Exhibition Series.webm|No Pain]]). The resident worked with WikiProject Medicine to find uses for them on Wikipedia.

*Training and advocacy. 508 people attended presentations delivered by the resident (educating audiences about possibilities of open licensing, some focusing on key NHM and SM staff - included a briefing on impact of open licensing for key teams, and senior staff), 202 were trained to edit. The resident run many editathons during his project, including supporting the ones originating from WMUK. However, managing this logistical support required time commitment from the chapter.
**Advocacy work on changing the attitudes and licensing of content towards openness cannot be understated. Much of the project’s time was spent on producing documentation, pilot evidence, and delivering talks (e.g. [http://scratchpads.eu/NHMInformaticsday]) advocating open knowledge.
**This work resulted in The Natural History Museum, who will digitise 20 million of its specimens in the next 5 years, choosing to make these available under an open license - [http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/corporate-information/museum-governance/board-of-trustees/minutes/index.html].

*Technical innovation. The creation of a prototype 'multilingual virtual museum' using QRpedia in a new way [http://bit.ly/NHMguide] - by web links that connect people to Wikipedia articles in their language.

*Supporting other chapters - the resident worked with WIRs in the US, some of whom don’t have the same level of support as the UK residencies. WMUK’s structures and solutions are worth sharing, but it requires time to do so.

==Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence==
April-June 2013, part time (0.4 FTE).

*Content improvement. Work on articles, and image releases was supported during the residency. File list is [[Commons:Special:ListFiles/TWAMWIR|here]], and article information is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence|here]]. The exact metrics of content creation were not tracked. Staff capacity was spent on managing the article content creation considerations.

*External partnerships. Leveraging the resident’s position, it was possible to work with outside cultural agencies that had links with TWAM, such as Great North Museum Hancock (Newcastle University and Natural History Society of Northumbria), Circus Central ([www.circuscentral.co.uk]) and North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers.

*Training and advocacy. Wikipedia editing training for staff was linked to the internal ‘Learning at Work’ programme, increasing the reach of it. 27 accounts from TWAM were created. A Knowledge Transfer event was run at the end of the residency to summarise the project. This type of an event, tried at TWAM, should be run with every residency - so far it has not always been a part of every residency.

==Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador==
[[File:Slides Research impact and open education 2013 Oxford.pdf|thumb|Slides from - Research impact and open education 2013 Oxford]]

July 2013 - April 2014, on a consultancy basis, part time at about 0.4FTE.<ref> Among the many projects supported by Jisc are [http://www.jisc-content.ac.uk/ collections of digital content]; research in areas such as Digital Humanities and Virtual Research Environments; and the [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/ukoer3.aspx UK Open Educational Resources programme]. Jisc promotes open access to research as part of the [http://open-access.org.uk/ UK Open Access Implementation Group] and its work with institutional repositories. Jisc also influences practice in Higher and Further Education through its work in innovation and change management. [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/06/jisc-and-wikimedia-uk-to-bridge-between-academia-and-wikipedia/ See the blog post] for more about the collaboration project's rationale.</ref>

Differently focused than the typical Wikimedian in Residence post, it offered an unique opportunity to work closer together with the Higher Education sector in the UK. It explored three kinds of opportunities: [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform/inform39/TenWaysEducatorsCanUseWikipedia.html using Wikipedia in education], [http://digitisation.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/12/05/what-wikimedia-can-do-for-digitised-content/ promoting content collections], and expanding the impact of research. Much of the work covered the chapter’s Expert Outreach work. The cooperation with Jisc began with an World War I editathon in 2011, since then the idea for an Ambassador has been worked on. It required persistence during staff changes at the host organisation, and time commitment to be set up two years later.

The Ambassador independently produced a detailed list of [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Plan#Objectives|objectives]],<ref>That could be summarised as “To demonstrate how publicly-funded research and education projects can benefit from crowdsourcing, using Wikimedia as a platform and a model. To capture this knowledge in a way that permanently changes how Jisc and the wider sector works with Wikimedia.” </ref> plans and stakeholders analysis. With more capacity this impressive resource could have been better mapped to the Wikimedia UK’s strategy, and the Education Outreach plan. This would have resulted in the programmes working more closely together - it was felt during the project that more synergy would be beneficial.

*Media coverage. Over the course of the project significant mainstream media attention was attracted, see [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador#Media_coverage|here]] for a highlights list. A lot of blogging and social media activity was produced, raising awareness of the project and the role of Wikimedia in open education.

*Toolkits and resources.
**A main output of the project, an infoKit [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/ “Crowdsourcing: the wiki way of working”] is a detailed guide through the theory and practice of a topic, tailored to the academic and cultural sectors. It shows how professionals and volunteers can work together to create or improve scholarly and educational materials.
**The [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform/inform39/TenWaysEducatorsCanUseWikipedia.html "Ten ways educators can use Wikipedia"] listicle was a very popular item in Jisc's online magazine.
** Case studies. The key case studies produced with academics address [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/01/21/rural-england-wikipedia/ getting students to improve Wikipedia articles] for course credit, [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ publishing scholarly papers on Wikipedia], and [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/02/18/wikipedia-information-literacy/ using Wikipedia’s policies in the classroom] to promote digital literacy. The article for librarians and information professionals about [http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/3-ways-use-wikipedia-education-tool educational assignments on Wikipedia] passed 300 mentions on Twitter and prompted [http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/21o6mo/rather_than_tell_students_to_pretend_wikipedia/ a Reddit discussion] among teachers and students about the proper use of Wikipedia and other sources.
**The [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Collaborate/Jisc collaboration flowchart] produced shows clearly how Wikimedia sites can benefit projects in scholarly and educational sectors.
**[http://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/make-your-digital-resources-easier-to-discover ‘Spotlight on Digital’] was a project hosted by Jisc, where Wikimedia UK were a recommended partner organisation. The guide covers a wide range of approaches to making digital resources easier to discovery, making national recommendations to maximise impact of scholarly writing. Each approach is linked back to research on how users search and discover digital resources, and Wikimedia projects feature prominently due to involvement of the Ambassador.
**With the bulk of the high quality resources produced, there is a risk that they will not be used sufficiently by other Wikimedians, or generally by the chapter, if no time is put to collect and circulate the materials.

*External partnerships. Leveraging the unique position of Jisc in the education sector, and the Ambassador’s existing networks, many links with key institutions were created - for an illustration please see the list [[wmuk:User:MartinPoulter Jisc|of the Ambassador’s meetings]], or [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Summary_18_March_2014#Events_requested_as_a_result_of_this_project| events requested]] resulting from the residency. During the project, the Ambassador advised many organisations about sharing content via Commons (e.g. British Geological Survey), spreading the advocacy work.
**Coleg Cymraeg Wikimedian in Residence was made possible partly due to advice and negotiations provided by the Jisc Ambassador.
**Open Scotland consortium announced a draft Scottish Open Education declaration in 2014, which plans stronger engagement with Wikimedia UK. The Ambassador was credited as an influence on this declaration.

*Training and advocacy. Much of the advocacy was done via the media and case studies work. Additionally, a series of workshops for universities about Research impact and open education was delivered, together with Jisc webinars on sharing resources.

*Outreach and events.
**3 editathons, focusing on using scholarly resources to improve Wikipedia (veterinary science, medical humanities - hosted by the Wellcome Library, Women in Science) were organised and delivered.
**The Ambassador supported chairing EduWiki 2013 conference. As a result of his presence there, further links with the institutions present were created.

*Supporting other chapters - the Ambassador worked with Mauritus van der Graaf on a report on Dutch Libraries.

==National Library of Scotland==
[[File:Forth Bridge - Superstructure, North Side.jpg|thumb|400px|Forth Bridge, image uploaded as a part of the Resident's work]]

First ever residency in Scotland, part time at 0.5FTE, started in July 2013 and was extended on a regular basis thanks to strong delivery. This project, geographically removed from other areas of chapter activity, and with a resident not coming from a core Wikimedia community, required more support in the beginning stages. Even further support would enable better links with other residents around ideas and resources exchange.

*Media coverage. As an innovative project in Scotland, it attracted significant attention - highlights can be seen [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Library_of_Scotland#Press|here]] (includes a feature in the NLS public magazine). It produced interest from the Open Knowledge Foundation Scotland ([http://scot.okfn.org/2013/10/01/introducing-scotlands-first-wikimedian-in-residence/ Introducing Scotland' First Wikimedian in Residence]), which then lead to more collaboration.

* Toolkits and resources. Early on, guides for the Library were produced to help explain ways of engagement with Wikimedia projects (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/2nd_Month_Report#Outreach_documents|here]]).
**GLAMWiki information booklets designed for the NLS have been made publicly editable and available [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/file/d/0B-54az_yPpKyRnlCQWV6MEFGVXc/edit], as a much needed attempt to pull various resources together. As other work has taken priority, this has only been partly delivered, and would have benefited from more support.

*Content improvement. Work aiming to change NLS’ policy on releasing digitised content started with month 1 in July 2013. Thanks to persistence and continual presence, June 2014 saw the first [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/10thMonth_Report#Material_for_future_digitisation|pilot releases]].

*External partnerships. The project attracted much interest from external organisations, particularly libraries considering releasing content. Resident became a true spokesperson for open knowledge, and was e.g. invited to speak at CERN and Swiss National Library in Bern, and has been speaking about the residency to many interested organisations (e.g. Special Libraries Association Europe).

*Training and advocacy. An ongoing programme of training events for various departments was being delivered (e.g. Digital Access team). Teaching was incorporated into the organisation, e.g. Wikipedia & open access training was given during all staff annual ‘Learning at Work’ event. <p> It took many months of the resident’s work to make changes to the NLS’ policy on digital materials.

*Outreach and events. To have a sense of the vast range and amount of events managed by the resident, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/4thMonth_Report#Public_outreach|here]]. All new accounts set up during training events were listed in the monthly [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Library_of_Scotland#Reports|reports]] (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/5thMonth_Report#Metrics|this one]] for example).
** The resident provided invaluable organisational support of EduWiki 2014 conference in Edinburgh.

*Scottish community building. Much beyond the call of the project, the resident was involved in attracting volunteers to Wikimedia UK in Scotland via supporting regular meetups (previously only occasional), working with Open Knowledge Foundation in Scotland, organising joint events, creating a mailing list. Link with a now much valued Glasgow volunteer was created.

==The Royal Society==
[[File:Royal Society editathon 2014 (02).jpg|thumb|300px|Editathon at the Royal Society]]

January-July 2014, part time at 0.2FTE. A pilot project aimed to explore how the Society could work with Wikimedia, as such it was not focused on producing tangible outputs. Much awaited is the final report and case study, which will form a basis of how the cooperation with the Society could be brought forward in the future. Summarised here is the period of the first three months as those are the only reports available.

*Media coverage. Significant interest was attracted by the high profile events run by the resident, see for example [[Wikipedia:User:Wiki_at_Royal_Society_John#Media_coverage|here]]. The Royal Society events gave WMUK a lot of awareness in the sector, especially with learned societies (Expert Outreach) and organisations working with Women in Science projects.

*Content improvements - article improvements delivered via events.

*Training and advocacy. Much of what the resident was doing was focusing on delivering training to staff (see [[Wikipedia:User:Wiki_at_Royal_Society_John/January_14_Report#New_editors|here]] for new editors trained). Training also targeted Research Fellows of the Society, a group that Wikimedia UK would be keen to work with around its Expert Outreach programme.

==York Museums Trust==
October 2013-April 2014. part time at 0.4FTE.

*Content improvement. Several of the Trust’s collections were targeted after consultation with the curators - Tempest Anderson, W.A. Ismay Studio Ceramic collection, Middleham Hoard - also leading to an article on Sydney Harold Smith photography collection. Over 400 high-quality images were delivered to [[Commons:Category:Images_donated_by_York_Museums_Trust|Commons]], many have contributed to the quality of Wikimedia projects (e.g. see [http://bit.ly/1o95EeZ] - images were used to enrich the biographies of the potters). Some of the collections were previously hardly used by the museum, so the uploads lead to them being known more widely. The programme originally aimed at a more extensive upload programme, however, the resident had to adapt to technical delays and obstacles.

*External partnerships. Committed to the idea of engaging with many cultural organisations in the region, YMT was exploring the possibility of scoping the project out and reaching more than just the institutions in the Trust. This resulted in an idea of a Yorkshire wide Wikimedia ambassador linked to the Museum Development Yorkshire, a project YMT have shaped and planned to run in second half of 2014 and beyond.

*Training and advocacy. All key curators at YMT were trained to edit Wikipedia. The resident also delivered a range of external talks reaching c. 80 people, including one to the Museum Development Yorkshire.

*Outreach and events. The resident delivered 3 training sessions for staff and volunteers (including a link with the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, which could be explored further), and a high profile public [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-editathon|editathon]] - substantial content improvements to a range of articles that was done can be seen [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-report#Results_of_the_day|here]], 3 new articles were created and c. 20 were improved.

==Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol==
Not included in this review, but worth a mention, is a residency in Wales (started in March 2014) which focuses on media release and content creation, a valuable area in the context of Welsh Wikipedia. See a report covering May 2014 [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/file/d/0B6kPpD8mNB2qVXZ5SF9aN1FPZUE/edit?usp=drive_web here]. An outpost residency, it would benefit from connecting up to other residents in the UK.

=Project delivery - summary of impact=

Please see [[wmuk:Strategic_goals| Wikimedia UK’s strategic goals]] for background information.

G1 Develop open knowledge
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase
*G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve
*G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge
|
* Managing image uploads has been a strong area of activity for most of the residents. Many of the image donations came from institutions where a WIR project was based.
* Many key and unusual collections of the host institutions’ were being uploaded, with such valuable material the content was often used on other Wikimedia projects. The residents have the time available to ensure the content is being used in a way that benefits the projects.
* Working with external organisations is very commonly a focus of the residencies. Building on their position within a valued institution, they are able to collaborate with other organisations and advocate the benefits of open knowledge in a way that scales the chapter’s reach, and is commonly beyond what the chapter could achieve on its own. Often a successful residency would enable setting up another WIR project.
|-
|}

G2 As a volunteer-led organisation, ensuring effective use of the resources available to us
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
G2a Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers
*G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.
*G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.
*G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.
|
* Editathons and training events provide opportunities for others to volunteer.
* Many of editing training and editathons delivered by the residents focused on gender gap.
* Editathons and training events provide opportunities for the volunteering community to contribute in the skills area.
|-
|
G2b Use effective and high quality governance and resource management processes
*G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream
|
*The WIR projects consistently attract external funding; approximately 70% of the projects are funded or co-funded by the host institution. Two of the projects were fully funded by an external grant secured by joint bids from WMUK and the host institutions.
|}

G3 Reduce barriers to accessing open knowledge
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.
*G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.
*G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge.
|
* One of the resident was a keen supporter or QRpedia. If this is deemed to be a priority project to explore, with support given to the residents, more QRpedia projects could potentially be started. The resident is in the right position to support the implementation of such project in the host institution.
* With the amount of media interest that the projects and their activities attract, this area cannot be underestimated. Residents often deliver talks at internal meetings and external conferences further raising awareness. They also produce toolkits and materials that can be used in advocacy for open knowledge, and how to engage with it.
* This is an important area of residents’ work, and one that really strengthens what WMUK should be doing. Thanks to the projects often lasting a reasonably long time, the residents can work on advocating policy changes within the host institutions that bring them closer to open knowledge.
|-
|}

G5 Develop, support, and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities
*G5.4 Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.
|
* As noted above, some residents have been independently supporting residents or activities in other countries.
* Some residents have worked to strengthen their activities by joining up with other open knowledge organisations, such as the Open Knowledge Foundation in Scotland.
|-
|}

==Potential impact==
[[File:Pat Hadley running a Wikipedia training session for YMT 3.JPG|thumb|400px|Spreading the awareness of the project]]

The residents’ work cuts across the key goals of the chapter and the potential, including interest from high profile organisations, is strong. As identified through the SWOT analysis, the project has a support of a strong brand. It also responds well to the current openness agenda and so can be a catalyst for change at the host institutions.

However, the opportunities that they create are continually missed due to insufficient support provided by WMUK. The points below outline issues identified in the context of what could potentially be delivered:

* As Wikimedia UK’s expertise grows, the residency programme is perceived as important in the global movement, and WMUK could contribute a lot to support others and share its experience (G5.1, G5.3). Doing this actively and in a clear manner requires time.
* As mentioned, the residents create many links with external organisations (G1.3), but as such they are often not handed over to the chapter and the activity decreases when the residency ends.
* Most of the residents produce resources and toolkits, many of which need additional support to be finalised and actually used. The resources that are done are not circulated and put together into an useful portal.
* Residences often work in areas that could compliment other activities of the chapter. However, without an effort being made to connect these, often the activities remain disjointed and do not benefit from mutual support.

;Management/set up:
* Setting up the residencies is an extremely time consuming process, crucial in managing the expectations and sharing the right objectives - this has been mentioned repeatedly in this report. Drawing up project contracts has been seen as innovative and useful in the movement, but requires effort spend in negotiations. Putting time into this process would result in better shaped residencies and clearer focus for the residencies.
* Many projects have sufficient potential to be considered for an extension. Setting this up well and working with the host institution to find the funding is time consuming as has not always taken place.
* External funding has been a strong area for this programme (G2b.4). External grants bring in additional stakeholder, however, and the negotiations require time.
*Some host institutions were never physically visited by WMUK during the projects, which reduced the opportunity to support finding solutions for key obstacles.
*Outpost residencies in particular tend to suffer from limited direct support from WMUK; more effort is needed to link them to other WIRs and potential support communities.
* Not all residents are able to support the reports as needed by WMUK without support. This means that some metrics are not being captured regularly, and the impact of the program - cutting through most of the charity’s goals - is not fully recorded.

;Recruitment
* Comparing to other chapters, WMUK is strongly involved in the HR process of setting up the residencies, contributing to all stages of recruitment. This is valuable and very time consuming.
* An essential stage in the WIR recruitment is promoting the opportunity to the right Wikimedia communities. Time required to do this cannot be underestimated as the roles are often very specialised and the potential group of candidates is limited. On one occasion, when no one from WMUK promoted a WIR opportunity, almost no applications were received. This shows the ‘one person sensitivity’ of the programme, which is a strong weakness of it.
* After initial bout of interest from potential host institutions in 2012-13 recruitment drive, it has become harder to recruit further host institutions. This is not dissimilar to other chapters, but nonetheless means that more time is required to find opportunities for the residencies and work with potential hosts to encourage them to cooperate with the chapter.

Lack of time capacity is a reason why many of these elements have not been delivered, thus missing the opportunities for larger impact.

=Key findings - recommendations=
Overall we believe that the Wikimedian in Residence programme has been one of Wikimedia UK’s strong areas of activity, and one that is able to increase the scale of Wikimedia UK’s involvement significantly. The programme had many successes and it is our opinion that it should continue with the following recommendations, which take on board comments from the community, the residents and host institutions.

==Duration of residencies==
Residencies should be six months long at minimum for small institutions and 9-12 months minimum for larger organisations with an ambition of changing the institution’s culture. This could be done part time, especially if that allows for a longer project.
* Shorter residencies do not give sufficient time to achieve the set goals, although may work for smaller institutions or very focused projects.
* Content generation projects at institutions with a mature attitude to open knowledge can be successful on a shorter timescale.
* Shorter residencies are not economically attractive for many potential residents.

==Supporting residents and the programme==
In the light of the gaps in support for the programme outlined throughout the report, and lack of capacity to support the identified opportunities for growth and impact, Wikimedia UK should appoint a Wikimedian in Residence Coordinator, with the following suggested responsibilities:
* Develop future partnerships, identify resources to support future partnerships.
* Give capacity to the setup of the residencies, working on managing expectations, setting effective objectives and solving potential issues with the projects.
* Coordinate the application process, managing the tension between it being unspecified and flexible.
* Strengthen the event support and induction meetings.
* Coordinate between current residents and between current host institutions to facilitate knowledge sharing, e.g. via networking meetings.
* Facilitate best practice exchange, e.g. via a forum/portal.
* Offer in person support via meetings.
**Initial set up meetings, review meetings, extension discussions, exit interviews.
* Monitor the progress and delivery of the residencies, assist in resolving the obstacles to delivery.
* Offer training e.g. with delivering Wikipedia editing workshops.
* Work on supporting the GLAM metrics tools.

==Sharing of information and best practice==
With added capacity of the Coordinator, set up a forum for the sharing of advice, information and best practice between institutions and between residents (current and former residents and host institutions and other relevant parties).
* This should be a discussion forum with ease of communication .
* It should allow for sharing of documents - especially toolkits and past materials.
* It should include guidance for prospective hosts about what an institution should/shouldn’t expect from a WIR.
* Create a checklist for the host institution at the start of the project to allow them to prepare the infrastructure, induction, and regular meetings with key staff.
* As an alternative, or additional task, WIR related outreach portal and materials need to be improved.
* WIR coordinator should arrange periodic meetings between residents and host institution managers to discuss successes, strategies, challenges. Attendees could also include prospective hosts or residents.

==Project goals==
Consider reevaluating goals of the project, potentially creating individual sets for each residency.
*Clearer objectives and metrics will mean better reporting, which will help with community engagement and project dissemination.
*Retain flexibility.

==Project format==
Consider alternative residency formats to increase the potential resident pool. This could take form of one person covering multiple institutions concurrently, or creating a team of 2-3 residents with various skillsets.
* ‘Multiple host’ model trialled so far has proven to be much more resource intensive and would require more support from Wikimedia UK to be delivered well.
* It does, however, allow the institutions to share facilities and learning points. Combining residencies will also potentially increase the field of potential residents, especially as the work approaches full time equivalency.
* Residency ‘teams’ approach would be a new solution that requires support from the Coordinator to be trialled successfully. The skill set required of a single resident can be too broad for projects with diverse goals.
** Another approach would be to treat, and work with, the host institution group as the team.

==Resident skills==
Ensure the skills identified in the review are reinforced in the job description.
* Training and communication skills.
* Teaching Wikipedia skills and experience of editing Wikimedia projects.
* Ability to work independently.
* Being tactful.
* If goals are tailored, the resident skills would not have to be so broad (e.g. training less important if primary goal is to change licensing policy).

=Footnotes=
[[File:Wikipedians in Residence at GLAMcamp London.JPG|thumb|400px|International group of Wikipedians in Residence]]
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Wikimedians in Residence]]
[[Category:Evaluation]]

AGM 2014/Resolutions

2014-07-09T12:27:06Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "2014 AGM/AGM Resolutions": no need for a non-sysop to move this page ([Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

{{2014 AGM}}
''Members' proposed resolutions [[2014 Annual General Meeting/planning|closed on 6th July]]. No further suggestions for AGM resolutions can now be accepted. Once the wording of the final resolutions going forward to the AGM has been approved by the board this page will be updated accordingly.''

==Special resolutions, proposed by the board==
===Special Resolution to simplify paragraph 16.3 of the Articles===

''Whereas paragraph 16.3 of the Articles is not drafted in a straightforward manner, and the board considers that it could be made easier to understand without change in meaning.''

''This Meeting hereby '''resolves''' by Special Resolution to cancel paragraph 16.3 of the Articles, which currently reads as follows:''

:''16.3 Should the number of Elected Directors not retiring at an Annual General Meeting, due to not being required to retire by Article 16.1 or Article 17.5, and not choosing to retire voluntarily, number fewer than half the maximum number of Elected Directors (rounded down, if necessary) then a number of Elected Directors appointed at that Annual General Meeting equal to half the maximum number of Elected Directors (rounded down, if necessary) less the number of Elected Directors not retiring shall be required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting.''

''and to replace it with the following:''

:''16.3 If more than three Elected Directors are appointed at an Annual General Meeting, the number appointed in excess of three shall be required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting.''

===Special Resolution to fix an upper time limit for continuous trustee service===
''Whereas, Wikimedia UK commissioned a first review of governance ('the Hudson review') which reported in January 2013 and a second follow-up review (the 'Chapman review') which reported in October 2013''

''and whereas both the Hudson and Chapman reviews recommended as a matter of good charitable governance that trustees should be subject to a maximum continuous service period, with Hudson recommending no more than three consecutive two-year terms''

''and whereas the board agrees with the recommendations but requires a vote of the members in order to incorporate them into the Articles.''

''This meeting '''resolves''' by Special Resolution to amend Article 16 of the Articles of Association of Wikimedia UK as follows:

:''INSERT 16.6 Directors, whether elected or co-opted, shall in any case retire after no more than six years of continuous office and shall not be eligible for a further period of office as Directors until at least twelve months have passed since their retirement. For the purpose only of this article, the period between consecutive Annual General Meetings shall be deemed be a period of twelve months.''

==Ordinary resolutions, proposed by the board==
=== A motion relating to registration in Scotland ===
A resolution to tidy up an issue from previous AGMs

''This Meeting hereby '''resolves''' that Art.30 (compliance with Scottish charity law), which was added to the Company's Articles by Special Resolution passed at the 2012 AGM and retrospectively sanctioned by the Charity Commission on the basis that it is deemed to be a "regulated amendment" that can only take effect with the Commission's concurrence, shall be deemed to come into effect herewith.''

=== A motion to appoint board members ===
''Whereas, those [[Board|trustees]] whose term ran until 2014 have resigned effective at the end of this meeting, as required by the [[Articles of Association]]. Whereas, the [[Election Rules]] require an election of board members at this meeting.

''This meeting '''resolves''' to hold an election in accordance with the Election Rules and then appoint the elected candidates as members of the Board of Trustees for the next two years.

=== A motion to note the annual report and accounts ===
''This Meeting '''resolves''' that the annual report and accounts be noted.

=== A motion to set membership fees ===
''Whereas, the [[Membership Rules]] require the membership fees to be reviewed by each AGM.

''This meeting '''resolves''' to maintain the membership fees unchanged for Individual Members at £5 per year and for all Member Organisations at £100 per year.

=== A motion to appoint auditors ===
''Whereas Messrs UHY Hacker Young of 22 The Ropewalk Nottingham have been appointed by the directors as auditors of the company,

''This Meeting '''resolves''' to reappoint them as auditors until the conclusion of the next Annual General Meeting.

==Ordinary resolutions, proposed by members==
=== A motion to overturn the termination of Fæ's membership of Wikimedia UK===
* Proposed by [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 17:26, 29 June 2014 (BST)
* Seconded by [[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 19:21, 29 June 2014 (BST)

Pursuant to Article 4.5, by which an ordinary resolution of the members attending this General Meeting can overturn the termination of a membership;

Whereas the Board has failed to provide sufficient notice to Ashley van Haeften (also known as Fæ) that his membership was pending renewal, leading to him proffering the nominal fee for renewal of his membership after the grace period for his membership had expired;

Whereas the Board has resolved to terminate the membership of Fæ upon the renewal of his membership, which the Board viewed as a new application for membership;

Whereas Fæ has been a valuable member of Wikimedia UK, who served on the Board for several years, and who continues to provide a significant contribution to the organisation’s Objects and its key performance indicators;

This General Meeting resolves by ordinary resolution to view this instance as a termination of membership; to overturn the termination of Fæ’s membership of Wikimedia UK; and to accept his renewal of membership provided the membership fee is proffered to Wikimedia UK within the next four weeks.

''Background points:''
* ''WMUK does not currently send a notice that membership has entered “grace” period, instead relying on the small print at the bottom of its newsletter to do this. In this case, Fæ was sent several reminder emails pointing out that his membership needed to be renewed, but these only came after the grace period had ended.''
* ''Fæ’s ongoing contributions to the Wikimedia projects, which have been financially supported by Wikimedia UK and are claimed in its KPIs, are described at [[:commons:User:Faebot/WMUK_report]]''
* ''Fæ has been volunteering for Wikimedia UK since his involvement in the Editathon at the British Library in January 2011. He became a trustee later that year, served as the Board’s Chair for a period, until he resigned from the board in early 2013. He has continued to be involved with the organisation since then.''

[[Category:2014 AGM]]

2014 AGM/AGM Notice

2014-07-09T10:39:53Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): grammar

=Draft=
;NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
''Wikimedia UK Limited. Registered Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT''

'''2014 Annual General Meeting to be held at The Barbican Centre, London, on Saturday 9 August at 4pm.'''

Thank you for being a member of Wikimedia UK - the charity promoting and supporting Wikipedia, its sister projects and open content here in the UK. We are one of the largest and most active Wikimedia chapter worldwide, with a permanent staff and Wikipedians-in-Residence at prestigious organisations such as the National Library of Scotland. This year has seen Wikimedia UK further develop into a more mature, professional charity, but one where volunteers are still very much at the core of the movement.

Our Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be held on '''Saturday 9 August''' starting at 4pm . The AGM will take place at the [[:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]] in London, during [[:wm2014:|Wikimania 2014]].

If you do not have a ticket for Wikimania, but would like to attend the AGM as a member, all you need to do is to present your voting papers (to be posted to you on 23rd July) to one of the stewards on duty at the Barbican, who will direct you to the meeting. If you want to attend Wikimania itself on days other than Saturday 9th July, you will need a separate Wikimania ticket.

Apart from dealing with the formal business of the charity, the AGM is a great opportunity to meet other members, to hear about the work we are doing and to discuss our progress to date. Do please come if you can. If you are not able to join us, watch out for the voting papers which will be dropping through your letterbox and make sure you return them and have your say on the trustee election and the various resolutions mentioned below.

If you are unable or do not wish to attend the AGM, you have a right to appoint another person as your proxy to attend the meeting and vote on your behalf. Instructions on how to do so will be provided in the voting pack that will be posted to you.

==Agenda==

1. Welcome, and introduction to the AGM (Chair)

2. Approval of [[WikiConference UK 2013/AGM Minutes|2013 AGM minutes]] (Secretary)

3. Board report (Chair)

4. Finance report (Treasurer)

5. Discussion of reports and the work of the charity (Chair)

6. [[2014 AGM/AGM Resolutions|Resolutions]] (Chair)

7. Explanation of election procedure (Tellers)

8. [[2014 AGM/Elections|Election hustings & questions]] (Tellers)

9. Voting (Tellers)

10. Plans for the next 12 months (Chief Executive)

11. Announcement of election result (Tellers)

12. Closure of formal business

==Special Resolutions==
The business of the meeting will include the following Special Resolutions, to be proposed by the Board:

===Special Resolution to simplify paragraph 16.3 of the Articles===

''Whereas paragraph 16.3 of the Articles is not drafted in a straightforward manner, and the board considers that it could be made easier to understand without change in meaning.''

''This Meeting hereby '''resolves''' by Special Resolution to cancel paragraph 16.3 of the Articles, which currently reads as follows:''

:''16.3 Should the number of Elected Directors not retiring at an Annual General Meeting, due to not being required to retire by Article 16.1 or Article 17.5, and not choosing to retire voluntarily, number fewer than half the maximum number of Elected Directors (rounded down, if necessary) then a number of Elected Directors appointed at that Annual General Meeting equal to half the maximum number of Elected Directors (rounded down, if necessary) less the number of Elected Directors not retiring shall be required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting.''

''and to replace it with the following:''

:''16.3 If more than three Elected Directors are appointed at an Annual General Meeting, the number appointed in excess of three shall be required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting.''

===Special Resolution to fix an upper time limit for continuous trustee service===
''Whereas, Wikimedia UK commissioned a first review of governance ('the Hudson review') which reported in January 2013 and a second follow-up review (the 'Chapman review') which reported in October 2013''

''and whereas both the Hudson and Chapman reviews recommended as a matter of good charitable governance that trustees should be subject to a maximum continuous service period, with Hudson recommending no more than three consecutive two-year terms''

''and whereas the board agrees with the recommendations but requires a vote of the members in order to incorporate them into the Articles.''

''This meeting '''resolves''' by Special Resolution to amend Article 16 of the Articles of Association of Wikimedia UK as follows:

:''INSERT 16.6 Directors, whether elected or co-opted, shall in any case retire after no more than six years of continuous office and shall not be eligible for a further period of office as Directors until at least twelve months have passed since their retirement. For the purpose only of this article, the period between consecutive Annual General Meetings shall be deemed to be a period of twelve months.''

==Ordinary Resolutions==

The business of the meeting will further include a variety of Ordinary Resolutions, current versions of which can be found [[2014 AGM/AGM Resolutions|here]] though the wording is still subject to change.

There are expected to be board resolutions relating to registration in Scotland, setting membership fees, noting the annual report and accounts, and appointing auditors.

A resolution has been proposed by a member relating to the the [[In camera resolutions of the board#Application for company membership|board's decision]] to refuse an application for company membership.

==Election to the Board of Trustees==
Three seats on the Board of Trustees are up for election at this general meeting. Being a board member will take approximately X hours per week. The Board meet in person every three months. Full support and training will be provided, and the role of trustees is primarily a strategic one.

Board members legally act as the chapter's Directors and Trustees. The eligibility criteria and duties are set out at https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Board#Duties - please check that you are eligible and accept these duties before putting yourself forward for election. If you have any questions you are welcome to contact the office, or a board member, or to take your own legal advice.

To nominate yourself as a candidate, simply email tellers@wikimedia.org.uk by 23:59 on 18 July 2014, with the following:
* a statement that you would like to nominate yourself to serve as a director and trustee of Wikimedia * UK and that you fulfill the legal criteria for appointment
* Full name
* any previous names
* date of birth
* business occupation
* the names of any other UK companies which you have been director of in the last five years

During the election only your name will be made public. If you are successful these other details will be filed with Companies House as a public record. You will also be required to file your usual residential address with the Company Secretary, but this will be kept confidential.

You should also enclose a candidate statement of no more than 300 words. This will be sent out with the ballot paper to the voters and published on the Wikimedia UK website. The Tellers will confirm receipt and acceptance of the nomination. Candidates can withdraw their nomination any time before the results of the election are announced.

We look forward to seeing you at the AGM!

Regards

James Farrar & Richard Symonds<br>
Tellers, by order of the Board of Trustees<br>
Wikimedia UK

2014 AGM/AGM Notice

2014-07-09T09:27:19Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "2014 AGM/AGM Notice": no need for a non-sysop to move this page ([Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

;Draft
;NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Wikimedia UK will be holding its 2014 Annual General Meeting on '''Saturday 9 August between 4pm and about 5:30pm'''. The AGM will take place at the [[:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]] in London, during [[:wm2014:|Wikimania 2014]].

If you do not have a ticket for Wikimania, but would like to attend the AGM as a member, all you need to do is to present your voting papers (to be sent to you shortly in hard copy) to one of the stewards on duty at the Barbican, who will direct you to the meeting. If you want to attend Wikimania itself you will need a separate Wikimania ticket.

Apart from dealing with the formal business of the charity, the AGM is a great opportunity to meet other members, to hear about the work we are doing and to discuss our progress to date. Do please come if you can. If you are not able to join us, watch out for the voting papers which will be dropping through your letterbox within the next couple of weeks and make sure you return them and have your say on the various resolutions mentioned below.

==Agenda==

2014 Annual General Meeting of Wikimedia UK, to be held at The Barbican Centre, London, on Saturday 9 August at 4pm.

1. Welcome, and introduction to the AGM (Chair)

2. Approval of [[WikiConference UK 2013/AGM Minutes|2013 AGM minutes]] (Secretary)

3. Board report (Chair)

4. Finance report (Treasurer)

5. Discussion of reports and the work of the charity (Chair)

6. [[2014 AGM/AGM Resolutions|Resolutions]] (Chair)

7. Explanation of election procedure (Tellers)

8. [[WikiConference UK 2014/Elections|Election hustings & questions]] (Tellers)

9. Voting (Tellers)

10. Plans for the next 12 months (Chief Executive)

11. Announcement of election result (Tellers)

12. AOB

===Notes===
Members attending the AGM will be provided with copies of:
* [[WikiConference UK 2013/AGM Minutes|2013 AGM minutes]]
* 2012-13 and 2013-14 audited accounts
* 2013-14 annual report
* Election candidate statements
* Proposed resolutions

==Special Resolutions==
The business of the meeting will include the following Special Resolutions, to be proposed by the Board:

===Special Resolution to simplify paragraph 16.3 of the Articles===

''Whereas paragraph 16.3 of the Articles is not drafted in a straightforward manner, and the board considers that it could be made easier to understand without change in meaning.''

''This Meeting hereby '''resolves''' by Special Resolution to cancel paragraph 16.3 of the Articles, which currently reads as follows:''

:''16.3 Should the number of Elected Directors not retiring at an Annual General Meeting, due to not being required to retire by Article 16.1 or Article 17.5, and not choosing to retire voluntarily, number fewer than half the maximum number of Elected Directors (rounded down, if necessary) then a number of Elected Directors appointed at that Annual General Meeting equal to half the maximum number of Elected Directors (rounded down, if necessary) less the number of Elected Directors not retiring shall be required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting.''

''and to replace it with the following:''

:''16.3 If more than three Elected Directors are appointed at an Annual General Meeting, the number appointed in excess of three shall be required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting.''

===Special Resolution to fix an upper time limit for continuous trustee service===
''Whereas, Wikimedia UK commissioned a first review of governance ('the Hudson review') which reported in January 2013 and a second follow-up review (the 'Chapman review') which reported in October 2013''

''and whereas both the Hudson and Chapman reviews recommended as a matter of good charitable governance that trustees should be subject to a maximum continuous service period, with Hudson recommending no more than three consecutive two-year terms''

''and whereas the board agrees with the recommendations but requires a vote of the members in order to incorporate them into the Articles.''

''This meeting '''resolves''' by Special Resolution to amend Article 16 of the Articles of Association of Wikimedia UK as follows:

:''INSERT 16.6 Directors, whether elected or co-opted, shall in any case retire after no more than six years of continuous office and shall not be eligible for a further period of office as Directors until at least twelve months have passed since their retirement. For the purpose only of this article, the period between consecutive Annual General Meetings shall be deemed to be a period of twelve months.''

==Ordinary Resolutions==

The business of the meeting will further include a variety of Ordinary Resolutions, current versions of which can be found [[2014 AGM/AGM Resolutions|here]] though the wording is still subject to change.

There are expected to be board resolutions relating to registration in Scotland, setting membership fees, noting the annual report and accounts, and appointing auditors.

Three board members are to be elected. We are not in need of additional candidates this year, but any member who wishes to stand should make themselves known immediately to the tellers (tellers@wikimedia.org.uk) who can provide full details of the formal requirements that will need to be complied with by no later than 18th July.

A resolution has been proposed by a member relating to the the [[In camera resolutions of the board#Application for company membership|board's decision]] to refuse an application for company membership.

Volunteers - Frequently Asked Questions

2014-07-09T09:26:49Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "Volunteers - Frequently Asked Questions": no need for a non-sysop to move this page ([Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

==Contributors==

==Events==

==Members==

===Being a Member===

====How do I become a member?====
You can [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/index.php?option=com_civicrm&task=civicrm/contribute/transact&id=4 join online] or [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/uk/2/2e/Wikimedia_UK_membership_application_form.pdf fill out a paper form] to apply for membership of Wikimedia UK. Your application will be reviewed and you will be notified by email when it has been approved.

Payment can be made in the following ways:
*Pay online using the [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/index.php?option=com_civicrm&task=civicrm/contribute/transact&id=4 online form] - this is the quickest and easiest method.
*Pay by cheque made payable to 'Wikimedia UK' and sent using 'FREEPOST WIKIPEDIA' - no stamp required. (Please note in order to be eligable to vote at an AGM or EGM your payment must have been ''processed'' 24 hours before the session is due to start as announced in the notice. You can pay in cash on the day if you attend if this is preferred)
*Pay in cash - you must indicate on your application form the name of the member you have given this too, or enclose with your form and post as with a cheque (cash sent through the post is at your own risk).
*Pay by online transfer to account 'Wikimedia UK' Account No: 20300612, Sort Code:08-60-01. Please use your email as the transaction reference and email membership@wikimedia.org.uk to confirm the transfer of funds.

In applying you are accepting limited liability if Wikimedia UK dissolved during your membership or within 12 months after it ends, by contributing not more than £1 to any outstanding costs. You are also undertaking to provide accurate and truthful details about your name and place of address, and informing Wikimedia UK if this changes so the register of members remains accurate.

====Why do you keep a register of members?====
Wikimedia UK keeps a record of membership details on a contact management database, which must include at minimum the name and postal address and start and end dates of a membership term for any approved member. This is because Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, and the [[w:Companies Act 2006|Companies Act 2006]] requires it to keep a formal register of members.

You can read more about how the law requires the Company to keep this record [http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/topics/statutory_registers.shtml#Mem here] and some [http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/infoAndGuide/faq/membersShareholders.shtml FAQs here].

====How do you protect my privacy and data as a member?====
Your details of member must be retained in accordance with company law for ten years, even if you do not renew your membership. However, the list is only accessible to selected charity staff and trustees - any request to access the list outside this group must be made in accordance with company law. If such a request is properly made the only information that the charity is required to disclose is name, address and membership term dates - no additional information will be shared.

For more information about how the charity manages data you may want to read our [[Data Protection Policy]].

===Board meetings===

====What happens at board meetings?====

Board meetings are the means by which the Trustees fulfil their legal responsibilities as a body to come together to review staff reports, the status of community issues, and discuss and agree top level items that are vital to the management of the Charity such as budget and activity planning, policy and legal work and strategic direction and evaluation. They have been held around the UK and tend to alternate between meeting at the London office and another venue tied to community activity or a partnership collaboration.

Typically a meeting may open with a short in-camera session (This means that only board members and possibly one member of staff to take minutes are present) followed by an agenda that has been collaboratively drawn together in the preceding weeks in consultation with the Trustee acting as secretary. This will include review of staff reports and outstanding actions, specific items in relation to particular projects and decisions, and possibly broader items for more nuanced or wide-reaching discussions. From this actions will arise for Trustees, staff, and members of the volunteer community to take forward.

Between formal meetings Board members communicate through a closed wiki for Board members only, via email, and more broadly through various channels of communication with volunteers and staff to ensure decisions and discussions are moved forward.

====Can I attend a board meeting?====

Yes - by invitation at your own request. In fact, you don't even have to be a member to attend a board meeting - we encourage volunteers and interested parties to attend to gain insight into to the workings of the charity and ways they may choose to participate or feedback.

There is no right to attend a Board meeting per se, and if the board chose to hear an item in an in-camera session then it is expected that only board members will be present unless a member of staff is required to assist with minute taking. However, typically the Board of Trustees aims to make items open and for anyone to observe as part of the charity's broader commitment to transparency in governance. If you wish to attend a meeting drop a line to secretary{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk so we can ensure we can accommodate all attendees - you can ask to have copies of board papers emailed to you in advance and notify us of any access requirements you may have.

====Can I listen in/watch a board meeting remotely?====

Board meetings are not currently routinely streamed live either as audio or video - in the past some meetings have been filmed and the media files subsequently released on Wikimedia Commons. There was a discussion about live-streaming board meetings amongst trustees at a board meeting in [[Minutes_11May13#Video_recording_of_this_meeting|May 2013]] and at the time it was decided that remote attendance at that board meeting would not be supported.

If you would like observe the business of the meeting but cannot attend there are several ways to remain informed and involved.

====Can I ask questions about reports for board meetings?====
Yes - members are welcome to review and discuss the contents of all reports presented to meetings; indeed feedback and additional information is often useful.

You can see the schedule for [[Board meetings]] which contains links to the agendas of forthcoming meetings. If you don't see a topic you would like discussed a good place to ask is on the discussion page of the agenda, or by writing on the talk page of the [[Board#Alastair_McCapra|Secretary]] of the Board of Trustees. It may be for example that the topic is being discussed at committee level, or is included in a staff or trustee report and so will be covered in that section.

You can also ask questions of specific reports on the discussion pages for the file or page in question, and again, you can contact [[Board|Trustees]] and [[Staff]] on their talk pages or by email to ask questions. Use whatever medium you are comfortable with - but remember, the advantage of posting on this wiki is that other members can read your queries and may feel motivated to contribute to a discussion too.

===Trustees===

====Who are the Trustees?====
Wikimedia UK as a registered company has articles of association which govern the procedures that constitute how the company works (you can read more [[#What are the 'legal responsibilities and duties' of a member?|below]].) The membership elect the directors of the company who serve as Trustees on the board of the charity.

In 2013 the [[Articles of Association]] for the company were changed, making it possible for members to directly elect seven directors, and for a further three directors to then be supplied through co-option by the elected directors, with a possibility of a fourth co-optee helping to fill an interim vacancy in advance of a director making it known they intend to step down.

Our Trustees have come from a variety of backgrounds - some have been existing editors whereas some were entirely new to the Wikimedia movement. Some have had a lifetime of professional experience or experience serving on other boards; some have been in university or school when starting as Trustees. All have held in common a commitment to upholding the key principles of the charity; promoting the development and sharing of freely licensed educational content and putting volunteers at the heart of the projects that support it. Any member is eligible to stand for election or be co-opted, and if you would be interested in finding out more a good place to start is joining a committee as a volunteer.

====What is the role of Trustees? Is it the same as being Directors?====
Directors have the responsibility to ensure the financial probity of Wikimedia UK and its compliance with relevant legal requirements placed on it by company law.

Trustees' responsibilities go beyond this - they have to ensure that the activities of the organisation are compliant with charity law, and are delivering the 'public benefit' requirement that merits the organisation's charitable status. This means they have to consider spending and strategic decision making in light of how well and directly they help us deliver our mission and charitable objects. Also, because of Wikimedia UK's [[values]] statement they are obliged to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with being transparent and putting volunteers first in delivering our programme of work.

====How can I communicate with Trustees?====
Board members are contactable in various ways, and it helps to have a sense of what you want to ask or tell them about to decide which is best.

If you want to email all Trustees collectively you can send an email to board@wikimedia.org.uk. If you want to contact an individual member of the board you can use the details described on the [[Board]] page and email them individually or drop a line on their talk pages. Remember - all Trustees have time consuming duties in connection with the Charity and so may not see a discussion on a wiki or mailing list unless you draw it directly to their attention.

Board members also often attend events around the UK, including meet-ups, and drop into the London office at time to time when convenient. It's worth getting in touch to see when they might be at an event you could attend if you'd just like the opportunity to talk to them in person. Finally, if you prefer to write you can send a letter care of the office (see [[Contact us]] for details). If you mark it 'Confidential' it will be forwarded to the Trustee named.

Staff are always available to answer questions or assist where possible, so if in doubt you can always call the office or email membership@wikimedia.org.uk as a first step.

====How do members 'hold Trustees to account'?====
In the strictest sense members' formal power is one of voting - they can choose to elect Directors or chose to propose and support a special resolution to remove them if they feel they have failed in their duties.

However, in a more practical sense members support the Charity and fulfil their role most when they are actively engaged in the business of how it is governed. In 2013 members had the opportunity along with the wider community to participate in an open consultation on drafting the charity's five year plan. They are encouraged to sit on any non-board committee or working group which they feel they can contribute to, read widely on consultations put forth by staff and volunteers, and help edit and develop the strategies and policies that govern the charity's operation. As suggested in the section above on Trusteeship, members can attend board meetings if they wish, and are welcome to ask questions around reports or papers in connection with board meetings.

The bottom line is; members should feel they can access information they might need to judge the performance of the organisation in terms of legal requirements, best practice, and community values. All members receive a monthly members newsletter, and this too is a great way of getting a regular sense of what is happening and following up with further questions if necessary.

===AGM and EGM===

====What are an AGM and EGM?====
This is short-hand for 'Annual General Meeting' and 'Extraordinary General Meeting'.

Wikimedia UK is required by the Articles to hold an annual general meeting within fifteen months of the previous one, though ideally these are every 12 months. Members are required to receive a minimum of 21 days notice of the date, time and location of the meeting and procedures for voting. In addition to this, an extraordinary general meeting (or, essentially, a general meeting that is not primarily focused on the business of the AGM) will only need 14 days notice, or less if a majority of members can agree on this. The directors can chose to call one at any time, or a simple majority of at least 90% of members.

====What happens at an AGM?====
Wikipedia explains this quite well! An annual general meeting (commonly abbreviated as AGM) is a meeting that Wikimedia UK is required to hold. An AGM is held every year to elect the board of trustees, and to inform members of previous and future activities. It is an opportunity for the members to receive copies of the company's accounts as well as reviewing fiscal information for the past year and asking any questions regarding the directions the charity will take in the future.

Usually, the AGM will be a small meeting of 30-40 people, which will start with an overview by the Board and senior staff of what the charity has been doing, and what it plans to do in the future.

There will also be an election of new trustees - usually 3 or 4, depending on how many spaces are free. Each candidate will have a set period of time to talk, and if there is time, answer questions. The election will be overseen by two volunteer tellers, and members will be able to vote in person. The results will then be calculated, and announced after approximately an hour.

====What happens at an EGM?====
EGMs, or 'Extraordinary General Meetings', are rarer than AGMs. They can be called by the membership, or by the board. They are also called for a specific reason, and only the single reason for which they have been called, can be discussed. Some examples for why an EGM could be called are:
*A significant proportion of the membership requesting the removal of a trustee
*An urgent amendment to the company's Articles of Association
Two EGMs have been called in Wikimedia UK's history:
*One in 2011 (described [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/EGM_2011 here]) to change our Articles of Association in order to become a charity
*One in 2013, (described [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/EGM_2013 here]) to change various voting rules, and to change the number of trustees.

====How do members vote?====
You will be sent an individually-numbered voting form a few weeks in advance of the AGM, along with details of the resolutions and trustee candidates. If you attend the AGM in person you will need to bring your voting form with you in order to vote. The tellers may also accept votes placed electronically only by quoting the unique voting code. For more details see the [[Voting checks|Voting checks policy]].

===Company & Charity===

====What are the 'legal responsibilities and duties' of a member?====
The [[Articles of Association#Objects|Charitable Objects of Wikimedia UK]] are, for the benefit of the public, to promote and support the widest possible public access to, use of and contribution to Open Content of an encyclopaedic or educational nature or of similar utility to the general public, in particular the Open Content supported and provided by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikimedia UK is a registered charitable company that is incorporated in England & Wales as a "Company Limited by Guarantee" (Registered Company No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.). This means that the company has a separate legal identity from the members of the company, and except where they are also on the Board (See [[Articles of Association#Powers|the articles of association]]) they have no further liability for the company’s debts beyond the amount of their personal guarantee (See [[Articles of Association#Members and their liability|the articles of association]]).

The company is controlled by its voting members under company law, for the purposes set out in the [[Objects]] of the charity (and not for the private benefit of those members). Each member has signed up to a guarantee, whereby they agree to pay up to £1 towards the company's debts should it go into liquidation and be unable to pay all its liabilities. The company is run from day to day by a Chief Executive, who heads up our [[Staff]]. In managing the company’s resources and activities the Chief Executive is required to follow the strategic direction and company policies which are governed by the [[Board]] whose members are its directors and who are regarded as its trustees for the purposes of charity law.

====Why do members receive the annual accounts at the AGM each year?====
Company law gives each member of a company the legal right to receive a copy of the annual report and accounts that the directors (trustees) are required to prepare and publish for each financial year. Members have the right to hold the Board to account for the company's proper administration - the AGM is a convenient opportunity for the members to question the Board about any aspect of their company's administration, so the accounts are normally copied to them with the AGM Notice.

Engine room

2014-07-08T13:38:00Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): /* Naming of pages in dated series */ agree with Andy

Engine room

2014-07-08T11:40:16Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): /* Naming of pages in dated series */ full support from me

Engine room

2014-07-07T17:53:17Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): comments after edit conflict

User talk:Chris McKenna (WMUK)

2014-06-30T22:21:58Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): thank you

Very nice report! --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 23:19, 30 June 2014 (BST)
:Thank you. Although for clarity I did the WIR survey report as a volunteer ([[user:Thryduulf]]) rather than staff member. [[User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|Chris McKenna (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|talk]]) 23:21, 30 June 2014 (BST)

Wikimedian in Residence 2014 review

2014-06-30T15:31:54Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): /* Project format */ grammar

Wikimedian in Residence programme review - Wikimedia UK 2014

''by Chris McKenna (volunteer reviewer) and Daria Cybulska (Programme Manager, Wikimedia UK)''

=Summary=
This report assesses the Wikimedian in Residence programme supported by Wikimedia UK over 2012-14 in order to improve how it’s run. It describes [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Initial_survey| in detail]] and summarises, as a [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#SWOT analysis|SWOT analysis]] the findings of a survey project which was a key part of the review. It [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Project_delivery_-_overview_of_the_residencies|describes]] and [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Project_delivery_-_summary_of_impact|summarises]] the achievements of the residencies and analyses what would make their impact stronger. Finally, it produces a list of [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Key_findings_-_recommendations|key recommendations]] for the future of the programme.

=Background=
[[File:GLAM-Wiki Infographic.PNG|An international take on the WIR project|400px|right]]

A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a role in which a Wikimedia editor accepts a placement with an institution to facilitate close working relationship between Wikimedia movement and the institution through a range of activities, both internal and public-facing. They can work on facilitating content improvements on Wikimedia projects, but even more importantly serve as an ambassador for open knowledge within the host organisation.

Their activities can include:
*Organising outreach work to encourage understanding and development of Wikimedia projects internally and externally
*Exploring sharing institution's digital resources on Wikimedia Commons
*Organising events to create or expand existing articles about notable items or subjects of specific relevance to the collection and the organisation's expertise
*Working with institution's staff to explain Wikipedia's and sister projects' practices and how they might be able to contribute. This can be done via events, workshops, producing case study and documentation content
*Developing other projects supporting open knowledge

Wikimedian in Residence projects in the UK have been run with varying degree of support and supervision from Wikimedia UK since creation of the chapter. There is a set of residencies which have reported to, and had agreements signed with, Wikimedia UK - we will focus on this group in the report. As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library. This is a transition case, before contracts with host institutions were introduced, but where we were working very closely with the resident. In November 2012 for the first time we ran a call for applications to attract institutions wanting to host a Wikimedian in Residence. Please see [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/11/were-looking-for-wikipedians-in-residence/ here] and [[wmuk:2012-13_Wikipedians_in_Residence|here]] for background. We received a good response of 15 applications from a range of institutions, from which we chose, in the first round, the organisations listed below. The projects were delivered or started in the 2013-14 activity year.
* Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums (residency took place between March-June ‘13)
* Science Museum, arranged by Wikimedia UK to be combined with
** Natural History Museum (March ‘13 - July ‘13, then extended)
* National Library of Scotland (July ’13 - Feb ‘14, then extended)

National Library of Scotland had a delayed start, which then overlapped with the second round of institutions in 2013-14 activity year (chosen from the original applications received in late 2012):
*York Museums Trust (October ‘13 - April ‘14)
*The Royal Society (January ‘14 - June ‘14 approx. - deferred from original October ‘13 start to suit internal timelines of the host institution).

The staggered start of the residencies allowed for better management, as the setup process is resource intensive.

Most of the institutions above belong to the cultural sector, but this is not a requirement of the programme. We also set up a Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador (July ‘13 - April ‘14) which followed some of the elements of the WIR model and will be included in this analysis. Therefore we are looking at a group of 7 projects in this report - British Library, Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums, Science Museum with Natural History Museum, National Library of Scotland, York Museums Trust, The Royal Society, Jisc, with 7 residents and 8 host institutions.

The operational details of current, past and potential residencies are kept on Wikimedia UK’s office wiki.

Before the first round of the projects was set up in November 2012, there was no standard agreement that would codify the cooperation between the two parties - Wikimedia UK and the host institution - and serve as a guide for key procedures. There was a need for a document that would clarify the expectations towards the project of both sides including expected outcomes, but also serve as a binding document explaining procedures such as termination, institution’s obligations, funding details, trademarks.

A draft was created by Saad Choudri, which was commented on widely by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK volunteers. This document was trialed with the first round of the institutions - following their comments the Agreement is undergoing iterations to make it clearer and more effective. Current version can be found [https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/w/images/6/60/Example_WiR_agreement.pdf here] - this is adapted to fit individual projects.

Over 2013-14 a stronger support structure was created for the programme, not only including the Agreement document, but also application forms, job descriptions, induction day structure, monthly reporting templates, review meetings.

The WIR programme has been seen as one of the key ways we can engage with external organisations, extending Wikimedia UK’s scale of activities and outreach. These residencies are often a considerable investment for Wikimedia UK (£2-10K) and at the same time, there is a risk of low impact if they are not conducted in a focused way.

=Aim of the review=
We agreed to reflect on the programme’s successes and challenges through a review. With a year and a half since the agreement’s introduction, we should not judge too quickly - by May 2014 only three institutions completed their residencies - however we can learn a lot already.

We are aiming to review the programme to date, focusing on the feedback of the residents and host institutions as for the successful models for the residencies, and analysis of key obstacles to greater success.

This report is to produce recommendations for future development - progress or cessation. The recommendations are to be shared with wider community in a number of ways (e.g. Wikimania related presentation, blog post, mailing lists).

=Methods=
* Questionnaire for the residents (both completed and current residencies)
* Questionnaire for residents’ line managers, or other key staff at the host institution
* Questionnaire for the UK Wikimedia community, and Wikimedia UK staff working with WIRs
* In person brainstorm for the residents to discuss SWOT and open to wider dialogue
* Existing data gathering - analysing the available residents’ monthly reports and available final reports

Additionally:
* Working with the Programme Evaluation and Design team
* Producing final report for wider dissemination

==Timelines==
* From May 2012 to April 2014 - investigated period of the WIR projects
* Jan 2014 - work with Programme Evaluation and Design team to improve the questionnaire and survey approach. Shared with staff and GLAM committee for comments
* March-April 2014 - consultation with relevant parties (WIRs, host organisations, community). Surveys, additional phone or person meetings as needed
* 5 April 2014 SWOT analysis meeting
* May/June 2014 - creation of the review document
* Q2 and 3 of 2014 - dissemination

=Key issues of consideration=

;Model
* Length and any other considerations
* Cost analysis and funding model - initial conclusions

;Hosts
* Who should we be working with (potential, types, locations)
* Assessment of Wikimedia UK involvement - setup, documentation, support for the host organisation
* Perception of effectiveness of the residencies vs initial goals

;Residents
* Assessment of needed skills
* Experience of the project
* Wikimedia UK support for the residents
* Documentation / reporting

[[File:Wikipedian in Residence Infographic.jpg|thumb|Statistics of the first two years of the international programme (2010-2011)]]
;Benefits of the programme
* Are the residents delivering on objectives as set by Wikimedia UK
* What do residents/hosts/community see as the benefits of the programme
* Analysis of impact delivered so far, and the potential impact

;Measuring the programme
* Assessment of the objectives vs needs of the programme, and vs the delivery by the residents <ref>As a part of the agreement signed between Wikimedia UK and the host institution, an overall list of objectives is provided. This, for most of the residencies analysed here, was a standard list including: 1) Functional relationship established between Wikimedia UK and the Institution; plans for sustainability once the project finishes. 2) Engagement with the Wikipedia community at large. 3) Increased the number of contributors to Wikimedia projects. 4) Facilitating content improvement of Wikimedia projects (uploads, events). 5) Case study produced. It is now being considered whether this should be more tailored to each project, and linked to Wikimedia UK’s strategic objectives. The tension here is creating firm objectives at the start of the project, and allowing for flexibility (seen as useful by the residents in particular, but some host institutions as well). </ref>

=Initial survey=
Once the key issues for consideration were specified, we created survey questions to start the consultation. Survey creation was supported by the Programme Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Three surveys were created to explore issues specific to 1) Residents, 2) Host institutions, 3) community opinions of the programme.

Here are the questions for the survey:
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1zEm53qtdRvnB4-fpQ6pIOAODYol69AEpFXxkCZRV-UA/edit# Residents]
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/123dO-6Yh7ZAG50uiGr0MYAdI0OIK2V7Xviw4btQ7D1I/edit# Host institutions]
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1gv8Dt6cyAqkNAWO84hGFhavA8EfLu87ZIsU9gPgB2qI/edit# Community]

The surveys were circulated over March-April 2014.

==Results - the residents==
[[File:UK Wikimedian in Residence discussion meeting.jpg|thumb|400px|The participants of [[wmuk:Brainstorm_meeting_to_review_the_WIR_programme|a brainstorm meeting]] ]]

Responses from all 7 residents were received. The summary of points raised is below:
* Length. 57% felt the project’s length was about right, with 43% feeling it was too short/far too short (5 out of 7 projects were part time). However, later in the survey it is often mentioned that the timing was not sufficient to meet their objectives for the project.
* Meeting objectives. 5 out of 7 residents felt they fulfilled the objectives moderately, 2 - completely. This was explored in further questions later.
* Support from the host institution. It was judged to be at the right level.
** Improvement. It was suggested that it would be helpful to have a better connection with the department heads within the host institution. Residents working within big organisations mentioned that in a context of many departments and internal changes, their project was prone to have little visibility.
* Support from Wikimedia UK. It was judged to be at the right level. Event support (materials, promotion) was seen as by far the most important support area. Induction meeting was judged as useful, with various areas of it flagged as helpful (e.g. Conflict of Interest considerations) depending on the knowledge level of the resident at the start.
** No significant improvements suggested.
* Challenges faced during delivery of the project. Many residents focused at the difficulties with the host institutions.
** Organisational structure, the number stakeholders involved, staff’s resistance to the project and the openness in general were seen as hindrances.
** Not enough time to deliver the objectives.
** Not enough skill to deliver the objectives.
** Community buy-in and caution around paid editing.
* Solutions employed by the residents to address the above:
** Focusing on achievable actions and timetabling.
** Connecting with local open knowledge community.
** Working with the host institution to get the project’s events more visible.
* Objectives. Residents were provided with key areas of delivery for their projects (Engagement with the host institution; engagement with the Wikimedia community; increase number of editors; facilitate content improvement; produce case study and documentation). The residents assessed their achievements, most of them stating that they have been moderately successful at delivering on the objectives, with most confidence around facilitating content improvement. <p> The residents flagged their achievements in the areas:
** Engagement with the host institution - change in policy, significant awareness raising of open knowledge within staff.
** Community engagement - modest connections made between the host institution staff and the editor community.
** Increase number of editors - respondents were counting on continued editing of editathon attendees
** Facilitating content improvement - delivered content mostly pending at the time of the report, but the residents mentioned improvements during editathons, and smaller scale image donations.
* Biggest achievement. Residents were asked about what they judged to be their biggest achievement over the residency. A wide range of projects were mentioned: licensing change at the host institution, delivering workshops at universities; running an editathon which created a lot of awareness, facilitating a DYK article.
* Further remarks
** What residents enjoy most about their projects vary from person to person. Working with many partner organisation was often mentioned, delivering training and linking with the open knowledge community.
** Residents found it useful to be open to the possibility of changing objectives during the course of the project.

==Results - host institutions==
[[File:Share Your Knowledge, Conferenza di maggio.jpg|thumb|400px|Cultural institution hosting a Wikipedia event]]

The residencies are designed so that after the initial setup work they are largely managed by the host institutions. That is where the key line management structure sits - it is important then to analyse the host institutions’ assessment of the programme.

A combination of online survey, phone or in person interviews were conducted - focusing on line managers. Responses from 8 people were received, from 6 of the residencies. Some of the interviews did not follow the survey questions exactly to allow for variances between projects (e.g. British Library did not have some of the documentation in place; some residencies started before we introduced induction meetings).

The list below is the summary of the responses to the survey questions (both online and interviews):
* Setup and format of the residency assessment. Managers were asked to comment on the application process, setup, skills of the resident and length of the project. The opinions were mixed, with many improvements suggested - particularly for the residencies early on.
** Application process was judged as unhelpfully open by several institutions (e.g. in terms of what would Wikimedia UK expect from this project). <ref> Being open to innovative ideas and formats vs giving clear direction to potential hosts is one of the tensions of the programme. </ref> Another aspect is that the setup can take up to a year, which can give institutions useful preparation time, but is cumbersome.
** As a note from Wikimedia UK’s perspective, the institutions which enjoyed the openness of the process were the ones that were most proactive during the setup stage, reaching out to other institutions and residents to learn more about the possible projects. They were often more successful in later delivery.
** Length. Suggested longer than 4 months; part time (even 1 day/week) seen as useful for pilot work. Some managers mentioned slow rate of change at the institution as a factor to consider.
*** Often at the setup stage institutions feel that 6 months will be sufficient to deliver their plan; however in hindsight it is usually seen that longer residency would deliver stronger results.
* Support from Wikimedia UK. Initial meetings (before project start) and recruitment support were flagged as key and very useful.
* Challenges during the planning stages of the residency. Managers mentioned a range of problems, including low response to the advert (some identify that the skill set of the potential resident is very specialist). Selling the programme internally (and explaining the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia) can be challenging as well.
* Challenges during delivery of the project. Again several areas were outlined:
** Resident focused on personal topic interests.
** Finding time to line manage and increase skills of the resident.
** Internal resistance to the changes proposed by the project, lack of staff understanding around the function of the residency (especially if residency coincided with internal restructuring of the host institution).
* Solutions offered to these difficulties included arranging networking with other WIR managers, and finding time for the line management meetings.
* Objectives. Managers were provided with key areas of delivery for their projects (Engagement with the host institution; engagement with the Wikimedia community; increase number of editors; facilitate content improvement) to assess. Their overall rating for all of them was ‘at least moderately met’. Managers were also asked if they needed to change the objectives during the residency, and 4 managers who answered this questions stated that changes were not necessary. This may suggest that objectives were broad enough that they still included modifications that were introduced.
** Engagement with the host institution - positive, training and events for staff were useful, together with a possible guidance explaining how staff could engage with Wikimedia. Policy change was also mentioned.
** Community engagement - positive, public events were important.
** Increase number of editors - events were mentioned as a tool to gain contributors.
** Facilitating content improvement - facilitating article creation was mentioned, although answers focused on low impact projects (e.g. ‘two articles were improved’).
* Biggest achievement of the residency. A range were identified:
** Raising awareness of openness and possibilities of working with Wikimedia was seen as important (this included event work, e.g. final ‘dissemination workshop’).
** Changes in policy was also a very significant element.
** The residency creating case studies and toolkits that could then be used by other organisations, thus spreading the impact of the project.
** Being (seen to be) involved in a new, innovative project.
* Further remarks
** Institutions were grateful that they had an opportunity to explore ways of working with Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia UK.
** Limited staff resources, time, dedication, skill or organisational change meant that often staff were not able to engage with the project fully.
** Sustainability was seen as a difficult element to achieve.

===Interviews with hosts===
Phone interviews were conducted with two of the host institutions, which included the survey questions, but also allowed for exploration of broader themes around the residencies. Below are the key points raised relevant to this review.

* There are 3 prerequisites for a Wikimedian in Residence project at any organisation: technical infrastructure to support the project, existing content generation project in place, environment within the institution (e.g. various departments working together).
**When any of these areas are not ‘mature’, the residency can focus on raising awareness. When the areas are mature, a project can work on concrete content creation projects - this would also allow for a shorter residency.
**When deciding on a host institution for the project, we need to assess its maturity, especially in terms of attitudes to open licensing.
*One institution marked tactfulness, ability to work independently and understanding of the internal structures of the host institution as important soft skills of the resident.
* For best chance of success, the resident needs support from two people in the organisation: 1) Line manager who is well networked laterally within the institution. 2) An oversight from somebody who works with senior management.
* Organising the residency as a joint project between several institutions can be challenging. With a bigger number of stakeholders the processes take much longer. It is also likely that one of the partners’ objectives will be given more weight than the other’s, leading to conflict or dissatisfaction with the project.
**Joint line management, regular appraisals from all stakeholders and jointly agreed work plans could be solutions to this.

==Results - the community==
[[File:GLAM-WIKI 2013 attendees.jpg|thumb|500px]]

23 people responded to the community consultation survey, which was promoted on the UK mailing list and the Watercooler. It was also mentioned on the international GLAM-related mailing lists, and twitter. Of those who indicated their affiliation, the vast majority were linked with Wikimedia UK. Questions were broad enough to be applicable to the overall Wikimedian in Residence programme, not just the UK one.
* Benefits of programme. Various threads were identified: around creating open knowledge, raising awareness of Wikipedia and open knowledge, increasing reputation of Wikipedia, increasing cooperation between institutions.
**Are residencies effective in achieving their goals? Largely, yes.
* How could the programme be improved? Several areas were identified: have clearer objectives; better reporting, clearer metrics (which would help to involve the community and increase dissemination); work on sustainability (longer length of the project).
** Community work - it was commented that the projects have been a good catalyst for community when they worked well, but at the same time the organisers should be careful not to overburden the community.
* What institutions should host WIR projects? Many respondents were positive about the range of institutions worked with so far. London focus is an issue, while some people recognise the reasons for this bias.
** Factors to be considered when choosing the host institution were: Commitment to delivery of the project; open knowledge enthusiasm and commitment; commitment to sustainability after the residency finishes; relative importance of the institution.
* What skills should WIR have? Several key areas were mentioned, particularly ability to teach Wikimedia skills, tactfulness, experience of editing Wikimedia projects.
* The community was asked how they would like the programme to develop. Areas mentioned were, particularly, longer length residencies, focus on fuller reporting, creating residency ‘teams’ rather than having one person responsible for the whole project.

=SWOT analysis=
Brainstorming meeting to analyse the SWOT elements of the programme was organised on 5 April 2014 (see [[wmuk:Brainstorm_meeting_to_review_the_WIR_programme|here]]). The residents who took part in the first survey were present to discuss the programme in person.

Key questions considered were:
* What is the SWOT of the Wikimedian in Residence programme
* What are the recommendations to amplify the strong parts of the programme and tackle the weak ones
* summary of survey results, including host organisation challenges - how Wikimedia UK can we help with these
* Sharing learning

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|<big>'''Strengths'''</big> - ''What advantages does this programme have? What does the residency programme do better than other activities? What unique resources can we draw on while being residents, that others can’t?'' <br><br>

*Backed by a strong brand - Wikipedia
*Good record of successful projects (although something that works in one residency may not work for others)
* Resident can utilise the reputation / prestige / profile of the host institution to generate event attendees and leverage projects with other organisations
*Strategic. Can be linked to the open agenda
*Host institution use it as driving force of change towards open knowledge. Residency has a push factor for evaluating host institution’s open commitment
**Can have high impact on the institution
*Flexible. Resident can release content or work on groundwork - open policy, creating a system for opening in the future
*The community involvement, trainers support
*Generates toolkits, materials
*Wikimedia UK’s support
*Has a system of reporting, contracts

|<big>'''Weaknesses'''</big> - ''How could you improve in the residency? (internal factors)'' <br><br>

;Host institution-specific
* Staff are too busy to engage
* Staff are against the project (e.g. image releases) or support is mixed. Enthusiasts are not always the decision makers. Lack understanding of the project aims (especially if it wasn’t introduced well). It can be difficult for Wikimedia UK to know the institution’s attitudes before the project starts
* Technical competencies of staff are very varied
* Institution can misunderstand the aims of the project initially and expectations are not fulfilled. Institution isn’t clear on what it wants the project to deliver once it starts
* Wikimedia policies (e.g. conflict of interest) can be hard to understand
* It is difficult to engage staff in editing Wikipedia
* Involving institution’s volunteer group can be seen as driving them away from their original tasks
* Wikimedia metrics are not included in the institution’s metrics (e.g. they only consider page views of their own website, and does not include Wikimedia Commons)
* Changes take a long time

;Tools and metrics
* Wikimedia GLAM tools are not reliable nor are they documented well. Seen as the biggest ‘top down’ problem of the programme
* Policy change and culture change is hard to measure. Targets for each residency should be set individually

;Wikimedia UK
* Limited capacity to support projects once they start
* We have less leverage than the partner organisation – we are usually the junior partner
* Wikimedia outreach materials is hard to find and out of date. Residents create materials, but they are not shared well

;Community
* An small intersection of people from the community are interested in a Residency project, especially the in person events ( editor + interest + able to attend event). Community can support a limited amount of projects
* Engaging community/communities – the biggest bottom up challenge

;Other
* Small pool of potential residents
* Projects too short
* Project is very dependent on the individual resident
*When working with multiple institutions but physically based only at one, the other organisations may get less attention and thus less benefit
* Flicker can be a better solution for some GLAMs than Wikimedia Commons
* Legacy difficult to attain

|-
|<big>'''Opportunities'''</big> - ''What good opportunities can you spot? What interesting trends are you aware of? (technology, policy, social, cultural)'' <br><br>

;Host institutions
*Sector is keen on opportunities - open agenda is important. Focusing on open policy could be a fruitful area of work
*Cultural institutions use web in an increasingly forward thinking way – Wikipedia can be employed in these strategic objectives
* Because of lack of clear idea for the project in the host institution, residents can shape their work

;Community
* Community offers a potential
* Access to experts in the host institutions, their volunteering community
* Resident can help grow local community

*Wikimedia UK could develop resources used more widely by the movement

|<big>'''Threats'''</big> - ''What obstacles do you face? What are your ‘competitors’ doing? (external factors)'' <br><br>

;Host institutions
* Financial cuts
* Restructuring within the organisation interferes with the residency
* Rate of change is very slow

;Community
* Interaction between GLAM professionals or newcomers and community can be tense and again may need to be moderated by the resident
* Support for a given project is very contextual and need to be maneuvered by the resident.
* We need to be careful not to oversaturate it
* Cannot be directed - projects can’t be entirely reliant on support

|}

==In depth discussion==
As a part of the SWOT analysis workshop, we went beyond these points and worked on recommending solutions to the issues flagged up above. These have been grouped in sections around Host institutions, Wikimedia UK and the resident, depending on who do they relate to most.

;Host institution
[[File:Dunhuang manuscript digitisation.jpg|thumb|400px|Digitisation project at the British Library]]

*Prepare infrastructure beforehand (technology for the resident and events; staff support). Hot desking should not be expected (but it could also be beneficial)
** Think about what department the resident will be based in. Digital team may work well but is often separated from other departments.
* Think about how the resident will be handled once they start. Structured induction is important, but ongoing contact with staff and inclusion into the organisation is vital
* Make key department heads aware of the project’s strategic opportunities
* Both the line manager and senior staff need to act as ambassadors for the project. Directorate support is key, especially in case of hostility to the project
* Be open to flexible work patterns for the resident

;Wikimedia UK/host institution
* Make sure host organisation knows what to expect - initial excitement can be unhelpful if not managed well
** Create a document outlining what an institution should/shouldn’t expect from a WIR. Include past examples
** Institution needs to see the value of getting involved in an openness project, rather than choosing to be involved for a particular benefit
**Need to be clear about whether the goals are focused on engaging institution’s staff or public, generating content for Wikimedia projects, changing the internal culture of the institution in favour of free content, etc. This can help with getting the right people with the right expectation
**These goals needs to be clearly articulated in language that senior managers and other relevant staff can understand, ditto job description of WIRs. Make it clear we cannot guarantee community engagement
** Be strict in asserting the expectations in the job description <ref> There is a tension between expecting the potential resident to be well versed with the Wikimedia community, policies and tools, and assuming that these skills can be gained later. </ref>
** Be clearer on metrics and objectives. Not expecting editor recruitment may be an area to consider
* When the residencies are set up, use a checklist to ensure the infrastructure is in place

;Resident/host institution
* Organise regular curatorial meetings to identify who can support your project
* Project focus. Be flexible and not get tied in to one project idea. Have exit strategies for unsuccessful projects. Exclusive project focus can be harmful – it can make it easier to sell the project and give early success, but you may become an assistant to that particular project
* Don’t assume the community engagement

;Resident
* Engage with the host organisation once you are appointed, ideally even before the project starts (e.g. put events in the calendar)
* Building on wider community can be helpful (e.g. wider open knowledge community). Having a persistent presence within a community can help it grow
* Have specific groups to pitch events to – it will increase attendance
* Be cautious against planning to do too many kinds of work

;Resident/Wikimedia UK
* Resident’s role consists of 1) facilitating content creation 2) internal consultation for policy change, ambassadorial awareness raising 3) working with the community, for its benefit. This can be seen as three different jobs, and the remit can be confusing for a new starter. Wikimedia UK should be clearer on articulating these different expectations
* Be flexible about projects to be delivered
* Consider creating a portal for the residents. Include toolkits and past materials
* Ask the host institution for a public statement about the residency to be used in publicity

;Wikimedia UK
* Consider choosing institutions where the resident is not fixed to sit within a very specific project may work better. This allows for work across various departments
* Run fewer residencies but longer – at least 6 months (the first 2 months is for the resident to find their feet)
* Organisational structure of the host institution can be hard to understand before starting on the project. Assess if the person advocating for the project is the best to run it. Assess the place of the department within the organisation
* Residents need confidence in running Wikipedia events. Offer support
* Note that ‘outpost’ residencies, geographically separated from other hubs of activities, bring up risks. Building community takes longer and it is harder to deliver on the objectives
* Run exit interviews for the residents and host institutions to assess the project and extract learning points

=Economics of the programme=
[[File:Library Science Talk @ Swiss National Library 20140624.jpg|thumb|400px|The resident at the National Library of Scotland has been co-funded by Wikimedia UK]]

In [[wmuk:2012 Activity Plan/Wikipedians in Residence|2012-13]] activity year, we have budgeted £15,000 for the Wikimedian in Residence activities. This budget remained largely unspent, partly due to the big British Library project being fully externally funded, perhaps partly due to some potential partnerships not being developed. There was no dedicated staff to oversee the programme.

This lead to the increased effort to manage the programme and budget of this area, a first step of which was the November 2012 recruitment drive as described in the background section of this review, managed by the Events Organiser. Seeing the potential of many organisations getting in touch with Wikimedia UK and being interested in cooperating with us, in [[wmuk:2013 Activity Plan/GLAM Wikimedians in Residence|2013-14]] we had a bigger budget of £30,000. This was fully allocated to the projects delivered, by and large to the residencies discussed in this report.

An average grant from Wikimedia UK was £5,000 which allows for a pilot project of a length of several months. Due to the budget flexibility of Wikimedia UK which is often larger than the host institution’s, this seed funding was often essential to start the project.

The residencies can attract co-funding from the host institutions, particularly for project extensions (once the institution had time to organise internal funding). This is usually explored and encouraged by Wikimedia UK if the project is seen to be delivering strongly and there is a potential for a larger future impact during a review meeting.

The WIR projects consistently attract outside funding; approximately 70% of the projects are funded or co-funded by the host institution. Two of the projects delivered in the UK so far were fully funded by an external grant secured by joint bids from WMUK and the host institutions.

=Project delivery - overview of the residencies=
==British Library==
[[File:Cree Indian (HS85-10-13885) edit.jpg|thumb|400px|Image from the Picturing Canada collection - [[Commons:British Library/Picturing Canada]] ]]

Full time May 2012-May 2013. <ref> The Wikipedian in Residence program was a full time year-long project (May 2012-May 2013) by the British Library to develop ways of working with online volunteer communities through an in-house liaison, supported and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The project focused on two main aspects: firstly, skills training within the Library and the broader academic community, to build experience and confidence in engaging with these communities; and secondly, working to help make some of the Library’s existing digital collections more visible to new audiences. The start of cooperation between Wikimedia UK and British Library was marked in January 2011 with a two day editathon. </ref>

*Media coverage [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/BL#Press_coverage| summarised here]]. Additionally, two articles oriented towards librarians were commissioned and published during the program:
**Wikipedia in the Library. Refer 29 (2) Summer 2013. [co-authored with Max Klein, OCLC]
**Wikipedia and Information Literacy: a springboard for research. The School Librarian 61 (1) Spring 2013.

*Toolkits and resources. A series of guidance documents for academics and researchers interested in working with Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects were produced, notably [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Participation_by_academic_projects|this resource]].

*Content improvement. The content-oriented program within the library aimed to use Wikimedia projects to distribute material from existing digitisation programs more widely. This was carried out alongside the development and release of the Library’s existing Access and Reuse Policy, which was seeking to support the release of material by curators. Over five thousand images from the British Library’s collections were made available with full metadata and cleared licensing through Wikimedia Commons. The residency skillfully built on policy change within the host institution.
**The residency gave an opportunity to repurpose material which had been digitised but never publicly released, or to use information produced by the Library’s projects to enrich Wikipedia. Projects worked on included The Library’s Nineteenth Century Books Collection, Picturing Canada (several thousand culturally important photographs), the International Dunhuang Project, Darwin Correspondence Project (where biographical notes around the documentation of the project were used on Wikipedia). Thanks to the resident being based in house and being able to interact with various staff, it was possible to discover these projects and use them to contribute to the open knowledge.
**By the end of the residency, around 3,000 Wikipedia pages used images related to the British Library in some way, 750 of which used images known to be sourced from its collections and provided with full metadata and catalogue links.

*Training and advocacy. 62 Wikimedia awareness and editing training delivered for 15 different high profile institutions within the ‘Skills training programme’ of the residency. Around 400 people attended the practical sessions - mostly targeted were researchers (because of the link with AHRC, the funder) and librarians, two key audiences for Wikimedia projects. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/British_Library/Events#2012-13| This list]] gives an idea of the range of events. Model for a training session on “Wikipedia as information literacy” was developed that could be used within the Expert Outreach work.<ref> Wikimedia UK is working with scientists, scholars, learned societies and funders to help experts improve Wikipedia and its sister projects, bringing that expertise to the widest possible public. This work, called Expert Outreach, complements WMUK's partnerships with galleries, libraries, archives and museums as well as its support for higher education ([[wmuk:Expert outreach]]). </ref> In fact, much of the resident’s advocacy fell into the Expert Outreach work, an area that is often supported by the Wikimedian in Residence projects, but otherwise not strongly delivered within Wikimedia UK.

*Outreach and events. The residency supported the three-day [[wmuk:GLAM-WIKI_2013|“GLAM-Wiki”]] conference in April 2013, hosted by the British Library for 120 attendees from the cultural sector. This was the highest profile event of Wikimedia UK’s in 2013 and would not be possible without the residency being based there. Many other Wikimedia UK outreach events were supported by the resident over the year.

==Natural History Museum and Science Museum==
[[File:John Cummings in front of giant sequoia at NHM.jpg|thumb|350px|The Resident at the Natural History Museum]]

Joint residency April 2013 - January 2014, 4 months full time and 4 months part time. See the full case study report [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1MRuUKbHwDiUToOchvujd__wwIlLGeLSWa9ZSxO-Rl7o/edit# here].

*Toolkits and resources. The resident created a series of improved process documents (e.g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:YouTube_files#Download] or [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/14xGYv9l_4MpzFkBzgS4kbg-WijFNgH9A-QWhtiZFMq4/edit]). However, some of these (like a report on open licensing for the Natural History Museum and Science Museum) have not been finished and shared with the community. This was at least partly due to lack of feedback received on the content, and support in producing the documents.

*External partnerships. The resident focused on working with external organisations on open knowledge initiatives, many of which lead to further cooperation with Wikimedia UK. Among partner organisations were London Zoo, Office for National Statistics (presentations to high level staff, resulting in [[Commons:Category:Content created by the Office for National Statistics|valuable infographics donation]] and an indication of further cooperation, Imperial College (possible Wikipedia classroom assignment project in the future), British Computing Society, Medical Research Council, Collections Trust, United Nations, Royal Society of Chemistry (triggering a WIR project), Royal Society, Department for Culture Media and Sport, Cabinet Office, Wellcome Collection and Royal Veterinary College.

*Content improvement.
** [https://www.flickr.com/photos/94013650@N07/sets/72157633348739594/ A trial release of Natural History Museum archive content] under a Wikimedia compatible open license which was then added to Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource.
**The Science Museum has started to open its collection with [[Commons:Category:Images from the collection of the Science Museum (London)|50 images]] of significant objects which around 20,000 people are viewing on Wikipedia each day.
**400 photos from the National Media Museum (part of the Science Museum Group) were released to Wikimedia Commons ([[Commons:Category:Images from the National Media Museum collection|see here]]).
**As part of GLAM-Wiki Conference 2013, a guided photography visit to Blythe House small object store produced [[Commons:Category:Blythe House, Science Museum small objects storage|130 images]].
**3 videos form Science Museum’s Pain Exhibition were released under an open license (e.g. [[:File:No pain. Science Museum Painless Exhibition Series.webm|No Pain]]). The resident worked with Wikiproject Medicine to find uses for them on Wikipedia.

*Training and advocacy. 508 people attended presentations delivered by the resident (educating audiences about possibilities of open licensing, some focusing on key NHM and SM staff - included a briefing on impact of open licensing for key teams, and senior staff), 202 were trained to edit. The resident run many editathons during his project, including supporting the ones originating from WMUK. However, managing this logistical support required time commitment from the chapter.
**Advocacy work on changing the attitudes and licensing of content towards openness cannot be understated. Much of the project’s time was spent on producing documentation, pilot evidence, and delivering talks (e.g. [http://scratchpads.eu/NHMInformaticsday]) advocating open knowledge.
**This work resulted in The Natural History Museum, who will digitise 20 million of its specimens in the next 5 year, choosing to make these available under an open license - [http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/corporate-information/museum-governance/board-of-trustees/minutes/index.html].

*Technical innovation. The creation of a prototype ‘’’multilingual virtual museum’’’ using QRpedia in a new way [http://bit.ly/NHMguide] - by web links that connect people to Wikipedia articles in their language.

*Supporting other chapters - the resident worked with WIRs in the US, some of whom don’t have the same level of support as the UK residencies. WMUK’s structures and solutions are very worth sharing, but it requires time to do so.

==Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence==
Part time residency run April-June 2013.

*Content improvement. Work on articles, and image releases was supported during the residency. File list is [[Commons:Special:ListFiles/TWAMWIR|here]], and article information is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence|here]]. The exact metrics of content creation were not tracked. Staff capacity was spent on managing the article content creation considerations.

*External partnerships. Leveraging the resident’s position, it was possible to work with outside cultural agencies that had links with TWAM, such as Great North Museum Hancock, the Newcastle University or North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers.

*Training and advocacy. Wikipedia editing training for staff was linked to the internal ‘Learning at Work’ programme, increasing the reach of it. 27 accounts from TWAM were created. A Knowledge Transfer event was run at the end of the residency to summarise the project. This is a very useful type of event which should be run with every residency if it was supported and encouraged from WMUK. It has not always been taking place.

==Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador==
[[File:Slides Research impact and open education 2013 Oxford.pdf|thumb|Slides from - Research impact and open education 2013 Oxford]]

Part time over July 2013 - April 2014.<ref> Among the many projects supported by Jisc are [http://www.jisc-content.ac.uk/ collections of digital content]; research in areas such as Digital Humanities and Virtual Research Environments; and the [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/ukoer3.aspx UK Open Educational Resources programme]. Jisc promotes open access to research as part of the [http://open-access.org.uk/ UK Open Access Implementation Group] and its work with institutional repositories. Jisc also influences practice in Higher and Further Education through its work in innovation and change management. [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/06/jisc-and-wikimedia-uk-to-bridge-between-academia-and-wikipedia/ See the blog post] for more about the collaboration project's rationale.
</ref> Differently focused than the typical Wikimedian in Residence post, it offered an unique opportunity to work closer together with the Higher Education sector in the UK. It explored three kinds of opportunities: [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform/inform39/TenWaysEducatorsCanUseWikipedia.html using Wikipedia in education], [http://digitisation.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/12/05/what-wikimedia-can-do-for-digitised-content/ promoting content collections], and expanding the impact of research. Much of the work covered the chapter’s Expert Outreach work. The cooperation with Jisc began with an World War I editathon in 2011, since then the idea for an Ambassador has been worked on. It required persistence during staff changes at the host organisation, and time commitment to be set up two years later.

The Ambassador independently produced a detailed list of [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Plan#Objectives|objectives]],<ref>That could be summarised as “To demonstrate how publicly-funded research and education projects can benefit from crowdsourcing, using Wikimedia as a platform and a model. To capture this knowledge in a way that permanently changes how Jisc and the wider sector works with Wikimedia.” </ref> plans and stakeholders analysis. With more capacity this impressive resource could have been better mapped to the Wikimedia UK’s strategy, and the Education Outreach plan. This would have resulted in the programmes working more closely together - it was felt during the project that more synergy would be beneficial.

*Media coverage. Over the course of the project significant mainstream media attention was attracted, see [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador#Media_coverage|here]] for a highlights list. A lot of blogging and social media activity was produced, raising awareness of the project and the role of Wikimedia in open education.

*Toolkits and resources.
**A main output of the project, an infoKit [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/ “Crowdsourcing: the wiki way of working”] is a detailed guide through the theory and practice of a topic, tailored to the academic and cultural sectors. It shows how professionals and volunteers can work together to create or improve scholarly and educational materials.
**The [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform/inform39/TenWaysEducatorsCanUseWikipedia.html "Ten ways educators can use Wikipedia"] listicle was a very popular item in Jisc's online magazine.
** Case studies. The key case studies produced with academics address [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/01/21/rural-england-wikipedia/ getting students to improve Wikipedia articles] for course credit, [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ publishing scholarly papers on Wikipedia], and [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/02/18/wikipedia-information-literacy/ using Wikipedia’s policies in the classroom] to promote digital literacy. The article for librarians and information professionals about [http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/3-ways-use-wikipedia-education-tool educational assignments on Wikipedia] passed 300 mentions on Twitter and prompted [http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/21o6mo/rather_than_tell_students_to_pretend_wikipedia/ a Reddit discussion] among teachers and students about the proper use of Wikipedia and other sources.
**The [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Collaborate/Jisc collaboration flowchart] produced shows clearly how Wikimedia sites can benefit projects in scholarly and educational sectors.
**[http://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/make-your-digital-resources-easier-to-discover ‘Spotlight on Digital’] was a project hosted by Jisc, where Wikimedia UK were a recommended partner organisation. The guide covers a wide range of approaches to making digital resources easier to discovery, making national recommendations to maximise impact of scholarly writing. Each approach is linked back to research on how users search and discover digital resources, and Wikimedia projects feature prominently due to involvement of the Ambassador.
**With the bulk of the high quality resources produced, there is a risk that they will not be used sufficiently by other Wikimedians, or generally by the chapter, if no time is put to collect and circulate the materials.

*External partnerships. Leveraging the unique position of Jisc in the education sector, and the Ambassador’s existing networks, many links with key institutions were created - for an illustration please see the list [[wmuk:User:MartinPoulter Jisc|of the Ambassador’s meetings]], or [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Summary_18_March_2014#Events_requested_as_a_result_of_this_project| events requested]] resulting from the residency. During the project, the Ambassador advised many organisations about sharing content via Commons (e.g. British Geological Survey), spreading the advocacy work.
**Coleg Cymraeg Wikimedian in Residence was made possible partly due to advice and negotiations provided by the Jisc Ambassador.
**Open Scotland consortium announced a draft Scottish Open Education declaration in 2014, which plans stronger engagement with Wikimedia UK. The Ambassador was credited as an influence on this declaration.

*Training and advocacy. Much of the advocacy was done via the media and case studies work. Additionally, a series of workshops for universities about Research impact and open education was delivered, together with Jisc webinars on sharing resources.

*Outreach and events.
**3 editathons, focusing on using scholarly resources to improve Wikipedia (veterinary science, medical humanities - hosted by the Wellcome Library, Women in Science) were organised and delivered.
**The Ambassador supported chairing EduWiki 2013 conference. As a result of his presence there, further links with the institutions present were created.

*Supporting other chapters - the Ambassador worked with Mauritus can der Graaf on a report on Dutch Libraries.

==National Library of Scotland==
[[File:Forth Bridge - Superstructure, North Side.jpg|thumb|400px|Forth Bridge, image uploaded as a part of the Resident's work]]

Part time residency, first ever in Scotland, started in July 2013 and was extended on a regular basis thanks to strong delivery. This project, geographically removed from other areas of chapter activity, and with a resident not coming from a core Wikimedia community, required more support in the beginning stages. Even further support would enable better links with other residents around ideas and resources exchange.

*Media coverage. As an innovative project in Scotland, it attracted significant attention - highlights can be seen [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Library_of_Scotland#Press|here]] (includes a feature in the NLS public magazine). It produced interest from the Open Knowledge Foundation Scotland ([http://scot.okfn.org/2013/10/01/introducing-scotlands-first-wikimedian-in-residence/ Introducing Scotland' First Wikimedian in Residence]), which then lead to more collaboration.

* Toolkits and resources. Early on, guides for the Library were produced to help explain ways of engagement with Wikimedia projects (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/2nd_Month_Report#Outreach_documents|here]]).
**GLAMWiki information booklets designed for the NLS have been made publicly editable and available [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/file/d/0B-54az_yPpKyRnlCQWV6MEFGVXc/edit], as a much needed attempt to pull various resources together. As other work has taken priority, this has only been partly delivered, and would have benefited from more support.

*Content improvement. Work aiming to change NLS’ policy on releasing digitised content started with month 1 in July 2013. Thanks to persistence and continual presence, June 2014 saw the first [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/10thMonth_Report#Material_for_future_digitisation|pilot releases]].

*External partnerships. The project attracted much interest from external organisations, particularly libraries considering releasing content. Resident became a true spokesperson for open knowledge, and was e.g. invited to speak at CERN and Swiss National Library in Bern, and has been speaking about the residency to many interested organisations (e.g. Special Libraries Association Europe).

*Training and advocacy. An ongoing programme of training events for various departments was being delivered (e.g. Digital Access team). Teaching was incorporated into the organisation, e.g. Wikipedia & open access training was given during all staff annual ‘Learning at Work’ event. <p> It took many months of the resident’s work to make changes to the NLS’ policy on digital materials.

*Outreach and events. To have a sense of the vast range and amount of events managed by the resident, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/4thMonth_Report#Public_outreach|here]]. All new accounts set up during training events were listed in the monthly [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Library_of_Scotland#Reports|reports]] (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/5thMonth_Report#Metrics|this one]] for example).
** The resident provided invaluable organisation support of EduWiki 2014 conference in Edinburgh.

*Scottish community building. Much beyond the call of the project, the resident was involved in attracting volunteers to Wikimedia UK in Scotland via supporting regular meetups (previously only occasional), working with Open Knowledge Foundation in Scotland, organising joint events, creating a mailing list. Link with a now much valued Glasgow volunteer was created.

==The Royal Society==
[[File:Royal Society editathon 2014 (02).jpg|thumb|300px|Editathon at the Royal Society]]

1 day/week, January-July 2014. A pilot project aimed to explore how the Society could work with Wikimedia, as such it was not focused on producing tangible outputs. Much awaited is the final report and case study, which will form a basis of how the cooperation with the Society could be brought forward in the future. Summarised here is the period of the first three months as those are the only reports available.

*Media coverage. Significant interest was attracted by the high profile events run by the resident, see for example [[Wikipedia:User:Wiki_at_Royal_Society_John#Media_coverage|here]]. The Royal Society events gave WMUK a lot of awareness in the sector, especially with learned societies (Expert Outreach) and organisations working with Women in Science projects.

*Content improvements - article improvements delivered via events.

*Training and advocacy. Much of what the resident was doing was focusing on delivering training to staff (see [[Wikipedia:User:Wiki_at_Royal_Society_John/January_14_Report#New_editors|here]] for new editors trained). Training also targeted Research Fellows of the Society, a group that Wikimedia UK would be keen to work with around its Expert Outreach programme.

==York Museums Trust==
Part time, October 2013-April 2014.

*Content improvement. Several of the Trust’s collections were targeted after consultation with the curators - Tempest Anderson, W.A. Ismay Studio Ceramic collection, Middleham Hoard - also leading to an article on Sydney Harold Smith photography collection. Over 400 high-quality images were delivered to [[Commons:Category:Images_donated_by_York_Museums_Trust|Commons]], many have contributed to the quality of Wikimedia projects (e.g. see [http://bit.ly/1o95EeZ] - images were used to enrich the biographies of the potters). Some of the collections were previously hardly used by the museum, so the uploads lead to them being known more widely. The programme originally aimed at a more extensive upload programme, however, the resident had to adapt to technical delays and obstacles.

*External partnerships. Committed to the idea of engaging with many cultural organisations in the region, YMT was exploring the possibility of scoping the project out and reaching more than just the institutions in the Trust. This resulted in an idea of a Yorkshire wide Wikimedia ambassador linked to the Museum Development Yorkshire, a project YMT have shaped and planned to run in second half of 2014 and beyond.

*Training and advocacy. All key curators at YMT were trained to edit Wikipedia. The resident also delivered a range of external talks reaching c. 80 people, including one to the Museum Development Yorkshire.

*Outreach and events. The resident delivered 3 training sessions for staff and volunteers (including a link with the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, which could be explored further), and a high profile public [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-editathon|editathon]] - substantial content improvements to a range of articles that was done can be seen [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-report#Results_of_the_day|here]], 3 new articles were created and c. 20 were improved.

==Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol==
Not included in this review, but worth a mention, is a residency in Wales (started in March 2014) which focuses on media release and content creation, a valuable area in the context of Welsh Wikipedia. See a report covering May 2014 [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/file/d/0B6kPpD8mNB2qVXZ5SF9aN1FPZUE/edit?usp=drive_web here]. An outpost residency, it would benefit from connecting up to other residents in the UK.

=Project delivery - summary of impact=

Please see [[wmuk:Strategic_goals| Wikimedia UK’s strategic goals]] for background information.

G1 Develop open knowledge
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase
*G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve
*G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge
|
* Managing image uploads has been a strong area of activity for most of the residents. Many of the image donations came from institutions where a WIR project was based.
* Many key and unusual collections of the host institutions’ were being uploaded, with such valuable material the content was often used on other Wikimedia projects. The residents have the time available to ensure the content is being used in a way that benefits the projects.
* Working with external organisations is very commonly a focus of the residencies. Building on their position within a valued institution, they are able to collaborate with other organisations and advocate the benefits of open knowledge in a way that scales the chapter’s reach, and is commonly beyond what the chapter could achieve on its own. Often a successful residency would enable setting up another WIR project.
|-
|}

G2 As a volunteer-led organisation, ensuring effective use of the resources available to us
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
G2a Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers
*G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.
*G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.
*G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.
|
* Editathons and training events provide opportunities for others to volunteer.
* Many of editing training and editathons delivered by the residents focused on gender gap.
* Editathons and training events provide opportunities for the volunteering community to contribute in the skills area.
|-
|
G2b Use effective and high quality governance and resource management processes
*G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream
|
*The WIR projects consistently attract external funding; approximately 70% of the projects are funded or co-funded by the host institution. Two of the projects were fully funded by an external grant secured by joint bids from WMUK and the host institutions.
|}

G3 Reduce barriers to accessing open knowledge
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.
*G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.
*G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge.
|
* One of the resident was a keen supporter or QRpedia. If this is deemed to be a priority project to explore, with support given to the residents, more QRpedia projects could potentially be started. The resident is in the right position to support the implementation of such project in the host institution.
* With the amount of media interest that the projects and their activities attract, this area cannot be underestimated. Residents often deliver talks at internal meetings and external conferences further raising awareness. They also produce toolkits and materials that can be used in advocacy for open knowledge, and how to engage with it.
* This is an important area of residents’ work, and one that really strengthens what WMUK should be doing. Thanks to the projects often lasting a reasonably long time, the residents can work on advocating policy changes within the host institutions that bring them closer to open knowledge.
|-
|}

G5 Develop, support, and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities
*G5.4 Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.
|
* As noted above, some residents have been independently supporting residents or activities in other countries.
* Some residents have worked to strengthen their activities by joining up with other open knowledge organisations, such as the Open Knowledge Foundation in Scotland.
|-
|}

==Potential impact==
[[File:Pat Hadley running a Wikipedia training session for YMT 3.JPG|thumb|400px|Spreading the awareness of the project]]

The residents’ work cuts across the key goals of the chapter and the potential, including interest from high profile organisations, is strong. As identified through the SWOT analysis, the project has a support of a strong brand. It also responds well to the current openness agenda and so can be a catalyst for change at the host institutions.

However, the opportunities that they create are continually missed due to insufficient support provided by WMUK. The points below outline issues identified in the context of what could potentially be delivered:

* As Wikimedia UK’s expertise grows, the residency programme is perceived as important in the global movement, and WMUK could contribute a lot to support others and share its experience (G5.1, G5.3). Doing this actively and in a clear manner requires time.
* As mentioned, the residents create many links with external organisations (G1.3), but as such they are often not handed over to the chapter and the activity decreases when the residency ends.
* Most of the residents produce resources and toolkits, many of which need additional support to be finalised and actually used. The resources that are done are not circulated and put together into an useful portal.
* Residences often work in areas that could compliment other activities of the chapter. However, without an effort being made to connect these, often the activities remain disjointed and do not benefit from mutual support.

;Management/set up:
* Setting up the residencies is an extremely time consuming process, crucial in managing the expectations and sharing the right objectives - this has been mentioned repeatedly in this report. Drawing up project contracts has been seen as innovative and useful in the movement, but requires effort spend in negotiations. Putting time into this process would result in better shaped residencies and clearer focus for the residencies.
* Many projects have sufficient potential to be considered for an extension. Setting this up well and working with the host institution to find the funding is time consuming as has not always taken place.
* External funding has been a strong area for this programme (G2b.4). External grants bring in additional stakeholder, however, and the negotiations require time.
*Some host institutions were never physically visited by WMUK during the projects, which reduced the opportunity to support finding solutions for key obstacles.
*Outpost residencies in particular tend to suffer from limited direct support from WMUK; more effort is needed to link them to other WIRs and potential support communities.
* Not all residents are able to support the reports as needed by WMUK without support. This means that some metrics are not being captured regularly, and the impact of the program - cutting through most of the charity’s goals - is not fully recorded.

;Recruitment
* Comparing to other chapters, WMUK is strongly involved in the HR process of setting up the residencies, contributing to all stages of recruitment. This is valuable and very time consuming.
* An essential stage in the WIR recruitment is promoting the opportunity to the right Wikimedia communities. Time required to do this cannot be underestimated as the roles are often very specialised and the potential group of candidates is limited. On one occasion, when no one from WMUK promoted a WIR opportunity, almost no applications were received. This shows the ‘one person sensitivity’ of the programme, which is a strong weakness of it.
* After initial bout of interest from potential host institutions in 2012-13 recruitment drive, it has become harder to recruit further host institutions. This is not dissimilar to other chapters, but nonetheless means that more time is required to find opportunities for the residencies and work with potential hosts to encourage them to cooperate with the chapter.

Lack of time capacity is a reason why many of these elements have not been delivered, thus missing the opportunities for larger impact.

=Key findings - recommendations=
Overall we believe that the Wikimedian in Residence programme has been one of Wikimedia UK’s strong areas of activity, and one that is able to increase the scale of Wikimedia UK’s involvement significantly. The programme had many successes and it is our opinion that it should continue with the following recommendations, which take on board comments from the community, the residents and host institutions.

==Duration of residencies==
Residencies should be six months long at minimum for small institutions and 9-12 months minimum for larger organisations with an ambition of changing the institution’s culture. This could be done part time, especially if that allows for a longer project.
* Shorter residencies do not give sufficient time to achieve the set goals, although may work for smaller institutions or very focused projects.
* Content generation projects at institutions with a mature attitude to open knowledge can be successful on a shorter timescale.
* Shorter residencies are not economically attractive for many potential residents.

==Supporting residents and the programme==
In the light of the gaps in support for the programme outlined throughout the report, and lack of capacity to support the identified opportunities for growth and impact, Wikimedia should appoint a Wikimedian in Residence Coordinator, with the following suggested responsibilities:
* Develop future partnerships, identify resources to support future partnerships.
* Give capacity to the setup of the residencies, working on managing expectations, setting effective objectives and solving potential issues with the projects.
* Coordinate the application process, managing the tension between it being unspecified and flexible.
* Strengthen the event support and induction meetings.
* Coordinate between current residents and between current host institutions to facilitate knowledge sharing, e.g. via networking meetings.
* Facilitate best practice exchange, e.g. via a forum/portal.
* Offer in person support via meetings.
**Initial set up meetings, review meetings, extension discussions, exit interviews.
* Monitor the progress and delivery of the residencies, assist in resolving the obstacles to delivery.
* Offer training e.g. with delivering Wikipedia editing workshops.
* Work on supporting the GLAM metrics tools.

==Sharing of information and best practice==
With added capacity of the Coordinator, set up a forum for the sharing of advice, information and best practice between institutions and between residents (current and former residents and host institutions and other relevant parties).
* This should be a discussion forum with ease of communication .
* It should allow for sharing of documents - especially toolkits and past materials.
* It should include guidance for prospective hosts about what an institution should/shouldn’t expect from a WIR.
* Create a checklist for the host institution at the start of the project to allow them to prepare the infrastructure, induction, and regular meetings with key staff.
* As an alternative, or additional task, WIR related outreach portal and materials need to be improved.
* WIR coordinator should arrange periodic meetings between residents and host institution managers to discuss successes, strategies, challenges. Attendees could also include prospective hosts or residents.

==Project goals==
Consider reevaluating goals of the project, potentially creating individual set for each residency.
*Clearer objectives and metrics will mean better reporting, which will help with community engagement and project dissemination.
*Retain flexibility.

==Project format==
Consider alternative residencies formats to increase the potential resident pool. This could take form of one person covering multiple institutions concurrently, or creating a team of 2-3 residents with various skillsets.
* ‘Multiple host’ model trialled so far has proven to be much more resource intensive and would require more support from Wikimedia UK to be delivered well.
* It does, however, allow the institutions to share facilities and learning points. Combining residencies will also potentially increase the field of potential residents, especially as the work approaches full time equivalency.
* Residency ‘teams’ approach would be a new solution that requires support from the Coordinator to be trialled successfully. The skill set required of a single resident can be too broad for projects with diverse goals.
** Another approach would be to treat, and work with, the host institution group as the team.

==Resident skills==
Ensure the skills identified in the review are reinforced in the job description.
* Training and communication skills.
* Teaching Wikipedia skills and experience of editing Wikimedia projects.
* Ability to work independently.
* Being tactful.
* If goals are tailored, the resident skills would not have to be so broad (e.g. training less important if primary goal is to change licensing policy).

=Footnotes=
[[File:Wikipedians in Residence at GLAMcamp London.JPG|thumb|400px|International group of Wikipedians in Residence]]
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Wikimedians in Residence]]
[[Category:Evaluation]]

Wikimedian in Residence 2014 review

2014-06-30T15:28:41Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): /* Duration of residencies */ grammar

Wikimedian in Residence programme review - Wikimedia UK 2014

''by Chris McKenna (volunteer reviewer) and Daria Cybulska (Programme Manager, Wikimedia UK)''

=Summary=
This report assesses the Wikimedian in Residence programme supported by Wikimedia UK over 2012-14 in order to improve how it’s run. It describes [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Initial_survey| in detail]] and summarises, as a [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#SWOT analysis|SWOT analysis]] the findings of a survey project which was a key part of the review. It [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Project_delivery_-_overview_of_the_residencies|describes]] and [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Project_delivery_-_summary_of_impact|summarises]] the achievements of the residencies and analyses what would make their impact stronger. Finally, it produces a list of [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Key_findings_-_recommendations|key recommendations]] for the future of the programme.

=Background=
[[File:GLAM-Wiki Infographic.PNG|An international take on the WIR project|400px|right]]

A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a role in which a Wikimedia editor accepts a placement with an institution to facilitate close working relationship between Wikimedia movement and the institution through a range of activities, both internal and public-facing. They can work on facilitating content improvements on Wikimedia projects, but even more importantly serve as an ambassador for open knowledge within the host organisation.

Their activities can include:
*Organising outreach work to encourage understanding and development of Wikimedia projects internally and externally
*Exploring sharing institution's digital resources on Wikimedia Commons
*Organising events to create or expand existing articles about notable items or subjects of specific relevance to the collection and the organisation's expertise
*Working with institution's staff to explain Wikipedia's and sister projects' practices and how they might be able to contribute. This can be done via events, workshops, producing case study and documentation content
*Developing other projects supporting open knowledge

Wikimedian in Residence projects in the UK have been run with varying degree of support and supervision from Wikimedia UK since creation of the chapter. There is a set of residencies which have reported to, and had agreements signed with, Wikimedia UK - we will focus on this group in the report. As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library. This is a transition case, before contracts with host institutions were introduced, but where we were working very closely with the resident. In November 2012 for the first time we ran a call for applications to attract institutions wanting to host a Wikimedian in Residence. Please see [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/11/were-looking-for-wikipedians-in-residence/ here] and [[wmuk:2012-13_Wikipedians_in_Residence|here]] for background. We received a good response of 15 applications from a range of institutions, from which we chose, in the first round, the organisations listed below. The projects were delivered or started in the 2013-14 activity year.
* Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums (residency took place between March-June ‘13)
* Science Museum, arranged by Wikimedia UK to be combined with
** Natural History Museum (March ‘13 - July ‘13, then extended)
* National Library of Scotland (July ’13 - Feb ‘14, then extended)

National Library of Scotland had a delayed start, which then overlapped with the second round of institutions in 2013-14 activity year (chosen from the original applications received in late 2012):
*York Museums Trust (October ‘13 - April ‘14)
*The Royal Society (January ‘14 - June ‘14 approx. - deferred from original October ‘13 start to suit internal timelines of the host institution).

The staggered start of the residencies allowed for better management, as the setup process is resource intensive.

Most of the institutions above belong to the cultural sector, but this is not a requirement of the programme. We also set up a Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador (July ‘13 - April ‘14) which followed some of the elements of the WIR model and will be included in this analysis. Therefore we are looking at a group of 7 projects in this report - British Library, Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums, Science Museum with Natural History Museum, National Library of Scotland, York Museums Trust, The Royal Society, Jisc, with 7 residents and 8 host institutions.

The operational details of current, past and potential residencies are kept on Wikimedia UK’s office wiki.

Before the first round of the projects was set up in November 2012, there was no standard agreement that would codify the cooperation between the two parties - Wikimedia UK and the host institution - and serve as a guide for key procedures. There was a need for a document that would clarify the expectations towards the project of both sides including expected outcomes, but also serve as a binding document explaining procedures such as termination, institution’s obligations, funding details, trademarks.

A draft was created by Saad Choudri, which was commented on widely by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK volunteers. This document was trialed with the first round of the institutions - following their comments the Agreement is undergoing iterations to make it clearer and more effective. Current version can be found [https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/w/images/6/60/Example_WiR_agreement.pdf here] - this is adapted to fit individual projects.

Over 2013-14 a stronger support structure was created for the programme, not only including the Agreement document, but also application forms, job descriptions, induction day structure, monthly reporting templates, review meetings.

The WIR programme has been seen as one of the key ways we can engage with external organisations, extending Wikimedia UK’s scale of activities and outreach. These residencies are often a considerable investment for Wikimedia UK (£2-10K) and at the same time, there is a risk of low impact if they are not conducted in a focused way.

=Aim of the review=
We agreed to reflect on the programme’s successes and challenges through a review. With a year and a half since the agreement’s introduction, we should not judge too quickly - by May 2014 only three institutions completed their residencies - however we can learn a lot already.

We are aiming to review the programme to date, focusing on the feedback of the residents and host institutions as for the successful models for the residencies, and analysis of key obstacles to greater success.

This report is to produce recommendations for future development - progress or cessation. The recommendations are to be shared with wider community in a number of ways (e.g. Wikimania related presentation, blog post, mailing lists).

=Methods=
* Questionnaire for the residents (both completed and current residencies)
* Questionnaire for residents’ line managers, or other key staff at the host institution
* Questionnaire for the UK Wikimedia community, and Wikimedia UK staff working with WIRs
* In person brainstorm for the residents to discuss SWOT and open to wider dialogue
* Existing data gathering - analysing the available residents’ monthly reports and available final reports

Additionally:
* Working with the Programme Evaluation and Design team
* Producing final report for wider dissemination

==Timelines==
* From May 2012 to April 2014 - investigated period of the WIR projects
* Jan 2014 - work with Programme Evaluation and Design team to improve the questionnaire and survey approach. Shared with staff and GLAM committee for comments
* March-April 2014 - consultation with relevant parties (WIRs, host organisations, community). Surveys, additional phone or person meetings as needed
* 5 April 2014 SWOT analysis meeting
* May/June 2014 - creation of the review document
* Q2 and 3 of 2014 - dissemination

=Key issues of consideration=

;Model
* Length and any other considerations
* Cost analysis and funding model - initial conclusions

;Hosts
* Who should we be working with (potential, types, locations)
* Assessment of Wikimedia UK involvement - setup, documentation, support for the host organisation
* Perception of effectiveness of the residencies vs initial goals

;Residents
* Assessment of needed skills
* Experience of the project
* Wikimedia UK support for the residents
* Documentation / reporting

[[File:Wikipedian in Residence Infographic.jpg|thumb|Statistics of the first two years of the international programme (2010-2011)]]
;Benefits of the programme
* Are the residents delivering on objectives as set by Wikimedia UK
* What do residents/hosts/community see as the benefits of the programme
* Analysis of impact delivered so far, and the potential impact

;Measuring the programme
* Assessment of the objectives vs needs of the programme, and vs the delivery by the residents <ref>As a part of the agreement signed between Wikimedia UK and the host institution, an overall list of objectives is provided. This, for most of the residencies analysed here, was a standard list including: 1) Functional relationship established between Wikimedia UK and the Institution; plans for sustainability once the project finishes. 2) Engagement with the Wikipedia community at large. 3) Increased the number of contributors to Wikimedia projects. 4) Facilitating content improvement of Wikimedia projects (uploads, events). 5) Case study produced. It is now being considered whether this should be more tailored to each project, and linked to Wikimedia UK’s strategic objectives. The tension here is creating firm objectives at the start of the project, and allowing for flexibility (seen as useful by the residents in particular, but some host institutions as well). </ref>

=Initial survey=
Once the key issues for consideration were specified, we created survey questions to start the consultation. Survey creation was supported by the Programme Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Three surveys were created to explore issues specific to 1) Residents, 2) Host institutions, 3) community opinions of the programme.

Here are the questions for the survey:
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1zEm53qtdRvnB4-fpQ6pIOAODYol69AEpFXxkCZRV-UA/edit# Residents]
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/123dO-6Yh7ZAG50uiGr0MYAdI0OIK2V7Xviw4btQ7D1I/edit# Host institutions]
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1gv8Dt6cyAqkNAWO84hGFhavA8EfLu87ZIsU9gPgB2qI/edit# Community]

The surveys were circulated over March-April 2014.

==Results - the residents==
[[File:UK Wikimedian in Residence discussion meeting.jpg|thumb|400px|The participants of [[wmuk:Brainstorm_meeting_to_review_the_WIR_programme|a brainstorm meeting]] ]]

Responses from all 7 residents were received. The summary of points raised is below:
* Length. 57% felt the project’s length was about right, with 43% feeling it was too short/far too short (5 out of 7 projects were part time). However, later in the survey it is often mentioned that the timing was not sufficient to meet their objectives for the project.
* Meeting objectives. 5 out of 7 residents felt they fulfilled the objectives moderately, 2 - completely. This was explored in further questions later.
* Support from the host institution. It was judged to be at the right level.
** Improvement. It was suggested that it would be helpful to have a better connection with the department heads within the host institution. Residents working within big organisations mentioned that in a context of many departments and internal changes, their project was prone to have little visibility.
* Support from Wikimedia UK. It was judged to be at the right level. Event support (materials, promotion) was seen as by far the most important support area. Induction meeting was judged as useful, with various areas of it flagged as helpful (e.g. Conflict of Interest considerations) depending on the knowledge level of the resident at the start.
** No significant improvements suggested.
* Challenges faced during delivery of the project. Many residents focused at the difficulties with the host institutions.
** Organisational structure, the number stakeholders involved, staff’s resistance to the project and the openness in general were seen as hindrances.
** Not enough time to deliver the objectives.
** Not enough skill to deliver the objectives.
** Community buy-in and caution around paid editing.
* Solutions employed by the residents to address the above:
** Focusing on achievable actions and timetabling.
** Connecting with local open knowledge community.
** Working with the host institution to get the project’s events more visible.
* Objectives. Residents were provided with key areas of delivery for their projects (Engagement with the host institution; engagement with the Wikimedia community; increase number of editors; facilitate content improvement; produce case study and documentation). The residents assessed their achievements, most of them stating that they have been moderately successful at delivering on the objectives, with most confidence around facilitating content improvement. <p> The residents flagged their achievements in the areas:
** Engagement with the host institution - change in policy, significant awareness raising of open knowledge within staff.
** Community engagement - modest connections made between the host institution staff and the editor community.
** Increase number of editors - respondents were counting on continued editing of editathon attendees
** Facilitating content improvement - delivered content mostly pending at the time of the report, but the residents mentioned improvements during editathons, and smaller scale image donations.
* Biggest achievement. Residents were asked about what they judged to be their biggest achievement over the residency. A wide range of projects were mentioned: licensing change at the host institution, delivering workshops at universities; running an editathon which created a lot of awareness, facilitating a DYK article.
* Further remarks
** What residents enjoy most about their projects vary from person to person. Working with many partner organisation was often mentioned, delivering training and linking with the open knowledge community.
** Residents found it useful to be open to the possibility of changing objectives during the course of the project.

==Results - host institutions==
[[File:Share Your Knowledge, Conferenza di maggio.jpg|thumb|400px|Cultural institution hosting a Wikipedia event]]

The residencies are designed so that after the initial setup work they are largely managed by the host institutions. That is where the key line management structure sits - it is important then to analyse the host institutions’ assessment of the programme.

A combination of online survey, phone or in person interviews were conducted - focusing on line managers. Responses from 8 people were received, from 6 of the residencies. Some of the interviews did not follow the survey questions exactly to allow for variances between projects (e.g. British Library did not have some of the documentation in place; some residencies started before we introduced induction meetings).

The list below is the summary of the responses to the survey questions (both online and interviews):
* Setup and format of the residency assessment. Managers were asked to comment on the application process, setup, skills of the resident and length of the project. The opinions were mixed, with many improvements suggested - particularly for the residencies early on.
** Application process was judged as unhelpfully open by several institutions (e.g. in terms of what would Wikimedia UK expect from this project). <ref> Being open to innovative ideas and formats vs giving clear direction to potential hosts is one of the tensions of the programme. </ref> Another aspect is that the setup can take up to a year, which can give institutions useful preparation time, but is cumbersome.
** As a note from Wikimedia UK’s perspective, the institutions which enjoyed the openness of the process were the ones that were most proactive during the setup stage, reaching out to other institutions and residents to learn more about the possible projects. They were often more successful in later delivery.
** Length. Suggested longer than 4 months; part time (even 1 day/week) seen as useful for pilot work. Some managers mentioned slow rate of change at the institution as a factor to consider.
*** Often at the setup stage institutions feel that 6 months will be sufficient to deliver their plan; however in hindsight it is usually seen that longer residency would deliver stronger results.
* Support from Wikimedia UK. Initial meetings (before project start) and recruitment support were flagged as key and very useful.
* Challenges during the planning stages of the residency. Managers mentioned a range of problems, including low response to the advert (some identify that the skill set of the potential resident is very specialist). Selling the programme internally (and explaining the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia) can be challenging as well.
* Challenges during delivery of the project. Again several areas were outlined:
** Resident focused on personal topic interests.
** Finding time to line manage and increase skills of the resident.
** Internal resistance to the changes proposed by the project, lack of staff understanding around the function of the residency (especially if residency coincided with internal restructuring of the host institution).
* Solutions offered to these difficulties included arranging networking with other WIR managers, and finding time for the line management meetings.
* Objectives. Managers were provided with key areas of delivery for their projects (Engagement with the host institution; engagement with the Wikimedia community; increase number of editors; facilitate content improvement) to assess. Their overall rating for all of them was ‘at least moderately met’. Managers were also asked if they needed to change the objectives during the residency, and 4 managers who answered this questions stated that changes were not necessary. This may suggest that objectives were broad enough that they still included modifications that were introduced.
** Engagement with the host institution - positive, training and events for staff were useful, together with a possible guidance explaining how staff could engage with Wikimedia. Policy change was also mentioned.
** Community engagement - positive, public events were important.
** Increase number of editors - events were mentioned as a tool to gain contributors.
** Facilitating content improvement - facilitating article creation was mentioned, although answers focused on low impact projects (e.g. ‘two articles were improved’).
* Biggest achievement of the residency. A range were identified:
** Raising awareness of openness and possibilities of working with Wikimedia was seen as important (this included event work, e.g. final ‘dissemination workshop’).
** Changes in policy was also a very significant element.
** The residency creating case studies and toolkits that could then be used by other organisations, thus spreading the impact of the project.
** Being (seen to be) involved in a new, innovative project.
* Further remarks
** Institutions were grateful that they had an opportunity to explore ways of working with Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia UK.
** Limited staff resources, time, dedication, skill or organisational change meant that often staff were not able to engage with the project fully.
** Sustainability was seen as a difficult element to achieve.

===Interviews with hosts===
Phone interviews were conducted with two of the host institutions, which included the survey questions, but also allowed for exploration of broader themes around the residencies. Below are the key points raised relevant to this review.

* There are 3 prerequisites for a Wikimedian in Residence project at any organisation: technical infrastructure to support the project, existing content generation project in place, environment within the institution (e.g. various departments working together).
**When any of these areas are not ‘mature’, the residency can focus on raising awareness. When the areas are mature, a project can work on concrete content creation projects - this would also allow for a shorter residency.
**When deciding on a host institution for the project, we need to assess its maturity, especially in terms of attitudes to open licensing.
*One institution marked tactfulness, ability to work independently and understanding of the internal structures of the host institution as important soft skills of the resident.
* For best chance of success, the resident needs support from two people in the organisation: 1) Line manager who is well networked laterally within the institution. 2) An oversight from somebody who works with senior management.
* Organising the residency as a joint project between several institutions can be challenging. With a bigger number of stakeholders the processes take much longer. It is also likely that one of the partners’ objectives will be given more weight than the other’s, leading to conflict or dissatisfaction with the project.
**Joint line management, regular appraisals from all stakeholders and jointly agreed work plans could be solutions to this.

==Results - the community==
[[File:GLAM-WIKI 2013 attendees.jpg|thumb|500px]]

23 people responded to the community consultation survey, which was promoted on the UK mailing list and the Watercooler. It was also mentioned on the international GLAM-related mailing lists, and twitter. Of those who indicated their affiliation, the vast majority were linked with Wikimedia UK. Questions were broad enough to be applicable to the overall Wikimedian in Residence programme, not just the UK one.
* Benefits of programme. Various threads were identified: around creating open knowledge, raising awareness of Wikipedia and open knowledge, increasing reputation of Wikipedia, increasing cooperation between institutions.
**Are residencies effective in achieving their goals? Largely, yes.
* How could the programme be improved? Several areas were identified: have clearer objectives; better reporting, clearer metrics (which would help to involve the community and increase dissemination); work on sustainability (longer length of the project).
** Community work - it was commented that the projects have been a good catalyst for community when they worked well, but at the same time the organisers should be careful not to overburden the community.
* What institutions should host WIR projects? Many respondents were positive about the range of institutions worked with so far. London focus is an issue, while some people recognise the reasons for this bias.
** Factors to be considered when choosing the host institution were: Commitment to delivery of the project; open knowledge enthusiasm and commitment; commitment to sustainability after the residency finishes; relative importance of the institution.
* What skills should WIR have? Several key areas were mentioned, particularly ability to teach Wikimedia skills, tactfulness, experience of editing Wikimedia projects.
* The community was asked how they would like the programme to develop. Areas mentioned were, particularly, longer length residencies, focus on fuller reporting, creating residency ‘teams’ rather than having one person responsible for the whole project.

=SWOT analysis=
Brainstorming meeting to analyse the SWOT elements of the programme was organised on 5 April 2014 (see [[wmuk:Brainstorm_meeting_to_review_the_WIR_programme|here]]). The residents who took part in the first survey were present to discuss the programme in person.

Key questions considered were:
* What is the SWOT of the Wikimedian in Residence programme
* What are the recommendations to amplify the strong parts of the programme and tackle the weak ones
* summary of survey results, including host organisation challenges - how Wikimedia UK can we help with these
* Sharing learning

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|<big>'''Strengths'''</big> - ''What advantages does this programme have? What does the residency programme do better than other activities? What unique resources can we draw on while being residents, that others can’t?'' <br><br>

*Backed by a strong brand - Wikipedia
*Good record of successful projects (although something that works in one residency may not work for others)
* Resident can utilise the reputation / prestige / profile of the host institution to generate event attendees and leverage projects with other organisations
*Strategic. Can be linked to the open agenda
*Host institution use it as driving force of change towards open knowledge. Residency has a push factor for evaluating host institution’s open commitment
**Can have high impact on the institution
*Flexible. Resident can release content or work on groundwork - open policy, creating a system for opening in the future
*The community involvement, trainers support
*Generates toolkits, materials
*Wikimedia UK’s support
*Has a system of reporting, contracts

|<big>'''Weaknesses'''</big> - ''How could you improve in the residency? (internal factors)'' <br><br>

;Host institution-specific
* Staff are too busy to engage
* Staff are against the project (e.g. image releases) or support is mixed. Enthusiasts are not always the decision makers. Lack understanding of the project aims (especially if it wasn’t introduced well). It can be difficult for Wikimedia UK to know the institution’s attitudes before the project starts
* Technical competencies of staff are very varied
* Institution can misunderstand the aims of the project initially and expectations are not fulfilled. Institution isn’t clear on what it wants the project to deliver once it starts
* Wikimedia policies (e.g. conflict of interest) can be hard to understand
* It is difficult to engage staff in editing Wikipedia
* Involving institution’s volunteer group can be seen as driving them away from their original tasks
* Wikimedia metrics are not included in the institution’s metrics (e.g. they only consider page views of their own website, and does not include Wikimedia Commons)
* Changes take a long time

;Tools and metrics
* Wikimedia GLAM tools are not reliable nor are they documented well. Seen as the biggest ‘top down’ problem of the programme
* Policy change and culture change is hard to measure. Targets for each residency should be set individually

;Wikimedia UK
* Limited capacity to support projects once they start
* We have less leverage than the partner organisation – we are usually the junior partner
* Wikimedia outreach materials is hard to find and out of date. Residents create materials, but they are not shared well

;Community
* An small intersection of people from the community are interested in a Residency project, especially the in person events ( editor + interest + able to attend event). Community can support a limited amount of projects
* Engaging community/communities – the biggest bottom up challenge

;Other
* Small pool of potential residents
* Projects too short
* Project is very dependent on the individual resident
*When working with multiple institutions but physically based only at one, the other organisations may get less attention and thus less benefit
* Flicker can be a better solution for some GLAMs than Wikimedia Commons
* Legacy difficult to attain

|-
|<big>'''Opportunities'''</big> - ''What good opportunities can you spot? What interesting trends are you aware of? (technology, policy, social, cultural)'' <br><br>

;Host institutions
*Sector is keen on opportunities - open agenda is important. Focusing on open policy could be a fruitful area of work
*Cultural institutions use web in an increasingly forward thinking way – Wikipedia can be employed in these strategic objectives
* Because of lack of clear idea for the project in the host institution, residents can shape their work

;Community
* Community offers a potential
* Access to experts in the host institutions, their volunteering community
* Resident can help grow local community

*Wikimedia UK could develop resources used more widely by the movement

|<big>'''Threats'''</big> - ''What obstacles do you face? What are your ‘competitors’ doing? (external factors)'' <br><br>

;Host institutions
* Financial cuts
* Restructuring within the organisation interferes with the residency
* Rate of change is very slow

;Community
* Interaction between GLAM professionals or newcomers and community can be tense and again may need to be moderated by the resident
* Support for a given project is very contextual and need to be maneuvered by the resident.
* We need to be careful not to oversaturate it
* Cannot be directed - projects can’t be entirely reliant on support

|}

==In depth discussion==
As a part of the SWOT analysis workshop, we went beyond these points and worked on recommending solutions to the issues flagged up above. These have been grouped in sections around Host institutions, Wikimedia UK and the resident, depending on who do they relate to most.

;Host institution
[[File:Dunhuang manuscript digitisation.jpg|thumb|400px|Digitisation project at the British Library]]

*Prepare infrastructure beforehand (technology for the resident and events; staff support). Hot desking should not be expected (but it could also be beneficial)
** Think about what department the resident will be based in. Digital team may work well but is often separated from other departments.
* Think about how the resident will be handled once they start. Structured induction is important, but ongoing contact with staff and inclusion into the organisation is vital
* Make key department heads aware of the project’s strategic opportunities
* Both the line manager and senior staff need to act as ambassadors for the project. Directorate support is key, especially in case of hostility to the project
* Be open to flexible work patterns for the resident

;Wikimedia UK/host institution
* Make sure host organisation knows what to expect - initial excitement can be unhelpful if not managed well
** Create a document outlining what an institution should/shouldn’t expect from a WIR. Include past examples
** Institution needs to see the value of getting involved in an openness project, rather than choosing to be involved for a particular benefit
**Need to be clear about whether the goals are focused on engaging institution’s staff or public, generating content for Wikimedia projects, changing the internal culture of the institution in favour of free content, etc. This can help with getting the right people with the right expectation
**These goals needs to be clearly articulated in language that senior managers and other relevant staff can understand, ditto job description of WIRs. Make it clear we cannot guarantee community engagement
** Be strict in asserting the expectations in the job description <ref> There is a tension between expecting the potential resident to be well versed with the Wikimedia community, policies and tools, and assuming that these skills can be gained later. </ref>
** Be clearer on metrics and objectives. Not expecting editor recruitment may be an area to consider
* When the residencies are set up, use a checklist to ensure the infrastructure is in place

;Resident/host institution
* Organise regular curatorial meetings to identify who can support your project
* Project focus. Be flexible and not get tied in to one project idea. Have exit strategies for unsuccessful projects. Exclusive project focus can be harmful – it can make it easier to sell the project and give early success, but you may become an assistant to that particular project
* Don’t assume the community engagement

;Resident
* Engage with the host organisation once you are appointed, ideally even before the project starts (e.g. put events in the calendar)
* Building on wider community can be helpful (e.g. wider open knowledge community). Having a persistent presence within a community can help it grow
* Have specific groups to pitch events to – it will increase attendance
* Be cautious against planning to do too many kinds of work

;Resident/Wikimedia UK
* Resident’s role consists of 1) facilitating content creation 2) internal consultation for policy change, ambassadorial awareness raising 3) working with the community, for its benefit. This can be seen as three different jobs, and the remit can be confusing for a new starter. Wikimedia UK should be clearer on articulating these different expectations
* Be flexible about projects to be delivered
* Consider creating a portal for the residents. Include toolkits and past materials
* Ask the host institution for a public statement about the residency to be used in publicity

;Wikimedia UK
* Consider choosing institutions where the resident is not fixed to sit within a very specific project may work better. This allows for work across various departments
* Run fewer residencies but longer – at least 6 months (the first 2 months is for the resident to find their feet)
* Organisational structure of the host institution can be hard to understand before starting on the project. Assess if the person advocating for the project is the best to run it. Assess the place of the department within the organisation
* Residents need confidence in running Wikipedia events. Offer support
* Note that ‘outpost’ residencies, geographically separated from other hubs of activities, bring up risks. Building community takes longer and it is harder to deliver on the objectives
* Run exit interviews for the residents and host institutions to assess the project and extract learning points

=Economics of the programme=
[[File:Library Science Talk @ Swiss National Library 20140624.jpg|thumb|400px|The resident at the National Library of Scotland has been co-funded by Wikimedia UK]]

In [[wmuk:2012 Activity Plan/Wikipedians in Residence|2012-13]] activity year, we have budgeted £15,000 for the Wikimedian in Residence activities. This budget remained largely unspent, partly due to the big British Library project being fully externally funded, perhaps partly due to some potential partnerships not being developed. There was no dedicated staff to oversee the programme.

This lead to the increased effort to manage the programme and budget of this area, a first step of which was the November 2012 recruitment drive as described in the background section of this review, managed by the Events Organiser. Seeing the potential of many organisations getting in touch with Wikimedia UK and being interested in cooperating with us, in [[wmuk:2013 Activity Plan/GLAM Wikimedians in Residence|2013-14]] we had a bigger budget of £30,000. This was fully allocated to the projects delivered, by and large to the residencies discussed in this report.

An average grant from Wikimedia UK was £5,000 which allows for a pilot project of a length of several months. Due to the budget flexibility of Wikimedia UK which is often larger than the host institution’s, this seed funding was often essential to start the project.

The residencies can attract co-funding from the host institutions, particularly for project extensions (once the institution had time to organise internal funding). This is usually explored and encouraged by Wikimedia UK if the project is seen to be delivering strongly and there is a potential for a larger future impact during a review meeting.

The WIR projects consistently attract outside funding; approximately 70% of the projects are funded or co-funded by the host institution. Two of the projects delivered in the UK so far were fully funded by an external grant secured by joint bids from WMUK and the host institutions.

=Project delivery - overview of the residencies=
==British Library==
[[File:Cree Indian (HS85-10-13885) edit.jpg|thumb|400px|Image from the Picturing Canada collection - [[Commons:British Library/Picturing Canada]] ]]

Full time May 2012-May 2013. <ref> The Wikipedian in Residence program was a full time year-long project (May 2012-May 2013) by the British Library to develop ways of working with online volunteer communities through an in-house liaison, supported and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The project focused on two main aspects: firstly, skills training within the Library and the broader academic community, to build experience and confidence in engaging with these communities; and secondly, working to help make some of the Library’s existing digital collections more visible to new audiences. The start of cooperation between Wikimedia UK and British Library was marked in January 2011 with a two day editathon. </ref>

*Media coverage [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/BL#Press_coverage| summarised here]]. Additionally, two articles oriented towards librarians were commissioned and published during the program:
**Wikipedia in the Library. Refer 29 (2) Summer 2013. [co-authored with Max Klein, OCLC]
**Wikipedia and Information Literacy: a springboard for research. The School Librarian 61 (1) Spring 2013.

*Toolkits and resources. A series of guidance documents for academics and researchers interested in working with Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects were produced, notably [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Participation_by_academic_projects|this resource]].

*Content improvement. The content-oriented program within the library aimed to use Wikimedia projects to distribute material from existing digitisation programs more widely. This was carried out alongside the development and release of the Library’s existing Access and Reuse Policy, which was seeking to support the release of material by curators. Over five thousand images from the British Library’s collections were made available with full metadata and cleared licensing through Wikimedia Commons. The residency skillfully built on policy change within the host institution.
**The residency gave an opportunity to repurpose material which had been digitised but never publicly released, or to use information produced by the Library’s projects to enrich Wikipedia. Projects worked on included The Library’s Nineteenth Century Books Collection, Picturing Canada (several thousand culturally important photographs), the International Dunhuang Project, Darwin Correspondence Project (where biographical notes around the documentation of the project were used on Wikipedia). Thanks to the resident being based in house and being able to interact with various staff, it was possible to discover these projects and use them to contribute to the open knowledge.
**By the end of the residency, around 3,000 Wikipedia pages used images related to the British Library in some way, 750 of which used images known to be sourced from its collections and provided with full metadata and catalogue links.

*Training and advocacy. 62 Wikimedia awareness and editing training delivered for 15 different high profile institutions within the ‘Skills training programme’ of the residency. Around 400 people attended the practical sessions - mostly targeted were researchers (because of the link with AHRC, the funder) and librarians, two key audiences for Wikimedia projects. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/British_Library/Events#2012-13| This list]] gives an idea of the range of events. Model for a training session on “Wikipedia as information literacy” was developed that could be used within the Expert Outreach work.<ref> Wikimedia UK is working with scientists, scholars, learned societies and funders to help experts improve Wikipedia and its sister projects, bringing that expertise to the widest possible public. This work, called Expert Outreach, complements WMUK's partnerships with galleries, libraries, archives and museums as well as its support for higher education ([[wmuk:Expert outreach]]). </ref> In fact, much of the resident’s advocacy fell into the Expert Outreach work, an area that is often supported by the Wikimedian in Residence projects, but otherwise not strongly delivered within Wikimedia UK.

*Outreach and events. The residency supported the three-day [[wmuk:GLAM-WIKI_2013|“GLAM-Wiki”]] conference in April 2013, hosted by the British Library for 120 attendees from the cultural sector. This was the highest profile event of Wikimedia UK’s in 2013 and would not be possible without the residency being based there. Many other Wikimedia UK outreach events were supported by the resident over the year.

==Natural History Museum and Science Museum==
[[File:John Cummings in front of giant sequoia at NHM.jpg|thumb|350px|The Resident at the Natural History Museum]]

Joint residency April 2013 - January 2014, 4 months full time and 4 months part time. See the full case study report [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1MRuUKbHwDiUToOchvujd__wwIlLGeLSWa9ZSxO-Rl7o/edit# here].

*Toolkits and resources. The resident created a series of improved process documents (e.g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:YouTube_files#Download] or [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/14xGYv9l_4MpzFkBzgS4kbg-WijFNgH9A-QWhtiZFMq4/edit]). However, some of these (like a report on open licensing for the Natural History Museum and Science Museum) have not been finished and shared with the community. This was at least partly due to lack of feedback received on the content, and support in producing the documents.

*External partnerships. The resident focused on working with external organisations on open knowledge initiatives, many of which lead to further cooperation with Wikimedia UK. Among partner organisations were London Zoo, Office for National Statistics (presentations to high level staff, resulting in [[Commons:Category:Content created by the Office for National Statistics|valuable infographics donation]] and an indication of further cooperation, Imperial College (possible Wikipedia classroom assignment project in the future), British Computing Society, Medical Research Council, Collections Trust, United Nations, Royal Society of Chemistry (triggering a WIR project), Royal Society, Department for Culture Media and Sport, Cabinet Office, Wellcome Collection and Royal Veterinary College.

*Content improvement.
** [https://www.flickr.com/photos/94013650@N07/sets/72157633348739594/ A trial release of Natural History Museum archive content] under a Wikimedia compatible open license which was then added to Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource.
**The Science Museum has started to open its collection with [[Commons:Category:Images from the collection of the Science Museum (London)|50 images]] of significant objects which around 20,000 people are viewing on Wikipedia each day.
**400 photos from the National Media Museum (part of the Science Museum Group) were released to Wikimedia Commons ([[Commons:Category:Images from the National Media Museum collection|see here]]).
**As part of GLAM-Wiki Conference 2013, a guided photography visit to Blythe House small object store produced [[Commons:Category:Blythe House, Science Museum small objects storage|130 images]].
**3 videos form Science Museum’s Pain Exhibition were released under an open license (e.g. [[:File:No pain. Science Museum Painless Exhibition Series.webm|No Pain]]). The resident worked with Wikiproject Medicine to find uses for them on Wikipedia.

*Training and advocacy. 508 people attended presentations delivered by the resident (educating audiences about possibilities of open licensing, some focusing on key NHM and SM staff - included a briefing on impact of open licensing for key teams, and senior staff), 202 were trained to edit. The resident run many editathons during his project, including supporting the ones originating from WMUK. However, managing this logistical support required time commitment from the chapter.
**Advocacy work on changing the attitudes and licensing of content towards openness cannot be understated. Much of the project’s time was spent on producing documentation, pilot evidence, and delivering talks (e.g. [http://scratchpads.eu/NHMInformaticsday]) advocating open knowledge.
**This work resulted in The Natural History Museum, who will digitise 20 million of its specimens in the next 5 year, choosing to make these available under an open license - [http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/corporate-information/museum-governance/board-of-trustees/minutes/index.html].

*Technical innovation. The creation of a prototype ‘’’multilingual virtual museum’’’ using QRpedia in a new way [http://bit.ly/NHMguide] - by web links that connect people to Wikipedia articles in their language.

*Supporting other chapters - the resident worked with WIRs in the US, some of whom don’t have the same level of support as the UK residencies. WMUK’s structures and solutions are very worth sharing, but it requires time to do so.

==Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence==
Part time residency run April-June 2013.

*Content improvement. Work on articles, and image releases was supported during the residency. File list is [[Commons:Special:ListFiles/TWAMWIR|here]], and article information is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence|here]]. The exact metrics of content creation were not tracked. Staff capacity was spent on managing the article content creation considerations.

*External partnerships. Leveraging the resident’s position, it was possible to work with outside cultural agencies that had links with TWAM, such as Great North Museum Hancock, the Newcastle University or North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers.

*Training and advocacy. Wikipedia editing training for staff was linked to the internal ‘Learning at Work’ programme, increasing the reach of it. 27 accounts from TWAM were created. A Knowledge Transfer event was run at the end of the residency to summarise the project. This is a very useful type of event which should be run with every residency if it was supported and encouraged from WMUK. It has not always been taking place.

==Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador==
[[File:Slides Research impact and open education 2013 Oxford.pdf|thumb|Slides from - Research impact and open education 2013 Oxford]]

Part time over July 2013 - April 2014.<ref> Among the many projects supported by Jisc are [http://www.jisc-content.ac.uk/ collections of digital content]; research in areas such as Digital Humanities and Virtual Research Environments; and the [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/ukoer3.aspx UK Open Educational Resources programme]. Jisc promotes open access to research as part of the [http://open-access.org.uk/ UK Open Access Implementation Group] and its work with institutional repositories. Jisc also influences practice in Higher and Further Education through its work in innovation and change management. [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/06/jisc-and-wikimedia-uk-to-bridge-between-academia-and-wikipedia/ See the blog post] for more about the collaboration project's rationale.
</ref> Differently focused than the typical Wikimedian in Residence post, it offered an unique opportunity to work closer together with the Higher Education sector in the UK. It explored three kinds of opportunities: [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform/inform39/TenWaysEducatorsCanUseWikipedia.html using Wikipedia in education], [http://digitisation.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/12/05/what-wikimedia-can-do-for-digitised-content/ promoting content collections], and expanding the impact of research. Much of the work covered the chapter’s Expert Outreach work. The cooperation with Jisc began with an World War I editathon in 2011, since then the idea for an Ambassador has been worked on. It required persistence during staff changes at the host organisation, and time commitment to be set up two years later.

The Ambassador independently produced a detailed list of [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Plan#Objectives|objectives]],<ref>That could be summarised as “To demonstrate how publicly-funded research and education projects can benefit from crowdsourcing, using Wikimedia as a platform and a model. To capture this knowledge in a way that permanently changes how Jisc and the wider sector works with Wikimedia.” </ref> plans and stakeholders analysis. With more capacity this impressive resource could have been better mapped to the Wikimedia UK’s strategy, and the Education Outreach plan. This would have resulted in the programmes working more closely together - it was felt during the project that more synergy would be beneficial.

*Media coverage. Over the course of the project significant mainstream media attention was attracted, see [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador#Media_coverage|here]] for a highlights list. A lot of blogging and social media activity was produced, raising awareness of the project and the role of Wikimedia in open education.

*Toolkits and resources.
**A main output of the project, an infoKit [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/ “Crowdsourcing: the wiki way of working”] is a detailed guide through the theory and practice of a topic, tailored to the academic and cultural sectors. It shows how professionals and volunteers can work together to create or improve scholarly and educational materials.
**The [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform/inform39/TenWaysEducatorsCanUseWikipedia.html "Ten ways educators can use Wikipedia"] listicle was a very popular item in Jisc's online magazine.
** Case studies. The key case studies produced with academics address [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/01/21/rural-england-wikipedia/ getting students to improve Wikipedia articles] for course credit, [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ publishing scholarly papers on Wikipedia], and [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/02/18/wikipedia-information-literacy/ using Wikipedia’s policies in the classroom] to promote digital literacy. The article for librarians and information professionals about [http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/3-ways-use-wikipedia-education-tool educational assignments on Wikipedia] passed 300 mentions on Twitter and prompted [http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/21o6mo/rather_than_tell_students_to_pretend_wikipedia/ a Reddit discussion] among teachers and students about the proper use of Wikipedia and other sources.
**The [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Collaborate/Jisc collaboration flowchart] produced shows clearly how Wikimedia sites can benefit projects in scholarly and educational sectors.
**[http://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/make-your-digital-resources-easier-to-discover ‘Spotlight on Digital’] was a project hosted by Jisc, where Wikimedia UK were a recommended partner organisation. The guide covers a wide range of approaches to making digital resources easier to discovery, making national recommendations to maximise impact of scholarly writing. Each approach is linked back to research on how users search and discover digital resources, and Wikimedia projects feature prominently due to involvement of the Ambassador.
**With the bulk of the high quality resources produced, there is a risk that they will not be used sufficiently by other Wikimedians, or generally by the chapter, if no time is put to collect and circulate the materials.

*External partnerships. Leveraging the unique position of Jisc in the education sector, and the Ambassador’s existing networks, many links with key institutions were created - for an illustration please see the list [[wmuk:User:MartinPoulter Jisc|of the Ambassador’s meetings]], or [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Summary_18_March_2014#Events_requested_as_a_result_of_this_project| events requested]] resulting from the residency. During the project, the Ambassador advised many organisations about sharing content via Commons (e.g. British Geological Survey), spreading the advocacy work.
**Coleg Cymraeg Wikimedian in Residence was made possible partly due to advice and negotiations provided by the Jisc Ambassador.
**Open Scotland consortium announced a draft Scottish Open Education declaration in 2014, which plans stronger engagement with Wikimedia UK. The Ambassador was credited as an influence on this declaration.

*Training and advocacy. Much of the advocacy was done via the media and case studies work. Additionally, a series of workshops for universities about Research impact and open education was delivered, together with Jisc webinars on sharing resources.

*Outreach and events.
**3 editathons, focusing on using scholarly resources to improve Wikipedia (veterinary science, medical humanities - hosted by the Wellcome Library, Women in Science) were organised and delivered.
**The Ambassador supported chairing EduWiki 2013 conference. As a result of his presence there, further links with the institutions present were created.

*Supporting other chapters - the Ambassador worked with Mauritus can der Graaf on a report on Dutch Libraries.

==National Library of Scotland==
[[File:Forth Bridge - Superstructure, North Side.jpg|thumb|400px|Forth Bridge, image uploaded as a part of the Resident's work]]

Part time residency, first ever in Scotland, started in July 2013 and was extended on a regular basis thanks to strong delivery. This project, geographically removed from other areas of chapter activity, and with a resident not coming from a core Wikimedia community, required more support in the beginning stages. Even further support would enable better links with other residents around ideas and resources exchange.

*Media coverage. As an innovative project in Scotland, it attracted significant attention - highlights can be seen [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Library_of_Scotland#Press|here]] (includes a feature in the NLS public magazine). It produced interest from the Open Knowledge Foundation Scotland ([http://scot.okfn.org/2013/10/01/introducing-scotlands-first-wikimedian-in-residence/ Introducing Scotland' First Wikimedian in Residence]), which then lead to more collaboration.

* Toolkits and resources. Early on, guides for the Library were produced to help explain ways of engagement with Wikimedia projects (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/2nd_Month_Report#Outreach_documents|here]]).
**GLAMWiki information booklets designed for the NLS have been made publicly editable and available [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/file/d/0B-54az_yPpKyRnlCQWV6MEFGVXc/edit], as a much needed attempt to pull various resources together. As other work has taken priority, this has only been partly delivered, and would have benefited from more support.

*Content improvement. Work aiming to change NLS’ policy on releasing digitised content started with month 1 in July 2013. Thanks to persistence and continual presence, June 2014 saw the first [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/10thMonth_Report#Material_for_future_digitisation|pilot releases]].

*External partnerships. The project attracted much interest from external organisations, particularly libraries considering releasing content. Resident became a true spokesperson for open knowledge, and was e.g. invited to speak at CERN and Swiss National Library in Bern, and has been speaking about the residency to many interested organisations (e.g. Special Libraries Association Europe).

*Training and advocacy. An ongoing programme of training events for various departments was being delivered (e.g. Digital Access team). Teaching was incorporated into the organisation, e.g. Wikipedia & open access training was given during all staff annual ‘Learning at Work’ event. <p> It took many months of the resident’s work to make changes to the NLS’ policy on digital materials.

*Outreach and events. To have a sense of the vast range and amount of events managed by the resident, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/4thMonth_Report#Public_outreach|here]]. All new accounts set up during training events were listed in the monthly [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Library_of_Scotland#Reports|reports]] (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/5thMonth_Report#Metrics|this one]] for example).
** The resident provided invaluable organisation support of EduWiki 2014 conference in Edinburgh.

*Scottish community building. Much beyond the call of the project, the resident was involved in attracting volunteers to Wikimedia UK in Scotland via supporting regular meetups (previously only occasional), working with Open Knowledge Foundation in Scotland, organising joint events, creating a mailing list. Link with a now much valued Glasgow volunteer was created.

==The Royal Society==
[[File:Royal Society editathon 2014 (02).jpg|thumb|300px|Editathon at the Royal Society]]

1 day/week, January-July 2014. A pilot project aimed to explore how the Society could work with Wikimedia, as such it was not focused on producing tangible outputs. Much awaited is the final report and case study, which will form a basis of how the cooperation with the Society could be brought forward in the future. Summarised here is the period of the first three months as those are the only reports available.

*Media coverage. Significant interest was attracted by the high profile events run by the resident, see for example [[Wikipedia:User:Wiki_at_Royal_Society_John#Media_coverage|here]]. The Royal Society events gave WMUK a lot of awareness in the sector, especially with learned societies (Expert Outreach) and organisations working with Women in Science projects.

*Content improvements - article improvements delivered via events.

*Training and advocacy. Much of what the resident was doing was focusing on delivering training to staff (see [[Wikipedia:User:Wiki_at_Royal_Society_John/January_14_Report#New_editors|here]] for new editors trained). Training also targeted Research Fellows of the Society, a group that Wikimedia UK would be keen to work with around its Expert Outreach programme.

==York Museums Trust==
Part time, October 2013-April 2014.

*Content improvement. Several of the Trust’s collections were targeted after consultation with the curators - Tempest Anderson, W.A. Ismay Studio Ceramic collection, Middleham Hoard - also leading to an article on Sydney Harold Smith photography collection. Over 400 high-quality images were delivered to [[Commons:Category:Images_donated_by_York_Museums_Trust|Commons]], many have contributed to the quality of Wikimedia projects (e.g. see [http://bit.ly/1o95EeZ] - images were used to enrich the biographies of the potters). Some of the collections were previously hardly used by the museum, so the uploads lead to them being known more widely. The programme originally aimed at a more extensive upload programme, however, the resident had to adapt to technical delays and obstacles.

*External partnerships. Committed to the idea of engaging with many cultural organisations in the region, YMT was exploring the possibility of scoping the project out and reaching more than just the institutions in the Trust. This resulted in an idea of a Yorkshire wide Wikimedia ambassador linked to the Museum Development Yorkshire, a project YMT have shaped and planned to run in second half of 2014 and beyond.

*Training and advocacy. All key curators at YMT were trained to edit Wikipedia. The resident also delivered a range of external talks reaching c. 80 people, including one to the Museum Development Yorkshire.

*Outreach and events. The resident delivered 3 training sessions for staff and volunteers (including a link with the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, which could be explored further), and a high profile public [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-editathon|editathon]] - substantial content improvements to a range of articles that was done can be seen [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-report#Results_of_the_day|here]], 3 new articles were created and c. 20 were improved.

==Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol==
Not included in this review, but worth a mention, is a residency in Wales (started in March 2014) which focuses on media release and content creation, a valuable area in the context of Welsh Wikipedia. See a report covering May 2014 [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/file/d/0B6kPpD8mNB2qVXZ5SF9aN1FPZUE/edit?usp=drive_web here]. An outpost residency, it would benefit from connecting up to other residents in the UK.

=Project delivery - summary of impact=

Please see [[wmuk:Strategic_goals| Wikimedia UK’s strategic goals]] for background information.

G1 Develop open knowledge
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase
*G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve
*G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge
|
* Managing image uploads has been a strong area of activity for most of the residents. Many of the image donations came from institutions where a WIR project was based.
* Many key and unusual collections of the host institutions’ were being uploaded, with such valuable material the content was often used on other Wikimedia projects. The residents have the time available to ensure the content is being used in a way that benefits the projects.
* Working with external organisations is very commonly a focus of the residencies. Building on their position within a valued institution, they are able to collaborate with other organisations and advocate the benefits of open knowledge in a way that scales the chapter’s reach, and is commonly beyond what the chapter could achieve on its own. Often a successful residency would enable setting up another WIR project.
|-
|}

G2 As a volunteer-led organisation, ensuring effective use of the resources available to us
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
G2a Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers
*G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.
*G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.
*G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.
|
* Editathons and training events provide opportunities for others to volunteer.
* Many of editing training and editathons delivered by the residents focused on gender gap.
* Editathons and training events provide opportunities for the volunteering community to contribute in the skills area.
|-
|
G2b Use effective and high quality governance and resource management processes
*G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream
|
*The WIR projects consistently attract external funding; approximately 70% of the projects are funded or co-funded by the host institution. Two of the projects were fully funded by an external grant secured by joint bids from WMUK and the host institutions.
|}

G3 Reduce barriers to accessing open knowledge
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.
*G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.
*G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge.
|
* One of the resident was a keen supporter or QRpedia. If this is deemed to be a priority project to explore, with support given to the residents, more QRpedia projects could potentially be started. The resident is in the right position to support the implementation of such project in the host institution.
* With the amount of media interest that the projects and their activities attract, this area cannot be underestimated. Residents often deliver talks at internal meetings and external conferences further raising awareness. They also produce toolkits and materials that can be used in advocacy for open knowledge, and how to engage with it.
* This is an important area of residents’ work, and one that really strengthens what WMUK should be doing. Thanks to the projects often lasting a reasonably long time, the residents can work on advocating policy changes within the host institutions that bring them closer to open knowledge.
|-
|}

G5 Develop, support, and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities
*G5.4 Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.
|
* As noted above, some residents have been independently supporting residents or activities in other countries.
* Some residents have worked to strengthen their activities by joining up with other open knowledge organisations, such as the Open Knowledge Foundation in Scotland.
|-
|}

==Potential impact==
[[File:Pat Hadley running a Wikipedia training session for YMT 3.JPG|thumb|400px|Spreading the awareness of the project]]

The residents’ work cuts across the key goals of the chapter and the potential, including interest from high profile organisations, is strong. As identified through the SWOT analysis, the project has a support of a strong brand. It also responds well to the current openness agenda and so can be a catalyst for change at the host institutions.

However, the opportunities that they create are continually missed due to insufficient support provided by WMUK. The points below outline issues identified in the context of what could potentially be delivered:

* As Wikimedia UK’s expertise grows, the residency programme is perceived as important in the global movement, and WMUK could contribute a lot to support others and share its experience (G5.1, G5.3). Doing this actively and in a clear manner requires time.
* As mentioned, the residents create many links with external organisations (G1.3), but as such they are often not handed over to the chapter and the activity decreases when the residency ends.
* Most of the residents produce resources and toolkits, many of which need additional support to be finalised and actually used. The resources that are done are not circulated and put together into an useful portal.
* Residences often work in areas that could compliment other activities of the chapter. However, without an effort being made to connect these, often the activities remain disjointed and do not benefit from mutual support.

;Management/set up:
* Setting up the residencies is an extremely time consuming process, crucial in managing the expectations and sharing the right objectives - this has been mentioned repeatedly in this report. Drawing up project contracts has been seen as innovative and useful in the movement, but requires effort spend in negotiations. Putting time into this process would result in better shaped residencies and clearer focus for the residencies.
* Many projects have sufficient potential to be considered for an extension. Setting this up well and working with the host institution to find the funding is time consuming as has not always taken place.
* External funding has been a strong area for this programme (G2b.4). External grants bring in additional stakeholder, however, and the negotiations require time.
*Some host institutions were never physically visited by WMUK during the projects, which reduced the opportunity to support finding solutions for key obstacles.
*Outpost residencies in particular tend to suffer from limited direct support from WMUK; more effort is needed to link them to other WIRs and potential support communities.
* Not all residents are able to support the reports as needed by WMUK without support. This means that some metrics are not being captured regularly, and the impact of the program - cutting through most of the charity’s goals - is not fully recorded.

;Recruitment
* Comparing to other chapters, WMUK is strongly involved in the HR process of setting up the residencies, contributing to all stages of recruitment. This is valuable and very time consuming.
* An essential stage in the WIR recruitment is promoting the opportunity to the right Wikimedia communities. Time required to do this cannot be underestimated as the roles are often very specialised and the potential group of candidates is limited. On one occasion, when no one from WMUK promoted a WIR opportunity, almost no applications were received. This shows the ‘one person sensitivity’ of the programme, which is a strong weakness of it.
* After initial bout of interest from potential host institutions in 2012-13 recruitment drive, it has become harder to recruit further host institutions. This is not dissimilar to other chapters, but nonetheless means that more time is required to find opportunities for the residencies and work with potential hosts to encourage them to cooperate with the chapter.

Lack of time capacity is a reason why many of these elements have not been delivered, thus missing the opportunities for larger impact.

=Key findings - recommendations=
Overall we believe that the Wikimedian in Residence programme has been one of Wikimedia UK’s strong areas of activity, and one that is able to increase the scale of Wikimedia UK’s involvement significantly. The programme had many successes and it is our opinion that it should continue with the following recommendations, which take on board comments from the community, the residents and host institutions.

==Duration of residencies==
Residencies should be six months long at minimum for small institutions and 9-12 months minimum for larger organisations with an ambition of changing the institution’s culture. This could be done part time, especially if that allows for a longer project.
* Shorter residencies do not give sufficient time to achieve the set goals, although may work for smaller institutions or very focused projects.
* Content generation projects at institutions with a mature attitude to open knowledge can be successful on a shorter timescale.
* Shorter residencies are not economically attractive for many potential residents.

==Supporting residents and the programme==
In the light of the gaps in support for the programme outlined throughout the report, and lack of capacity to support the identified opportunities for growth and impact, Wikimedia should appoint a Wikimedian in Residence Coordinator, with the following suggested responsibilities:
* Develop future partnerships, identify resources to support future partnerships.
* Give capacity to the setup of the residencies, working on managing expectations, setting effective objectives and solving potential issues with the projects.
* Coordinate the application process, managing the tension between it being unspecified and flexible.
* Strengthen the event support and induction meetings.
* Coordinate between current residents and between current host institutions to facilitate knowledge sharing, e.g. via networking meetings.
* Facilitate best practice exchange, e.g. via a forum/portal.
* Offer in person support via meetings.
**Initial set up meetings, review meetings, extension discussions, exit interviews.
* Monitor the progress and delivery of the residencies, assist in resolving the obstacles to delivery.
* Offer training e.g. with delivering Wikipedia editing workshops.
* Work on supporting the GLAM metrics tools.

==Sharing of information and best practice==
With added capacity of the Coordinator, set up a forum for the sharing of advice, information and best practice between institutions and between residents (current and former residents and host institutions and other relevant parties).
* This should be a discussion forum with ease of communication .
* It should allow for sharing of documents - especially toolkits and past materials.
* It should include guidance for prospective hosts about what an institution should/shouldn’t expect from a WIR.
* Create a checklist for the host institution at the start of the project to allow them to prepare the infrastructure, induction, and regular meetings with key staff.
* As an alternative, or additional task, WIR related outreach portal and materials need to be improved.
* WIR coordinator should arrange periodic meetings between residents and host institution managers to discuss successes, strategies, challenges. Attendees could also include prospective hosts or residents.

==Project goals==
Consider reevaluating goals of the project, potentially creating individual set for each residency.
*Clearer objectives and metrics will mean better reporting, which will help with community engagement and project dissemination.
*Retain flexibility.

==Project format==
Consider alternative residencies formats to increase the potential resident pool. This could take form of one person cover multiple institutions concurrently, or creating a team of 2-3 residents with various skillset.
* ‘Multiple host’ model trialled so far has proven to be much more resource intensive and would require more support from Wikimedia UK to be delivered well.
* It does, however, allow the institutions to share facilities and learning points. Combining residencies will also potentially increase the field of potential residents, especially as the work approaches full time equivalency.
* Residency ‘teams’ approach would be a new solution that requires support from the Coordinator to be trialled successfully. The skill set required of a single resident can be too broad for projects with diverse goals.
** Another approach would be to treat, and work with, the host institution group as the team.

==Resident skills==
Ensure the skills identified in the review are reinforced in the job description.
* Training and communication skills.
* Teaching Wikipedia skills and experience of editing Wikimedia projects.
* Ability to work independently.
* Being tactful.
* If goals are tailored, the resident skills would not have to be so broad (e.g. training less important if primary goal is to change licensing policy).

=Footnotes=
[[File:Wikipedians in Residence at GLAMcamp London.JPG|thumb|400px|International group of Wikipedians in Residence]]
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Wikimedians in Residence]]
[[Category:Evaluation]]

Wikimedian in Residence 2014 review

2014-06-30T15:23:06Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): /* Results - the community */ grammar

Wikimedian in Residence programme review - Wikimedia UK 2014

''by Chris McKenna (volunteer reviewer) and Daria Cybulska (Programme Manager, Wikimedia UK)''

=Summary=
This report assesses the Wikimedian in Residence programme supported by Wikimedia UK over 2012-14 in order to improve how it’s run. It describes [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Initial_survey| in detail]] and summarises, as a [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#SWOT analysis|SWOT analysis]] the findings of a survey project which was a key part of the review. It [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Project_delivery_-_overview_of_the_residencies|describes]] and [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Project_delivery_-_summary_of_impact|summarises]] the achievements of the residencies and analyses what would make their impact stronger. Finally, it produces a list of [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review#Key_findings_-_recommendations|key recommendations]] for the future of the programme.

=Background=
[[File:GLAM-Wiki Infographic.PNG|An international take on the WIR project|400px|right]]

A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a role in which a Wikimedia editor accepts a placement with an institution to facilitate close working relationship between Wikimedia movement and the institution through a range of activities, both internal and public-facing. They can work on facilitating content improvements on Wikimedia projects, but even more importantly serve as an ambassador for open knowledge within the host organisation.

Their activities can include:
*Organising outreach work to encourage understanding and development of Wikimedia projects internally and externally
*Exploring sharing institution's digital resources on Wikimedia Commons
*Organising events to create or expand existing articles about notable items or subjects of specific relevance to the collection and the organisation's expertise
*Working with institution's staff to explain Wikipedia's and sister projects' practices and how they might be able to contribute. This can be done via events, workshops, producing case study and documentation content
*Developing other projects supporting open knowledge

Wikimedian in Residence projects in the UK have been run with varying degree of support and supervision from Wikimedia UK since creation of the chapter. There is a set of residencies which have reported to, and had agreements signed with, Wikimedia UK - we will focus on this group in the report. As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian in Residence programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library. This is a transition case, before contracts with host institutions were introduced, but where we were working very closely with the resident. In November 2012 for the first time we ran a call for applications to attract institutions wanting to host a Wikimedian in Residence. Please see [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/11/were-looking-for-wikipedians-in-residence/ here] and [[wmuk:2012-13_Wikipedians_in_Residence|here]] for background. We received a good response of 15 applications from a range of institutions, from which we chose, in the first round, the organisations listed below. The projects were delivered or started in the 2013-14 activity year.
* Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums (residency took place between March-June ‘13)
* Science Museum, arranged by Wikimedia UK to be combined with
** Natural History Museum (March ‘13 - July ‘13, then extended)
* National Library of Scotland (July ’13 - Feb ‘14, then extended)

National Library of Scotland had a delayed start, which then overlapped with the second round of institutions in 2013-14 activity year (chosen from the original applications received in late 2012):
*York Museums Trust (October ‘13 - April ‘14)
*The Royal Society (January ‘14 - June ‘14 approx. - deferred from original October ‘13 start to suit internal timelines of the host institution).

The staggered start of the residencies allowed for better management, as the setup process is resource intensive.

Most of the institutions above belong to the cultural sector, but this is not a requirement of the programme. We also set up a Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador (July ‘13 - April ‘14) which followed some of the elements of the WIR model and will be included in this analysis. Therefore we are looking at a group of 7 projects in this report - British Library, Tyne and Wear Archives & Museums, Science Museum with Natural History Museum, National Library of Scotland, York Museums Trust, The Royal Society, Jisc, with 7 residents and 8 host institutions.

The operational details of current, past and potential residencies are kept on Wikimedia UK’s office wiki.

Before the first round of the projects was set up in November 2012, there was no standard agreement that would codify the cooperation between the two parties - Wikimedia UK and the host institution - and serve as a guide for key procedures. There was a need for a document that would clarify the expectations towards the project of both sides including expected outcomes, but also serve as a binding document explaining procedures such as termination, institution’s obligations, funding details, trademarks.

A draft was created by Saad Choudri, which was commented on widely by Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK volunteers. This document was trialed with the first round of the institutions - following their comments the Agreement is undergoing iterations to make it clearer and more effective. Current version can be found [https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/w/images/6/60/Example_WiR_agreement.pdf here] - this is adapted to fit individual projects.

Over 2013-14 a stronger support structure was created for the programme, not only including the Agreement document, but also application forms, job descriptions, induction day structure, monthly reporting templates, review meetings.

The WIR programme has been seen as one of the key ways we can engage with external organisations, extending Wikimedia UK’s scale of activities and outreach. These residencies are often a considerable investment for Wikimedia UK (£2-10K) and at the same time, there is a risk of low impact if they are not conducted in a focused way.

=Aim of the review=
We agreed to reflect on the programme’s successes and challenges through a review. With a year and a half since the agreement’s introduction, we should not judge too quickly - by May 2014 only three institutions completed their residencies - however we can learn a lot already.

We are aiming to review the programme to date, focusing on the feedback of the residents and host institutions as for the successful models for the residencies, and analysis of key obstacles to greater success.

This report is to produce recommendations for future development - progress or cessation. The recommendations are to be shared with wider community in a number of ways (e.g. Wikimania related presentation, blog post, mailing lists).

=Methods=
* Questionnaire for the residents (both completed and current residencies)
* Questionnaire for residents’ line managers, or other key staff at the host institution
* Questionnaire for the UK Wikimedia community, and Wikimedia UK staff working with WIRs
* In person brainstorm for the residents to discuss SWOT and open to wider dialogue
* Existing data gathering - analysing the available residents’ monthly reports and available final reports

Additionally:
* Working with the Programme Evaluation and Design team
* Producing final report for wider dissemination

==Timelines==
* From May 2012 to April 2014 - investigated period of the WIR projects
* Jan 2014 - work with Programme Evaluation and Design team to improve the questionnaire and survey approach. Shared with staff and GLAM committee for comments
* March-April 2014 - consultation with relevant parties (WIRs, host organisations, community). Surveys, additional phone or person meetings as needed
* 5 April 2014 SWOT analysis meeting
* May/June 2014 - creation of the review document
* Q2 and 3 of 2014 - dissemination

=Key issues of consideration=

;Model
* Length and any other considerations
* Cost analysis and funding model - initial conclusions

;Hosts
* Who should we be working with (potential, types, locations)
* Assessment of Wikimedia UK involvement - setup, documentation, support for the host organisation
* Perception of effectiveness of the residencies vs initial goals

;Residents
* Assessment of needed skills
* Experience of the project
* Wikimedia UK support for the residents
* Documentation / reporting

[[File:Wikipedian in Residence Infographic.jpg|thumb|Statistics of the first two years of the international programme (2010-2011)]]
;Benefits of the programme
* Are the residents delivering on objectives as set by Wikimedia UK
* What do residents/hosts/community see as the benefits of the programme
* Analysis of impact delivered so far, and the potential impact

;Measuring the programme
* Assessment of the objectives vs needs of the programme, and vs the delivery by the residents <ref>As a part of the agreement signed between Wikimedia UK and the host institution, an overall list of objectives is provided. This, for most of the residencies analysed here, was a standard list including: 1) Functional relationship established between Wikimedia UK and the Institution; plans for sustainability once the project finishes. 2) Engagement with the Wikipedia community at large. 3) Increased the number of contributors to Wikimedia projects. 4) Facilitating content improvement of Wikimedia projects (uploads, events). 5) Case study produced. It is now being considered whether this should be more tailored to each project, and linked to Wikimedia UK’s strategic objectives. The tension here is creating firm objectives at the start of the project, and allowing for flexibility (seen as useful by the residents in particular, but some host institutions as well). </ref>

=Initial survey=
Once the key issues for consideration were specified, we created survey questions to start the consultation. Survey creation was supported by the Programme Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Three surveys were created to explore issues specific to 1) Residents, 2) Host institutions, 3) community opinions of the programme.

Here are the questions for the survey:
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1zEm53qtdRvnB4-fpQ6pIOAODYol69AEpFXxkCZRV-UA/edit# Residents]
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/123dO-6Yh7ZAG50uiGr0MYAdI0OIK2V7Xviw4btQ7D1I/edit# Host institutions]
#[https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1gv8Dt6cyAqkNAWO84hGFhavA8EfLu87ZIsU9gPgB2qI/edit# Community]

The surveys were circulated over March-April 2014.

==Results - the residents==
[[File:UK Wikimedian in Residence discussion meeting.jpg|thumb|400px|The participants of [[wmuk:Brainstorm_meeting_to_review_the_WIR_programme|a brainstorm meeting]] ]]

Responses from all 7 residents were received. The summary of points raised is below:
* Length. 57% felt the project’s length was about right, with 43% feeling it was too short/far too short (5 out of 7 projects were part time). However, later in the survey it is often mentioned that the timing was not sufficient to meet their objectives for the project.
* Meeting objectives. 5 out of 7 residents felt they fulfilled the objectives moderately, 2 - completely. This was explored in further questions later.
* Support from the host institution. It was judged to be at the right level.
** Improvement. It was suggested that it would be helpful to have a better connection with the department heads within the host institution. Residents working within big organisations mentioned that in a context of many departments and internal changes, their project was prone to have little visibility.
* Support from Wikimedia UK. It was judged to be at the right level. Event support (materials, promotion) was seen as by far the most important support area. Induction meeting was judged as useful, with various areas of it flagged as helpful (e.g. Conflict of Interest considerations) depending on the knowledge level of the resident at the start.
** No significant improvements suggested.
* Challenges faced during delivery of the project. Many residents focused at the difficulties with the host institutions.
** Organisational structure, the number stakeholders involved, staff’s resistance to the project and the openness in general were seen as hindrances.
** Not enough time to deliver the objectives.
** Not enough skill to deliver the objectives.
** Community buy-in and caution around paid editing.
* Solutions employed by the residents to address the above:
** Focusing on achievable actions and timetabling.
** Connecting with local open knowledge community.
** Working with the host institution to get the project’s events more visible.
* Objectives. Residents were provided with key areas of delivery for their projects (Engagement with the host institution; engagement with the Wikimedia community; increase number of editors; facilitate content improvement; produce case study and documentation). The residents assessed their achievements, most of them stating that they have been moderately successful at delivering on the objectives, with most confidence around facilitating content improvement. <p> The residents flagged their achievements in the areas:
** Engagement with the host institution - change in policy, significant awareness raising of open knowledge within staff.
** Community engagement - modest connections made between the host institution staff and the editor community.
** Increase number of editors - respondents were counting on continued editing of editathon attendees
** Facilitating content improvement - delivered content mostly pending at the time of the report, but the residents mentioned improvements during editathons, and smaller scale image donations.
* Biggest achievement. Residents were asked about what they judged to be their biggest achievement over the residency. A wide range of projects were mentioned: licensing change at the host institution, delivering workshops at universities; running an editathon which created a lot of awareness, facilitating a DYK article.
* Further remarks
** What residents enjoy most about their projects vary from person to person. Working with many partner organisation was often mentioned, delivering training and linking with the open knowledge community.
** Residents found it useful to be open to the possibility of changing objectives during the course of the project.

==Results - host institutions==
[[File:Share Your Knowledge, Conferenza di maggio.jpg|thumb|400px|Cultural institution hosting a Wikipedia event]]

The residencies are designed so that after the initial setup work they are largely managed by the host institutions. That is where the key line management structure sits - it is important then to analyse the host institutions’ assessment of the programme.

A combination of online survey, phone or in person interviews were conducted - focusing on line managers. Responses from 8 people were received, from 6 of the residencies. Some of the interviews did not follow the survey questions exactly to allow for variances between projects (e.g. British Library did not have some of the documentation in place; some residencies started before we introduced induction meetings).

The list below is the summary of the responses to the survey questions (both online and interviews):
* Setup and format of the residency assessment. Managers were asked to comment on the application process, setup, skills of the resident and length of the project. The opinions were mixed, with many improvements suggested - particularly for the residencies early on.
** Application process was judged as unhelpfully open by several institutions (e.g. in terms of what would Wikimedia UK expect from this project). <ref> Being open to innovative ideas and formats vs giving clear direction to potential hosts is one of the tensions of the programme. </ref> Another aspect is that the setup can take up to a year, which can give institutions useful preparation time, but is cumbersome.
** As a note from Wikimedia UK’s perspective, the institutions which enjoyed the openness of the process were the ones that were most proactive during the setup stage, reaching out to other institutions and residents to learn more about the possible projects. They were often more successful in later delivery.
** Length. Suggested longer than 4 months; part time (even 1 day/week) seen as useful for pilot work. Some managers mentioned slow rate of change at the institution as a factor to consider.
*** Often at the setup stage institutions feel that 6 months will be sufficient to deliver their plan; however in hindsight it is usually seen that longer residency would deliver stronger results.
* Support from Wikimedia UK. Initial meetings (before project start) and recruitment support were flagged as key and very useful.
* Challenges during the planning stages of the residency. Managers mentioned a range of problems, including low response to the advert (some identify that the skill set of the potential resident is very specialist). Selling the programme internally (and explaining the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia) can be challenging as well.
* Challenges during delivery of the project. Again several areas were outlined:
** Resident focused on personal topic interests.
** Finding time to line manage and increase skills of the resident.
** Internal resistance to the changes proposed by the project, lack of staff understanding around the function of the residency (especially if residency coincided with internal restructuring of the host institution).
* Solutions offered to these difficulties included arranging networking with other WIR managers, and finding time for the line management meetings.
* Objectives. Managers were provided with key areas of delivery for their projects (Engagement with the host institution; engagement with the Wikimedia community; increase number of editors; facilitate content improvement) to assess. Their overall rating for all of them was ‘at least moderately met’. Managers were also asked if they needed to change the objectives during the residency, and 4 managers who answered this questions stated that changes were not necessary. This may suggest that objectives were broad enough that they still included modifications that were introduced.
** Engagement with the host institution - positive, training and events for staff were useful, together with a possible guidance explaining how staff could engage with Wikimedia. Policy change was also mentioned.
** Community engagement - positive, public events were important.
** Increase number of editors - events were mentioned as a tool to gain contributors.
** Facilitating content improvement - facilitating article creation was mentioned, although answers focused on low impact projects (e.g. ‘two articles were improved’).
* Biggest achievement of the residency. A range were identified:
** Raising awareness of openness and possibilities of working with Wikimedia was seen as important (this included event work, e.g. final ‘dissemination workshop’).
** Changes in policy was also a very significant element.
** The residency creating case studies and toolkits that could then be used by other organisations, thus spreading the impact of the project.
** Being (seen to be) involved in a new, innovative project.
* Further remarks
** Institutions were grateful that they had an opportunity to explore ways of working with Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia UK.
** Limited staff resources, time, dedication, skill or organisational change meant that often staff were not able to engage with the project fully.
** Sustainability was seen as a difficult element to achieve.

===Interviews with hosts===
Phone interviews were conducted with two of the host institutions, which included the survey questions, but also allowed for exploration of broader themes around the residencies. Below are the key points raised relevant to this review.

* There are 3 prerequisites for a Wikimedian in Residence project at any organisation: technical infrastructure to support the project, existing content generation project in place, environment within the institution (e.g. various departments working together).
**When any of these areas are not ‘mature’, the residency can focus on raising awareness. When the areas are mature, a project can work on concrete content creation projects - this would also allow for a shorter residency.
**When deciding on a host institution for the project, we need to assess its maturity, especially in terms of attitudes to open licensing.
*One institution marked tactfulness, ability to work independently and understanding of the internal structures of the host institution as important soft skills of the resident.
* For best chance of success, the resident needs support from two people in the organisation: 1) Line manager who is well networked laterally within the institution. 2) An oversight from somebody who works with senior management.
* Organising the residency as a joint project between several institutions can be challenging. With a bigger number of stakeholders the processes take much longer. It is also likely that one of the partners’ objectives will be given more weight than the other’s, leading to conflict or dissatisfaction with the project.
**Joint line management, regular appraisals from all stakeholders and jointly agreed work plans could be solutions to this.

==Results - the community==
[[File:GLAM-WIKI 2013 attendees.jpg|thumb|500px]]

23 people responded to the community consultation survey, which was promoted on the UK mailing list and the Watercooler. It was also mentioned on the international GLAM-related mailing lists, and twitter. Of those who indicated their affiliation, the vast majority were linked with Wikimedia UK. Questions were broad enough to be applicable to the overall Wikimedian in Residence programme, not just the UK one.
* Benefits of programme. Various threads were identified: around creating open knowledge, raising awareness of Wikipedia and open knowledge, increasing reputation of Wikipedia, increasing cooperation between institutions.
**Are residencies effective in achieving their goals? Largely, yes.
* How could the programme be improved? Several areas were identified: have clearer objectives; better reporting, clearer metrics (which would help to involve the community and increase dissemination); work on sustainability (longer length of the project).
** Community work - it was commented that the projects have been a good catalyst for community when they worked well, but at the same time the organisers should be careful not to overburden the community.
* What institutions should host WIR projects? Many respondents were positive about the range of institutions worked with so far. London focus is an issue, while some people recognise the reasons for this bias.
** Factors to be considered when choosing the host institution were: Commitment to delivery of the project; open knowledge enthusiasm and commitment; commitment to sustainability after the residency finishes; relative importance of the institution.
* What skills should WIR have? Several key areas were mentioned, particularly ability to teach Wikimedia skills, tactfulness, experience of editing Wikimedia projects.
* The community was asked how they would like the programme to develop. Areas mentioned were, particularly, longer length residencies, focus on fuller reporting, creating residency ‘teams’ rather than having one person responsible for the whole project.

=SWOT analysis=
Brainstorming meeting to analyse the SWOT elements of the programme was organised on 5 April 2014 (see [[wmuk:Brainstorm_meeting_to_review_the_WIR_programme|here]]). The residents who took part in the first survey were present to discuss the programme in person.

Key questions considered were:
* What is the SWOT of the Wikimedian in Residence programme
* What are the recommendations to amplify the strong parts of the programme and tackle the weak ones
* summary of survey results, including host organisation challenges - how Wikimedia UK can we help with these
* Sharing learning

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|<big>'''Strengths'''</big> - ''What advantages does this programme have? What does the residency programme do better than other activities? What unique resources can we draw on while being residents, that others can’t?'' <br><br>

*Backed by a strong brand - Wikipedia
*Good record of successful projects (although something that works in one residency may not work for others)
* Resident can utilise the reputation / prestige / profile of the host institution to generate event attendees and leverage projects with other organisations
*Strategic. Can be linked to the open agenda
*Host institution use it as driving force of change towards open knowledge. Residency has a push factor for evaluating host institution’s open commitment
**Can have high impact on the institution
*Flexible. Resident can release content or work on groundwork - open policy, creating a system for opening in the future
*The community involvement, trainers support
*Generates toolkits, materials
*Wikimedia UK’s support
*Has a system of reporting, contracts

|<big>'''Weaknesses'''</big> - ''How could you improve in the residency? (internal factors)'' <br><br>

;Host institution-specific
* Staff are too busy to engage
* Staff are against the project (e.g. image releases) or support is mixed. Enthusiasts are not always the decision makers. Lack understanding of the project aims (especially if it wasn’t introduced well). It can be difficult for Wikimedia UK to know the institution’s attitudes before the project starts
* Technical competencies of staff are very varied
* Institution can misunderstand the aims of the project initially and expectations are not fulfilled. Institution isn’t clear on what it wants the project to deliver once it starts
* Wikimedia policies (e.g. conflict of interest) can be hard to understand
* It is difficult to engage staff in editing Wikipedia
* Involving institution’s volunteer group can be seen as driving them away from their original tasks
* Wikimedia metrics are not included in the institution’s metrics (e.g. they only consider page views of their own website, and does not include Wikimedia Commons)
* Changes take a long time

;Tools and metrics
* Wikimedia GLAM tools are not reliable nor are they documented well. Seen as the biggest ‘top down’ problem of the programme
* Policy change and culture change is hard to measure. Targets for each residency should be set individually

;Wikimedia UK
* Limited capacity to support projects once they start
* We have less leverage than the partner organisation – we are usually the junior partner
* Wikimedia outreach materials is hard to find and out of date. Residents create materials, but they are not shared well

;Community
* An small intersection of people from the community are interested in a Residency project, especially the in person events ( editor + interest + able to attend event). Community can support a limited amount of projects
* Engaging community/communities – the biggest bottom up challenge

;Other
* Small pool of potential residents
* Projects too short
* Project is very dependent on the individual resident
*When working with multiple institutions but physically based only at one, the other organisations may get less attention and thus less benefit
* Flicker can be a better solution for some GLAMs than Wikimedia Commons
* Legacy difficult to attain

|-
|<big>'''Opportunities'''</big> - ''What good opportunities can you spot? What interesting trends are you aware of? (technology, policy, social, cultural)'' <br><br>

;Host institutions
*Sector is keen on opportunities - open agenda is important. Focusing on open policy could be a fruitful area of work
*Cultural institutions use web in an increasingly forward thinking way – Wikipedia can be employed in these strategic objectives
* Because of lack of clear idea for the project in the host institution, residents can shape their work

;Community
* Community offers a potential
* Access to experts in the host institutions, their volunteering community
* Resident can help grow local community

*Wikimedia UK could develop resources used more widely by the movement

|<big>'''Threats'''</big> - ''What obstacles do you face? What are your ‘competitors’ doing? (external factors)'' <br><br>

;Host institutions
* Financial cuts
* Restructuring within the organisation interferes with the residency
* Rate of change is very slow

;Community
* Interaction between GLAM professionals or newcomers and community can be tense and again may need to be moderated by the resident
* Support for a given project is very contextual and need to be maneuvered by the resident.
* We need to be careful not to oversaturate it
* Cannot be directed - projects can’t be entirely reliant on support

|}

==In depth discussion==
As a part of the SWOT analysis workshop, we went beyond these points and worked on recommending solutions to the issues flagged up above. These have been grouped in sections around Host institutions, Wikimedia UK and the resident, depending on who do they relate to most.

;Host institution
[[File:Dunhuang manuscript digitisation.jpg|thumb|400px|Digitisation project at the British Library]]

*Prepare infrastructure beforehand (technology for the resident and events; staff support). Hot desking should not be expected (but it could also be beneficial)
** Think about what department the resident will be based in. Digital team may work well but is often separated from other departments.
* Think about how the resident will be handled once they start. Structured induction is important, but ongoing contact with staff and inclusion into the organisation is vital
* Make key department heads aware of the project’s strategic opportunities
* Both the line manager and senior staff need to act as ambassadors for the project. Directorate support is key, especially in case of hostility to the project
* Be open to flexible work patterns for the resident

;Wikimedia UK/host institution
* Make sure host organisation knows what to expect - initial excitement can be unhelpful if not managed well
** Create a document outlining what an institution should/shouldn’t expect from a WIR. Include past examples
** Institution needs to see the value of getting involved in an openness project, rather than choosing to be involved for a particular benefit
**Need to be clear about whether the goals are focused on engaging institution’s staff or public, generating content for Wikimedia projects, changing the internal culture of the institution in favour of free content, etc. This can help with getting the right people with the right expectation
**These goals needs to be clearly articulated in language that senior managers and other relevant staff can understand, ditto job description of WIRs. Make it clear we cannot guarantee community engagement
** Be strict in asserting the expectations in the job description <ref> There is a tension between expecting the potential resident to be well versed with the Wikimedia community, policies and tools, and assuming that these skills can be gained later. </ref>
** Be clearer on metrics and objectives. Not expecting editor recruitment may be an area to consider
* When the residencies are set up, use a checklist to ensure the infrastructure is in place

;Resident/host institution
* Organise regular curatorial meetings to identify who can support your project
* Project focus. Be flexible and not get tied in to one project idea. Have exit strategies for unsuccessful projects. Exclusive project focus can be harmful – it can make it easier to sell the project and give early success, but you may become an assistant to that particular project
* Don’t assume the community engagement

;Resident
* Engage with the host organisation once you are appointed, ideally even before the project starts (e.g. put events in the calendar)
* Building on wider community can be helpful (e.g. wider open knowledge community). Having a persistent presence within a community can help it grow
* Have specific groups to pitch events to – it will increase attendance
* Be cautious against planning to do too many kinds of work

;Resident/Wikimedia UK
* Resident’s role consists of 1) facilitating content creation 2) internal consultation for policy change, ambassadorial awareness raising 3) working with the community, for its benefit. This can be seen as three different jobs, and the remit can be confusing for a new starter. Wikimedia UK should be clearer on articulating these different expectations
* Be flexible about projects to be delivered
* Consider creating a portal for the residents. Include toolkits and past materials
* Ask the host institution for a public statement about the residency to be used in publicity

;Wikimedia UK
* Consider choosing institutions where the resident is not fixed to sit within a very specific project may work better. This allows for work across various departments
* Run fewer residencies but longer – at least 6 months (the first 2 months is for the resident to find their feet)
* Organisational structure of the host institution can be hard to understand before starting on the project. Assess if the person advocating for the project is the best to run it. Assess the place of the department within the organisation
* Residents need confidence in running Wikipedia events. Offer support
* Note that ‘outpost’ residencies, geographically separated from other hubs of activities, bring up risks. Building community takes longer and it is harder to deliver on the objectives
* Run exit interviews for the residents and host institutions to assess the project and extract learning points

=Economics of the programme=
[[File:Library Science Talk @ Swiss National Library 20140624.jpg|thumb|400px|The resident at the National Library of Scotland has been co-funded by Wikimedia UK]]

In [[wmuk:2012 Activity Plan/Wikipedians in Residence|2012-13]] activity year, we have budgeted £15,000 for the Wikimedian in Residence activities. This budget remained largely unspent, partly due to the big British Library project being fully externally funded, perhaps partly due to some potential partnerships not being developed. There was no dedicated staff to oversee the programme.

This lead to the increased effort to manage the programme and budget of this area, a first step of which was the November 2012 recruitment drive as described in the background section of this review, managed by the Events Organiser. Seeing the potential of many organisations getting in touch with Wikimedia UK and being interested in cooperating with us, in [[wmuk:2013 Activity Plan/GLAM Wikimedians in Residence|2013-14]] we had a bigger budget of £30,000. This was fully allocated to the projects delivered, by and large to the residencies discussed in this report.

An average grant from Wikimedia UK was £5,000 which allows for a pilot project of a length of several months. Due to the budget flexibility of Wikimedia UK which is often larger than the host institution’s, this seed funding was often essential to start the project.

The residencies can attract co-funding from the host institutions, particularly for project extensions (once the institution had time to organise internal funding). This is usually explored and encouraged by Wikimedia UK if the project is seen to be delivering strongly and there is a potential for a larger future impact during a review meeting.

The WIR projects consistently attract outside funding; approximately 70% of the projects are funded or co-funded by the host institution. Two of the projects delivered in the UK so far were fully funded by an external grant secured by joint bids from WMUK and the host institutions.

=Project delivery - overview of the residencies=
==British Library==
[[File:Cree Indian (HS85-10-13885) edit.jpg|thumb|400px|Image from the Picturing Canada collection - [[Commons:British Library/Picturing Canada]] ]]

Full time May 2012-May 2013. <ref> The Wikipedian in Residence program was a full time year-long project (May 2012-May 2013) by the British Library to develop ways of working with online volunteer communities through an in-house liaison, supported and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The project focused on two main aspects: firstly, skills training within the Library and the broader academic community, to build experience and confidence in engaging with these communities; and secondly, working to help make some of the Library’s existing digital collections more visible to new audiences. The start of cooperation between Wikimedia UK and British Library was marked in January 2011 with a two day editathon. </ref>

*Media coverage [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/BL#Press_coverage| summarised here]]. Additionally, two articles oriented towards librarians were commissioned and published during the program:
**Wikipedia in the Library. Refer 29 (2) Summer 2013. [co-authored with Max Klein, OCLC]
**Wikipedia and Information Literacy: a springboard for research. The School Librarian 61 (1) Spring 2013.

*Toolkits and resources. A series of guidance documents for academics and researchers interested in working with Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects were produced, notably [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Participation_by_academic_projects|this resource]].

*Content improvement. The content-oriented program within the library aimed to use Wikimedia projects to distribute material from existing digitisation programs more widely. This was carried out alongside the development and release of the Library’s existing Access and Reuse Policy, which was seeking to support the release of material by curators. Over five thousand images from the British Library’s collections were made available with full metadata and cleared licensing through Wikimedia Commons. The residency skillfully built on policy change within the host institution.
**The residency gave an opportunity to repurpose material which had been digitised but never publicly released, or to use information produced by the Library’s projects to enrich Wikipedia. Projects worked on included The Library’s Nineteenth Century Books Collection, Picturing Canada (several thousand culturally important photographs), the International Dunhuang Project, Darwin Correspondence Project (where biographical notes around the documentation of the project were used on Wikipedia). Thanks to the resident being based in house and being able to interact with various staff, it was possible to discover these projects and use them to contribute to the open knowledge.
**By the end of the residency, around 3,000 Wikipedia pages used images related to the British Library in some way, 750 of which used images known to be sourced from its collections and provided with full metadata and catalogue links.

*Training and advocacy. 62 Wikimedia awareness and editing training delivered for 15 different high profile institutions within the ‘Skills training programme’ of the residency. Around 400 people attended the practical sessions - mostly targeted were researchers (because of the link with AHRC, the funder) and librarians, two key audiences for Wikimedia projects. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/British_Library/Events#2012-13| This list]] gives an idea of the range of events. Model for a training session on “Wikipedia as information literacy” was developed that could be used within the Expert Outreach work.<ref> Wikimedia UK is working with scientists, scholars, learned societies and funders to help experts improve Wikipedia and its sister projects, bringing that expertise to the widest possible public. This work, called Expert Outreach, complements WMUK's partnerships with galleries, libraries, archives and museums as well as its support for higher education ([[wmuk:Expert outreach]]). </ref> In fact, much of the resident’s advocacy fell into the Expert Outreach work, an area that is often supported by the Wikimedian in Residence projects, but otherwise not strongly delivered within Wikimedia UK.

*Outreach and events. The residency supported the three-day [[wmuk:GLAM-WIKI_2013|“GLAM-Wiki”]] conference in April 2013, hosted by the British Library for 120 attendees from the cultural sector. This was the highest profile event of Wikimedia UK’s in 2013 and would not be possible without the residency being based there. Many other Wikimedia UK outreach events were supported by the resident over the year.

==Natural History Museum and Science Museum==
[[File:John Cummings in front of giant sequoia at NHM.jpg|thumb|350px|The Resident at the Natural History Museum]]

Joint residency April 2013 - January 2014, 4 months full time and 4 months part time. See the full case study report [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/1MRuUKbHwDiUToOchvujd__wwIlLGeLSWa9ZSxO-Rl7o/edit# here].

*Toolkits and resources. The resident created a series of improved process documents (e.g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:YouTube_files#Download] or [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/document/d/14xGYv9l_4MpzFkBzgS4kbg-WijFNgH9A-QWhtiZFMq4/edit]). However, some of these (like a report on open licensing for the Natural History Museum and Science Museum) have not been finished and shared with the community. This was at least partly due to lack of feedback received on the content, and support in producing the documents.

*External partnerships. The resident focused on working with external organisations on open knowledge initiatives, many of which lead to further cooperation with Wikimedia UK. Among partner organisations were London Zoo, Office for National Statistics (presentations to high level staff, resulting in [[Commons:Category:Content created by the Office for National Statistics|valuable infographics donation]] and an indication of further cooperation, Imperial College (possible Wikipedia classroom assignment project in the future), British Computing Society, Medical Research Council, Collections Trust, United Nations, Royal Society of Chemistry (triggering a WIR project), Royal Society, Department for Culture Media and Sport, Cabinet Office, Wellcome Collection and Royal Veterinary College.

*Content improvement.
** [https://www.flickr.com/photos/94013650@N07/sets/72157633348739594/ A trial release of Natural History Museum archive content] under a Wikimedia compatible open license which was then added to Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource.
**The Science Museum has started to open its collection with [[Commons:Category:Images from the collection of the Science Museum (London)|50 images]] of significant objects which around 20,000 people are viewing on Wikipedia each day.
**400 photos from the National Media Museum (part of the Science Museum Group) were released to Wikimedia Commons ([[Commons:Category:Images from the National Media Museum collection|see here]]).
**As part of GLAM-Wiki Conference 2013, a guided photography visit to Blythe House small object store produced [[Commons:Category:Blythe House, Science Museum small objects storage|130 images]].
**3 videos form Science Museum’s Pain Exhibition were released under an open license (e.g. [[:File:No pain. Science Museum Painless Exhibition Series.webm|No Pain]]). The resident worked with Wikiproject Medicine to find uses for them on Wikipedia.

*Training and advocacy. 508 people attended presentations delivered by the resident (educating audiences about possibilities of open licensing, some focusing on key NHM and SM staff - included a briefing on impact of open licensing for key teams, and senior staff), 202 were trained to edit. The resident run many editathons during his project, including supporting the ones originating from WMUK. However, managing this logistical support required time commitment from the chapter.
**Advocacy work on changing the attitudes and licensing of content towards openness cannot be understated. Much of the project’s time was spent on producing documentation, pilot evidence, and delivering talks (e.g. [http://scratchpads.eu/NHMInformaticsday]) advocating open knowledge.
**This work resulted in The Natural History Museum, who will digitise 20 million of its specimens in the next 5 year, choosing to make these available under an open license - [http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/corporate-information/museum-governance/board-of-trustees/minutes/index.html].

*Technical innovation. The creation of a prototype ‘’’multilingual virtual museum’’’ using QRpedia in a new way [http://bit.ly/NHMguide] - by web links that connect people to Wikipedia articles in their language.

*Supporting other chapters - the resident worked with WIRs in the US, some of whom don’t have the same level of support as the UK residencies. WMUK’s structures and solutions are very worth sharing, but it requires time to do so.

==Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence==
Part time residency run April-June 2013.

*Content improvement. Work on articles, and image releases was supported during the residency. File list is [[Commons:Special:ListFiles/TWAMWIR|here]], and article information is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums Wikimedian in Residence|here]]. The exact metrics of content creation were not tracked. Staff capacity was spent on managing the article content creation considerations.

*External partnerships. Leveraging the resident’s position, it was possible to work with outside cultural agencies that had links with TWAM, such as Great North Museum Hancock, the Newcastle University or North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers.

*Training and advocacy. Wikipedia editing training for staff was linked to the internal ‘Learning at Work’ programme, increasing the reach of it. 27 accounts from TWAM were created. A Knowledge Transfer event was run at the end of the residency to summarise the project. This is a very useful type of event which should be run with every residency if it was supported and encouraged from WMUK. It has not always been taking place.

==Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador==
[[File:Slides Research impact and open education 2013 Oxford.pdf|thumb|Slides from - Research impact and open education 2013 Oxford]]

Part time over July 2013 - April 2014.<ref> Among the many projects supported by Jisc are [http://www.jisc-content.ac.uk/ collections of digital content]; research in areas such as Digital Humanities and Virtual Research Environments; and the [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/ukoer3.aspx UK Open Educational Resources programme]. Jisc promotes open access to research as part of the [http://open-access.org.uk/ UK Open Access Implementation Group] and its work with institutional repositories. Jisc also influences practice in Higher and Further Education through its work in innovation and change management. [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/06/jisc-and-wikimedia-uk-to-bridge-between-academia-and-wikipedia/ See the blog post] for more about the collaboration project's rationale.
</ref> Differently focused than the typical Wikimedian in Residence post, it offered an unique opportunity to work closer together with the Higher Education sector in the UK. It explored three kinds of opportunities: [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform/inform39/TenWaysEducatorsCanUseWikipedia.html using Wikipedia in education], [http://digitisation.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/12/05/what-wikimedia-can-do-for-digitised-content/ promoting content collections], and expanding the impact of research. Much of the work covered the chapter’s Expert Outreach work. The cooperation with Jisc began with an World War I editathon in 2011, since then the idea for an Ambassador has been worked on. It required persistence during staff changes at the host organisation, and time commitment to be set up two years later.

The Ambassador independently produced a detailed list of [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Plan#Objectives|objectives]],<ref>That could be summarised as “To demonstrate how publicly-funded research and education projects can benefit from crowdsourcing, using Wikimedia as a platform and a model. To capture this knowledge in a way that permanently changes how Jisc and the wider sector works with Wikimedia.” </ref> plans and stakeholders analysis. With more capacity this impressive resource could have been better mapped to the Wikimedia UK’s strategy, and the Education Outreach plan. This would have resulted in the programmes working more closely together - it was felt during the project that more synergy would be beneficial.

*Media coverage. Over the course of the project significant mainstream media attention was attracted, see [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador#Media_coverage|here]] for a highlights list. A lot of blogging and social media activity was produced, raising awareness of the project and the role of Wikimedia in open education.

*Toolkits and resources.
**A main output of the project, an infoKit [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/ “Crowdsourcing: the wiki way of working”] is a detailed guide through the theory and practice of a topic, tailored to the academic and cultural sectors. It shows how professionals and volunteers can work together to create or improve scholarly and educational materials.
**The [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/inform/inform39/TenWaysEducatorsCanUseWikipedia.html "Ten ways educators can use Wikipedia"] listicle was a very popular item in Jisc's online magazine.
** Case studies. The key case studies produced with academics address [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/01/21/rural-england-wikipedia/ getting students to improve Wikipedia articles] for course credit, [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ publishing scholarly papers on Wikipedia], and [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/02/18/wikipedia-information-literacy/ using Wikipedia’s policies in the classroom] to promote digital literacy. The article for librarians and information professionals about [http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/3-ways-use-wikipedia-education-tool educational assignments on Wikipedia] passed 300 mentions on Twitter and prompted [http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/21o6mo/rather_than_tell_students_to_pretend_wikipedia/ a Reddit discussion] among teachers and students about the proper use of Wikipedia and other sources.
**The [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Collaborate/Jisc collaboration flowchart] produced shows clearly how Wikimedia sites can benefit projects in scholarly and educational sectors.
**[http://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/make-your-digital-resources-easier-to-discover ‘Spotlight on Digital’] was a project hosted by Jisc, where Wikimedia UK were a recommended partner organisation. The guide covers a wide range of approaches to making digital resources easier to discovery, making national recommendations to maximise impact of scholarly writing. Each approach is linked back to research on how users search and discover digital resources, and Wikimedia projects feature prominently due to involvement of the Ambassador.
**With the bulk of the high quality resources produced, there is a risk that they will not be used sufficiently by other Wikimedians, or generally by the chapter, if no time is put to collect and circulate the materials.

*External partnerships. Leveraging the unique position of Jisc in the education sector, and the Ambassador’s existing networks, many links with key institutions were created - for an illustration please see the list [[wmuk:User:MartinPoulter Jisc|of the Ambassador’s meetings]], or [[wmuk:Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Summary_18_March_2014#Events_requested_as_a_result_of_this_project| events requested]] resulting from the residency. During the project, the Ambassador advised many organisations about sharing content via Commons (e.g. British Geological Survey), spreading the advocacy work.
**Coleg Cymraeg Wikimedian in Residence was made possible partly due to advice and negotiations provided by the Jisc Ambassador.
**Open Scotland consortium announced a draft Scottish Open Education declaration in 2014, which plans stronger engagement with Wikimedia UK. The Ambassador was credited as an influence on this declaration.

*Training and advocacy. Much of the advocacy was done via the media and case studies work. Additionally, a series of workshops for universities about Research impact and open education was delivered, together with Jisc webinars on sharing resources.

*Outreach and events.
**3 editathons, focusing on using scholarly resources to improve Wikipedia (veterinary science, medical humanities - hosted by the Wellcome Library, Women in Science) were organised and delivered.
**The Ambassador supported chairing EduWiki 2013 conference. As a result of his presence there, further links with the institutions present were created.

*Supporting other chapters - the Ambassador worked with Mauritus can der Graaf on a report on Dutch Libraries.

==National Library of Scotland==
[[File:Forth Bridge - Superstructure, North Side.jpg|thumb|400px|Forth Bridge, image uploaded as a part of the Resident's work]]

Part time residency, first ever in Scotland, started in July 2013 and was extended on a regular basis thanks to strong delivery. This project, geographically removed from other areas of chapter activity, and with a resident not coming from a core Wikimedia community, required more support in the beginning stages. Even further support would enable better links with other residents around ideas and resources exchange.

*Media coverage. As an innovative project in Scotland, it attracted significant attention - highlights can be seen [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Library_of_Scotland#Press|here]] (includes a feature in the NLS public magazine). It produced interest from the Open Knowledge Foundation Scotland ([http://scot.okfn.org/2013/10/01/introducing-scotlands-first-wikimedian-in-residence/ Introducing Scotland' First Wikimedian in Residence]), which then lead to more collaboration.

* Toolkits and resources. Early on, guides for the Library were produced to help explain ways of engagement with Wikimedia projects (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/2nd_Month_Report#Outreach_documents|here]]).
**GLAMWiki information booklets designed for the NLS have been made publicly editable and available [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/file/d/0B-54az_yPpKyRnlCQWV6MEFGVXc/edit], as a much needed attempt to pull various resources together. As other work has taken priority, this has only been partly delivered, and would have benefited from more support.

*Content improvement. Work aiming to change NLS’ policy on releasing digitised content started with month 1 in July 2013. Thanks to persistence and continual presence, June 2014 saw the first [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/10thMonth_Report#Material_for_future_digitisation|pilot releases]].

*External partnerships. The project attracted much interest from external organisations, particularly libraries considering releasing content. Resident became a true spokesperson for open knowledge, and was e.g. invited to speak at CERN and Swiss National Library in Bern, and has been speaking about the residency to many interested organisations (e.g. Special Libraries Association Europe).

*Training and advocacy. An ongoing programme of training events for various departments was being delivered (e.g. Digital Access team). Teaching was incorporated into the organisation, e.g. Wikipedia & open access training was given during all staff annual ‘Learning at Work’ event. <p> It took many months of the resident’s work to make changes to the NLS’ policy on digital materials.

*Outreach and events. To have a sense of the vast range and amount of events managed by the resident, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/4thMonth_Report#Public_outreach|here]]. All new accounts set up during training events were listed in the monthly [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Library_of_Scotland#Reports|reports]] (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/NLS/5thMonth_Report#Metrics|this one]] for example).
** The resident provided invaluable organisation support of EduWiki 2014 conference in Edinburgh.

*Scottish community building. Much beyond the call of the project, the resident was involved in attracting volunteers to Wikimedia UK in Scotland via supporting regular meetups (previously only occasional), working with Open Knowledge Foundation in Scotland, organising joint events, creating a mailing list. Link with a now much valued Glasgow volunteer was created.

==The Royal Society==
[[File:Royal Society editathon 2014 (02).jpg|thumb|300px|Editathon at the Royal Society]]

1 day/week, January-July 2014. A pilot project aimed to explore how the Society could work with Wikimedia, as such it was not focused on producing tangible outputs. Much awaited is the final report and case study, which will form a basis of how the cooperation with the Society could be brought forward in the future. Summarised here is the period of the first three months as those are the only reports available.

*Media coverage. Significant interest was attracted by the high profile events run by the resident, see for example [[Wikipedia:User:Wiki_at_Royal_Society_John#Media_coverage|here]]. The Royal Society events gave WMUK a lot of awareness in the sector, especially with learned societies (Expert Outreach) and organisations working with Women in Science projects.

*Content improvements - article improvements delivered via events.

*Training and advocacy. Much of what the resident was doing was focusing on delivering training to staff (see [[Wikipedia:User:Wiki_at_Royal_Society_John/January_14_Report#New_editors|here]] for new editors trained). Training also targeted Research Fellows of the Society, a group that Wikimedia UK would be keen to work with around its Expert Outreach programme.

==York Museums Trust==
Part time, October 2013-April 2014.

*Content improvement. Several of the Trust’s collections were targeted after consultation with the curators - Tempest Anderson, W.A. Ismay Studio Ceramic collection, Middleham Hoard - also leading to an article on Sydney Harold Smith photography collection. Over 400 high-quality images were delivered to [[Commons:Category:Images_donated_by_York_Museums_Trust|Commons]], many have contributed to the quality of Wikimedia projects (e.g. see [http://bit.ly/1o95EeZ] - images were used to enrich the biographies of the potters). Some of the collections were previously hardly used by the museum, so the uploads lead to them being known more widely. The programme originally aimed at a more extensive upload programme, however, the resident had to adapt to technical delays and obstacles.

*External partnerships. Committed to the idea of engaging with many cultural organisations in the region, YMT was exploring the possibility of scoping the project out and reaching more than just the institutions in the Trust. This resulted in an idea of a Yorkshire wide Wikimedia ambassador linked to the Museum Development Yorkshire, a project YMT have shaped and planned to run in second half of 2014 and beyond.

*Training and advocacy. All key curators at YMT were trained to edit Wikipedia. The resident also delivered a range of external talks reaching c. 80 people, including one to the Museum Development Yorkshire.

*Outreach and events. The resident delivered 3 training sessions for staff and volunteers (including a link with the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, which could be explored further), and a high profile public [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-editathon|editathon]] - substantial content improvements to a range of articles that was done can be seen [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-report#Results_of_the_day|here]], 3 new articles were created and c. 20 were improved.

==Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol==
Not included in this review, but worth a mention, is a residency in Wales (started in March 2014) which focuses on media release and content creation, a valuable area in the context of Welsh Wikipedia. See a report covering May 2014 [https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org.uk/file/d/0B6kPpD8mNB2qVXZ5SF9aN1FPZUE/edit?usp=drive_web here]. An outpost residency, it would benefit from connecting up to other residents in the UK.

=Project delivery - summary of impact=

Please see [[wmuk:Strategic_goals| Wikimedia UK’s strategic goals]] for background information.

G1 Develop open knowledge
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G1.1 The quantity of open knowledge continues to increase
*G1.2 The quality of open knowledge continues to improve
*G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of open knowledge
|
* Managing image uploads has been a strong area of activity for most of the residents. Many of the image donations came from institutions where a WIR project was based.
* Many key and unusual collections of the host institutions’ were being uploaded, with such valuable material the content was often used on other Wikimedia projects. The residents have the time available to ensure the content is being used in a way that benefits the projects.
* Working with external organisations is very commonly a focus of the residencies. Building on their position within a valued institution, they are able to collaborate with other organisations and advocate the benefits of open knowledge in a way that scales the chapter’s reach, and is commonly beyond what the chapter could achieve on its own. Often a successful residency would enable setting up another WIR project.
|-
|}

G2 As a volunteer-led organisation, ensuring effective use of the resources available to us
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
G2a Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers
*G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers.
*G2a.2 WMUK volunteers are highly diverse.
*G2a.3 WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.
|
* Editathons and training events provide opportunities for others to volunteer.
* Many of editing training and editathons delivered by the residents focused on gender gap.
* Editathons and training events provide opportunities for the volunteering community to contribute in the skills area.
|-
|
G2b Use effective and high quality governance and resource management processes
*G2b.4 We ensure a stable, sustainable and diverse funding stream
|
*The WIR projects consistently attract external funding; approximately 70% of the projects are funded or co-funded by the host institution. Two of the projects were fully funded by an external grant secured by joint bids from WMUK and the host institutions.
|}

G3 Reduce barriers to accessing open knowledge
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G3.1 Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all, irrespective of personal characteristics, background or situation.
*G3.2 There is increased awareness of the benefits of open knowledge.
*G3.3 Legislative and institutional changes favour the release of open knowledge.
|
* One of the resident was a keen supporter or QRpedia. If this is deemed to be a priority project to explore, with support given to the residents, more QRpedia projects could potentially be started. The resident is in the right position to support the implementation of such project in the host institution.
* With the amount of media interest that the projects and their activities attract, this area cannot be underestimated. Residents often deliver talks at internal meetings and external conferences further raising awareness. They also produce toolkits and materials that can be used in advocacy for open knowledge, and how to engage with it.
* This is an important area of residents’ work, and one that really strengthens what WMUK should be doing. Thanks to the projects often lasting a reasonably long time, the residents can work on advocating policy changes within the host institutions that bring them closer to open knowledge.
|-
|}

G5 Develop, support, and engage with other Wikimedia and open knowledge communities
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width=50%|
*G5.1 A thriving set of other Wikimedia communities
*G5.4 Open knowledge communities with missions similar to our own are thriving.
|
* As noted above, some residents have been independently supporting residents or activities in other countries.
* Some residents have worked to strengthen their activities by joining up with other open knowledge organisations, such as the Open Knowledge Foundation in Scotland.
|-
|}

==Potential impact==
[[File:Pat Hadley running a Wikipedia training session for YMT 3.JPG|thumb|400px|Spreading the awareness of the project]]

The residents’ work cuts across the key goals of the chapter and the potential, including interest from high profile organisations, is strong. As identified through the SWOT analysis, the project has a support of a strong brand. It also responds well to the current openness agenda and so can be a catalyst for change at the host institutions.

However, the opportunities that they create are continually missed due to insufficient support provided by WMUK. The points below outline issues identified in the context of what could potentially be delivered:

* As Wikimedia UK’s expertise grows, the residency programme is perceived as important in the global movement, and WMUK could contribute a lot to support others and share its experience (G5.1, G5.3). Doing this actively and in a clear manner requires time.
* As mentioned, the residents create many links with external organisations (G1.3), but as such they are often not handed over to the chapter and the activity decreases when the residency ends.
* Most of the residents produce resources and toolkits, many of which need additional support to be finalised and actually used. The resources that are done are not circulated and put together into an useful portal.
* Residences often work in areas that could compliment other activities of the chapter. However, without an effort being made to connect these, often the activities remain disjointed and do not benefit from mutual support.

;Management/set up:
* Setting up the residencies is an extremely time consuming process, crucial in managing the expectations and sharing the right objectives - this has been mentioned repeatedly in this report. Drawing up project contracts has been seen as innovative and useful in the movement, but requires effort spend in negotiations. Putting time into this process would result in better shaped residencies and clearer focus for the residencies.
* Many projects have sufficient potential to be considered for an extension. Setting this up well and working with the host institution to find the funding is time consuming as has not always taken place.
* External funding has been a strong area for this programme (G2b.4). External grants bring in additional stakeholder, however, and the negotiations require time.
*Some host institutions were never physically visited by WMUK during the projects, which reduced the opportunity to support finding solutions for key obstacles.
*Outpost residencies in particular tend to suffer from limited direct support from WMUK; more effort is needed to link them to other WIRs and potential support communities.
* Not all residents are able to support the reports as needed by WMUK without support. This means that some metrics are not being captured regularly, and the impact of the program - cutting through most of the charity’s goals - is not fully recorded.

;Recruitment
* Comparing to other chapters, WMUK is strongly involved in the HR process of setting up the residencies, contributing to all stages of recruitment. This is valuable and very time consuming.
* An essential stage in the WIR recruitment is promoting the opportunity to the right Wikimedia communities. Time required to do this cannot be underestimated as the roles are often very specialised and the potential group of candidates is limited. On one occasion, when no one from WMUK promoted a WIR opportunity, almost no applications were received. This shows the ‘one person sensitivity’ of the programme, which is a strong weakness of it.
* After initial bout of interest from potential host institutions in 2012-13 recruitment drive, it has become harder to recruit further host institutions. This is not dissimilar to other chapters, but nonetheless means that more time is required to find opportunities for the residencies and work with potential hosts to encourage them to cooperate with the chapter.

Lack of time capacity is a reason why many of these elements have not been delivered, thus missing the opportunities for larger impact.

=Key findings - recommendations=
Overall we believe that the Wikimedian in Residence programme has been one of Wikimedia UK’s strong areas of activity, and one that is able to increase the scale of Wikimedia UK’s involvement significantly. The programme had many successes and it is our opinion that it should continue with the following recommendations, which take on board comments from the community, the residents and host institutions.

==Duration of residencies==
Residencies should be six months long at minimum for small institutions and 9-12 months minimum for larger organisations with an ambition of changing the institution’s culture. This could be done part time, especially if that allows for longer project.
* Shorter residencies do not give sufficient time to achieve the set goals, although may work for smaller institutions or very focused projects.
* Content generation projects at institutions with a mature attitude to open knowledge can be successful on a shorter timescale.
* Shorter residencies are not economically attractive for many potential residents.

==Supporting residents and the programme==
In the light of the gaps in support for the programme outlined throughout the report, and lack of capacity to support the identified opportunities for growth and impact, Wikimedia should appoint a Wikimedian in Residence Coordinator, with the following suggested responsibilities:
* Develop future partnerships, identify resources to support future partnerships.
* Give capacity to the setup of the residencies, working on managing expectations, setting effective objectives and solving potential issues with the projects.
* Coordinate the application process, managing the tension between it being unspecified and flexible.
* Strengthen the event support and induction meetings.
* Coordinate between current residents and between current host institutions to facilitate knowledge sharing, e.g. via networking meetings.
* Facilitate best practice exchange, e.g. via a forum/portal.
* Offer in person support via meetings.
**Initial set up meetings, review meetings, extension discussions, exit interviews.
* Monitor the progress and delivery of the residencies, assist in resolving the obstacles to delivery.
* Offer training e.g. with delivering Wikipedia editing workshops.
* Work on supporting the GLAM metrics tools.

==Sharing of information and best practice==
With added capacity of the Coordinator, set up a forum for the sharing of advice, information and best practice between institutions and between residents (current and former residents and host institutions and other relevant parties).
* This should be a discussion forum with ease of communication .
* It should allow for sharing of documents - especially toolkits and past materials.
* It should include guidance for prospective hosts about what an institution should/shouldn’t expect from a WIR.
* Create a checklist for the host institution at the start of the project to allow them to prepare the infrastructure, induction, and regular meetings with key staff.
* As an alternative, or additional task, WIR related outreach portal and materials need to be improved.
* WIR coordinator should arrange periodic meetings between residents and host institution managers to discuss successes, strategies, challenges. Attendees could also include prospective hosts or residents.

==Project goals==
Consider reevaluating goals of the project, potentially creating individual set for each residency.
*Clearer objectives and metrics will mean better reporting, which will help with community engagement and project dissemination.
*Retain flexibility.

==Project format==
Consider alternative residencies formats to increase the potential resident pool. This could take form of one person cover multiple institutions concurrently, or creating a team of 2-3 residents with various skillset.
* ‘Multiple host’ model trialled so far has proven to be much more resource intensive and would require more support from Wikimedia UK to be delivered well.
* It does, however, allow the institutions to share facilities and learning points. Combining residencies will also potentially increase the field of potential residents, especially as the work approaches full time equivalency.
* Residency ‘teams’ approach would be a new solution that requires support from the Coordinator to be trialled successfully. The skill set required of a single resident can be too broad for projects with diverse goals.
** Another approach would be to treat, and work with, the host institution group as the team.

==Resident skills==
Ensure the skills identified in the review are reinforced in the job description.
* Training and communication skills.
* Teaching Wikipedia skills and experience of editing Wikimedia projects.
* Ability to work independently.
* Being tactful.
* If goals are tailored, the resident skills would not have to be so broad (e.g. training less important if primary goal is to change licensing policy).

=Footnotes=
[[File:Wikipedians in Residence at GLAMcamp London.JPG|thumb|400px|International group of Wikipedians in Residence]]
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Wikimedians in Residence]]
[[Category:Evaluation]]

User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)

2014-06-27T17:00:07Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): link

{{Staff userpage
|name=Chris McKenna
|job title=[[Wikimania support contractor|Wikimedia UK Wikimania Support]]
|short quote=The essential things in life are seen not with eyes, but with the heart — Antoine de Saint Exupery
|imagename=File:Wikimedia UK visitors photo wall August 2013 (02).JPG
|hover text=Chris visiting the WMUK office as a volunteer in August 2013
|bio=I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since December 2004 and active on Commons and the English Wiktionary for nearly as long. An active community member and volunteer, I am a trained trainer and have organised and assisted at several editathons around the country.
|work=<br />
* Chris is supporting the Wikimania 2014 team in delivering the Wikimania Conference, which this year is being held in London.

::''[[Wikimania_support_contractor|...more]]''
|contact=<br />
*Email: {{nowrap|Chris.McKenna{{@|12px}}wikimedia.org.uk}}
*Phone: 0207 065 0990
*Mobile: 07548 103 782
*As a volunteer, my username is [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] and I'm presently active at [[:en:User:Thryduulf|English Wikipedia]], [[:commons:User:Thryduulf|Commons]], [[:wikt:en:User:Thryduulf|English Wiktionary]] and [[:d:User:Thryduulf|WikiData]].
}}

[[Category:Staff]]

User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)

2014-06-27T14:51:45Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Fabian's WMUK email address is fabian.tompsett@wikimedia.org.uk

== Open Badges ==
Hi Fabian, the service that OER14 used to issue open badges is [https://credly.com/ credly.com/]. I haven't used the service myself, but the front page says it's free. Do you have a WMUK email address? [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 15:49, 27 June 2014 (BST)
:Fabian's WMUK email address is fabian.tompsett@wikimedia.org.uk [[User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|Chris McKenna (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:51, 27 June 2014 (BST)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Wicimania banner

2014-06-27T14:27:05Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): note the need for synchronisation

MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Wikimania banner

2014-06-27T14:26:08Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): note the need for synchronisation

Template:Synchronise

2014-06-27T14:24:07Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): create template to keep pages synchronised

{{Header2|If you make changes to this page, please also update the [[:{{{1}}}|{{{2}}} version]]}}

Template:Main Page cy

2014-06-27T13:46:17Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): defnyddio banner Gymraeg

<includeonly>{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="display: none;">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</span>}}</includeonly>
<div style="width:25%; float:left;height:4px; background:#990000;"></div>
<div style="width:25%; float:left;height:4px; background:#006699;"></div>
<div style="width:25%; float:left;height:4px; background:#339966;"></div>
<div style="width:25%; float:left;height:4px; background:#666666;"></div></div>
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
<h1 style="border-bottom:0; line-height:0.6; padding-left:0.5em; padding-top:0.7em; padding-bottom:-1em; font-size:220%"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Lucida Grande', Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif;>'''Wikimedia UK'''</span></h1>
<div style="line-height:0.05; padding-top:0em; padding-bottom:1.3em; padding-left:1.1em;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', 'Lucida Grande', Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size:160%;">Gwybodaeth rhydd ac agored i bawb!</span></div>

{| cellpadding="2" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto; width:95%; vertical-align:top;"
|{{Wicimania banner}}
|}
{| id="mp-upper" style="margin:0; background:none;"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:66%; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |

{| id="mp-left" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top;"
! {{Header blue|{{plainlink|https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ {{white|Newyddion Diweddaraf}}}}|margin-bottom: 0;}}
|-
| style="color:#000; padding-left:10px; padding-right: 10px;" | <div id="mp-tfa">
{{{blog post|}}}</span>

;Chwech wythnos yn y Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol
:''gan Marc Haynes, Cydlynydd Wicipedia yn y Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol
[[File:Marc Haynes, Mai 2014.JPG|thumb|right|upright|Marc Haynes]]
Ym mis Mawrth, ar ôl golygu Wicipedia ers sawl blwyddyn dan y ffugenw [[:cy:Defnyddiwr:Ham|Ham]], dechreuais gyfnod cyffrous newydd fel [[:cy:Defnyddiwr:Marc (Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol)|Marc (Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol)]]. Dyna ddechrau fy chwe mis fel Cydlynydd Wicipedia y [[:cy:Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol|Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol]], sydd â’r genhadaeth o gefnogi addysg cyfrwng Cymraeg ym mhrifysgolion ledled y wlad. Hwn yw’r prosiect Wicipediwr Preswyl cyntaf yng Nghymru, sy’n anrhydedd arbennig, ac yn un o’r ychydig rai nad sydd mewn sefydliad GLAM (oriel, llyfrgell, archifdy neu amgueddfa) – er i fi ddarganfod bod gan y Coleg archif sylweddol o gynnwys addysgiadol yn y Gymraeg. Hyd yn hyn rwy' wedi bod yn archwilio’r posibiliadau o osod cynnwys a ddatblygwyd gan y Coleg dan drwydded agored, a fyddai’n caniatáu iddo gael ei ail-ddefnyddio ar Wicipedia.

Dechreuodd y gwaith ar adeg hynod o ffodus, am i Lywodraeth Cymru gyhoeddi [http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dcells/publications/140402-online-digital-learning-working-group-cy.pdf adroddiad] yn hwyrach yn y mis yn annog ein prifysgolion i fabwysiadu adnoddau addysgol agored. Mae’r Coleg yn un arall o’n sefydliadau cenedlaethol sy’n cefnogi diwylliant agored, i ychwanegu at y sawl sydd wedi’u trafod eisoes ar y blog hwn.

Rwy wedi bod yn y swydd ers chwech wythnos bellach, ac wedi dod o hyd i lwyth o ddeunydd a fyddai’n rhoi hwb i gynnwys y Wicipedia Cymraeg mewn pynciau megis daearyddiaeth, ffilm, teledu a drama. Darnau o destun a fyddai’n addas i’w trosglwyddo i erthyglau Wicipedia yn hytrach na ffeiliau cyfryngau ar gyfer y Comin rwyf i wedi ei ddarganfod gan fwyaf, er bod sawl clip fideo hefyd y byddaf yn gobeithio eu rhoi ar y Comin. Bydd y gwaith trosglwyddo hwn, unwaith rwyf wedi cael caniatâd i’w wneud, yn cael ei hysbysu ar y [[:cy:Wicipedia:Wici Addysg/Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol|dudalen prosiect]] ar Wicipedia wrth iddo ddigwydd.

Yn y cyfamser, mae dal angen gwneud y rhan pwysicaf o swyddogaeth Wicipediwr Preswyl, sef cynnal y digwyddiadau a fydd yn cyflwyno cyfranwyr newydd ac yn sefydlu perthynas hirbarhaol rhwng myfyrwyr ac academyddion y Coleg, ar y naill law, a Sefydliad Wikimedia ar y llall. Bydd hyn yn sialens, ond mae’n un rwy’n edrych ymlaen ato.

----

;Torfoli - hanfod Wici!
:''Sgwennwyd y blog hwn gan Dr Martin Poulter, Llysgennad Jisc Wicimedia
[[File:Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg|right|170px]]
Er mwyn i ni ddylanwadu ar sefydliadau addysgol, mae'n rhaid i ni fedru siarad eu hiaith nhw ac mae'n rhaid i ni roi gwybodaeth yn y llefydd mae nhw'n chwilio amdano.

Mae'r ''"Jisc infoKits"'' (neu "becyn gwybodaeth") yn llyfrynnau arlein ar gyfer rheolwyr, technegwyr a staff eraill Addysg Uwch a Phellach. I'r fangre hon y daw'r pobl hyn am gyngor am gyfrifiadura Cwmwl, Rheoli Rhaglenni, Gofod Addysgu ac yn y blaen. Mae na becyn gwybodaeth newydd sbon danlli dw i wedi'i sgwennu fel rhan o fy ngwaith gyda phartneriaeth Jisc/Wicipedia.

“Torfoli: hanfod y wici!” yw ei enw ac mae'n egluro sut y gall pobl broffesiynol a gwirfoddolwyr gydweithio i greu deunydd cyfeiriadu (''reference materials'') ar gyfer addysg neu ymchwil.

Fel pob pecyn gwybodaeth, gellir ei ddarllen o'r dechrau i'r diwedd neu drwy ddethol rhannau - yn esiamplau byrion neu'n astudiaethau achos. Mae'n cyrraedd ei anterth mewn trafodaeth ar y manteision o rannu casgliad o ffotograffau a chyfryngau eraill ar Gomin Wicimedia. Mae diwedd pob adran yn crynhoi'r negeseuon a ddysgwyd.

Deg mil o eiriau'n unig sydd i'r pecyn gwybodaeth, a dim ond bras gyffwrdd yn swil y mae dros nifer helaeth o bynciau. Does na ddim un ateb perffaith i dorfoli, ond mae na lawer o wersi y gellir eu dysgu o un o'r prosiectau torfol mwyaf (a mwyaf amlwg) erioed: Wicipedia!

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/02/crowdsourcing-the-wiki-way-of-working/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

;Y Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol i benodi Cydlynydd Wicimedia
:<small>''Sgwennwyd y blog hwn gan Robin Owain, Rheolwr Wicimedia DU (Cymru)''</small>
[[File:Animated-Flag-Wales.gif|left|]]
Yn dilyn cytundeb gyda'r Coleg Cymraeg i ran-ariannu swydd ar sail swyddog preswyl, mae'r Coleg yn dymuno penodi unigolyn i ymuno â thîm swyddogion canolog y Coleg am gyfnod o 6 mis fel '''Cydlynydd Wicipedia'''. Bydd y Cydlynydd yn gyfrifol am asesu cynnwys addysgol y Coleg a chynghori ar sut orau y gellir ei rannu ar lwyfannau Wicimedia (gan gynnwys Wicipedia). Hyderir y gwelwn sefydlu a datblygu perthynas gynaliadwy rhwng y Coleg, Wicimedia DU, Wici Cymru a'r gymuned Wicimedia trwy ystod o weithgareddau.

Mae hwn yn gam mawr i'r coleg - dim ond yr ail goleg drwy'r byd i gyflogi Cydlynydd Wicimedia (neu ''Wikipedian in Residence''), gan mai mewn galeriau, amgueddfydd a llyfrgelloedd y gwelir y rhan fwyaf o gydlynwyr. Gellir canfod y manylion ar wefan y Coleg [http://www.colegcymraeg.ac.uk/cy/ycoleg/swyddi/ yma]. Disgwylir y bydd gan y sawl a benodir gefndir academaidd gadarn, dealltwriaeth dda o faterion yn ymwneud â hawlfraint ac eiddo deallusol a dealltwriaeth o genhadaeth a gweithgareddau Wicimedia a’r Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol. Mae profiad o waith trefnu a chydlynu, cynnig hyfforddiant a chymorth i staff academaidd yn ogystal a golygu deunydd ar safleoedd Wici yn angenrheidiol hefyd yn fanteisiol.

Mae llawer o waith caled wedi digwydd gan y Coleg a Wicimedia yn ystod y misoedd diwethaf. Mae na dir cyffredin cadarn yng ngweledigaeth y ddau gorff: ychwanegu at “gyfanswm gwybodaeth yr hil ddynol” a sicrhau mynediad rhwydd ac am ddim i'r wybodaeth honno - yn iaith y darllenwr. Mae Wicipedia ar gael mewn dros 280 iaith; yr [[:w:cy:wiki/Hafan|Wicipedia Cymraeg]] ydy'r wefan Gymraeg mwyaf poblogaidd drwy'r byd, gyda dros 2.3 miliwn o dudalennau'n cael eu hagor pob mis.

Yn ystod y blynyddoedd diwethaf cafwyd camau breision ac ''avant-garde'' gan y [http://www.llgc.org.uk/cy/?no_cache=1 Llyfrgell Genedlaethol] yn rhyddhau llawer o'u ffeiliau (lluniau, ffotograffau ayb) ar drwydded agored, yn ogystal a chan Lywodraeth Cymru. Mae'r bartneriaeth newydd hon gyda'r Coleg yn cadarnhau fod Cymru'n wlad blaenllaw iawn o ran cynnwys rhydd ac agored.

----

;100,000 o hen ffotograffau - am ddim i bawb!
[[File:Ysgol Gymraeg Ashford Middlesex.GIF|thumb|300px|Ysgol Gymraeg yn Ashford, Middlesex yn 1857.]]
Mae ''[http://wellcomeimages.org/ Wellcome Images]'' wedi rhyddhau 100,000 o'u hen ffotograffau ar drwydded agored CC-BY! Dyma gasgliad amrywiol iawn: o hen femrynau i ysgythriadau gan Van Gogh a Goya a fydd yn hynod ddefnyddiol i'w hychwanegu ar erthyglau'r Wicipedia Cymraeg a ieithoedd eraill. Ar dudalen y ffotograff, mae'n hanfodol ein bod yn nodi mai o gasgliad ''Wellcome Images'' y dont.

Mae Wikimedia UK yn llongyfarch ''Wellcome Images'' am fod mor ddewr a caniatáu i'r byd cyfan eu defnyddio dan y drwydded agored hon. Nid ydyn nhw wedi cau'r drws ar hanner y byd drwy roi trwydded ''"Non-Commercial"'' (NC) arnyn nhw! Carem annog sefydliadau Cymru a gwledydd eraill Prydain i ddilyn ôl eu traed. Am ragor o wybodaeth ebostiwch Jonathan Cardy (jonathan.cardy@wikimedia.org.uk).

Mae rhai o'r lluniau wedi'u huwchlwytho'n barod ar erthyglau'r Wicipedia Cymraeg. Cymerwch gipa ar yr erthygl ar [https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navaho lwyth y Navaho]. Ffotograff arall yw'r un uchod o Ysgol Gymraeg yn Ashford, Middlesex; efallai yr Ysgol Gymraeg fwyaf y tu allan i Gymru erioed?

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/01/wellcome-images-freely-releases-100000-images/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Y Gymdeithas Frenhinol (''The Royal Society'') yn penodi Wikimediwr mewn Gwaith
[[File:2013 Royal Society Women in Science panel discussion 17.jpg|thumb|left|John Byrne yn Hydref 2013]]

Pleser o'r mwyaf yw cyhoeddi fod John Byrne (Defnyddiwr:Johnbod) wedi'i benodi'n Wikipediwr mewn Gwaith yn y Gymdeithas Frenhinol (''The Royal Society'') sef academi gwyddonol cenedlaethol gweledydd Prydain a Gogledd Iwerddon.

Mae wedi cychwyn ar ei waith ers y cyntaf o Ionawr 2014, am gyfnod o chwe mis. Telir y rhan helaethaf o'i gyflog gan Wikimedia UK. Cynllun peilot yw hwn i fraenaru'r tir gyda'r gobaith o bartneriaeth closiach a dyfnach yn y dyfodol.

Gobeithir agor casgliadau hanesyddol y Gymdeithas (ar drwydded agored), gwella ansawdd erthyglau gwyddonol ar brosiectau Wikimedia a gwella'r wybodaeth am wyddonwyr o fewn grwpiau lleiafrifol.

Mae John yn hen law ar olygu a gweinyddol prosiectau Wikimedia: bu'n 'Wicimediwr y Flwyddyn' yn 2012 a gweithredodd fel ymddiriedolwr yr elusen am rai blynyddoedd. Dywedodd, ''“I’ve already been planning an exciting programme with Royal Society staff, including plenty of events. Some of these will be aimed at Royal Society staff while others are intended to meet the needs of scientists and the general public."''

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/12/royal-society-appoints-wikimedian-in-residence/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;WiciAddysg ym Mae Caerdydd
[[File:Rod Dunican presents at EduWiki Conference 2013 2.JPG|thumb|250px|Rodney Dunican o UDA yn traddodi ei araith yn WiciAddysg 2013]]

Daeth Wicipedwyr ledled y byd i Fae Caerdydd ar ddechrau Tachwedd 2013 i drafod materion addysg agored; hwn oedd yr ail [[EduWiki Conference 2013|gynhadledd]] o'i fath.

Ceisiodd y gynhadledd ateb rai o'r problemau (parthed addysg a gwybodaeth rydd ac agored) a wynebai addysgwr a Wicipedwyr ein mudiad, gan gynnwys: sut rydym yn hyrwyddo llythrennedd digidol, sut i atal llên-ladrad o Wicipedia i waith ysgolion a phrifysgol a sut rydym yn asesu gwaith newydd-ddyfodiaid ar Wicipedia a Wikipedia. Ystyriwyd a thrafdodwyd hefyd y data am ddefnyddwyr (sgwennwyr a golygwyr), sef ''learning analytics'' drwy'r defnydd o offer digidol ar y we.

Daeth academyddion, myfyrwyr, llyfrgellwyr a staff atodol at ei gilydd yn ogystal a chyfranwyr i [[:cy:Wikipedia:Main page|Wicipedia]], [[:Wikipedia:Main page|Wikipedia]] a [[:Wikiversity:Main page|Wikiversity]]. Gareth Morlais, Arbenigwr Cyfryngau Digidol y Llywodraeth, oedd y Prif Siaradwr Gwadd [http://garethmorlais.co.uk/Gareth-Morlais-English.html Gareth Morlais] a nododd bwysigrwydd y Wicipedia Cymraeg wrth i gwmniau megis Google flaenoriaethu eu darpariaeth mewn iaith leiafrifol. Cyflwynodd yn Gymraeg, gyda'r Prifardd Sion Aled yn cyfieithu ar y pryd i aelodau di-Gymraeg y gynhadledd.

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/11/eduwiki-conference-2013-convenes-in-cardiff/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Enillwyr Cystadleuaeth Rijksmonument (''Wiki Loves Monuments)''
:30 Hydref 2013 gan Stevie Benton
[[File:Eglwys San Silyn Wrecsam St Giles Church Wrexham 22.JPG|thumb|left|160px|Anfuddugol: ''Eglwys San Silyn'', Wrecsam]]
Braf iawn gennym ni yma yn Wikimedia UK ydy cyhoeddi enwau enillwyr WLM 2013. Hon yw cystadleuaeth ffotograffiaeth fwya'r byd. Y nod yw tynnu lluniau (ffotograffau) o ansawdd uchel, o adeiladau cofrestredig - Gradd I neu I*.

Ymgeisiodd 570 yma yng ngwledydd Prydain a gogledd Iwerddon gan gyfrannu dros 12,000 o ffotograffau i Gomin Wikimedia, sef un o gronfeydd ffeiliau mwyaf y byd sy'n defnyddio trwyddedau agored megis CC-BY-SA. Mae miloedd o olygyddion Wicipedia eisioes wedi dechrau eu defnyddio nhw i roi chydig o liw ar y gwyddoniadur arlein.

Yn ôl un o'r beiriniaid, sef Steve Cole (Pennaeth adran ffotograffeg ''English Heritage''), ”Creodd y gystadleuaeth amrywiaeth fantastig o bynciau ac arddulliau gwahanol. 'Doedd dewis yr enillydd ddim yn hawdd! Mae'r llun arobryn wedi ei osod yn dda ac mae'n llawn teimlad.”

Mae'r holl luniau a dynnwyd o Gymru (a gwledydd eraill) i'w gweld [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2013_in_Wales&filefrom=Eglwys+San+pedr+Rhuthun+St+Peter%27s+Church+Ruthin+11.JPG#mw-category-media yma].

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Gwybodaeth am gansar y fron ar Wicipedia
:24 Hydref 2013 gan Stevie Benton

[[File:Breast_Cancer_Care_editing_session_at_their_London_offices,_Tuesday_22nd_October_2013_09.JPG|thumb|200px|left|Rhai o aelodau'r sesiwn olygu]]
Mae tua 55,000 o bobl yn cael eu canfod â chansar y fron arnyn nhw'n flynyddol yng ngwledydd Prydain, clefyd sy'n eu heffeithio nhw, eu teuluoedd a'u ffrindia. Gan fod Hydref yn fis codi'r ymwybyddiaeth o gansar, daeth aelodau o Wikimedia UK a [http://www.breastcancercare.org.uk/ ''Breast Cancer Care''] at ei gilydd am sesiynnau arbenigol o olygu erthyglau yn ymwneud a'r pwnc ar Wikipedia.

Mae miliynau o bobl yn darllen yr erthyglau hyn yn flynyddol. Heddiw, gallem gyhoeddi ffigurau darllen y 3 mis dwaethaf: darllenwyd [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer y brif erthygl hon ar gansar y fron] [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/breast%20cancer dros 261,000 o weithiau]. Oherwydd mai Wikipedia ydy'r ffynhonnell cyntaf y daw lawer o ddarllenwyr ar ei thraws, mae'n hynod bwysig fod yr wybodaeth sydd arni'n gywir ac mor gyfoes a phosibl.

Dyna pam roedd ''Breast Cancer Care'' yn awyddus i gydweithio â ni yn y sesiynnau golygu hyn.

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/10/breast-cancer-information-on-wikipedia-making-it-even-better/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Cyhoeddi ymddiriedolwyr newydd ar fwrdd Wikimedia UK
:''1 Hydref 2013 gan Stevie Benton''

Ymfalchia Bwrdd Wikimedia UK yn y cyhoeddiad fod dwy ymddiriedolwraig newydd wedi'u cyfethol i'r Bwrdd: '''Carol Cambell''' a '''Kate West'''. Mae gan y ddwy arbenigedd addas iawn. Cyfranodd Carol yn helaeth i fudiadau gwirfoddol ac mae ganddi sgiliau arbennig mewn rheoli gwrthdaro ac adeiladu perthynas rhwng pobl. Bu'n swyddog gydag Eglwys Gadeiriol Ely. Mae Kate yn Brif Swyddog Gwasanaethau yn y Gymdeithas Diwygio Etholiadau ''(The Electoral Reform Society)'' ac mae'n dod a sgiliau llywodraethol, rheolaethol, polisiau a chynllunio i'r Bwrdd. Croeso cynnes i'r ddwy. Gallwch ddisgwyl rhagor yn ymuno cyn hir, yn enwedig aelodau o gymuned Wikimedia.

----

;Rhannu gwybodaeth rhydd ac agored yn y Prifysgolion
[[File:Cmglee CUWPS November 2012 gathering.jpg|210px|thumb|Swyddogion Cymdeithas Wicipedia Prifysgol Caergrawnt]]

:''Addasiad o [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ erthygl gan Stevie Benton; 5ed o Fedi, 2013] gan [[:m:Robin Owain (WMUK)|Robin Owain, Rheolwr Cymru]].''

Dros yr haf mae Wikimedia UK wedi ymgyrchu i godi ymwybyddiaeth pobl o'r hyn rydym yn ei gynnig i fyfyrwyr prifysgol drwy eu cynorthwyo i sefydlu Cymdeithas Wicipedia yn eu prifysgol. Ceir nifer o gymdeithasau yn Lloegr gan gynnwys yr "Imperial" yn Llundain a Phrifysgol Caergrawnt, ond hyd yma, does dim un yng Nghymru.

Yn ystod y misoedd nesaf byddwn yn cynorthwyo Prifysgol Abertawe i sefydlu [https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_societies cymdeithas o fyfyrwyr Wicipedaidd] a phrosiect ehangach drwy'r coleg. Yn Lloegr a'r Alban, byddwn yn canolbwyntio ar Brifysgolion Dundee, Manceinion, Hull/Scarborough a Llundain.

Gallem ymuno gyda'r myfyrwyr yng nghyfarfod y cymdeithasau yn ystod "Wythnos y Glas, i egluro ein hymgyrch dros gynnwys agored a dulliau o ddefnyddio Wicipedia fel llwyfan i aseiniadau academig. Bydd ein gwirfoddolwyr lleol, golygyddion profiadol a staff yn bresenol i gynorthwyo. Os ydych yn dymuno i ni fod yn rhan o "ffair y cymdeithasau" yn ystod yr wythnosau nesaf yna cysylltwch efo Robin Owain, Rheolwr Cymru ar info[[Image:At_sign.svg|15px|@]]wikimedia.org.

Mater bach ydy cofrestru eich cymdeithas Wicipedia newydd efo WMUK, a gallem wneud hyn yn sydyn iawn, os yw amser yn brin. Ceir rhagor o fanylion ynglyn a'r hyn a allem ei gynnig i fyfyrwyr [https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_societies yma], a cheir disgrifiadau eitha trylwyr o weithgareddau rhai gymdeithasau o wahanol brifysgolion yn [https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Student_societies/Student_activities fama]. Os allwch symud yn sydyn - cyn y 10fed o Hydref - yna cewch eich gwahodd i [[Cynhadledd WiciAddysg, 2013|Gynhadledd WiciAddysg, 2013]] yng Nghaerdydd. Mae'r gwesteion / siaradwyr yn cynnwys cynrychiolwyr o'r Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol, JISC a Phrifysgol Abertawe, gyda'r niferoedd yn cynyddu o ddydd i ddydd.

Doed dim rhaid wrth gymwyster arbennig i alw cyfarfod o gymdeithas Wicipedia - dim mond fod gennych ddiddordeb mewn cynnwys rhydd, golygu gwyddoniadur digidol, torri tir newydd a brwdfrydedd heintus! Cysylltwch a ni ar fyrder!

----

;Sphingonet a Wikipedia
[[File:MRC_NIMR_editathons_12.JPG|250px|thumb|right|Y golygathon yn ei anterth]]

:''Sgwennwyd y blog hwn gan Edward Hands, un o wirfoddolwyr Wikimedia UK.''

Ydy teitlau megis ''“Reanimating Ice-cold Rats”'' a ''“Resuscitating Hamsters”'' yn mynd i ysbrydoli gwyddonwyr benywaidd i olygu erthyglau gwyddonol ar Wicipedia?

Dyma un o'r cwestiynnau a ofynwyd mewn golygathon a sesiwn hyfforddi diweddar a drefnais ar y cyd gyda [http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index.htm y Cyngor dros Ymchwil Meddygol (''Medical Research Council'')] a'r [http://royalsociety.org/ Gymdeithas Frenhinol (''Royal Society'')], yn y [http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/ Sefydliad Cenedlaethol dros Ymchwil Meddygol (''National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR)'')], Mill Hill, Llundain, gydag ugain o ferched a thri gŵr doeth a dewr!

Roedd y digwyddiad yn cynnwys siaradwr gwadd a phanel cwestiwn-ac-ateb wedi ei arwain gan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athene_Donald yr Athro Dame Athene Donald FRS], a nododd nifer o resymau pam fod hi'n anoddach i ferch gael dyrchafiad i'r swyddi gorau yn y byd gwyddonol. Beth a ddaeth i'r wyneb oedd yr anghydbwysedd, neu'r rhagfarn a wynebant, a sut y gellid goresgyn y problemau hyn e.e. drwy hyfforddi rhagor o ferched i olygu Wicipedia a llenwi'r bylchau o ran gwyddonwyr benywaidd o nod.

Trefnwyd y sesiwn ar 25 Gorffennaf, 2013, sef diwrnod pen-blwydd [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_franklin Rosalind Franklin] (brenhines DNA), a dathlwyd y digwyddiad hwnnw gyda chlamp o gacen. Roedd y deisen yn gyforiog o eisin ar ffurf helics dwbwl a'r llun enwog ohoni (sef "ffotograff 51") yn coroni'r cyfan. Ac ar ben hyn, roedd y lleoliad yn arbennig, gydag un o'r golygfeydd gorau o Lundain. Roedd cyngor arbenigol wrth law a phapurau a llyfrau dethol wedi'u darparu gan lyfrgellwyr NIMR: Frank Norman, Patti Biggs, a Phoebe Harkins o'r [http://wellcomelibrary.org/ ''Wellcome Library''].
<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/revitalising-wikipedia-coverage-of-women-scientists/

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/08/revitalising-wikipedia-coverage-of-women-scientists/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Sphingonet a Wikipedia
[[File:July 2013 Sphingonet training event (6).JPG|300px|thumb|left|Daria Cybulska (ail o'r chwith), aelod o staff Wikimedia yn cynorthwyo ymchwilwyr meddygol i olygu Wicipedia.]]

:''Sgwennwyd gan Richard Nevell.''

Ar y 10fed o Orffennaf 2013, teithiodd pedwar o hyfforddwyr Wikimedia UK i Rydychen i gyfarfod grwp o ddoethuriaiad ymchwil israddedig ac ôl-raddedig. Cafwyd y syniad yn wreiddiol nôl yn Chwefror a hynny gan Luc Henry. Cynlluniwyd yn ofalus cyn y digwyddiad a gofalodd Luc fod y trefniadau'n berffaith! Cyflwynwyd yr hyfforddiant gan bedwar ohonom: Toni Sant, Daria Cybulska, Brian Kelly a minnau.

Ymchwil i fewn i sphingolipids gan ymchwilwyr cynnar ydy Sphingonet; ac mae'n gynllun ar gyfer ymchwilwyr o bum gwlad. Cânt eu harianu gan raglen ymchwil Marie Curie Actions yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Fel rhan o'u gwaith, mae ganddynt weithgareddau pwrpasol ar gyfer hysbysu'r cyhoedd o'u canfyddiadau. Prin iawn yw'r rhai sy'n cyrraedd cymaint o gynulleidfa a Wicipedia, fodd bynnag! Yn bresenol hefyd roedd y Wicipewraig mewn gwaith yn Llyfgrell Genedlaethol yr Alban.

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/07/sphingonet-and-wikipedia/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Mike Peel yn ymddiswyddo o Fwrdd Wikimedia UK

:''27 Gorffennaf 2013 gan Stevie Benton''
[[File:WikiConference_UK_2012_-_Mike_Peel_2_edit.jpg|200px|thumb|right|alt=A photo of Mike Peel|Mike Peel]]

Gyda gofid y cyhoeddwn i Mike Peel ymddiswyddo fel un o ymddiriedolwyr ein helusen.

Mae cyfraniad Mike dros y blynyddoedd i'r elusen ac i'r mudiad Wikimedia'n cael ei werthfawrogi a'i edmygu gan bawb. Daeth yn Wicipediwr yn 2005 ac yn un o sylfaenwyr Wikimedia UK. Bu'n aelod o Fwrdd yr elusen, yn gadeirydd ac yn ysgrifennydd yn ei dro a hynny ers sefydlu'r Bwrdd yn 2008. Mae ei gyfraniad yn amhrisiadwy ac yn rhy niferus i'w rhestru yma! Yn wir, byddai'n ganmil haws rhestru'r prosiectau NAD ydyw wedi bod yn rhan ohonynt.

Dywedodd Chris Keating, Cadeirydd Wikimedia UK: "Ni fyddai WMUK yn bodoli heb gyfraniad Mike dros y blynyddoedd. Bu'n allweddol yng ngweithgareddau'r Bwrdd. Mae ganddo synnwyr moesoldeb di-syfl, dyfalbarhad ac mae gwaith caled yn ei galon! Yno hefyd mae ei weledigaeth a'i werthoedd o'r hyn rydym yn ceisio'i gyrraedd a'i gyflawni."

Mae Mike yn awyddus iawn, fodd bynnag, i roi ei ynni yng ngwaith Pwyllgor Rhannu Arian Wikimedia Foundation a dychwelyd at rai prosiectau eraill sydd gan Wikimedia. Bydd hefyd yn parhau ei gysylltiad agos gyda Wici Cymru a'r prosiect [[Llwybrau Byw - Living Paths Project Recruitment|Llwybrau Byw!]].

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/07/mike-peel-resigns-as-a-trustee-of-wikimedia-uk/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Ashley Van Haeften yn ymddiswyddo o Fwrdd Wikimedia UK
:''13 Gorffennaf 2013; gan Stevie Benton

Cyhoeddodd Wikimedia UK fod Ashley Van Haeften (Defnyddiwr:Fae) wedi penderfynnu ymddiswyddo fel ymddiriedolwr yr elusen, a hynny ar unwaith.

Cyfrannodd Fæ yn helaeth at waith y mudiad Wikimedia a'r elusen ers iddo gael ei ethol i'r bwrdd yn Ebrill 2011, gan Gadeirio rhwng Ebrill 2012 ac Awst 2012.

Mae Wikimedia UK yn diolch iddo ac yn gwerthfawrogi'r gwaith da, yr amser a roddodd a'i arbenigedd dros y ddwy flynedd diwethaf. Gobeithiwn yn fawr y gwneith barhau i gyfrannu yng ngweithgareddau'r Siapter fel aelod a dymunwn yn dda iddo yn y dyfodol.

Bydd y Bwrdd yn trafod cyfethol rhywun yn ei le a bydd datganiad arall yn cael ei wneud cyn hir.

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/07/ashley-van-haeften-steps-down-from-wikimedia-uk-board/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Casgliad o Ddelweddau o Ganada yn y Llyfrgell Brydeinig sydd bellach ar Gomin Wicipedia
[[File:The_farewell_(HS85-10-30885).jpg|250px|thumb|left|alt=Enghraifft o un o'r delweddau|Enghraifft o un o'r delweddau o'r Casgliad]]

:''5 Gorffennaf 2013. Sgwennwyd y postiad hwn gan Andrew Grey a Philip Hatfield ac fe'i cyhoeddwyd yn wreiddiol ar
[http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/01/picturing-canada/ flog Wikimedia Foundation yn fama.]''

Roedd y cyntaf o Orffennaf yn Ddiwrnod Canada, a chyhoeddodd Wikimedia UK a'r Llyfgell Brydeinig (BL) eu bônt wedi rhyddhau [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:British_Library/Picturing_Canada 2,000 o hen ffotograffau o Ganada].

Ers Medi 2012, buom yn gweithio'n digideiddio casgliad o ffotograffau hanesyddol o Ganada gan eu rhyddhau ar Gomin Wicipedia ac felly i'r parth cyhoeddus. Daeth y casgliad yn eiddo i'r BL rhwng 1895 a 1924 ac mae'n cynnwys ffotograffau [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit cyfraniad hawlfraint] gan ffotograffwyr y cyfnod hwnnw. Trefnwyd y cyfraniad hawlfraint hwn drwy ddeddf drefedigaethol parthed hawlfraint (''"Colonial Copyright Law"''), a geisiodd ymestyn deddfau hawlfraint Prydeinig dros ei hymerodraeth. Yn ymarferol, roedd y ddeddf hon yn fethiant llwyr a dim ond llond dwrn o diriogaethau wnaeth ei pharchu drwy gyfrannu deunydd. Ond hyd at 1925, fe wnaeth Ganada hynny a gweinyddodd yr Adran Amaeth y ddeddf ar eu rhan. Danfonwyd copi o bob eitem i Ottawa ac i Lundain, ble gawsant eu harchifo gan y BL ac yna eu anghofio am ddegawdau.

Mae'r casgliad yn cynnwys llyfrau wedi'i cyhoeddi, cerddoriaeth, mapiau ac wrth gwrs, ffotograffau. Er fod y ffotograffau, ar y pryd, yn cael eu cyfri fel pethau dibwys, maent bellach yn cael eu cyfri fel cip ar fywyd yng Nghanada ar adeg tyngedfenol yn ei hanes; 30 mlynedd o ddatblygiad y Cyd-ffederasiwn, yn wleidyddol, yn economaidd ac yn gymdeithasol tra'n ceisio cydnabyddiaeth fydeang. Mae'r casgliad felly'n groesdorriad gweledol o wladwriaeth yn newid, o Vancouver i Halifax gyda ffotograffwyr mân a mawr megis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._Micklethwaite Frank Micklethwaite] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Notman William Notman].

Mae'r lluniau i'w cael [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/British_Library/Picturing_Canada yma ar Gomin Wicipedia]. </br>
:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/07/canadian-copyright-collection-from-the-british-library-on-wikimedia-commons/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Wikimedia UK yn penodi Rheolwr i Gymru
[[File:Portrait_of_Robin_Owain.PNG|200px|thumb|right|alt=Robin Owain|Robin Owain]]

:''2 Gorffennaf, 2013''
Pleser o’r mwyaf yw cyhoeddi penodiad Robin Owain, ein Rheolwr cyntaf yng Nghymru.

Dechreuodd Robin ar y gwaith heddiw, a bydd yn arwain y [[Llwybrau Byw - Living Paths Project Recruitment|prosiect Llwybrau Byw]]! Bydd hefyd yn arwain ein hymgais i ehangu’r Wicipedia Cymraeg a’r Wikipedia Saesneg yng Nghymru.

Bydd ei swydd yn para am 12 mis. Dywedodd Robin: “Mae mynd i fewn – i ganol y gweithgareddau – gan ddangos i werin Cymru be allant wneud yn rhoi byz anhygoel i mi: gall bawb fod yn awdur, yn gyhoeddwr ac yn addysgwr drwy gyfrwng Wicipedia, a rhoi yn ôl rhywbeth gwerthfawr iawn i gymdeithas.

“Mae bod yn rhan o Wikimedia UK a Wici Cymru (dau griw bendigedig) yn sylfaen gadarn yn fy ngwaith o gerdded y Llwybrau Byw.”

Dywedodd Jon Davies, Prif Weithredwr Wikimedia UK, “Mae penodiad Robin fel ein Rheolwr yng Nghymru yn rhan hanfodol o’n strategath ”outreach”. Wicipedia Cymraeg ydy’r wefan Gymraeg fwyaf boblogaidd yn y byd ac rydym yn ymfalchio ein bod yn medru cefnogi’r Gymrag.

“Er gwaetha’r ffaith fy mod yn hanner Cymro fy hun, mae fy ngwybodaeth o’r Gymraeg yn fach, ond dw i’n falch iawn fy mod yn medru cynorthwyo i’w bywiogi fel hyn, er mor fychan yw’r cyfraniad hwnnw.”

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Jisc a Wikimedia UK yn codi pont rhwng academia a Wicipedia

:''27 Mehefin 2013 gan Stevie Benton''

[[File:Martin_Poulter,_WMUK_board_meeting,_August_2011.jpg|200px|thumb|right|alt=Dr Martin Poulter|Dr Martin Poulter]]
Mae [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ Jisc] a Wicimedia UK yn cydweithio ar brosiect sy'n dod a'r byd academaidd a Wicipedia yn nes at ei gilydd. Bydd hyn yn creu cyfleoedd ar gyfer ymchwilwyr, addysgwyr a'r cyhoedd i gyfrannu tuag at wybodaeth rhydd, am ddim ac sy'n agored i bawb.

Mae'r elusen addysgol Jisc yn arbenigwr mewn technoleg ddigidol o fewn y byd addysg ac ymchwil, ac mae nhw'n cefnogi'r prosiect hwn er mwyn ehangu'r gynulleidfa a wneith fanteisio ar y gwaith blaenllaw ac avant-garde mae'n ei wneud. Mae'r gwaith yma'n cynnwys adnoddau agored addysgol, casgliadau o waith ymchwil arlein a chasgliadau eraill (e.e. papurau newydd wedi'u digideiddio). Mae Wikimedia UK yn elusen sy'n cefnogi Wicipedia Cymraeg a phob un o'r 280 iaith arall a'i chwaer brosiectau megis [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hafan Comin], [http://cy.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hafan Wiciadur] a [http://cy.wikisource.org/wiki/Hafan Wicidestun]. Mae'n cydweithio gyda gweithwyr proffesiynol mewn llyfrgelloedd, prifysgolion, amgueddfeydd a sefydliadau eraill er mwyn gwella'r wybodaeth sydd ar y prosiectau hyn ac er mwyn ehangu hygyrchedd y wybodaeth er lles pawb.

Mae'r prosiect hwn wedi'i sefydlu ym Mhrifysgol Bryste. Bydd yn hyfforddi arbenigwyr yn eu gweithle ac yn cynnal ambell "olygathon" a fydd yn agored i'r cyhoedd. Penodwyd y Dr Martin Poulter yn Llysgennad i'r prosiect a bydd yn gyfrifol am bontio rhwng y ddwy gymuned: Jisc a Wikimedia UK. Penodwyd Dr Toni Sant ychydig yn ôl yn gyfrifol am yr adran addysg o fewn WMUK, adran sy'n canolbwyntio ar addysg drydyddol. Bydd gwaith Martin yn cynnwys clustnodi meysydd i'w datblygu yn ogystal a threfnu [[EduWiki Conference 2013|Cynhadledd EduWiki ym Mae Caerdydd]] yn Nhachwedd 2013.

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Cynhadledd WMUK – Mediawiki ar gyfer OER a ''Learning Analytics''
[[File:St.Mary's Cathedral nave - geograph.org.uk - 689026.jpg|thumb|left|Y Gadeirlan yn Lincoln]]

:''12 Mehefin 2013 gan Richard Nevell. Cyhoeddwyd y testun gwreiddiol a welir isod gan Simon Knight, [http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/knight/2013/06/wmuk-conference-mediawiki-for-oer-and-learning-analytics/ yma].''

Ddydd Sadwrn, yn Lincoln, siaradais yng [[WikiConference UK 2013|Nghynhadledd Wikimedia UK]] am y defnydd o Mediwiki ar gyfer Adnoddau Dysgu Agored (OER, neu ''Open educational resources'') a ''Learning Analytics''; mae'r sleidiau a gyflwynais [http://www.slideshare.net/sjgknight/media-wiki-for-oer-and-learning-analytics-understanding-learning-resources-and-learners?ref=http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/knight/2013/06/wmuk-conference-mediawiki-for-oer-and-learning-analytics/ i'w cael yma] a bydd fideo o'r cyflwyniad ar lein cyn hir.

Mi wnes i gyfarfod grwp o bobl yn [[EduWiki Conference 2012|EduWiki 2012]] (a rhennais ychydig o fy syniadau yma: [http://www.nominettrust.org.uk/knowledge-centre/blogs/wikipedia-education-and-tracking-how-knowledge-used EduWiki 2012]), ceisiais adeiladu fy sgwrs ar y gwaith a wnes yng Nghaergrawnt ar y prosiect [http://orbit.educ.cam.ac.uk/wiki/Home ORBIT] – creu llwyfan o adnoddau dysgu agored ar gyfer dysgu rhyngweithiol yn enwedig y pynciau STEM a gweithiau eraill sy'n berthnasol i fy ngwaith PhD.

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/06/wmuk-conference-mediawiki-for-oer-and-learning-analytics/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

----

;Wythnos y Gwirfoddolwr - llythyr gan ein Prif Weithredwr

:''4 Mehefin 2013 gan Stevie Benton. Sgwennwyd y cofnod blog canlynol gan Jon Davies, Prif Weithredwr Wikimedia UK''
[[File:WikiConference UK 2013 - Jon Davies talks about the Wikimedia UK five year plan.JPG|thumb|Jon Davies, Prif Weithredwr WMUK]]
Mae 1-7 Mehefin yn [http://www.volunteering.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/volunteers-week Ddiwrnod y Gwirfoddolwr] yn y DU. Pa well ffordd i'n hatgoffa fod prosiectau Wikimedia, gan gynnwys Wicipedia, yn cael eu sgwennu'n gyfangwbwl gan wirfoddolwyr?

Ers dros 12 mlynedd mae criw enfawr o bobl, o bob cefndir dan haul, ac o bob oedran, barn, a diddordebau, wedi dod at ei gilydd i greu y cefnfor eang yma o wybodaeth rhydd, gan ei rannu gydag eraill gan eu bont yn credu fod hynny'n beth da a gwerth chweil. Ac mae nhw'n parhau i wneud hynny.

Carem gynnig ein diolch di-ben-draw a chynhesaf i bawb sy'n gwirfoddoli i ryddhau a datblygu'r cefnfor hwn o wybodaeth, am eu hynni, a'u hamser i hyrwyddo'r cysyniad hwn o wybodaeth rhydd ac am ddim i bawb. Waeth pa ran o'r gwaith rydych yn ei wneud: cywiro camsillafu, golygu'r cynnwys, sgwennu a datblygu erthyglau, hyfforddi golygyddion newydd, gweithio gyda'r adran GLAM neu addysg neu hyd yn oed gwneud paned o de - can diolch i chi am wneud Wikimedia'n bosib. A dyma pam yr es ati i ofyn i fy nghydweithwyr sut roedden nhw'n teimlo ynglŷn â gweithio gyda gwirfoddolwyr Wikimedia...

:'''''<span class="plainlinks">[http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/06/volunteers-week-a-letter-from-our-chief-executive/ Darllenwch ragor yma]</span>'''''

</div>
|-
! {{Header blue|[[About us|{{white|Ynglŷn â Wikimedia UK}}]]|margin-bottom: 0;}}
|-
| style="color:#000; padding-left:10px; padding-right: 10px;" | <div id="mp-tfa">
{{:About us/cy}}
|-
! {{Header blue|[[Contact us|{{white|Cysylltu}}]]|margin-bottom: 0;}}
|-
| style="color:#000; padding-left:10px; padding-right: 10px;" | <div id="mp-otd">
Ymholiadau: info{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk<br>
Cyfryngau: press{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk

Gallwch ein dilyn ar Twitter (<span class="plainlinks">[http://twitter.com/wikimediauk @wikimediauk]</span>) neu ein "Hoffi" ar Facebook (<span class="plainlinks">[http://www.facebook.com/WikimediaUK WikimediaUK]</span>).

Gallwch hefyd ein dilyn ar [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l restr drafod ebost] ein cymuned (Saesneg).
:'''''[[contact us|Rhagor amdanom]]'''''
|}
| style="border:1px solid transparent;" |
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:33%; vertical-align:top;"|
{| id="mp-right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top;"
! {{Header blue|[[Events|{{white|Digwyddiadau i'w clustnodi}}]]|margin-bottom: 0;}}
|-
| style="color:#000; padding-left:10px; padding-right: 10px;" | <div id="mp-otd">
I weld holl ddigwyddiadau 2013 a 2014 '''''[[Events|cliciwch yma]]'''''

'''Gorffennaf'''

* {{event inline|2014|07|01|HJM yn trefnu [[training session for Physiology Conference 2014|Sesiynnau hyfforddi]], Llundain; y manylion i'w cadarnhau}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|01|Marc Haynes o'r Coleg Cymraeg yn cyflwyno egyfarfod JISC}} [http://jiscevents.force.com/E/EventsDetailPage?id=a06U000000IJUpXIAX&srvc=JISC%20RSC%20Wales]
* {{event inline|2014|07|05|end=06|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Open Data Hack|''Open Data Hack'', Ymylon Wicimania]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|07|[[Wiki Workshop for Geographers|Gweithdy wici i Ddaearyddion]] yn yr RGS, Llundain}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|07|Jonathan Cardy speaking to London Skeptics|Jonathan Cardy yn siarad i'r ''London Skeptics''}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|13|[[:m:Meetup/London/83|LWicigyfarfod yn Llundain]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|15|end=17|[http://2014.okfestival.org/ ''OKFestival'' 2014]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|19|end=20|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Open Scholarship Hack|''Open Scholarship Hack'', Ymylon Wicimania]]}}

{{Header blue|[[Events|{{white|Croeso ac esboniad o'n gwaith}}]]|margin-bottom: 0;}}
[[File:WMUK3.webmsd.webm|thumb|center|340px|Croeso i Wikimedia UK]]

{{{events|}}}

|-
! {{Header blue|Gweithredwch!|margin-bottom: 0;}}
|-
| style="color:#000; padding-left:10px; padding-right: 10px;" | <div id="mp-otd">
{|
|[[File:Group font awesome.svg|40px|link=https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/join|Icon from Font Awesome by Dave Gandy - http://fortawesome.github.com/Font-Awesome, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0]]
|
<h4><span class="plainlinks">[https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/join Ymunwch â Wikimedia UK]</span></h4>
mae aelodaeth yn agored i bawb ac yn costio £5 yn unig, y flwyddyn. Er bod nifer o'n haelodau'n olygyddion ar un neu nifer o chwaer brosiectau Wikimedia, does dim rhaid i chi fod! Mae ein haelodau'n chwarae rhan allweddol yn llunio dyfodol ein mudiad, drwy ethol Bwrdd rheoli a llunio strategaeth yn y Cyfarfod Cyffredinol Blynyddol.
|-
|[[File:Comments alt font awesome.svg|40px|link=Events|Icon from Font Awesome by Dave Gandy - http://fortawesome.github.com/Font-Awesome, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0]]
|<h4>[[Events|Digwyddiadau]]</h4>
trefnwn nifer o ddigwyddiadau'n flynyddol, gan gynnwys cyfarfodydd megis y golygathon, wici gyfarfodydd, digwyddiadau "y tu ôl i'r llen", gweithdai a chynadleddau. Mae bron yr holl ddigwyddiadau hyn am ddim ac yn agored i'r byd a'r betws - dewch draw i'n cyfarfod ac i ymuno yn yr hwyl!
|-
|[[File:User font awesome.svg|40px|link=Volunteer|Icon from Font Awesome by Dave Gandy - http://fortawesome.github.com/Font-Awesome, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0]]
|<h4>[[Volunteer|Gwirfoddolwyr]]</h4>
Rydym wastad yn awyddus i gyfarfod darpar olygyddion a gwirfoddolwyr newydd. Os oes gennych chwip o syniad da, neu amser, neu sgiliau y carwch eu rhannu gyda Wicimedia UK, beth am ebostio un o aelodau'r Bwrdd? Ac i goroni'r cyfan, mae gennym arian i gynorthwyo a chefnogi prosiectau o fewn ein cymuned.
|-
|}

[[File:Wikimedia UK Wikimania 2013 video.webm|340px|Fideo am WMUK a Wikimania 2013 gydag isdeitlau]]

|}
|}

{{Language bar}}
<hr />
__NOTOC____NOEDITSECTION__
<small>''Для української мови Вікіпедії ласка, відвідайте http://uk.wikipedia.org; для Вікімедіа Україна відвідайте http://ua.wikimedia.org''<br />
''For the Gaelic language Wikipedia please visit http://http://gd.wikipedia.org/wik; for Wikimedia Ukraine please visit http://ua.wikimedia.org
''</small>
</div>

''Os oes gennych unrhyw syniadau ar gynnwys neu ar olwg y wefan hon, gadewch sylw ar y [[Talk:Main_Page|Dudalen Sgwrs]], neu arbrofwch yn y [https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Sandbox Blwch Tywod].

{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | Main Page/cy | [[Category:Wikimedia UK]] }}
[[Category:Cymraeg]]<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Template:Wikimania banner

2014-06-27T13:45:19Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Undo revision 58431 by Robin Owain (WMUK) (talk) Welsh version now at Template:Wicimania banner

<div id="mf-home">
<div class="frontpagebackground">
<div style="text-align:center">
<span style="font-size:24pt; color:#212425; font-family:railway, helvetica;margin-bottom:0;">
[[File:WMmedialogo.png|link=|center]]
<span class="plainlinks">[https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page WIKIMANIA]</span>
</span>
<h1 style="font-size:13pt; color:#212425; font-family:railway, helvetica; text-align: center;border:none; padding-top:0;line-height:20px;">
LONDON 2014
</h1>
</div>
<div style="text-align:center">
<div class="imagine">
<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#707A7D; font-weight:regular; font-family:railway, helvetica; text-transform:uppercase; line-height:20px;">
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge
</span>
</div>
</div>
<div>
{| style="margin: 1em auto; width: 70%; text-align:center; font-size:11pt; font-family:Tahoma; border-width:0px; padding: 0;"
|
<span class="plainlinks">
<span style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px;">Fringe: [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fringe '''May - July'''] </span>
<span style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px;">Hackathon: [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hackathon '''6 – 10 August''']</span>
<span style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px;">Programme: [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme '''8 – 10 August''']</span></span><br>
<span class="plainlinks" style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px;">[https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration <big><span style="color:red">'''Register!'''</span></big>]</span>
|}
</div>

<div style="text-align:center"> <div class="imagine">
<span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Tahoma;">
</span>
</div> </div> </div>
<div class="joinus">

Template:Wicimania banner

2014-06-27T13:44:09Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): copy of https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Template:Wikimania_banner&oldid=58431 by user:Robin Owain (WMUK) to be used on Welsh main page

<div id="mf-home">
<div class="frontpagebackground">
<div style="text-align:center">
<span style="font-size:24pt; color:#212425; font-family:railway, helvetica;margin-bottom:0;">
[[File:WMmedialogo.png|link=|center]]
<span class="plainlinks">[https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page WICIMANIA]</span>
</span>
<h1 style="font-size:13pt; color:#212425; font-family:railway, helvetica; text-align: center;border:none; padding-top:0;line-height:20px;">
LLUNDAIN 2014
</h1>
</div>
<div style="text-align:center">
<div class="imagine">
<span style="font-size:11pt;color:#707A7D; font-weight:regular; font-family:railway, helvetica; text-transform:uppercase; line-height:20px;">
Dychmygwch fyd ble y bydd pob person ar y blaned yn derbyn mynediad rhwydd ac am ddim i holl wybodaeth yr hil ddynol
</span>
</div>
</div>
<div>
{| style="margin: 1em auto; width: 70%; text-align:center; font-size:11pt; font-family:Tahoma; border-width:0px; padding: 0;"
|
<span class="plainlinks">
<span style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px;">Yr Ymylon: [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fringe '''Mai - Gorff.'''] </span>
<span style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px;">Hacathon: [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hackathon '''6 – 10 Awst''']</span>
<span style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px;">Rhaglen: [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme '''8 – 10 Awst''']</span></span><br>
<span class="plainlinks" style="margin-left:20px; margin-right:20px;">[https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration <big><span style="color:red">'''Cofrestrwch!'''</span></big>]</span>
|}
</div>

<div style="text-align:center"> <div class="imagine">
<span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Tahoma;">
</span>
</div> </div> </div>
<div class="joinus">

Talk:Wiki Workshop for Geographers

2014-06-27T11:23:05Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): tour clash is why I've not signed up to this

[http://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/tour-de-france-2014 Tour de France] anyone? [[User:LoopZilla|LoopZilla]] ([[User talk:LoopZilla|talk]]) 22:36, 6 June 2014 (BST)
: Thanks for pointing this out LZ. Not sure what bearing it has on this event, except perhaps for any trainers who would possibly volunteer for this workshop and won't because they're keenly following this major sports event instead. On the day of the workshop: "The route will start in Cambridge city centre at around midday, going through Great Shelford in Cambridgeshire before heading into Essex." Hardly an issue, I'd say. Or am I missing something? Cheers! --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:22, 7 June 2014 (BST)
:: I've had a closer look at this and I've now discovered that: "The race will start in Cambridge, travelling through Essex before arriving in Greater London via Epping Forest. It will then pass through Hackney via Ruckholt Road, Eastway and Waterden Road, continuing through Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park before finishing on The Mall." And: "Tube and rail stations along the route will be extremely busy, particularly during the evening peak. Buses in the area will be on diversion or will stop short of their destinations from 09:00 – 18:00." This is useful information as it may impact some of the people leaving Kensington after the event. --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:23, 11 June 2014 (BST)
:::The Tour de France is the reason I'm not going to be at this event, sorry Toni, otherwise I would love to help. Geography is one of my interests, but photographing the Tour comes higher up the list, sorry. Do ping me about future events though. [[User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|Chris McKenna (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:23, 27 June 2014 (BST)

Water cooler

2014-06-26T11:31:35Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): /* UK Wikimedian of the Year 2014 */ new section

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{divbox|blue|Welcome to the water cooler| This is a place to find out what is happening and to discuss our external projects and activities. Feel free to suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission or ask questions about how you can help. To discuss the inner workings of the charity, head over to the [[engine room]].}}
{{divbox|green|WMUK Grants programme - a piece of cake?[[file:Tile wmuk.jpeg|75px|left]]|<center>Applying for a grant is easy.<p>If Wikimedia UK can help you improve Wikimedia projects, check out our [[grants|grants page]].</center>}}
{|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;"
|-
|[[File:Archives.png|x100px]]
|-
|align=center|{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2010|<br>[[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011|<br>[[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012|<br>[[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013|<br>[[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014|<br>[[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

== Tools for identifying Wikimedians at press events, etc ==
[[File:Albin with Wikipedia microphone.jpg|thumb|Albin with Wikipedia microphone]]
Copied from a post I made to the UK mailing list at Michael Maggs's request:

<blockquote>
Reading [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/10/no-interviews-except-wikipedia-documenting-eurovision-song-contest-commons/ about the making of videos at Eurovison] I was stuck by the positive response to the "Wikipedia
representative", not least engendered by his use of a branded
microphone windshield (see third picture in the above post; that windshield is far too big for use on the Zoom H1 which I use for the voice project, but something smaller would be useful).

Similarly, my local branch of OpenStreetMap issues mappers with
branded high-viz vests; these often reassure the public (or at least
facilitate the opening of a discussion), when someone is walking down
their road noting house numbers and other features.

I suggest some thought is given to providing WMUK volunteers who are
likely to attend press calls and related events with something to
identify them in a crowd; this could include microphone windshields,
tabards, baseball caps, or perhaps something else.

I strongly suggest that the primary brand used should be Wikipedia,
with Wikimedia and WMUK (or WikiNews or whatever) beings secondary, as
it is the former which the lay public recognise most readily; and
which elicits the positive response referred to above.

On a related note, are we ever going to get the promised business cards?
</blockquote>

Michael asked:

<blockquote>
perhaps you could kick off a discussion there by summarising the sort of recognition and/or materials that you would find it helpful for the charity to supply?
</blockquote>

I've mentioned some items above; I welcome suggestions from others. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (User:<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 20:57, 15 May 2014 (BST)

I sent an email yesterday to the UK list and it has not been posted. If any one wishes to read my summary of the background, please email me for a copy. There seems little point in re-sending emails to the list as I have been given no explanation. Be aware that any emails I send may misleadingly appear in the list archives as if it was posted at the time I sent it. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (BST)
:Or maybe the list admins haven't got round to dealing with it yet. Probably best not to speculate on motives. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:30, 16 May 2014 (BST)
::{{ec}} I have removed anything from my comment here that was more than bald facts, to make sure it is now extremely hard to read bad faith into it. The email of concern was posted on 15 May 2014 @14:16. If it does get posted, it will appear as if it were posted before six other emails in that thread that in practice were written afterwards. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (BST)
:::Thank you. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (BST)

=== Business cards ===

:I would hope that we can make the best possible use of this excellent suggestion to increase the range and scope of our charitable work.
:If we were to supply business cards or other items implying accreditation, what should be on them? Something like "''Volunteer Photographer, Wikimedia UK''" or the equivalent, with the globe logo if we can persuade the WMF to allow us to use their trademark in that way? The wording "''Wikipedia representative''" may not be possible as we are not legally allowed to speak for the "''Wikipedia community''" as a whole, in the same way that we cannot control what goes into the encyclopedia. Just thinking aloud here; of course we will have to look into the legal issues of representation before we can be absolutely certain about what is safe. Ideally, it would be best if we can avoid having to print disclaimers, as any sort of legalise will tend to undermine the member and will scare people off.
:What would members find useful, in practice?--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 23:01, 15 May 2014 (BST)
::Why the word "volunteer"? from comments on the mailing list there seems to be an assumption that it offers some form of legal indemnity to WMUK, or WMF; I remain to be convinced that that's the case. I've used my (voluntary) work with the RSPB as a yardstick before; when I appear in public alongside their paid staff, I have the same type of badge, and the same branded clothing, as they do. The voluntary nature of my participation is nowhere made apparent. [I've split this as a subsection of the above, lest that get bogged down]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (User:<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 00:04, 16 May 2014 (BST)
:::That was just my suggestion. I suspect that the term, or something equivalent, might be needed on a formal business card, but as you say would seem unnecessary on clothing, badges and so on.--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 07:39, 16 May 2014 (BST)
::::as far as I'm aware Andy is right and defining someone as a volunteer does not limit the charity's liability. My view is that if we want to be a volunteer led organisation we should provide volunteers with cards. The charity would need to consider and take steps to limit any liability which might arise as a result. This would however possibly open up a distinction between 'officially-approved' volunteers and others doing the same kind of work on their own initiative. How would everyone feel about that? Any suggestions for the basis on which cards should/should not be issued? [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:06, 17 May 2014 (BST)
:As I understand the logic of the previous debate, it was essentially that if we gave volunteers business cards, they would be representing WMUK. The board, in their infinite wisdom, thought that was an inherently bad thing, but there was also the small risk that somebody "representing" WMUK might say something silly, that somebody might take them seriously, and that WMUK's reputation might suffer as a consequence. That's a lot of ifs buts and maybes if you ask me. Volunteers representing WMUK should be seen as a Good Thing™, and the advantages of business cards to people like Andy and me (who talk to a lot of people and often need to follow up, or give others a way of following up should they wish) far outweigh the hypothetical drawbacks based on an overly conservative approach to risk. On a list of most useful things the chapter could d for its volunteers, business cards would be pretty high up on my list. If it's really necessary, we can sign some sort of agreement. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 10:58, 24 May 2014 (BST)
::Bear in mind that the composition of the board was almost totally different during that 'previous debate'. I can't speak for past boards, but I can say that the current board is more than open to discussing ideas such as this which could help volunteers be more effective in the work they want to do in association with the charity.--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (BST)
:::I can speak with personal recall of board discussions (for goodness sake, it was hardly that long ago and plenty of discussion was publicly on this wiki), the issue was volunteers making up fantasy titles rather than being an "inherently bad thing", however the trustees wanted to care not to hurt anyone's feelings. Being open to discussing ideas with volunteers is not an invention of the "new" board of trustees, giving out that perception is unhelpful and truly smacks of {{w|damnatio memoriae}}, in most measurable ways past boards were far more engaged in discussion with volunteers than the current set. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:16, 24 May 2014 (BST)
::::Your last sentence is accurate, Fae, certainly. It wasn't the volunteers who made up the vanity titles, though (indeed, I Tip-Ex'd it out on my cards), but the phrase used for getting us replacements was "within a week"... [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 17:18, 24 May 2014 (BST)
:::::This is now on the agenda for the next Board meeting[[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 18:54, 24 May 2014 (BST)
:::::Thanks Harry. I have ''no idea'' why anyone promised to get replacements within a week. I doubt it was me, based on my personal experience of it taking almost a year to be supplied with replacement business cards, and by the time I actually had them in my possession I was on my way out the door, so they became an extremely expensive notepad. I never found out how much they cost, but I think it would have been in the region of £140? Enough to provide lunch and travel for a modest edit-a-thon. It's been said before, but I hope the board actually ask about costs this time around, as it seems fair to make these costs a matter of public record. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (BST)
::::::I'm not sure I'd go along with the logic that the business cards would be a replacement for an editahon (nor, even, that the editathon would be the better investment, even if it has more tangible results), but I do take your point on costs. It seems reasonable for people to know how much they cost and weigh that up against the benefits for themselves, I agree. "Within a week" was the phrase used (just one of those things that sticks in the mind, I guess) but I guess recrimination for the events of yesteryear isn't really helpful, and I take Alistair's comment to mean that the board will consider the issue carefully, which is progress at least. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 22:37, 24 May 2014 (BST)

=== Clothing ===
:Anything visible, like t-shirts/hoodies (perhaps with writing on the back, rather than the front?), baseball caps, camera cases/straps, and other props that people would use anyway lends itself to being branded, which makes it visible. I do agree that the Wikipedia logo is the one that people recognise; if I have to spend ten minutes explaining the difference between Wiki'''m'''edia and Wiki'''p'''edia, we've defeated the point (which is to be recognisable, and to catch people's eye with something they immediately recognise and have positive thoughts about). [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 11:34, 24 May 2014 (BST)
:Camera straps would be good idea, if the brand is very prominent. Clothing would need a logo (perhaps breast-pocket sized) on the front, if the purpose is to identify the wearer to someone facing them. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (User:<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 19:49, 28 May 2014 (BST)

== Can you help categorize 6,000 photographs (photochrome) taken in the 19th-century? ==

[[File:A yeoman of the guard (Beefeater), London, England-LCCN2002696943.tif|thumb|<center>Can you name this Beefeater?<br><small>TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB</small>]]
I am just over half-way through uploading the Library of Congress' collection of {{w|Photochrom|photochrome}} prints and hope to complete the collection in about a week's time. These were taken between 1890 to 1900 and were created using an unusual process of putting a high quality black and white photograph as a base for colour lithograph printing. Colours were added by hand and several layers were used (more than six). The high quality cards were incredibly popular at the time as gifts to send by post, and are mostly of famous locations around the world, or of people in their national dress. Images are being uploaded in both tif and jpg versions, and I am sorting them by country.

These are high quality scans, the tifs being over 3,000 pixels on the longest side, and represent some of the best and most popular photographs of the 1890s. Please enjoy browsing the files, and consider helping with a bit of categorization or reuse to illustrate Wikipedia articles of these notable locations.

*UK collection: [[Commons:Category:19th century photochrome prints of the UK and Ireland|Category:19th century photochrome prints of the UK and Ireland]]
*Main category: [[Commons:Category:Photochrom prints collection|Category:Photochrom prints collection]]
--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:57, 7 June 2014 (BST)
[[File:Sir Francis Drake's House near Severn Bridge, Gatcombe, England-LCCN2002696758.tif|thumb| Sir Francis Drake's House near Severn Bridge, Gatcombe, Glos - our most recent image of a grade II* listed building]]
:Hi Fae, great photos, apart from the amount of ivy it is surprising how little the buildings have changed in the last hundred years. Though [Category:Camberley_Wellingtonia_Avenue trees] and landforms can be very different. I made a temporary category at [[Commons:Category:19th_century_photochrome_prints_of_the_UK_and_Ireland_(uncategorised)]] - there are still a few in there which have yet to be moved from there to better categories. Could you possibly add any that are currently only in the two categories [[Commons:Category:19th century photochrome prints of the UK and Ireland|19th century photochrome prints of the UK and Ireland]] and [[Commons:Category:Photochrom prints collection|Photochrom prints collection]] to that working category? If anyone else wants to join in, some of the ones that remain are ones I am struggling to locate. [[Special:Contributions/176.221.192.97|176.221.192.97]] 10:54, 16 June 2014 (BST)
::Will try adding to my LoC housekeeping script. Note that the uploads are still happening so more may appear. The total number of files should hit nearly 12,000, so more than 80% seems done. I have just started "upgrading" all jpegs to very high resolution, matching the tif sizes; this will probably take quite a while to complete (weeks probably) as it relies pumping everything through my (not great) home broadband connection. Hopefully the charity will pay the previously offered contribution to my broadband costs, even if the Chief Exec and the board of trustees leave me unable to pay to renew my membership and so have no status to make any more proposals to benefit the mission. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:27, 16 June 2014 (BST)

== Umbrellas ==

On Saturday night I was on a party on Swansea beach. As the weather was showery there were a couple of people with umbrellas, one of which was a Wikipedia umbrella and this attracted the attention of a few people. One asking "Where does one get a Wikipedia umbrella?" the answer was Germany, as this umbrella was courtesy of WMDE, but it got me wondering why Wikimedia UK doesn't have umbrellas? Given the stereotype of both the British people and British weather, they seem like an obvious cultural fit to me. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 16:39, 10 June 2014 (BST)
:Cost I think. Umbrellas are pretty expensive (and they have to be done well because we don't want tatty merchandise that falls apart). Worth looking into though. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 19:11, 10 June 2014 (BST)

== 3D printing? ==

Has anyone explored the possibilities of bringing 3D printing to Wikimedia? With prices of printers themselves tumbling, and the application of the technology expanding everyday perhaps it's something to explore. I've used it personally for making all kinds of tat, trophies, keyrings, little 3D trinkets, perhaps the kind of stuff that Wikimedia could use as promotional items?

The tech lends itself very well to the whole open source movement with models being easily wrapped up and uploaded to websites with accompanying CC licensing. Perhaps commons could be made to incorporate this kind of media with a view to making development and production of 3D models more accessible?

P.S this post came about from attending my first wikimeet event, which I'm posting from right now. [[User:Nonlineartom|Nonlineartom]] ([[User talk:Nonlineartom|talk]]) 15:01, 14 June 2014 (BST)

:It has been discussed before. I propose that we organize borrowing one or hiring it to be on display and in use during Wikimania. I suspect that a manufacturer would probably loan one for the event for free. If we can set up an instruction page, Wikimedians might even try designing a few things to print out on it during the event (limited edition 3D Jimbo action figures would be worth a fortune on eBay ;-) ).

:As there seem sufficient interest on email lists[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072683.html][http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072682.html] in this as a project, could someone please raise a draft proposal at [[Project grants]]? Not currently being able to pay £5 to renew my membership, means I am not allowed to make this proposal myself. There is not much time before Wikimania, but there should be enough to either purchase a kit for the hackerthon, or arrange a loan of a demo printer. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:13, 15 June 2014 (BST)

:All sounds interesting, personally I've used a reprap before and they can be absolutely infuriating at times to make them reliable with decent results that don't resemble a toddlers attempt to ice a cake (in 3D) The tech seems to have moved along a lot in the past 2 or 3 years and having been a regular attendee of a fab lab in the north I've had the luxury of using, and breaking most makes and types of 3D printers. The latest generation of Makerbots really bowled me over with their reliability and ease of use, on the old "Denford Up!" printers I was getting maybe a 30% success rates on prints, all sorts of problems with prints coming loose from the print beds, or going horribly wrong 4 hours into a 6 hour print job. I'm still in contact with a guy called James Kitson who used to manage the Fab Lab at Keighley and now works for Denford in a job to do with their 3D printers I think. I still don't think they make the best products but he might be someone to speak to about borrowing a printer for wikimania?
Also worth noting I *think* the makerbot is closed source with it's print software but the printer itself runs off an arduino board so loading g-code from an open source print application should be doable. Am I able to make this proposal as a total n00b? [[User:Nonlineartom|Nonlineartom]] ([[User talk:Nonlineartom|talk]]) 18:03, 15 June 2014 (BST)
::Being new is not a barrier to making suggestions. Especially when you bring some new knowledge to the table. I may be on thin ice here, but I don't see how the printer being closed source is any worse than a PC being closed source, and lots of people read and even edit Wikimedia projects using closed source PCs. I'm assuming that the open side of this is in the designs themselves. As for relevance to our project, tat is one thing, it would be nice to be able to give attendees 3d printed flip flops, mousemats or umbrellas but that is a bit peripheral. More important is demonstrating usefulness in education. John Cummings has shown me software that creates a 3d model from multiple 2d images, I think it would be great if the Wikipedia article on [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Broken_Hill_Skull the Broken Hill Skull] not only included text, images and maybe a 3d image you could rotate, but also an openly licensed 3d model that you could download and print. [[User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:49, 15 June 2014 (BST)

:I think what you are referring to there is the 123D suite of tools from Autodesk, which are amazing. Specifically 123D catch which as you say, creates 3D models from a series of 2D images with astonishing accuracy. It's totally free for non commercial use and it's all server side, the software just uploads the images to autodesks servers where it does all the computation and spits out an .obj 3D model complete with full texture map. .obj's are an open format so you can use free software like meshlab or netfab to view and manipulate the mesh, clean it up and prepare it for printing, and here lies the tricky part, actually getting something prepared for printing.

I agree with your comment about it not being a deal breaker using closed source software and hardware in a workflow, but the more open the better simply because it gives us as a community greater opportunities to learn, develop and fundamentally improve the underlying technology.

It's also relatively simple to go from fully open source modelling software like Blender to 3D printers if you want to create from scratch. My personal favourite use of printers has been playing around in Google Sketchup which has a very fast learning curve, not for engineers used to engineering terms but for novices who just want to draw things, in 3D. Within minutes you can have an accurate model of a building, which you can submit to google for inclusion in google earth, but also print a scale model quite easily. I don't know much about Wiki loves monuments but could there be a potential tie in here? Just thinking out loud. [[User:Nonlineartom|Nonlineartom]] ([[User talk:Nonlineartom|talk]]) 19:09, 15 June 2014 (BST)

:::[[User:Nonlineartom]] I feel your pain about RepRaps, I've had a similar experience, one thing that I feel is missing from this discussion is that prints take hours and hours so not really suitable for things to give away. However it could be used to show the potential for schools to print their own educational models etc. Are there any particular models that would be of interest? [https://www.Thingiverse.com Thingiverse.com] is a useful place to look. I have a fairly reliable 3d printer that I could print a few 3d models from before hand, however I will be working during Wikimania (I'm working at WMUK at the moment organising it) and it's not the sort of thing you can just leave going on a stall. --[[User:Mrjohncummings|Mrjohncummings]] ([[User talk:Mrjohncummings|talk]]) 11:48, 17 June 2014 (BST)

:::: I've been talking to the guy I know who used to run a fab lab, he's passed me information of someone who works at Denford who might be able to sort out providing gear for wikimania, who do I pass this information onto? He also said the latest gen of reprap's are comparable to Up and Makerbot printers but I'm yet to be convinced. Just looking on eBay there are dozens of makerbot clone kits out there based on arduino that should give decent results. Sadly none in kit form. I think the idea of building a 3D printer during Wikimania is actually really cool, especially with timelapse camera(s)
I know what you mean about prints taking hours, the way I saw it working was to leave the printer in wikimedia office, quietly chugging away day after day making a few dozen bits of merch a time so there is a stock built up for events as well as it working on the day, hopefully working predictably by this point and not spewing plastic spaghetti all over the desk. If a kit was used I'd be happy to use the laser cutter I have access to for manufacturing a new chassis (the cheap bit) appropriately adorned in wikimedia livery. The box like ones are probably a bit easier to transport which would make it great for taking to schools to demo and experiment with. I use thingiverse a lot, it's a great tool but an even more open wikicommons based hub for models would be brilliant in my mind. I'm not very familar with Wikimedias work with the wider community and I should probably read up on what the bigger goals are of the foundation. I just like the idea of more people using 3D printers as an everyday solution for fixing instead of replacing stuff. [[User:Nonlineartom|Nonlineartom]] ([[User talk:Nonlineartom|talk]]) 14:00, 17 June 2014 (BST)
::::: SUGGESTION - some good ideas here (declaration - I do actually know [[User:Nonlineartom|Nonlineartom]] IRL!) Could John and Tom have a skype/hangout/mumble/meeting on the astral plane and look at ways to maybe use Wikimania to introduce/explore this with a view to longer term outcomes? I love the idea of using it to print buildings from Wiki loves monuments or museum exhibitions and donating or lending them to schools to make collections/heritage more accessible which is very much in line with our mission. Could use Wikimania to gauge interest from the community in delivering such a project if you had a printer running and a sign up sheet? :-) [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:24, 17 June 2014 (BST)
::::::Will do, [[User:Nonlineartom|Nonlineartom]] I'll be in touch --[[User:Mrjohncummings|Mrjohncummings]] ([[User talk:Mrjohncummings|talk]]) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (BST)

== WMUK Governance Review Phase III ==

Dear All,

We are now tendering for the third and final stage of our governance review.

All details are on the page below.

Should you want to talk to me about any aspect of the work please get in touch.

https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Tender_for_Phase_Three_of_WMUK_Governance_Review

Jon Davies. 14:42, 20 June 2014 (BST)

== UK Wikimedian of the Year 2014 ==

It's that time of the year where we are looking for nominations for UK Wikimedian of the Year. The UK Wikimedian of the Year is an annual award given by Wikimedia UK to thank those in the UK or abroad who have helped the UK Wikimedia movement. These volunteers and institutions have gone above and beyond the call of duty to help bring open knowledge to all.

We would like to invite your nomination for this year winners on [[UK Wikimedian of the Year 2014/Nomination]] by end of Sunday 29 June.

Sorry for the short notice here. This went out on the UK mailing list on the 13th, but I've only just spotted (when Katie sent a reminder to the list today) that it doesn't appear to have been advertised on the Water Cooler before, an oversight for which I apologise. [[User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|Chris McKenna (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:31, 26 June 2014 (BST)

Reports/2014/May

2014-06-24T13:39:59Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): /* Wikimania */ spelling and typo fixing

Below is the Wikimedia UK [[Reports|monthly report]] for the period 1st to 31st May 2014. If you want to keep up with the chapter's activities as they happen, please [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk subscribe to our blog], [[:mail:wikimediauk-l|join a UK mailing list]], and/or [http://twitter.com/wikimediauk follow us on Twitter]. If you have any questions or comments, please drop us a line on [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this report's talk page]].
__TOC__
= Program activities =
== Community ==

=== Project grants ===
The [[Project grants/Genetics data edit-a-thon|proposal]] for funding to support an editathon on 29 May on the topics related to genetics has been approved.

Information about project grants that are currently running, and how to submit an application of your own, are at [[Project grants/Applications]].

== GLAM activities ==
[[File:WMUK Royal Society Diversity editathon 2014-03-25 30.jpg|thumb|Jonathan Cardy assisting at the Royal Society event on the 26th March]]

=== Queen Street Mill ===
Almost a year after the first Wikipedia event there, a [[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Queen Street Mill Museum/event 2|second editathon]] was held at {{w|Queen Street Mill}}, Burnley, organised by Wikipedian-in-Residence, [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]. New and experienced editors collaborated on a number of articles (including [[:en:Tinker, Shenton & Co|Tinker, Shenton & Co]] and [[:en:Steaming process in Lancashire cotton mills|Steaming process in Lancashire cotton mills]]) and took [[:Commons:Category:Queen Street Mill|numerous photographs and video recordings]] of machinery demonstrations conducted especially for the attendees.

=== Metropolitan Police ===
The [[:en:Metropolitan Police Service|Metropolitan Police]] (the police service for London, England) have indicated that they are willing to consider requests to open licence some of their images - not least the scenic (as opposed to scene-of-crime) pictures taken from their helicopters, and/ or images posted to their social media accounts, but will do so on an individual (not blanket) basis. Requests may be sent to: DMC-Mailbox-.PressBureau-DMC@met.pnn.police.uk

=== Librarians in Wales ===
Brian Kelly gave a [http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/cilip-wales-2014-editing-wikipedia/ talk to Librarians in Wales] on the theme of "Editing Wikipedia: Why You Should and How You Can Support Your Users".

=== Wadewitz memorial ===
[[File:Wadewitz memorial editathon London 01.JPG|thumb|Wadewitz memorial editathon (Carbon Caryatid standing) with three of the new editors. The picture on the wall is of [[:en:Mary Wollstonecraft]]]]
Carbon Caryatid hosted a Wikimedia editathon in the Mary Wollstonecraft room at Newington Green as part of the Wadewitz memorial programme.

=== Wikimania ===
Wikimania is coming to London for the 8-10th August 2014, both preceded and followed by a fringe of events that will have something of a GLAM focus - including a couple of editathons.

Three staff started in post: [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett]], [[User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|Chris McKenna]] and [[User:John Cummings (WMUK)|John Cummings]].
:See [https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/05/wikimedia-uk-welcomes-new-starters-for-wikimania/ Wikimedia UK welcomes new starters for Wikimania]
:See [https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/05/2367/ Fabian's blog]

Registrations have opened and several hundred people have already booked, and most of the contents of [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme the GLAM track] have been settled. We hope to hold the GLAM meetup for Wikimania during the 4.30-6.30 slot on Friday afternoon.

* [https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/06/social-machines-weekend/ Social Machines Weekend] (24-25 May) was successfully held.

=== Mass upload tool ===
We always knew that the mass upload tool had the capability to break the wiki by throwing very large amounts of data at it, and that has been tested recently. Guidelines are now being established for how big an upload needs to be before you need to notify the developers.

The plan now is to improve the documentation before Wikimania, and to use Wikimania to show relevant Wikimedians how to use this software and how to persuade our GLAM partners to use it.

== Education and expert outreach ==
WMUK is supporting a [[Wiki Workshop for Geographers]] at the Royal Geographical Society (1 Kensington Gore, London SW7 2AR) on Monday 7th July 2014, 1pm-5pm. Registration for this expert outreach event opened in May. 2-3 trainers are needed for this event, one of whom will need to act as lead trainer. Travel expenses will be covered as usual. [[Wiki Workshop for Geographers#Trainers|Sign up on this page, if you're willing to join in as a trainer.]]

===Wikimania Future of Education Workshop===
Plans for [http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fringe/Future_of_Education_Hack/ The Future of Education workshop to be held 21-22 June as a Wikimania 2014 Fringe] event entered the final stage during this month. [[Future of Education Workshop|Registration opened at the start of May remained open until the second week of June]]. It is expected that up to 30 participants will be attending this two-day workshop at the Barbican in preparation for the Future of Education track at Wikimania 2014.

===EduWiki Conference 2014===
This event looks to raise awareness of the educational possibilities of Wikipedia and sister projects, and developing Wikimedia UK's academic engagement. A survey about WMUK's education activities around EduWiki was circulated in May 2014 to attendees of the EduWiki conferences organised in previous years. It is envisioned that the responses from this survey will help enhance the programme for EduWiki 2014 and further engagement with the event attendees over the years.

[[EduWiki_Conference_2014/Planning#Planning_Meeting_2|The second planning meeting for the EduWiki Conference 2014]] was held on the 29th of May via Skype. The most important outcome of this meeting was a decision on the venue for the event, following the separate quotes acquired from possible venues in Edinburgh. The conference will be held at Edinburgh First's St Leonard's Hall (University of Edinburgh) on Friday 31 October. Latest details about this event are available through [[EduWiki Conference 2014|this wiki page]].

;EduWiki 2013 Survey
A survey about WMUK's education activities around EduWiki has been circulated to attendees of the conferences organised in 2012 and 2013. It is envisioned that the responses from this survey will help enhance the programme for EduWiki 2014 and further engagement with the event attendees over the years.

===Busy year so far!===
We have taken time to look back at the education activities in the first half of 2014. Since January, the UK chapter has organised and/or supported a wide variety of events. Here is an annotated list of all the Education-related events that have taken place until the end of May 2014:

* On Saturday 1 February 2014 Katherine Bavage and I led the training for the [[wmuk:TaPRA_Wikipedia_Workshop_February_2014|Theatre and Performance Research Association (TaPRA) Wikipedia Workshop at the V&A Museum Reading Room in London]].
* On Tuesday 5 February 2014 Charles Matthews supported long-standing Wikipedian Luke Surl with a [[wmuk:UEA_Wikipedia_Workshop_February_2014|training session for postgraduate students at the University of East Anglia in Norwich]].
* A number of volunteer trainers led by Chris McKenna delivered a series of events called [[wmuk:Wikipedia Takes UCL|Wikipedia Takes UCL]] between 17-20 February 2014.
* Students at [[wmuk:University_of_Hull_at_Scarborough_2014|University of Hull in Scarborough participated in a WWI editathon]]n as part of their use of Wikipedia in the classroom.
* Magnus Manske spoke about Wikidata to the Cambridge University Wikipedia Society on Thursday 27 February 2014.
* As part of International Women's Day celebrations, on 8 March 2014 we supported the [[wmuk:Women's_Arts_Practices_editing_event_at_Women's_Art_Library,_Goldsmiths|Women's Arts Practices editing event at Women's Art Library, Goldsmiths University of London]]. WMUK supported other events related to Women’s Month.
* A Wiki-Themed Symposium was held at Stirling University - entitled [[wmuk:What_I_Know_Is|What I Know Is]] - with the participation of several academics and guest speakers involved in Open Knowledge, Open Education and Open Publishing, on 19 March.
* [[wmuk:TaPRA_Wikipedia_Workshop_March_2014|A second TaPRA Wikipedia Workshop was held at the University of Glasgow]] on Thursday 20 March; Ally Crockford helped me deliver this workshop.
* On 3 April WMUK supported a volunteer-led [[wmuk:Marjon_editathon|Editathon at University of St Mark and St John in Plymouth]], organised by WMUK volunteer Harry Mitchell, along with WMUK-accredited trainers Doug Taylor and Chris McKenna who provided one on one instruction for the attendees.

These are the most recent events in a string of education outreach activities which will continue throughout 2014. My WMUK colleague Richard Nevell and I are in the process of collating basic information (mainly usernames and contact details, where appropriate) from all participants at these events to ensure appropriate follow-up and engagement through future education-related activities.

== Technology ==

== UK press coverage (and coverage of UK projects & activities) ==
* [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tech/Tech-News/Iran-blocks-access-to-Google-Wikipedia-Report/articleshow/35257015.cms Iran blocks Google, Wikipedia: report] - Times of India
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/wikipedia-a-new-perspecti_b_5332504.html Wikipedia, a new perspective on an old problem] - Huffington Post
* [http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/14/wikipedia-founder-calls-european-google-ruling-wide-sweeping-censorship/ Wikipedia founder calls European Google ruling "wide sweeping censorship"] - CBS
* [http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/fvx/rsc/rscn/1405/html5/index.html Chemistry references in the digital age] - page 15 of the widely circulated Royal Society of Chemistry newsletter (May edition)
* [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hilsborough-wikipedia-scandal-strong-leads-3573753 Hilsborough Wikipedia scandal: 'Strong leads' in hunt for trolls who used Government computer] - Mirror
* [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/05/how-a-raccoon-became-an-aardvark.html How a raccoon became an aardvark] - The New Yorker
* [http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/strong-leads-hunt-trolls-behind-7143197 'Strong leads' in hunt for trolls behind Government computer Hillsborough Wiki scandal] - Liverpool Echo
* [http://www.fayerwayer.com/2014/05/editan-wikipedia-en-ingles-desde-ips-del-gobierno-del-reino-unido/ English Wikipedia edited by UK government IPs (in Spanish)] - FayerWayer.com
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/10844002/Civil-servants-behind-sickening-Hillsborough-slurs-identified.html Civil servants behind 'sickening' Hillsborough slurs identified] - Daily Telegraph
* [http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/22/digital-democracy Wikipedia is a masterclass in digital democracy] - Wired
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2639910/Do-NOT-try-diagnose-Wikipedia-90-medical-entries-inaccurate-say-expertsDo.html Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia! 90% of its medical entries are inaccurate, say experts] - Daily Mail
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10857468/Dont-diagnose-yourself-on-Wikipedia-doctors-warn.html Don't diagnose yourself on Wikipedia, doctors warn] - Daily Telegraph
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27586356 Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists] - BBC News
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single In brief - WMUK protests WMF decision (re: fundraiser)] Wikipedia Signpost
* [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dont-use-wikipedia-for-medical-advice-scientists-warn-after-errors-found-9441686.html 'Don't use Wikipedia for medical advice', scientists warn after errors found] - The Independent
* [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10858288/University-students-shunning-books-in-favour-of-Wikipedia.html University students shunning books in favour of Wikipedia] - Daily Telegraph
* [http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/30/longest_disambiguation_pages_on_wikipedia_an_investigation.html What Is the Longest Disambiguation Page on Wikipedia?] - Slate

== Blog posts this month ==

== Activities in May ==

====May====

For events in June 2014 and onwards, please see [[Events]].

= Administrative activities =

== Board activities ==

== Communications ==

A very busy month. Lots of follow-on from last month's coverage of vandalism to the Wikipedia article about Hillsborough. I have booked media training from some staff and volunteers ahead of Wikimania and this will take place in July. The first draft of the annual review is complete and, following a round of amends will be going to our designer. Bekka Kahn officially began work as the Open Coalition Project Co-ordinator. More of the communications for Wikimania are being brought in-house to the chapter and Stevie will be leading on much of this. An interesting project is developing with Demos, WMUK and the Open Coalition, which will see attempts to crowdsource evidence to the Speaker of the House of Commons on ways to encourage participation in digital democracy. A speaking slot has been secured for Toni Sant at a high profile conference on community education and learning. Late in the month a story appeared relating to the quality of health-related articles on Wikipedia in several of the larger nationals. Comment and quotes from the chapter appeared and the story shifted in tone slightly as a result.

One more significant "win" to report. A couple of phonecalls to the International Olympic Committee in Geneva secured full media accreditation for a Wikinews reporter to cover the Youth Olympic Games in China. This is a significant breakthrough and shows a growing credibility of both Wikinews and Wikimedia UK.

Please see the above links to relevant press coverage received in May and blog posts published during the same period.

If you're interested in getting more involved with our communications or have any questions or comments, please email Stevie Benton – stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk

== Fundraising and Membership ==

; Fundraising

This month, we received £xx in one-off donations, with x individual donations. The average donation amount was £xx - of the donations that were eligible for gift aid, xx% had Gift Aid Declarations made and matched with their records. If anyone would like a full (but anonymised) csv file with more information, please get in touch with katherine.bavageatwikimedia.org.uk and let her know your requirements.

There were xx successful direct debits this month, bringing in a total of £xx

; Membership

You can view more detailed membership data [[Membership/Numbers|here]]

== Visitors to the office this month ==
The office was visited 48 times in May.

Talk:Transparency

2014-06-20T09:22:25Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): comment

It might (or might not) be worth noting that reasons for a request being refused will be given where possible. For example if the cost of X is asked for in good faith but this is not possible to provide because the charity paid for X, Y and Z as one item, I think it reasonable to explain this to the requester. [[User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|Chris McKenna (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:22, 20 June 2014 (BST)

User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)

2014-06-15T15:49:48Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)": no need for any non-admin to be editing this page ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

{{Staff userpage
|name=Chris McKenna
|job title=[[Wikimania support contractor|Wikimedia UK Wikimania Support]]
|short quote=The essential things in life are seen not with eyes, but with the heart — Antoine de Saint Exupery
|imagename=File:Wikimedia UK visitors photo wall August 2013 (02).JPG
|hover text=Chris visiting the WMUK office as a volunteer in August 2013
|bio=I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since December 2004 and active on Commons and the English Wiktionary for nearly as long. An active community member and volunteer, I am a trained trainer and have organised and assisted at several editathons around the country.
|work=<br />
* Chris is supporting the Wikimania 2014 team in delivering the Wikimania Conference, which this year is being held in London.

::''[[Wikimania_support_contractor|...more]]''
|contact=<br />
*Email: {{nowrap|Chris.McKenna{{@|12px}}wikimedia.org.uk}}
*Phone: 0207 065 0990
*Mobile: 07548 103 782
*As a volunteer, my username is Thryduulf and I'm presently active at [[:en:User:Thryduulf|English Wikipedia]], [[:commons:User:Thryduulf|Commons]], [[:wikt:en:User:Thryduulf|English Wiktionary]] and [[:d:User:Thryduulf|WikiData]].
}}

[[Category:Staff]]

User:Sjgknight

2014-06-15T15:37:50Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "User:Sjgknight": Excessive vandalism: no need for any non-admin to be editing this page ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 15:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (expires 15:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)))

I did a BSc in Philosophy & Psychology, then trained to teach which I did for a year (alongside an MA in Philosophy of Education), I then did an MPhil in Education (at Cambridge), and am moving on to a PhD (at the OU's KMI). I research the relationship between views on 'knowledge', and how individuals and policies deal with information/knowledge (focussing on search engines). This is interesting in the context of OER given high quality resources might be there, but access alone is probably not enough. I worked as a Teaching Associate on the Teacher Education - Open Resource Bank for Interactive Teaching (ORBIT) a JISC funded project orbit.educ.cam.ac.uk/wiki/.

I tweet [https://twitter.com/sjgknight @sjgknight]

I curate at [http://www.scoop.it/t/edu-search Scoop.it] on search engines, information literacy and information retrieval in educational contexts.

I blogged for [http://www.nominettrust.org.uk/knowledge-centre/blogs/?filters=uid%3A3929 Nominet Trust] on bits of my research and ICT in society.

My homepage and blog can be found [http://sjgknight.com/ here]

[[Category:Trustees]]
[[Category:Grants Committee]]
[[Category:Education people user pages]]

User:Sjgknight

2014-06-15T15:36:56Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): revert vandalism

Grants

2014-06-15T15:35:20Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Protected "Grants": Excessive vandalism ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 15:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 15:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)))

{{Grants header}}
__NOTOC__
==Project grants==
[[Project grants]] are grants for the value between £5 and £2,000. These are ideal for things ranging from a train ticket to help with a Wikimedia related research project, photocopying costs or innovative idea you have for improving engagement or access for one of the Wikimedia projects. If your idea relates to delivering part of an existing large programme such as GLAM or Outreach it may be quicker to email the budget holder directly to check if this can be covered under current plans.

== Larger projects ==
For projects requiring over £2,000, or complex projects involving 4 or more people, please consider creating a page on this wiki to develop and discuss your proposal (though remember to search for any previous discussions, you may find it helpful to ask at our [[Water cooler]]). Examples include [[Wikimania bid]] and [[Wikimedia Girl Geek Dinner]].

== Scholarships ==
We regularly offer specific [[Scholarships]] to attend international conferences and meetings, which are given via a competitive application process. We welcome suggestions of additional scholarships that we could make available.

== Global Wikimedia grants ==
The Wikimedia Foundation offers grants at [[m:Grants:Start|Grants:Start]], in the first instance the WMF will expect your local chapter to be approached. If your project is global in nature or fits well within Foundation initiatives such as the Global South programme it may be worth discussing with WMF staff. For large inter-chapter initiatives (such as taking part in [[m:WLM|Wiki Loves Monuments]]) please approach Wikimedia UK first as there may already be plans and budget available, though you may find [[m:Grant Advisory Committee|Grant Advisory Committee]] a useful source of international chapter contacts who would be happy to help with advising on your ideas.

[[Category:Grants]]

Grants

2014-06-15T15:34:06Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 195.154.91.141 (talk) to last revision by Katie Chan (WMUK)

User:Sjgknight

2014-06-15T15:33:54Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 195.154.91.141 (talk) to last revision by Chris McKenna (WMUK)

I did a BSc in PENIS & Psychology, then trained to teach which I did for a year (alongside an MA in Philosophy of Education), I then did an MPhil in Education (at Cambridge), and am moving on to a PhD (at the OU's KMI). I research the relationship between views on 'knowledge', and how individuals and policies deal with information/knowledge (focussing on search engines). This is interesting in the context of OER given high quality resources might be there, but access alone is probably not enough. I worked as a Teaching Associate on the Teacher Education - Open Resource Bank for Interactive Teaching (ORBIT) a JISC funded project orbit.educ.cam.ac.uk/wiki/.

I tweet [https://twitter.com/sjgknight @sjgknight]

I curate at [http://www.scoop.it/t/edu-search Scoop.it] on search engines, information literacy and information retrieval in educational contexts.

I blogged for [http://www.nominettrust.org.uk/knowledge-centre/blogs/?filters=uid%3A3929 Nominet Trust] on bits of my research and ICT in society.

My homepage and blog can be found [http://sjgknight.com/ here]

[[Category:Trustees]]
[[Category:Grants Committee]]
[[Category:Education people user pages]]

Talk:Press room

2014-06-15T15:32:46Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 195.154.91.141 (talk) to last revision by Chris McKenna (WMUK)

HI have been trying to view images of second world war posters which were never used or printed please help how could I view them
Thank-you

Hi there, take a look at this page on [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:War_art_in_The_National_Archives_%28United_Kingdom%29 Wikimedia Commons] for a gallery of images. There's 353 there so far. If you have any questions please do let me know and I'll be more than happy to help. --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 12:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This page could do with updating. The latest press release shown is from May of last year! --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 14:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Engine room

2014-06-15T15:32:01Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 195.154.91.141 (talk) to last revision by Chris McKenna (WMUK)

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{divbox|blue|Welcome to the engine room|This is a place to ask about and discuss the inner workings of the charity. To discuss our external projects and activities, see how you can get involved or suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission, head over to the [[water cooler]].}}
{|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;"
|-
|[[File:Archives.png|x100px]]
|-
|align=center|{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2013|[[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2014|<br>[[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

==Museum photography==

Would it be worth putting effort into trying to make this list as extensive as possible for the UK:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Arts/Museum_photography

04:46, 3 April 2014 (BST)

:There are something like [http://www.museumsassociation.org/about/frequently-asked-questions 2,500 museums in the UK]. A comprehensive list noting how suitable they are for photography would be a pretty serious undertaking. Maybe if we narrow it down to something like the 100 most frequently visited museums. It could very easily end up that the UK would need it's own table or even a separate page. I think it would probably be a useful undertaking. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:49, 3 April 2014 (BST)
:: I wonder if this would be something best done via Wikipedia or Wikidata, rather than commons. On Wikipedia, it could maybe be done with an additional infobox parameter that categorises the museum's article into an appropriate hidden category. On Wikidata, I guess it would need an additional parameter to be added that would allow the (referenced) addition of the information. I'm not sure I can see the point in doing this just on Commons for the Commons community nowadays, when it could be done much more generally. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:11, 4 April 2014 (BST)
:::wikivoyage would be the other interested project. Trying to find out for all of them makes it a decent crowdsourced project. 100 isn't far off what I could dig out of my own archives.[[User:Geni|Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (BST)

=== Something more proactive? ===
Perhaps we should be doing something more proactive here, and setting out the types of permissions we'd like to see museums give their visitors, and persuading the museums to adopt those permissions? Something along the lines of Creative Commons, but for museum photography permissions? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (BST)
:I suspect a good starting point for defining that is to understand what permissions different institutions currently grant. There is no sense in inventing a wheel before we know whether one has already been invented. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (BST)
:: I think the commons page gives a reasonable cross-spectrum of the types of permissions that institutions currently grant. I'd agree, though, about reinventing the wheel - I don't know if standard guidance exists for museums here or not. I guess the first step might be to ask an organisation like collections trust or culture24 if they have standard advice they give out at the moment that could be built on, if there's the interest in doing this. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:45, 28 April 2014 (BST)

There was some interesting discussion here, but I'm not sure anything has really come of it. Does anyone want to suggest a way forward? [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:44, 2 June 2014 (BST)
:We have barely a handful of active volunteers who are interested in spending time on GLAM photography projects, read this wiki and contribute to guidelines on Commons, and I would advise against making this an employee created initiative. I have to say, there is far greater impact to be had by focusing on other areas of concern, that do not create a guideline wiki page that itself creates volunteer maintenance burden as the page will go out of date every year. At Wikimania there will be representation from several major UK GLAMs, it may be an idea to workshop some ideas there. The NY GLAM workshop in 2012 was bouncing around the idea of a website icon showing the GLAM's commitment to open knowledge, the level to which they allow public photography could be a part of this (e.g. the BM allows photography but not in special exhibitions) which could then be automatically data-mined to supply the sort of guideline table that has been discussed here. I would not underestimate the difficulty of implementing anything pragmatic—the 2012 concept was simple and highly "sell-able", it has yet to get anywhere and for that reason I would not want to be responsible for delivering it. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:38, 2 June 2014 (BST)

== Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget? ==

I was wondering where last year's ideas for activities around this year's centenary of the First World War had gone, or what outcomes there had been in this area even if it had been reduced, considering there was originally '''[[2013_Activity_Plan#World_Wars_I_and_II_project|£20,000]]''' agreed by the trustees to be spent on it. Checking [http://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=2014_Activity_Plan/GLAM_Outreach&oldid=54330 2014 Activity Plan/GLAM Outreach] I was surprised that this document contains no details of any GLAM projects, in fact it only appears to link to a budget for 2013 and the section on "timelines" remains blank apart from the note ''please add details''.

Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan for GLAM, with details that can be measured as opposed to reports of stuff that has already happened? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:07, 9 May 2014 (BST)

:Based on the fact that it has now been a week, this appears to be a "non-success".
:I suggest that the board of trustees consider changing the Activity Plan wording so that there is a realistic expectation given to members that when we discuss plans, the charity means standard budget forecasts, reports of what happened in the previous quarter and actions (not plans) for the coming quarter.
:These would normally be called "reports" and in addition one would expect the CEO to ensure a schedule spanning the funded programmes is maintained (the next 12 months in the case of this charity) and a work breakdown with associated measurable outcomes. The board of trustees may find this a useful strategic discussion at some point soon, in order to help provide the quality of oversight that most large national charities would expect. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:21, 15 May 2014 (BST)

::While it has been almost a week since your question, our GLAM Organiser is part-time. A considerable amount of his time has been spent on helping with FDC reporting for Q1 so you may have to wait for an answer. When he is next in I will ask Jonathan Cardy when he has time to answer. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (BST)
:::I was expecting either a link to the plan so I could look at it, or a statement saying there is no plan. My question was not intended to be directed at anyone, I certainly am not asking employees direct questions. This could be answered by the CEO, any trustee as they follow and review these documents, or another unpaid volunteer up to date on programme reporting, who might be comfortable answering.
:::As it happens I have been in discussion with Jonathan on other matters in this time. I note that the Activity Plan does not name Jonathan as being responsible for a plan, and that the supporting detailed document says "Daria Cybulska with delegated support from Jonathan Cardy" which I was aware of, but had made no assumptions about. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:09, 15 May 2014 (BST)
::::Likewise Daria and the CEO have been extraordinarily busy in particular with drafting the FDC report. I'm afraid an answer will have to wait until staff workloads are more manageable. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (BST)
:::::Thanks. I am sorry that the last week had been a bad time. Again, it was never my intention for this to be seen a question directed to an employee.
:::::{{ping|MichaelMaggs}} Would a trustee or a knowledgeable volunteer like to answer my question? It seems a simple and short one if anyone knows the answer. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:57, 15 May 2014 (BST)

:It has now over <s>2 weeks</s> a month since my question "Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan" was raised. I am sorry if this has been seen as a trick question of some sort, it was not intended that way. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 00:16, 9 June 2014 (BST)

== Proposed amendments to update charity's security and data protection policies: Revised Deadline of 5th June!==

Hi all,

I am going to be working over the next few days on amending the charity's policies that refer to processing and storage of personal information to bring them up to date or better reflect actual operational practice. What I will do is create sub-pages of the existing policies under a 'proposed revisions' page and then post those links under my posting here.

I would welcome help by either discussion on the broader themes that may interest our community (balancing the requirements of the law with flexible working and being able to be transparent) here, and specific suggestions for amendments or questions for why I have made amendments on the talk pages of the proposed revision drafts.

If there is anything I've missed I'm open to hearing about it - some gaps I know we need to fill in the coming months are a data retention policy in line with the Foundation's and a broader statement on data governance and risk which I hope to develop with GovComm. Anything else the (many!) savvy types on privacy and data issues want to highlight - please do. I will try and drop a line linking back here on talk pages to those who I know have expressed interest in these issues in the past.

This is quite a bit of work so I'll be pushing on with it on top of other things over the next two weeks with a view to propose amended versions to the Board in June by the end of next week (May 23rd) as I will be on annual leave the following week (27th - 30th May)

If there are policies that are causing obvious concern however I'm prepared to hold back on those to extend the discussion period so please do make that point if you need to. Lets try and keep things to Wiki but if you're concerned I'm not responding promptly please email me (katherine.bavage[@]wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks all - links to proposed amends pages to follow! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (BST)

: After discussion with Michael as Chair he has agreed that these changes, while important, do not need to be submitted in order to meet deadlines for Board papers, because the board can review and approve/refuse recommended changes on wiki around the meeting rather than at it. This does not preclude there being more high level consideration of data governance matters at board or committee meetings in future - indeed I am envisioning there will be - but that we need to amend these now to ensure the charity remains in compliance with the law and staff are supported to use best practice in carrying out their work.
: I am therefore proposing an extended deadline, both because it allows more time for community comment should there be some additional, and because it will allow me more time on my return from annual leave* to put in place some completed supporting documentation and other changes. If there are comments made in my absence I am sure other members of staff will respond to requests for info where they can, and of course I'll pick up on my return.
: * I am on annual leave 26th May - 30th May inclusive and will be back answering emails and working on this following 2nd June. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:33, 23 May 2014 (BST)

::There is no issue with this decision, however are two lines of logic to this which may need the board to revisit trustee processes, so I'm separating them:
::# ''Out of meeting decision making'' - As I recall, a key reason that the board introduced votes of trustees outside of board meetings was to easily enable trustees to make decisions on policy changes in advance of a board meeting. This nicely reduces the workload for meetings and trustees can take a more relaxed approach to reviewing material and asking questions (because on-wiki votes can run for a month). In practice, Operations then consider the decision made, however the legal ratification has to still occur at the scheduled board meeting, for technical reasons more than common-sense ones. From what I have seen this year, I am unsure how well this is being practically applied by the board, or if it is particularly helpful if the board has become less proactive than in years past.
::# ''CEO authority'' - There is a division between operational procedures/detailed policy, and policies that require authorization by the board of trustees. Having delegated a scope of authority and responsibility to the CEO, practical decisions at the operational level should be up to the CEO, which may include changing practices to adopt a draft policy. He is then held to account for outcomes of whatever practical decisions he has made in-between board meetings. In the case of data policies, there may well be immediate need to make operational decisions against currently authorized policy, however this would be the difference between handling an incident and correctly communicating it, and legally agreeing how the articles are implemented by the charity.
::In the second issue of CEO authority, I doubt that the way that authority has been delegated to the CEO makes the boundaries very clear, this is not necessarily a "non-success", as within a slowly maturing organization it is often better to let bureaucracy be changed by experience rather than dubious hypothesis. Certainly, wiki-lawyering it to death would be unhelpful. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:55, 23 May 2014 (BST)

===Page links===
* [[Access control approval guidelines/Proposed revision June 2014]]
* [[Annual security audit checklist/Proposed revisions June 2014]]
* [[Data Breach Policy/Proposed revisions June 2014]]
* [[Remote Access Policy/Proposed revision June 2014]]
* [[Training Policy and Control List/Proposed revisions June 2014]]

== International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance part two ==

Hello everyone. I wanted to bring this back on the agenda. For clarity, I initially [[Water_cooler/2013#International_Principles_on_the_Application_of_Human_Rights_to_Communications_Surveillance|proposed that Wikimedia UK gets involved with this somehow here]] last year. The reason I am bringing this up again is because the [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/09/opposing-mass-surveillance-on-the-internet/ Wikimedia Foundation has announced that it has signed the principles]. Essentially, the principles make a statement against mass surveillance of internet users. Again, I think that this is in scope and showing support for these principles is important. I hope that we can revisit this issue. You can [https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/TEXT read the principles here]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (BST)

:I am surprised and disappointed that this is being lobbied for a second time. The text has not changed or improved since the previous discussion [[Water_cooler/2013#International_Principles_on_the_Application_of_Human_Rights_to_Communications_Surveillance|here]]. The document will be offensive to many, as LGBT minorities have been explicitly excluded from the "Legitimate Aim" section, despite "sexual orientation" being mentioned in the unenforceable preamble. Were the board of trustees to choose to support this document they would be going against the spirit of, and possibly be in breach of, "Wikimedia UK as Service Provider" in [[Diversity and Equalities Policy]] and value 5 of [[Vision, values and mission]].

:I am not aware of the WMF seeking any consultation with the community. I would be happy to be provided with some links if this has happened. I have posted the same request on the WMF blog post.

:I have alerted the Wikimedia LGBT group [[meta:Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT#Opposing_Mass_Surveillance_on_the_Internet_-_apart_from_LGBT_minorities|here]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:33, 14 May 2014 (BST)

::For those interested, Roshni Patel of the Wikimedia Foundation addresses Fae's concerns directly:
::{{quote|"Hi Fae,<p>Prior to signing on to the Necessary and Proportionate Principles, we consulted the advocacy advisors. You can find that [https://www.mail-archive.com/advocacy_advisors@lists.wikimedia.org/msg00115.html here].<p>The list of prohibited discriminations under the “Legitimate Aim” principle is non-exclusive and includes “other status.” Given that sexual orientation was listed in the preamble, it would certainly be included under “other status”.}}
::I am certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:54, 15 May 2014 (BST)
:::Patel has given a tangential reply rather than a direct response to the issues. I'm afraid Patel's assumption is unfounded, from this it can be seen that there has been no community consultation where interested groups, such as Wikimedia LGBT, might be allowed to have a voice before the WMF made this irrevocable action. It should be noted that Patel's post is not a statement for the WMF. Though she is being employed or sponsored by the WMF as a 'Fellow', her profile on the Foundation website is quick to ensure that nothing she publishes represents the WMF, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I will be responding, probably later today.
:::With regard to your being "certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles", you are welcome to hold those beliefs, however I am discussing the blog post and can only go by what is written there and the words of the document that the WMF has now committed itself to. Based on advice I have been given on the Advocacy Advisors email list, the WMF should follow [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline their own consultation policy], and this appears to have explicitly not happened in this instance.
:::Wikimedia UK does not ''need'' to have an opinion on these principles, the charity can just say "good work" or similar. Again I am disappointed to see this being lobbied for so hard here, when the previous community discussion was, at best, controversial. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:20, 15 May 2014 (BST)
:::: I have not been following the discussion which led to the WMF signing up to these principles and don't intend to go trawling over loads of discussions to find out who was consulted and who thought what. The WMF will no doubt have had good reasons for wanting to sign up. However I also feel that a set of principles which has a section on legitimate use of surveillance and specifically omits sexual orientation from a list of exclusions is very seriously defective. WMUK should consider whether it is in the best interests of the charity to sign up to a set of principles which, for example, the Ugandan government could comply with while undertaking surveillance for the purpose of targeting gay men for arrest and imprisonment. Since our signature is not needed on these principles I will take a lot of persuading that they are a good thing for us to do. [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:33, 17 May 2014 (BST)

== Trustee Expenses ==
:''Details posted on the engine room in response to a request at [[Engine room/2014#Attendees at the Wikimedia Conference 2014?]]

As the previous discussion has been manually archived [[/2014#Attendees at the Wikimedia Conference 2014?|here]], I have created this second thread so that the costs which are due to be reported by 22 May (2 days time) can be linked and may be discussed by volunteers on this noticeboard. It should be noted that some of the expenses have been declared on [[Expenses 2013-2014]], it cannot be presumed to be a complete declaration. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (BST)
:Hello Fae! I was going to create a new post, don't worry. I have posted the Q1 expenses at [[Expenses 2014-2015]]. The board are going to be discussing what level of expenses is appropriate - the policy as written needs more clarity. The general feeling is that expenses will be dealt with using a quarterly summary against named persons, split into appropriate groups of travel, accommodation, subsistence, per diems, etc. The board will be discussing this on 7 June but I don't want to pre-empt their decision. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:41, 21 May 2014 (BST)

I have changed the title back to be more accurate.

What was requested, and committed to, in the archived discussion was "When the total costs are published, could someone add a link here so that future volunteers can find it more easily?" The total costs as defined earlier in the same discussion were "the costs of sending 8 people to this conference", not just those that happen to have been trustees at the time. Again, this is not a request from me to any employee. If the WMUK treasurer wants to give a summary of these costs as a follow unpaid volunteer, that would be cool. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:55, 21 May 2014 (BST)

:I have changed the title back because the page covers more than the Wikimedia Conference (and using the same title as a previous thread it would have made the information more difficult to find once archived) and have added a link back to the Berlin discussion at the start of this section. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:50, 21 May 2014 (BST)
::You may wish to think about an accurate title rather than simply reverting, the original point of this thread is not addressed by an update of [[Expenses 2014-2015|Trustee Expenses]], as that would only obscure what the actual total costs of sending attendees to the conference was, which would not be a benefit with regard to transparency and could not be considered a matter of privacy for any individual. It might be an idea to follow the BRD principle on the Engine room, it works well on the projects. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:12, 21 May 2014 (BST)
:::Perhaps it would be best to avoid using [[:en:WP:3LA|3LAs]] in public conversations without at the very least a link explaining that BRD means [[:en:WP:BRD|Bold Revert Discuss]]. People more familiar with say the conventions and discourse of Wikimedia Commons than that of Wikipedia may find that such jargon is not immediately accessible. So perhaps we should try not to exclude people where a few extra key strokes would makes things clearer ;-) [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (BST)
::::Well, being the Engine room, I suspect that all likely readers of this will know it is 'bold' rather than 'block'. Being a supporter of plain English and mindful of international projects, I have designed wiki tools to help convert wiki acronyms to phrases, however the context matters with these things. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:57, 22 May 2014 (BST)
:Hi Fae. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous post and thought you were asking for trustee expenses. I'll see what I can pull up with regard to total cost of the conference and post it in a new section here. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:57, 22 May 2014 (BST)
::Hello Fae: this is a quick reply to say that finding the total cost is proving more difficult than I first expected. I cannot easily distinguish spends from this event as I didn't plan to do so in advance, and as a result I would have to complete a line-by-line review of the purchase ledger for the month prior to and the month after the event to pull out the full costs. This would be several hours of work and it wouldn't be cost-effective. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:34, 30 May 2014 (BST)

:::Then an efficient way of replying to my request made five weeks ago, when there were commitments to report the total costs of (highly controversially amongst the international volunteer community) sending 8 people to the Wikimedia Conference 2014, would have been that '''"no, those costs are never going to be reported"'''. It seems a great pity that so much volunteer and paid employee time was not saved by answering the original question with "no". --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:47, 30 May 2014 (BST)
::::Not wishing to put my hand too far into the hornets' nest, but perhaps it might be possible to come up with a rough estimate (presumably air fares and hotel bookings would be relatively easy to find, but I'm only guessing)? [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 21:50, 30 May 2014 (BST)
:::::If I did, I could't guarantee any useful level of accuracy. Some people drove there, some flew, and not everyone flew from the same country IIRC - and some people took entirely different flight companies. Again, if I'm remembering it correctly, some of our staff were asked to stay an extra day to meet with the WMF and help work on metrics together, and the WMF reimbursed us for bits of that, but not all of it. It's very complex, and I don't want to give a figure that would be misleading. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 23:28, 30 May 2014 (BST)
:::::: I'm not sure I understand why it's so complicated. Isn't it just a matter of getting the amounts from the 8 claim forms, plus any flights and hotels that were paid for directly? That should be possible to do accurately, even if it's not 100% complete... Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 12:06, 31 May 2014 (BST)
::::::: Not really... I'd be looking at a list of transactions from two bank accounts spanning two months, and ALTO card transactions for five cards for the same period. There aren't necessarily eight claim forms either - there could be more than or fewer than eight. This is one of the reasons it's so complex - in addition to that, they're all mixed in with other transactions, and some of the claim forms are claims for more more than one event, and some are receipts in German, etc etc. Our system isn't designed to report on individual projects - it's designed to report on whole budgets. Drilling down lower than that is a lot of work. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:35, 31 May 2014 (BST)

I would like to propose to the board of trustees, and especially the treasurer, that the charity immediately changes its financial management system to one that can efficiently report expenses by date they were incurred and claimant, without requiring "several hours of work" for an employee. Can someone (not necessarily a paid employee) advise where that would best be proposed? Implementing such an improvement to standard reports by the charity in order to ensure transparency and openness, might be a good response to [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072290.html my email to wikimedia-l]. In the case in hand, filtering expenses by 8 names for the conference period, and then finding any additional pre-booked travel in the month before for the same set of names, should take an employee minutes rather than hours; a system that cannot provide this is not fit for purpose.

For those of us that remember back to a time before the charity had employees, let alone the 17 we have now, expenses were entirely reported and managed by unpaid volunteers. It was not an efficient or effective system, but compared to the many hours it now takes to create a simple report of expenses against a major annual conference event, after 4 years of improvement and investment, the current system and processes are no more effective at producing the reports we need to ensure transparency, from the point of view of members who would like to be able to see meaningful and appropriate financial reports in a ''timely'' fashion.

Note: link added at [[Talk:Agenda_7Jun14]], though unsure if notes from members are welcome on the agenda or will be ignored. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:18, 1 June 2014 (BST)

:: There is no intention to hide the costs to the chapter of the Chapter's involvement in the Wikiconference in Berlin, but it is not a simple calculation. I hope the detail below re-assures those who are interested.<p>One person was asking for trustee expenses, others are asking how much we (WMUK) spent on the entire conference (including staff, volunteers, speakers, trustees etc). I hope to clarify this here.<p>So for trustee expenses: it is worth reminding ourselves that not all of the board went as ''trustees'', as two (at least) were invited as speakers - reporting that as a trustee cost wouldn't be accurate so needs to be accounted for differently. As to staff – I attended as the Chief Executive, but the other two staff were also invited speakers. One of the staff had some costs paid by the Foundation.<p>As to the cost mine was probably on the low end, as I booked my flight early and always use public transport or bicycles, but from recollection (and I have to sign off all trustee expenses) the total cost to the chapter is close to £2600 but sometimes expenses come in very late and there could be a plane fare lurking somewhere. My expenses are [[Expenses_2014-2015|here]] and give a good baseline.<p>The trustees are discussing how best to itemise expenses in a way that ensures an appropriate level of transparency at the board meeting this Saturday. It also needs to take into account the staff time involved in doing this which could be better spent supporting our programme.<p>I do not know why anyone would call the conference a 'junket', that needs a citation I'd think, but it was, as I have explained before in detail, a productive working three days at a reasonable cost to the chapter. If you think it was a junket then the whole conference could be judged a waste of money and the previous ones as well - and they aren't. The reality is that these are important working conferences where chapters and other organisations meet to discuss best practice.<p>I know that what I have written will not satisfy everyone but it is offered in good faith and the spirit of transparency we aspire to.<p>[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:35, 2 June 2014 (BST)

::Thanks for your interim response here Jon. Three points:
::# Nobody has mentioned a "junket" in this discussion. Please do not confuse parties writing here with those writing (or trolling) on wikimedia-l or wikipediocracy.
::# The concerns raised were the value to Wikimedia of sending 8 people to this conference, which was 3 more than any other chapter, with the vast majority of chapters wisely limiting themselves to a maximum of 3 attendees. This is not the same as claiming the conference was a waste of money. Please do not exaggerate legitimate questions about the finances of the charity, in a way that makes them appear to be critical statements about other parties that they obviously are not.
::# Transparency is a firm requirement for the charity, that is why we ensured it is explicitly in our [[mission]] when we created the charity. This makes it more than an aspiration for the Chief Executive, as the charity's performance must be measured on its delivery against this requirement.
::--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:28, 2 June 2014 (BST)

:::For reference: Jon's message was also posted on [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072340.htmlthe mailing wikimedia-l list]. In that context, the bit about 'junkets' was in response to Russavia's comment and it does not appear there was confusion, merely replying to two emails in one message. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:42, 2 June 2014 (BST)
::::Thanks for the link. Jon was replying to my proposal on 1 June with "If you think it was a junket". Any reader of this page would presume that his reply to my proposal was a reply to my proposal, further my point number 1 addresses this issue. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:22, 2 June 2014 (BST)
::Thanks for posting a rough figure, Jon, and for the explanation as to why it's not so easy to arrive at a precise figure. Personally, I find this useful—I'm not sure members and interested others gain any greater understanding by having a to-the-penny figure—but I do agree that it should be easier to track down a more precise figure for a given event or project. Hopefully the board will make some progress on this in their discussion at the weekend. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 15:50, 2 June 2014 (BST)
:::It is not clear from the agenda for Saturday's meeting of the board of trustees that they will discuss the format for these expenses. I have raised a request that it is discussed at [[Talk:Agenda 7Jun14]]. {{ping|HJ Mitchell}} I suggest you add your support to my request on the agenda talk page if you wish to see this actually discussed. My experience of getting answers to simple and direct questions to the board has been poor over the last few months, some never getting an answer. This could be because my questions are coming from "Fæ" rather than due to their content or validity. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:02, 4 June 2014 (BST)

== Non-renewal of our fundraiser agreement ==

Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s fundraiser. Wikimedia UK has written an open letter to Sue regarding this decision, a copy of which can be found [[:File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-renewal.pdf|here]]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:03, 21 May 2014 (BST)

For those wishing to copy parts of the text to use in discussion, I have created a wiki version of the letter. [[Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner|This can be found here]]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:27, 21 May 2014 (BST)

:I notice the questions contain the phrase "a year with a demanding target." Is there any reason to believe this year's target is more demanding than next year's? Or could the phrase be replaced by the simpler phrase "a year"? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 22:30, 29 May 2014 (BST)
::As an open letter, it is not easily revised. If Jon had wished to consult members, this would have happened in advance of publishing it, I doubt there is much value in highlighting phrasing issues. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:45, 31 May 2014 (BST)
:::Yaris678 is criticising one of the questions set for us by Sue Gardner, not with WMUK's reply. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 12:33, 1 June 2014 (BST)
::::Thanks, I did misunderstand it. Personally, were I the Chief Executive, I would have taken Sue's question as an opportunity to explain, in non-defensive simple terms, why it would be best to minimize any delay in renewing the fund-raising agreement now that the UK Charity had met ''all'' the governance requirements that the Foundation had previously expressed an interest in. Put in terms of massive year on year losses to the Wikimedia movement, the answer does not appear "impossible" to answer based on my reading.
::::However, there seems little point in adding more here. My views on the strategic value of the charity's decision to publicly reply to Sue with this negative and apparently emotive letter just as she is leaving her position, have been made on Wikimedia-l (where the charity chose [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071879.html to announce it]), which anyone can refer to. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:00, 1 June 2014 (BST)

== 2014 Annual General Meeting ==

Ongoing preparations for this year's AGM can be found at [[2014 Annual General Meeting]] and the linked pages for anyone who wants to follow or join in. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 12:37, 27 May 2014 (BST)

==BBC article - Wikipedia and health==
Article [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27586356 here] and well judged comments from Stevie. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 00:51, 28 May 2014 (BST)
:Thank you, Philafrenzy. For you, and others interested, the story also ran on the [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2639910/Do-NOT-try-diagnose-Wikipedia-90-medical-entries-inaccurate-say-expertsDo.html Mail], [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10857468/Dont-diagnose-yourself-on-Wikipedia-doctors-warn.html Telegraph] and [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dont-use-wikipedia-for-medical-advice-scientists-warn-after-errors-found-9441686.html Independent]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:55, 28 May 2014 (BST)
::But where do doctors get ''their'' information? That is the question. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/ [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (BST)
:::An interesting parallel! [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:40, 29 May 2014 (BST)
::::Makes you think about the responsibility we have taken on doesn't it? Not only are ordinary people using Wikipedia as their first source for medical information, but doctors are too (though they at least are able to evaluate its reliability). Good job most people don't know how the sausage is made. The idea that our activities carry no responsibility and no obligation and that nobody ''has'' to use Wikipedia, is clearly false. For many people there are no other sources of information. But I am giving a lecture now. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 11:44, 29 May 2014 (BST)
:::::In many ways I agree with you. While as a chapter we don't control content of course, I'm really proud of some of the things we do that have a real and positive impact in terms of content improvement. John Byrne's residency with Cancer Research UK, for example, is a project that will help to improve the content on important articles relating to cancer and cancer treatment, with input from experts and access to the very latest research. Most people's lives are touched by cancer to some extent and those articles are important. I am looking forward to us developing high level and high profile partnerships that work in similar ways in future. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:29, 29 May 2014 (BST)
"Wikipedia, '''like any encyclopaedia''', should not take the place of a qualified medical practitioner." (emphasis mine). Such a good line. That point is worth more than the research that the article is based on. 10 articles! Just 10 articles. And the analysis of each article seems scanty. No analysis of whether important information is missing. And a fact about best practice counted as incorrect, despite being in the NICE guidelines. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 22:49, 29 May 2014 (BST)
:While the message not to diagnose yourself using Wikipedia remains sound, an interview in ''Wikipedia Weekly'' [https://archive.org/details/wikipedia-weekly-111 here] explains in detail some of the errors in the original research. Note particularly that the author is apparently an osteopath from the "soup university" (Campbell University) who invented a new method of research just for this paper. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 22:16, 31 May 2014 (BST)
::Great interview. I've [[Wikipedia:En:User talk:Jmh649#Wikipedia Weekly|given]] the guy a barnstar. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:22, 1 June 2014 (BST)

== Affiliate-selected seats on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation - results ==

Following our [[Engine room/2014#Voting for the affiliate-selected seats on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation|notice last month]] on the Engine Room, the WMUK Board decided to vote for Alice Wiegand and Patricio Lorente in the election for the two affiliate-selected seats on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. The result of the election [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072430.html has just been announced], and the two winning candidates were Frieda Brioschi and Patricio Lorente. Congratulations to both of them. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 08:21, 3 June 2014 (BST)

== [[Strategy monitoring plan/Outcomes/2014 Q1|Q1 report card]] ==

A summary of how Wikimedia UK is doing against its KPIs now available. If you want more detail, there's a link at the top of the page to the charity's report to the FDC. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:05, 5 June 2014 (BST)
:I wanted to give public thanks to all those who were involved in creating the report card - it's a great step forward for our reporting, and a good example of how we can meet the calls for us to report on KPIs and measure our impact. I look forward to seeing (and supporting) its development. [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 13:45, 6 June 2014 (BST)

=== Query regarding G1.2 quality of content ===
:Could someone explain how the 6.5% value for ''"Percentage of WMUK-related files (e.g. images) in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project (excluding Commons)"'' was calculated? I estimate this as half that value simply using the GLAMourous report. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:07, 5 June 2014 (BST)

::Of course. It is explained [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Progress_report_form/Q1#Program_1 here] under 'Progress against these objectives'. Let me know if you need more information. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:17, 5 June 2014 (BST)

:::No, the calculation is not explained in the FDC report, only the result, which appears untrue.
:::Here's the logic - the figure claimed for Q1 is 37,715 images. The GLAMorous report ''today'' shows that 0.94% of images in 2014 are in use, this is a total number of images of 55,387. On the *best case* assumption that of all additional images, zero count towards the total, this would mean that a maximum of 1.38% (i.e. 0.94%*55387/37715) is possible, not 6.5%.
:::If these figures are reported incorrectly, then the Q2 report will be in danger of showing a catastrophic drop in the percentages to a level which would be impossible if Q1 figures were true.
:::--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:20, 5 June 2014 (BST)

::::Catscan v2 was used to produce a report of how many files were uploaded to Commons between 1 February and 30 April. Catscan also includes data on which files are in use. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (BST)

::::: Could you give a breakdown here, along with the links you used? It should be possible reproduce the figures. I have some experience with catscan and I uploaded most of these files both on Commons and the Welsh Wikipedia, so I am familiar with the outcomes. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (BST)

::::::You learn something everyday. Catscan v2 does indeed report on file usage, just scroll across the screen and it is the column furthest on the right. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php Here is a link to Catscan v2]. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (BST)
::::::Could you perhaps explain more clearly what you mean by "give a breakdown"? I suspect you don't want a list of all the files Catscan return reproduced here. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:44, 5 June 2014 (BST)
::::::<small>I will return to your question some time tomorrow. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:46, 5 June 2014 (BST)</small>
:::::::By a breakdown, I mean a more detailed explanation of how 6.5% was calculated so that a volunteer or a member of the FDC can reproduce it for themselves. Presumably some of this was Commons, but it cannot mean the usage of the 37,715 files declared in the FDC report, as the usage of those is well below 2%.
:::::::A link to the catscan reports you used would be useful, against each resulting figure. The only relevant catscan report I can see in the FDC report is <nowiki>http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?language=cy&categories=Llwybrau+Byw&ns[6]=1&before=20140430235959&after=20140201000000&only_new=1&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1&doit=1</nowiki> which does not seem to give any usage information in the table, only the list of files uploaded by me.
:::::::Note that on cy.wp, Categori:Llwybrau Byw has been used, but more accurately the uploaded book covers are in Categori:Prosiect Llyfrau Gwales where there are slightly more images included.

Breaking this down again, the FDC Q1 report states:

''Overall 6.5% (below our target of 13% average for the whole year, but see below), this breaks down into:
:''2.6% of files (980 individual files) uploaded to Commons this quarter are in use on Wikimedia projects excluding Commons.
:''The 2,891 files uploaded to the Welsh Wicipedia are part of a long-standing project to improve coverage of Welsh-language publications. Unfortunately, CatScan does not include file usage for the Welsh Wicipedia, though statistics for the overall project (last updated 11 April) show that 57.4% of the files are in use. Scaling this down to account for the files uploaded in Q1, this means about 1,660 of the files are used, a very impressive amount.

* It is not clear how the "2.6%" of the 37,715 uploaded to Commons is calculated. There is no link in the FDC report to deduce this figure. GLAMorous would seem to be the best tool to show this, and as highlighted above it appears to indicate a lower figure.
* The figure for cy.wp of 57.4% usage was a report generated by me which I am not currently maintaining.[https://cy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wicipedia:Wicibrosiect_Llyfrau_Gwales/dangosfwrdd&oldid=1609262] It was not created using catscan or catscan2, which (as the FDC report states) does not include usage figures. I could probably amend my Faebot report to produce an accurate usage figure based on filtering dates from the File Version History using the API on cy.wp, but this Faebot generated table was designed for a bit of fun within the Llwybrau Byw project, and not designed to be used for FDC reporting.
* Quoting a 6.5% "blended" figure includes cy.wp book cover usage where the images are fair use only, and are problematic. Firstly, as Robin and I have discussed in the past; cy.wp does not have a "mature" policy on Fair Use, however uploaded files should be on a time-limited basis unless they are in use in articles, consequently many unused files should be deleted at some point and then "100%" of uploaded files would be in usage - this would distort the usage metric as it would be changing the sample space for the metric after the event. Secondly the book cover images are ''only'' in use on cy.wp, it is unlikely that they will be used elsewhere and each file would need to be transferred to other projects; a *very* small percentage of covers are out of copyright or ineligible for copyright, however there are no current plans to upload these to Commons. I do not believe this fairly interprets the intention of G1.1 in the Q1 Report Card, it would be more accurate to keep the percentage use figures separate and report them as a tuple, or just stick to the figure from Commons reports and make a note of the success on cy.wp without distorting the more intuitive figure so that the FDC report is as straight-forward as possible.
--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 05:29, 6 June 2014 (BST)

::Thank you for removing the postscript from your earlier post, it's tone was surprisingly defensive. It doesn't matter how long you've been using a tool, if you're using it a set way you're unlikely to explore it's potential. As such it's perhaps not surprising you're unfamiliar with Catscan's ability to report back on file usage, but I can assure you it is there just as I said. The column for file usage is quite clearly there in [http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?language=commons&project=wikimedia&depth=2&categories=Featured+pictures+on+Wikipedia+by+language%0D%0ASupported+by+Wikimedia+UK&negcats=Featured+pictures+on+Wikimedia+Commons&ns%5B6%5D=1&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1&doit=1 this query] for example. It is worth noting that the function does seem to be restricted to files on Commons, which perhaps tripped you up.
::The reason there is no link to the query in the FDC report is that took more than one run. Of course I would have liked to include a single link, however at the time the resources allocated to Catscan v2 meant that it could not perform queries that large, ie: tens of thousands of files. What I had to do was break the three-month period down into manageable chunks, run that query, and then collate the data in a spreadsheet. I am pleased to say that in future, it should be much easier thanks to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Magnus_Manske&oldid=611571305#Catscan_v2 sterling work of Magnus Manske]. Even as it stood before, it was a tremendously useful tool.
::[http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?language=commons&project=wikimedia&depth=2&categories=Supported+by+Wikimedia+UK&ns%5B6%5D=1&before=20140430235959&after=20140201000000&only_new=1&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1 Here is the query]. It returns a total of 37,688 files. The difference of 27 from the figure given in the FDC report is most likely due to the occasional double count in the course of collating the queries. That is down to human error on my part. Usage has now increased to 1,007 files (give or take one or two which may be in a non-article mainspace), but is close to the figure of 980. Catscan is admittedly a less popular tool than GLAMourous but its versatility leant itself to our needs, particular its ability to filter by date range.
::It is a shame you are not maintaining the report linked on cy.wp, certainly Robin was under the impression you were when I talked to him about the Q1 report. However, the tools for reporting on file usage on specific wikis outside Commons is an area which appears under covered.
::Excluding files on the Welsh Wicipedia from the report on overall usage because they "distort" the figures is a curious logical inconsistency. Perhaps therefore mass uploads should be excluded because usage falls below 1%? Certainly that would be unacceptable cherry picking, so the approach of cherry picking what files get included is not an acceptable approach. It is made clear in the FDC report that the 6.5% figures includes files on Commons and those on cy.wp. The argument that the files should be treated separately because they have a different licence may have more to it, however I think this is mitigated by the fact that we are open about how this figure is reached. As a middle ground I have added a note to the Q1 report card to prevent this kind of confusion in future. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:28, 6 June 2014 (BST)

:::From my point of view, as an unpaid volunteer for open knowledge who devotes a significant of my time in ensuring public domain media is preserved and accessible for the public benefit, I am disappointed that Wikimedia UK is significantly distorting its performance reports to the FDC, using material that is not freely reusable and has ''all rights reserved''. The distortion actually trebles the figure reported to the FDC. My work on this was never supported by Wikimedia UK, nor any Wikimedia UK equipment, I acted as an independent volunteer doing a personal favour for Robin. The report does not meet the intention, nor the spirit of the [[mission]] or values we agreed and published as the basis of why we created this national charity.

:::For the time being, I will put a halt to my support of Robin's request for further uploads of book covers for cy.wp as I do not appreciate the outcome of my personal freely given volunteer effort being misreported in this way and would not want the Q2 report to be similarly distorted. I will review the situation with Robin, and may change my view depending on that discussion, or if the board of trustees is wise enough to come to realize that the current method of reporting ''"G1.2 The quality of Open Knowledge continues to improve"'' is misleading and inappropriate, leading to a significant distortion in the top level KPI figure by including media that is not reusable, nor free. The aim of G1 is "We will increase the quantity and quality of open knowledge on the Wikimedia projects and other '''''freely licensed resources'''''", the figure of 6.5% does not meet that aim.

:::Separately, I shall take time to review the numbers and the links you have referenced in order to understand whether these figures are accurate and why GLAMorous gives a completely different answer to the same question.
:::I have yet to review any of the other figures of the Q1 report to the FDC. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (BST)
::::Fae, your desire for the charity to report different KPIs, in different ways and with different definitions, is noted but these are the ones we have committed to publish and will be publishing quarterly from now on. If you spot any factual errors do please let us know. We are not aware of any, but having volunteers such as yourself who are able to commit the time to checking the KPI data can only be useful. Thank you. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 13:52, 6 June 2014 (BST)
:::::''All Rights Reserved'' does not equal ''freely licensed resources'', this will be self-evident to all members of the charity and our donors. If at the board meeting tomorrow the trustees accept the Chief Executive's report of the performance of the charity without questioning this misrepresentation, you will be allowing the values the board has formally agreed to become meaningless in their implementation. At the board meeting you should reject this figure as inaccurate by not meeting the defined aim it purports to be measuring. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:07, 6 June 2014 (BST)

==== Reply to query re: G1.2 ====
Hi Fae
The 6.5% figure you object to measures the “''Percentage of WMUK-related files in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project''”. It sits under our Strategic Goal 1.2 which reads “''The '''quality''' of open knowledge continues to improve''”.

This KPI does not count the number of images that have been uploaded, but rather the improvement in quality of open knowledge '''''as a result of their use in articles'''''. It is the articles themselves that are the ‘open knowledge’ here, and the quality of those articles is clearly being improved by the presence of images, fair use or not. Presumably your intent in uploading the images was precisely that they should be used in this way - to improve encyclopedia articles.

Now, as you indicate, fair use images are not in themselves considered to be open knowledge, and they are therefore not to be counted under the first KPI in the table, ''"Number of uploads"'', which sits under the goal G1.1 “''The '''quantity''' of open knowledge continues to increase''”. That is the reason that that KPI includes 37,715 images that were uploaded to Commons, but not the 2891 Welsh fair use images. To ensure that that distinction is quite clear to the reader I have deleted the wording “''plus 2891 book covers uploaded to the Welsh Wicipedia''” from the coloured Results column. Those uploads are ''in addition'' to the measured open knowledge images, and are correctly listed separately in the notes field. [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 18:20, 8 June 2014 (BST)

:''All Rights Reserved'' does not ''equal freely licensed resources'', a term carefully included in the aim that governs the definition of the outcomes for G1. As you know, Fair Use images cannot be freely reused, they can not be used in the majority of Wikipedias or on Wikimedia Commons. The charity that we created should be sponsoring freely reusable images, and only counting those as achieving the [[mission]].
:Per the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy WMF Resolution], ''"the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license"'' and ''"[Exceptions] must be minimal"''. The WMUK board of trustees is interpreting strategy in a way that is now not in compliance with this resolution; indeed the '''majority''' of the success of 6.5% being reported in the Q1 figures is for non-free content, a situation that I find bizarre and misleading, regardless of the small print in footnotes.
:I guess there is no point in me explaining further, there seems firm determination to drive this through, regardless of the contradiction in values and the lack of any evidence of appropriate consultation and feedback from members on what this means for our future, as we are under this philosophy able to fund projects generating non-free content, through the rationale that an "Exemption Doctrine Policy", sometimes exists on some Wikimedia projects, for time-limited and non-reusable content - for example these images cannot be reused in the UK by anyone, as we have no equivalent to the US fair use copyright loophole. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:21, 8 June 2014 (BST)
::Your comment doesn't respond to the points in my reply. This is all the more confusing given you were the volunteer who very generously freely donated their volunteer time to enriching the encylopedia with these images. [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 19:43, 8 June 2014 (BST)
:::I uploaded fair use copies of book covers, only usable on the Welsh Wicipedia, for the reasons I explained previously on this page. I was not supported by Wikimedia UK and the images are not part of any Wikimedia UK funded project as far as I was aware, or am aware of now, as there were no employees, nor funding involved at any point and these were not part of the plan for the Living Paths project. My upload script was created in December 2013 and uploads completed in early February 2014, not being part of WMUK work that was later to be supported [[Commons:User:Faebot/WMUK report|by a supplied Macmini]]. Had I known that the board of trustees would allow the Chief Executive to tactically count these as the '''majority''' of evidence to the FDC of operational performance against the goal of delivering media for open knowledge, I would have walked away rather than have my ethical stance and my freely given volunteer efforts compromised. I am very sorry indeed that the board of trustees finds this confusing, and prefers to defend an inappropriate top level key performance indicator based on non-free media. Sadly I have to take the precaution of not cooperating with uploading any further fair use material on cy.wp until I have assurance that the charity will cease using them in this way. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:59, 8 June 2014 (BST)
::::Ok, I've replied to your points, your disagreement is noted. Thanks. [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 08:07, 9 June 2014 (BST)

::::Fae, the excellent work you did between December and February in improving the quality of open knowledge articles on the Welsh Wicipedia by uploading fair use images is much appreciated. Your decision not to contribute further is noted with regret. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 08:40, 9 June 2014 (BST)
::::: To avoid any misinterpretation, I said ''"Sadly I have to take the precaution of not cooperating with uploading any further fair use material on cy.wp '''until''' I have assurance that the charity will cease using them in this way."'' You need only provide this assurance and I will feel able to ethically work with Robin on finishing the uploads (which is actually the vast majority of images). The choice here, is clearly that of the board of trustees by allowing the Chief Executive to use performance statistics based on non-free images, that were never part of any Wikimedia UK project, despite a re-writing of history to make it appear so. I sincerely hope that my other volunteer work on Commons that is not part of Wikimedia UK projects does not start getting claimed as such. I am *completely* clear as to which is which, you need only look at my WMUK report which is kept up to date month by month. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:57, 9 June 2014 (BST)
::::::Our Wales Manager was involved, which was the WMUK connection. The conditional nature of your decision is understood, but as Simon had already explained clearly why the KPI reporting is correct (and his analysis has board backing) your decision has no doubt already gone into effect. If any assistance is needed with further tranches of book cover uploads we will have to find another volunteer. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:50, 9 June 2014 (BST)
::::::: I'm afraid the board of trustees appears to have been misinformed. This was never a project done in correspondence with Robin as an employee of Wikimedia UK, but Robin as a volunteer using his personal Avant Garde Software email address, not his WMUK address. I have emails on record with Katie discussing these uploads at the beginning of February 2014, it was perfectly clear at that time that *further* uploads might be declared as part of Faebot's future supported work but not existing uploads.
::::::: Unless Wikimedia UK is officially now advising all volunteers that employees and contractors for the charity must be assumed to be always acting in their employed capacity when volunteering on Wikimedia projects (which is opposite to a long history of statements by the Chief Executive and several trustees), then your Wales Manager had nothing to do with this, only Robin as my friend and fellow volunteer for the Welsh Wicipedia. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:11, 9 June 2014 (BST)
::::::::Other staff were involved, as you know, and I repeat that we consider the KPI reporting to be quite correct as it stands. The issue will not arise for future reports given your decision not to upload any more fair use book covers. This conversation has become unproductive and I consider it now closed. Your disagreement is noted. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 12:59, 9 June 2014 (BST)
:::::::::Er, checking my correspondence, no other staff were involved. As the only person that actually did all the planning and execution of the uploads, my email records are complete. These uploaded non-free files are not part of any Wikimedia UK project and the Q1 report is misrepresenting these facts to the FDC and providing a significantly distorted top level performance report. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:11, 9 June 2014 (BST)
::::::::::Different again; now you ''didn't'' discuss with Katie (or you did but not in a way that 'involved' WMUK). As I said, your disagreement is noted. I will not be prolonging this discussion. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 13:27, 9 June 2014 (BST)
:::::::::::No, not "different again", please assume good faith. My email with Katie was not in any way part of my uploads of these images, in fact the emails clarified that this was before any Wikimedia UK support of Faebot's work.
:::::::::::This matter has been raised on the FDC Q1 discussion page on meta. As you have confirmed that the board of Wikimedia UK is not prepared to discuss the facts with the unpaid volunteer who actually did the work, that seems the only way that any factual corrections would ever be made now. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:43, 9 June 2014 (BST)
{{outdent}}Highlighted for the Funds Dissemination Committee at [[meta:Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Progress_report_form/Q1]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:49, 9 June 2014 (BST)

=== Note re: timeliness of publication ===
:It should be noted that the Q1 report card was published on 5 June. The board meeting is tomorrow, 7 June. The board agreed with the Chief Executive that reports for a board meeting would be published at least seven days in advance, so that the board and interested members of the charity had the opportunity to review the board pack and raise questions in time for the board meeting. I would be surprised if all trustees are happy in being given two days to review top level reports from the Chief Executive, rather than the agreed minimum of a week. Why have the trustees accepted receiving late reports on this occasion, particularly the most important ones which are of interest to the FDC?
:As an active volunteer, I cannot review the report card and its supporting evidence to ask sensible, or well researched, questions in time for the trustees to benefit from any issue raised. I doubt that many members of the charity will notice this report and review it in time to raise questions, I would not be surprised if my question about a single number were to be the only one raised today, being the last day before the board meeting. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:17, 6 June 2014 (BST)

::(ec) The report was made available to the trustees on 28 May. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:23, 6 June 2014 (BST)

::The board meeting does not close community comments. Anyone can raise ask questions at any time. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 14:26, 6 June 2014 (BST)
::: I note that you do not disagree with the fact that "The board agreed with the Chief Executive that reports for a board meeting would be published at least seven days in advance". This has not happened.
::: The practicalities are that if any member of the charity raises a concern about a report going to the board meeting, they need to raise it ''today'' in order for it to be dealt with. If I raised my above question about 6.5% on Monday, after the board meeting, based on my experience with other questions (such as [[#Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget?]] which has been waiting for nearly a month for the answer "it does not exist"), I have little doubt that I would be likely to be indefinitely ignored or given non-answers resulting in no corrections being made. By the board of trustees accepting these reports last week, yet allowing the Chief Executive to delay their publication on-wiki until just two days before the meeting, members and volunteers of the charity are actively being dis-empowered and disenfranchised by not being granted the privilege of a timely voice that might influence board decisions.
<personal attack removed by me. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 16:31, 6 June 2014 (BST) > --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:19, 6 June 2014 (BST)
:Refactoring [[User_talk:Fæ#Content_of_your_recent_post_.282.29|under discussion]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:03, 6 June 2014 (BST)

== Digital design work required ==

Hello everyone. Wikimedia UK has today uploaded a call for quotes to provide two pieces of digital design - a small website and some email templates. Quotes are welcome from all parties and should be provided by the end of 13 June 2014. You can [[:File:Wikimedia_UK_digital_brief_June_2014.pdf|see the brief here]]. For more information please email stevie.benton{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (BST)
:I am not entirely convinced by the need for the extra website, if it reflects our way of working and values etc I suspect it could look much like the existing one but I think that discussion has been had. As for the professionally designed newsletters - at last! Not everything needs to be done in house just because people are willing to take it on. I hope this will pay for itself 10 times over in increased donations and volunteering. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 18:29, 6 June 2014 (BST)
:Good point Philafrenzy. Was there a discussion with the community about creating a (presumably entirely employee controlled website) to serve as a front for the UK charity, thereby replacing this wiki for that function, which has always been open to active volunteer control and participation?
:I recall a past discussion which can be found in the archives, where the majority of volunteers rejected this approach. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:48, 8 June 2014 (BST)
::The board considers that this approach is required to increase our reach and hence our charitable impact, particularly within the huge pool of potential new volunteers and supporters who are aligned with our aims but who are not already committed Wikimedians. This will be of particular importance in the coming months as the charity's website starts to receive increased visibility due to Wikimania. The charity wishes to avoid focusing exclusively on the relatively small Wikimedia activist communities and to reach out more widely to all who support our aims. The board is aware of your opposition and of the previous discussions on this topic. Nevertheless, we think it the right thing to do, for the reasons which are very well set out [[:File:Wikimedia_UK_digital_brief_June_2014.pdf|in the brief]]. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (BST)
:::To be clear, I mentioned previous community discussion, not my viewpoint. Please do not marginalize community discussion as "your opposition", thanks.
:::Thank you for confirming that there has been no subsequent discussion with the community since this was last discussed, instead this is purely an initiative of the board. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:48, 8 June 2014 (BST)
::::Thanks for the reply. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 19:36, 8 June 2014 (BST)
:: I hope my previously expressed concerns about this have also been taken into account. Having a separate website that isn't a wiki and excludes volunteers from being able to contribute it, without a clear technical reason for why that can't be the case, still seems like an incredibly bad idea to me. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:08, 8 June 2014 (BST)
:::Yes Mike, all expressed concerns have been taken into account. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 20:13, 8 June 2014 (BST)
::::What is the nature of this taking account? Is there a list somewhere of the expressed concerns and and what was concluded about each? e.g. "concern can be mitigated by..." or "This is highly unlikely to actually happen." or "This is an issue that we need to manage. If managed well, the negative effect will be more than outweighed by the positive effects of the website."
::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:50, 9 June 2014 (BST)
:::::I don't think anyone has done anything quite that procedural, no. When this was discussed on wiki some were in favour and some some were against. The board has concluded that on balance it is the right thing to do, primarily for the reasons listed above. The approach is a common one and has already been adopted by quite a few chapters, including WMSE, WMCH, WMDE, WMNL and WMFR. We understand and respect the fact that some in the UK community have strongly-held differing views. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 16:33, 9 June 2014 (BST)
::::::Hello Yaris, there's a few points worth noting here that I hope will help. The wiki is not going anywhere and will remain the primary resource. For those who wish to go straight to the wiki, there will be a simple option on their first visit to add a cookie which will take them to the wiki at every subsequent visit. This is a requirement of the brief. Each page of the website will directly link to the wiki, especially the volunteer, GLAM and education areas. The website will include portals for GLAM, education and volunteering as well as a home page and an about page. These pages will build on existing, community-driven content. This is not an abandonment of our values. Several other significant chapters, including many listed in the brief itself, have websites as well as wikis - this is very much bringing us in-line with the work of other chapters. It is not something new or something that is a departure from the work elsewhere in the movement. It is also a chance to make sure that stuff that is really important for those new to WIkimedia UK, and aren't Wikimedians, is highly accessible. Our wiki, like pretty much any Media Wiki installation I can think of, is not very accessible. We haven't really made any progress with this and it is extremely important that we do so, one way or another. I also want to clarify that existing Wikimedians are not the key audience for this. We want to have a space for newcomers, too. I'm confident this will help us actually grow our volunteer community. I hope this helps, and I'm happy to answer direct questions on my talk page if you would like me to, although here is obviously fine as well. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:30, 9 June 2014 (BST)

== Non-transparency ==

Briefly looking through [[Reports 7Jun14]], I am surprised to see some of the documents listed that are being kept secret to board members and employees. Unfortunately I can only see the titles. Could the following have explanations added as to why it is critical that they are kept as secret documents? My assumption is that the trustees are taking care to ensure the number of non-transparent reports, documents and plans are kept to ''an absolute minimum'', such as for serious legal reasons or personal privacy matters.
#[[:office:File:Draft Annual Report 2013-14 v2.pdf|Draft annual report 2013-14]] (confidential) - unless I am misunderstanding what this is, I believe the basics of the draft annual report was public in past years and volunteers could help correct and prepare it.
#[[:office:ARC minutes 21May2014|Audit and Risk Committee minutes]] - there was a previous commitment by the ARC to publish minutes on the public wiki.
#[[:office:File:Wikimania budget estimates, June 2014.pdf|Wikimania budget]] (confidential) - Wikimania 2014 should be run as an open book project, rather than with secret budgeting restricted to the UK Chapter. It is run on behalf of the global movement and should have the collaborative support of other organizations which means keeping plans and preparations as open and transparent as possible.
#[[:office:File:Memorandum of Understanding for accepting a Gift in Kind (draft).pdf|Memorandum of Understanding for accepting a Gift in Kind (draft)]] - a draft generic MOU would be based on best practice, and should have nothing confidential in it.
#[[:office:File:State of Wikimedia UK, June 2014.pdf|State of Wikimedia UK, June 2014]]

Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:05, 11 June 2014 (BST)
:Strangely enough that very question is scheduled for discussion at a meeting tomorrow. I will report the outcome here. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (BST)

:OK, now have some answers:

:1. [[:office:File:Draft Annual Report 2013-14 v2.pdf|Draft annual report 2013-14]] - this actually refers to the formal ''Annual Report and Financial Statements'' that the charity has to lodge as an annual return with the Charity Commission. That becomes a public document once it has been shared with our members and been lodged with the Charity Commission. You'll be able to see it then.

:1a. There is as I am sure you know a separate non-statutory ''Annual Review'' that is published both online and in the form of a brochure that can be handed out at the AGM. That document includes all the legal stuff and in addition has an overview of the charity's work during the last 12 months. As in previous years, an early draft version of the Annual Review will be made available to members and volunteers to ensure good community input. That is likely to be in a week or so when the draft initial layout comes back from the designer and we are ready to start work on the content.

:2. [[:office:ARC minutes 21May2014|Audit and Risk Committee minutes]] - the ARC is actively checking the minutes now and they will be published shortly, probably in full but the committee chair just needs to confirm that.

:3. [[:office:File:Wikimania budget estimates, June 2014.pdf|Wikimania budget]] - will be published within the next 24 hours.

:4. [[:office:File:Memorandum of Understanding for accepting a Gift in Kind (draft).pdf|Memorandum of Understanding for accepting a Gift in Kind (draft)]] - this is a specific legal agreement with a specific organisation that is under active negotiation and is correctly held in confidence. If a draft generic MOU comes out of it, that will be published as a draft for discussion and as a potential guide to best practice.

:5. [[:office:File:State of Wikimedia UK, June 2014.pdf|State of Wikimedia UK, June 2014]] - this document included some confidential matters that were presented to the board. Those matters are being redacted and the document will be published within the next 24 hours.

:I understand that it's not always easy, or indeed possible, to work out solely from the title of a document exactly why it is listed as confidential. From the next board meeting we will be publishing our reasons for confidentially alongside the title of each document that we are not able to make available publicly. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 17:37, 12 June 2014 (BST)

::3. [[:File:Wikimania working budget, June 2014.pdf|Done]]. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (BST)

:: ''MichaelMaggs'' Thanks for the prompt response. Since Mike Peel left the board, who always acted as our conscience when it came to minimizing use of in-camera reports, he was certainly mine, it is good to have the impression that there are current trustees who take this as seriously. I look forward to better annotation against in-camera documents, this will be a worthwhile improvement. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:05, 12 June 2014 (BST)

The ARC minutes, 'State of Wikimedia UK', and Wikimania budget are [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Reports_7Jun14&diff=57867&oldid=57807 all now public]. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (BST)

== Removal of sysop rights ==

Could someone re-add my sysop rights? Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:05, 13 June 2014 (BST)
:I am afraid that community admin rights on the charity's websites are restricted to members of the charity only. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 15:24, 13 June 2014 (BST)
::Firstly that is not actually true, as you can judge if you look at the current list of admins, secondly I already renewed my membership of the charity before my sysop rights were removed. Could someone provide a link to where it was agreed that all admins had to be active members of the charity? Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (BST)
:::Your application for membership has yet to be considered. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:30, 13 June 2014 (BST)
::::It would be quite hard to explain why the current Chief Executive would not let a previous Chairman of the charity pay for membership, and be denied a voice in the coming elections, while active Wikipediocracy "hasten teh day" lobbyists were given no barriers to membership. My question to MichaelMaggs remains, where was this agreed? As someone who was part of agreeing the early definitions of what the role of administrators should be on this wiki, I would have thought I would remember it.
::::In the meantime, while folks consider the nature of bureaucracy, please restore my sysop rights which I have used effectively on this wiki for a good many years, indeed long before most of the current members of the board considered becoming members of the charity. Good faith should apply to me and hopefully some good will, even if I have raised difficult issues about the charity and its performance, most of which have in the long term been supported by published facts and unfolding events. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:35, 13 June 2014 (BST)
::Under our rules we cannot allow anyone who is not a member, contractor or member of staff to have sysop rights. Our membership rules are generous allowing members six months in which to renew. The board will be considering your application for membership and until that happens nothing more can be done. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]])
:::Please provide a link to where it was agreed that non-members could not retain sysop rights. Perhaps someone could identify all current administrators that are not current paid up members too? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:13, 13 June 2014 (BST)
:::: The change seems to have been made by Michael Maggs at [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Permissions_Policy&diff=55764&oldid=55747]. It's not clear whether that document has been re-approved by the board, or whether it's a change made by Michael alone. I find the change a bit puzzling - given that the strategic goals of WMUK were focused on 'volunteers' rather that 'members', I don't understand why things have gone the opposite way in this case. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 16:07, 15 June 2014 (BST)
<s>Here's the time-line from my point of view:
#On 9 June I raise a public whistle-blowing complaint as an alert to the Funds Dissemination Committee with regard to the Chief Executive's report misrepresenting figures, after having exhausted local discussion on the UK wiki.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Progress_report_form/Q1]
#On 10 June I get an unexpected note against WMUK supported Commons project that a condition of funding was to publish relevant source code. An hour later I provide a link to where source code had been published in April.[https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Macrogrants%2FWikimedia_Commons_Geograph_and_Avionics_batch_upload_projects_support&diff=57746&oldid=56440]
#At 16:43 on 13 June, I got a reminder about my membership with a warning list about what might happen should I not renew. I was visiting Cancer Research UK in the afternoon to advise on a forthcoming image project for Commons, and stayed out late for dinner with Johnbod, discussing issues related to his Wikimedian in Residence as funded by the UK Chapter, so did not notice it until after 10pm.
#On 14 June @08:21 (today), based on yesterday's prompt, I paid my membership.
#At 13:09 my sysop rights on the UK Wiki were removed.
#At 15:46 my payment was rejected by the UK Charity, according to Paypal, with no courtesy correspondence from the UK Charity.
#At 16:45 in follow up to my previous advice to The Royal Society, I receive an email with information that will help me to support their on-going image releases under the UK funded project there.</s>
:: Please refer to timeline below. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:43, 13 June 2014 (BST)
: In what way is this a normal process? Do all members get handled like this? By the way, my understanding is that the Chief Executive has responsibility and authority for membership, only reporting to the trustees, this was changed by the board of trustees some time ago, in fact the change happened while I was still a trustee so I recall it fairly well. I'm surprised to see the Chief Executive is claiming the trustees need to make this decision when as far as I can tell, this was officially delegated. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (BST)
::The charity does not publicly discuss any application made by an individual for admission as a company member, and will not be doing so in this case. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 17:14, 13 June 2014 (BST)
:::I think the charity can discuss my application with me, it has not.
:::It would be entirely appropriate for my general questions about Chief Executive delegation and process to have public answers with links to the relevant agreed policies or process. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:17, 13 June 2014 (BST)

I don't want to get into an unproductive and long discussion but in defence of the staff and our systems you may have forgotten that like all members who had forgotten to renew you were reminded on quite a few occasions, on newsletters for example, and most recently on 14 May, 14:49 when you were emailed about expired membership, on 21st May, at 10:30 sent a reminder about the previous email, on the 21st May, 12:43 you acknowledged receipt and stated the first email had ended up in spam.
The rules for admins are here https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Permissions_Policy
[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:35, 13 June 2014 (BST)

: Why would you ask someone to rejoin by sending out reminder e-mails if you do not want them to rejoin. Just accept Fae's payment, restore his sysop permissions and stop being awkward. [[Special:Contributions/87.113.201.2|87.113.201.2]] 21:13, 13 June 2014 (BST)

* Can you guys please publish the email that Richard sent to Fae on 12 June. Let's put the entire thing in context shall we. [[User:Russavia|Russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia|talk]]) 17:59, 13 June 2014 (BST)

I made some minor amendments to the timeline above. As these have all been reverted, sadly without checking with me so that I could sort this out myself and avoid pointless escalation. Instead I'll repost the timeline again here, so there can be absolutely no confusion. Please ignore the above timeline as irrelevant, and consider this one my intended statement:
Here's the time-line from my point of view:
#Monday 9 June, I raise a public whistle-blowing complaint as an alert to the Funds Dissemination Committee with regard to the Chief Executive's report, after having exhausted local discussion on the UK wiki.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Progress_report_form/Q1]
#Tuesday 10 June, I get an unexpected note against my WMUK supported Commons project that a condition of funding was to publish relevant source code. An hour later I provide a link to where source code had been published in April.[https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Macrogrants%2FWikimedia_Commons_Geograph_and_Avionics_batch_upload_projects_support&diff=57746&oldid=56440]
#Thursday 12 June, at 16:43 I get a reminder about my membership with a warning list about what might happen should I not renew. I was visiting Cancer Research UK in the afternoon to advise on a forthcoming image project for Commons, and stayed out late for dinner with Johnbod, discussing issues related to his Wikimedian in Residence as funded by the UK Chapter, so did not notice it until after 10pm.
#Friday 13 June, at 08:21 (today), based on yesterday's prompt, I paid my membership.
#—At 12:00 I refresh a batch upload in response to email correspondence, now hitting 15,000 images to Commons as part of a special collaboration with Andy Mabbett, shortly to be the subject of a post on the UK blog. All are marked as supported by the Chapter.[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Faebot/WMUK_report&diff=124941242&oldid=124674514]
#—At 13:09 my sysop rights on the UK Wiki were removed.
#—At 15:46 my payment was rejected by the UK Charity, according to Paypal, with no courtesy correspondence from the UK Charity.
#—At 16:45 in follow up to my previous advice to The Royal Society, I receive an email with information that will help me to support their on-going image releases under the UK funded project there.
--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:43, 13 June 2014 (BST)
*For the reasons for this please refer to [[User talk:Fæ#Retrospective 'improvement' of your posts]]. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (BST)

== Login errors - clarifying text needed ==

Can we get some text added to the log-in page, telling people that their Wikipedia/ sister project login will not work here, and that a new account is required (but can use the same user name)? Twice recently, people have contacted me, asking why they can't log on, as a result of that issue. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (User:<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 12:45, 14 June 2014 (BST)
:+1 I've had similar contacts from experienced editors who automatically presume SUL will work. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:28, 14 June 2014 (BST)

Volunteer

2014-06-15T15:31:53Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 195.154.91.141 (talk) to last revision by Katie Chan (WMUK)

#REDIRECT [[Volunteering Portal]]

Talk:Volunteer

2014-06-15T15:31:51Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 195.154.91.141 (talk) to last revision by My thoughts

'''Benefits of Volunteering'''
'''Read a volunteer's story'''

Under the volunteer section, it would be a nice idea to explain the many advantages of being a volunteer for Wikimedia......such as the skills that can be learned, the projects that can be supported, the network that can be made etc. Some history of success could also be mentioned, for example the success of a volunteer or group of volunteers - such as a case study or small story. This would make the experience more personal and relevant. Perhaps my suggestions already exist and I have not seen them (as I am new to exploring the Wikimedia site).

User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)

2014-06-15T15:31:14Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 78.47.229.107 (talk) to last revision by Sjgknight

== Volunteer equipment ==
Hi Katy. Thanks for uploading photos of the [[volunteer equipment]]. Would it be possible for them to be moved to Commons, please, as that's the better place for images such as these? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 08:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
:I had actually uploaded some of them on Commons already before. The rest I had uploaded locally because I didn't think they were either very good or that Commons wouldn't be interested in them. I've moved all of them except two across. Those two I'll keep here because of the packaging. Thanks -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
:: Thanks Katie. :-) The photos aren't bad at all, and if there aren't already decent images of these on Commons then they're a useful addition there. However, if there's doubt about whether the photos including packaging can be freely licensed and made available on Commons, then they should probably not be hosted here under a free license... Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

== macro/micro ==

Thanks for cleaning up after me! I'm blaming having only one functional eye. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (User:<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 18:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

== Wikidata training ==

See you then.

I've done quite a bit on Wikidata - so I may be able to help with some of the training - but there are lots of things I still want to learn. [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 00:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

== Training the Trainers/February 2014 event ==

Hi Katie, I've confirmed on the event page that I am still interested & can make the 1st & 2nd Feb. Shouldn't need accommodation (just a car parking space) but probably will not be able to stay for the dinner in the evening.[[User:Rodw|Rodw]] ([[User talk:Rodw|talk]]) 19:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
:Thank you :) [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

== First! ==

First edit of the year! Jealous? [[User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|talk]]) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

== Mailto links ==

This is just a note to say that by formatting email addresses like you did at [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Volunteering_Portal%2FThings_you_can_do&diff=50861&oldid=50856], you'll probably get more spam being sent to them as they're easier for spambots to harvest! Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 18:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah, I know. I was asked to make the email addresses as accessible as possible to potential visitors for over the weekend. I'll have a think / talk whether we want to maintain it this way longer term. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

== Grants pages ==

Hi Katie. I just wanted to say: nice work with merging the grants pages. :-) Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you. If there's anything you spot that could do with better wording, let me know. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

== idea: handout something with the WMUK events page on it ==

Brain dump of idea: we need something to hand out that has a link to the WMUK events page. Possibly this could be the same thing we talked about in the volunteers support meeting the other day. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 20:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

== In case you didn't see.... ==

I [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Microgrants/Stub_Contest_(prizes)&diff=prev&oldid=54640 submitted] a report. Will try and find something on total stub numbers on wikipedia to give this some context. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]) 03:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you for your report, including what went well, and what didn't. Is the last bit a formal request for another grant? -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

== Wikimedia UK banner for meetup ==

Hi Katie, I received your email, thanks. I don't use email for discussing Wikipedia matters, so I'll reply here. At the last Oxford meetup I was given a bag of WMUK merchandise by [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] on behalf of WMUK (I believe it was handed to him by [[User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|Jonathan Cardy]]), thanks to all at WMUK for that.

[[:File:WMUK tabletop banner.jpg|The banner]] seems like a good idea - I first saw one of these in January, it was about eight feet tall (2.5 metres?) and two feet wide, it cost our model railway club GBP 40.00 - we used it to publicise our annual exhibition in March.

Can I suggest that the Wikipedia puzzleball be incorporated into the design somehow, as it is much more likely to be recognised than the WMUK logo. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]; [[:wikipedia:User:Redrose64|at English Wikipedia]]) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
:We have [[Volunteer_equipment#Others|bigger ones]] as well, but they're not the lightest or easiest to carry around and not all venue would be agreeable to a big floor banner being displayed hence the tabletop ones here. We'll be getting some other designs for tabletops as well, once we confirm trademark use with the foundation. The idea is maybe two people per meetup region have these banner in case one don't make it to a particular meetup, so one of you can have the Wikimedia UK one, one later get say a Wikipedia globe one. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
::OK, I think it's best to go with the small one. It'll certainly attract attention. Apart from myself, the most regular attendees at Oxford are {{u|HJ Mitchell}}, {{u|MistyMorn}} and {{u|RexxS}}. I intend to be at [[m:Meetup/Coventry/9|Coventry 9]] this Sunday. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]; [[:wikipedia:User:Redrose64|at English Wikipedia]]) 16:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
:::{{u|Thryduulf}} has agreed to take a banner to Coventry for you, and of course, it can be used there. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]; [[:wikipedia:User:Redrose64|at English Wikipedia]]) 17:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I now have the banner, thanks. --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]; [[:wikipedia:User:Redrose64|at English Wikipedia]]) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (BST)

== Photos from Coventry ==

You asked for some photos of the Coventry meetup. I obliged: [[:Commons:Category:Wikimeetup in Coventry 2014-03-30]]. 17:07, 1 April 2014 (BST)
:Thank you! :) [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:32, 1 April 2014 (BST)
::It's probably too late to ask {{u|Thryduulf}} not to include my name. There are some people on Wikipedia who make assumptions concerning my age and gender, I prefer to keep them guessing (it's more fun). --[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]; [[:wikipedia:User:Redrose64|at English Wikipedia]]) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (BST)
:::Sorry. I (or you) can remove your name from the image captions. I don't have time right now, but I'll get to it when I can if you haven't beaten me to it. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 09:13, 2 April 2014 (BST)
:::: I've removed the names from image captions, and added people categories - hope that helps. :-) Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:16, 4 April 2014 (BST)

Talk:Main Page

2014-06-15T15:25:48Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by Wikipediocracy (talk) to last revision by Katie Chan (WMUK)

{{talk header|Welcome to the discussion about the Main Page.}}

{|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;"
|-
|[[File:Archives.png|x100px]]
|-
|align=center|{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2008|[[/2008|2008]]}}<br>{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2010|<br>[[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2011|<br>[[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2012|<br>[[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2013|<br>[[/2013|2013]]}}
|}

== Front page refresh ==

Thanks Rockdrum - good start! [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sjgknight

2014-06-15T15:25:43Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by Wikipediocracy (talk) to last revision by Chris McKenna (WMUK)

Engine room

2014-06-15T15:24:39Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 91.250.242.10 (talk) to last revision by Sjgknight

User:Sjgknight

2014-06-15T15:24:25Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 78.47.229.107 (talk) to last revision by 91.250.242.10

Talk:Press room

2014-06-15T15:24:21Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): Reverted edits by 78.47.229.107 (talk) to last revision by Katie Chan (WMUK)

User talk:LouiseBrown81

2014-06-14T21:41:33Z

Chris McKenna (WMUK): formatting

Do feel free to talk to me...
:Hello and welcome to the Wikimedia UK Wiki Louise! The main places of interaction here are the [[Engine room]], for internal charity/chapter messages, and the public-facing [[Water cooler]] for everything else.

:If there is any way we can help or support your work do let us know. [[User:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|Chris McKenna (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Chris McKenna (WMUK)|talk]]) 22:41, 14 June 2014 (BST)