Wikimedia UK - User contributions [en]

Events

2015-03-27T10:26:42Z

Fæ: fix link

Events

2015-03-25T14:35:53Z

Fæ: /* March */ add

Wikipedia Science Conference

2015-03-06T16:40:17Z

Fæ: /* Interested Wikimedians */ fix link

[[File:The_Wellcome_Building.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Wellcome Building, home to the conference centre|360px]]
'''In partnership with the Wellcome Trust, we are hosting a two-day conference, around the intersection of STEM subjects and Wikimedia, on 2nd and 3rd September 2015.'''

This is prompted by the growing interest in Wikipedia, Wikidata, Commons, and other Wikimedia projects as platforms for opening up the scientific process.

[[#Propose a session|The call for papers is open]] and a booking form is in preparation.

== Details ==
;Where?
[http://www.wellcomecollection.org/event-spaces/rooms/henry-wellcome-auditorium The Henry Wellcome Auditorium] and Wellcome Collection Conference Centre, the Wellcome Collection, 183 Euston Road, London [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Wellcome+Trust/@51.525706,-0.135021,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x48761b25fe44f4b7:0x8d0b599119134025 NW1 2BE], UK. This is opposite Euston Square tube and within easy walking distance of three other tube stations. It is close to the Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras rail stations, and a short tube ride from Paddington.

Despite the London location, this aims to be a national conference and we will try to schedule it with long-distance travellers in mind. There will be a fund to help with speakers' and moderators' travel costs.

;When?
Weds 2nd to Thurs 3rd September

;Cost?
Costs are low thanks to the generosity of the two charities involved (Wellcome and Wikimedia UK), so the charge to attendees will be small. There will be a fund to support some travel costs.

== Audience ==
* Researchers and educators in STEM subjects
* Science communicators
* Librarians & other information professionals
* Managers & funders of research
* Wikipedia/ Wikimedia volunteers and staff

Wikimedia UK's [[Friendly space policy]] will apply at the event and there will be trusted individuals on hand with whom you can raise any related issues.

== Themes ==
Note: a theme appearing here does not mean that it will be covered exhaustively in the conference. These themes define the overlap of Wikipedia and science: it will be up to the participants to decide which themes to focus on.

* Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (including [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page Wikidata], [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimedia Commons]...) as platforms for promoting informed public discussion of scientific topics (acknowledging that the public have a curiosity about all sorts of scientific topics, and overwhelmingly use Wikipedia as a starting point to self-educate).
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as platforms for research, including citizen science (e.g. the [[:meta:Research:Index|Research portal]]).
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as models for scientific publishing (including [http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/652/565 Wiki-to-Journal publication], [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ Journal-to-Wiki publication], [[:wikipedia:Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_open_access_publications|adding OA paper text to Wikipedia]], [http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/wikimedia-and-metrics/ altmetrics], machine-extraction of data from published research, open bibliographic data, data citation, [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/practice/ crowdsourced enhancement of scholarly databases], integration of Wikipedia with open/free services such as Figshare, ORCID, Flickr...)
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as platforms for scientific education.
* Under-represented groups in STEM subjects: is Wikipedia reinforcing stereotypes or providing role models? What is being done?

== Programme ==
;Keynotes
* Dr Peter Murray Rust ([[:w:User:Petermr|User:Petermr]]) has confirmed [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpkgGSaX7KE (see his Wikimania 2014 talk)].
* [[:w:Wendy Hall|Dame Wendy Hall]] has confirmed for the first day of the conference

;Other confirmed speakers
* There will be someone from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, who are using Wikipedia to share and improve data about proteins. MLP has been in touch with Dr Darren Logan.
* Dr Daniel Mietchen ([[:w:User:Daniel Mietchen|User:Daniel Mietchen]]) has agreed.
* [http://quantumplations.org/about/ Michelle Brook], formerly of Open Knowledge, has agreed
* [http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/information-services/about/organisation/learning-teaching-web/directors-office Melissa Highton], Director of Learning, Teaching and Web Services at the University of Edinburgh, has agreed to talk about Women in Science editathons


;Submitted talks/ panels/ demos
Session formats (except for keynotes) will follow the pattern used at Wikimania:
* Lightning talks/demos (10 mins)
* Presentations (20 mins + 10 mins questions)
* Panels (at least 3 speakers, 50 mins)
Proposals are being accepted until '''8 May''': [[#Propose_a_session|use the form below]].

;Unconference
A block of the conference will not have pre-arranged talks scheduled. An {{wp|unconference}} method will be used to enable conference delegates to define the programme they want. This allows people to find others interested in the same topic and start a discussion. There are a number of breakout rooms in the conference centre.

;Training
Attendees should be able to get training on wiki editing, and on finding articles in their subject area. This could be done as a half-day session.

;Evening event
There will be a reception in the evening between the two days, in the same building as the rest of the conference.

== Propose a session ==
Note that the conference will feature a large ''unconference'' block, so even if your proposed session is not accepted, it will be possible to shape the conference just by turning up.

'''Note: You need to [[Special:UserLogin|log in (or create an account here)]] in order to submit a proposal.'''

Entering your title in the box below and filling in the pro-forma will create a public submission on this wiki.
<inputbox>
type= create
placeholder = Your proposal title
prefix = Wikipedia Science Conference/Submissions/
preload= Template:SciConf submission template
buttonlabel= Add new proposal
</inputbox>

If you have any problem using the form, please email m.l.poulter{{@}}bristol.ac.uk

== Interested Wikimedians ==
Add yourself here to indicate an interest. Optionally, add a one-line description of why the conference is relevant to you.
* [[User:MartinPoulter]] (Former Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador; former WMUK Associate promoting Expert outreach)
* [[User:Johnbod]] (Wikipedian in Residence, The Royal Society; Wikipedian in Residence, Cancer Research UK)
* Andy Mabbett, [[User:Pigsonthewing]] (Wikipedian in Residence, ORCID; Wikimedian in Residence, Royal Society of Chemistry)
* [[User:Yaris678]]
* [[User:HenryScow]] (Cancer Research UK)
* [[User:Fnorman]] (Librarian, MRC National Institute of Medical Research)
* [[User:Sjgknight]]
* [[User:Daniel Mietchen]] (Creator of OAI Importer bot; former Wikipedian in Residence at Open Knowledge Foundation)
* Brian Kelly ([[User:Lisbk]])
* [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton]] (WMUK staff)
* [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:10, 15 September 2014 (BST)
* [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]]
* [[:en:User:The_anke|Anke Holst]]
* {{U-en|RexxS}}
* {{U-en|Ben Moore}}
* [[:en:User:Samwalton9|Sam Walton]] (astrophysics student)
* [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]
* [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]])
* [[User:Jcmolloy | Jenny Molloy]] (Coordinator, Open Knowledge Open Science Working Group)
* [[:en:User:Magnus Manske|Magnus Manske]]
* [[:en:User:ACrockford|Ally Crockford]] (Wikimedian in Residence, National Library of Scotland; Medical Humanities researcher/teacher)
* [[:en:User:Amterotesis|John Levin]]
* [[:en:User:bondegezou|Henry Potts]] (Senior Lecturer @ UCL Institute of Health Informatics; have carried out research on Wikipedia)
* [[:en:User:Melissa Highton|Melissa Highton]] (Director of IT, University of Edinburgh)
* [[:en:User:Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE)|Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE)]]
* [[:en:User:Paul W|Paul Wilkinson]] (on CIPR working group on science communications)
* [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) (Wikimedia editor and trainer)
* [[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]])

'''[http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ The Wellcome Trust]''' is "a global charitable foundation dedicated to achieving extraordinary improvements in health by supporting the brightest minds". in the UK, it is one of the leading organisations promoting open access to research and encouraging scientists to engage with the public. It funds an enormous amount of cutting-edge research related to health, as well as the preservation and use of existing knowledge. Its other activities with Wikimedia include funding the [http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/01/16/weve-joined-forces-with-wikipedia-to-improve-cancer-information/ Cancer Research UK Wikipedian In Residence]. In January 2014, Wellcome Images [http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture-made-free-through-wellcome-images/ released 100,000 historical images under a Wikipedia-compatible licence] which have been [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/01/20/wellcome-library-donation/ uploaded to Wikimedia Commons] by [[User:Fæ|Fæ]].

==Planning==
See [[/Planning]] subpage for suggestions about timescale/ publicity etc.

[[Category:Events in 2015]]
[[Category:Events in London]]
[[Category:Expert Outreach]]
[[Category:Conferences organised by Wikimedia UK]]

User talk:Fæ/head

2015-03-06T16:38:39Z

Fæ: ce

<div align=center>
{|style="background:#DFD;border:solid 1px silver;padding:0.5em;padding-left:2em;padding-right:2em;"
|-
|If you wish to contact me, please email me using [[Special:EmailUser/F%C3%A6|this email form]], rather than leaving a message on this user page.
|}</div>

Wikipedia Science Conference

2015-03-06T16:36:58Z

Fæ: /* Interested Wikimedians */ +

[[File:The_Wellcome_Building.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Wellcome Building, home to the conference centre|360px]]
'''In partnership with the Wellcome Trust, we are hosting a two-day conference, around the intersection of STEM subjects and Wikimedia, on 2nd and 3rd September 2015.'''

This is prompted by the growing interest in Wikipedia, Wikidata, Commons, and other Wikimedia projects as platforms for opening up the scientific process.

[[#Propose a session|The call for papers is open]] and a booking form is in preparation.

== Details ==
;Where?
[http://www.wellcomecollection.org/event-spaces/rooms/henry-wellcome-auditorium The Henry Wellcome Auditorium] and Wellcome Collection Conference Centre, the Wellcome Collection, 183 Euston Road, London [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Wellcome+Trust/@51.525706,-0.135021,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x48761b25fe44f4b7:0x8d0b599119134025 NW1 2BE], UK. This is opposite Euston Square tube and within easy walking distance of three other tube stations. It is close to the Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras rail stations, and a short tube ride from Paddington.

Despite the London location, this aims to be a national conference and we will try to schedule it with long-distance travellers in mind. There will be a fund to help with speakers' and moderators' travel costs.

;When?
Weds 2nd to Thurs 3rd September

;Cost?
Costs are low thanks to the generosity of the two charities involved (Wellcome and Wikimedia UK), so the charge to attendees will be small. There will be a fund to support some travel costs.

== Audience ==
* Researchers and educators in STEM subjects
* Science communicators
* Librarians & other information professionals
* Managers & funders of research
* Wikipedia/ Wikimedia volunteers and staff

Wikimedia UK's [[Friendly space policy]] will apply at the event and there will be trusted individuals on hand with whom you can raise any related issues.

== Themes ==
Note: a theme appearing here does not mean that it will be covered exhaustively in the conference. These themes define the overlap of Wikipedia and science: it will be up to the participants to decide which themes to focus on.

* Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (including [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page Wikidata], [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimedia Commons]...) as platforms for promoting informed public discussion of scientific topics (acknowledging that the public have a curiosity about all sorts of scientific topics, and overwhelmingly use Wikipedia as a starting point to self-educate).
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as platforms for research, including citizen science (e.g. the [[:meta:Research:Index|Research portal]]).
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as models for scientific publishing (including [http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/652/565 Wiki-to-Journal publication], [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ Journal-to-Wiki publication], [[:wikipedia:Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_open_access_publications|adding OA paper text to Wikipedia]], [http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/wikimedia-and-metrics/ altmetrics], machine-extraction of data from published research, open bibliographic data, data citation, [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/practice/ crowdsourced enhancement of scholarly databases], integration of Wikipedia with open/free services such as Figshare, ORCID, Flickr...)
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as platforms for scientific education.
* Under-represented groups in STEM subjects: is Wikipedia reinforcing stereotypes or providing role models? What is being done?

== Programme ==
;Keynotes
* Dr Peter Murray Rust ([[:w:User:Petermr|User:Petermr]]) has confirmed [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpkgGSaX7KE (see his Wikimania 2014 talk)].
* [[:w:Wendy Hall|Dame Wendy Hall]] has confirmed for the first day of the conference

;Other confirmed speakers
* There will be someone from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, who are using Wikipedia to share and improve data about proteins. MLP has been in touch with Dr Darren Logan.
* Dr Daniel Mietchen ([[:w:User:Daniel Mietchen|User:Daniel Mietchen]]) has agreed.
* [http://quantumplations.org/about/ Michelle Brook], formerly of Open Knowledge, has agreed
* [http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/information-services/about/organisation/learning-teaching-web/directors-office Melissa Highton], Director of Learning, Teaching and Web Services at the University of Edinburgh, has agreed to talk about Women in Science editathons


;Submitted talks/ panels/ demos
Session formats (except for keynotes) will follow the pattern used at Wikimania:
* Lightning talks/demos (10 mins)
* Presentations (20 mins + 10 mins questions)
* Panels (at least 3 speakers, 50 mins)
Proposals are being accepted until '''8 May''': [[#Propose_a_session|use the form below]].

;Unconference
A block of the conference will not have pre-arranged talks scheduled. An {{wp|unconference}} method will be used to enable conference delegates to define the programme they want. This allows people to find others interested in the same topic and start a discussion. There are a number of breakout rooms in the conference centre.

;Training
Attendees should be able to get training on wiki editing, and on finding articles in their subject area. This could be done as a half-day session.

;Evening event
There will be a reception in the evening between the two days, in the same building as the rest of the conference.

== Propose a session ==
Note that the conference will feature a large ''unconference'' block, so even if your proposed session is not accepted, it will be possible to shape the conference just by turning up.

'''Note: You need to [[Special:UserLogin|log in (or create an account here)]] in order to submit a proposal.'''

Entering your title in the box below and filling in the pro-forma will create a public submission on this wiki.
<inputbox>
type= create
placeholder = Your proposal title
prefix = Wikipedia Science Conference/Submissions/
preload= Template:SciConf submission template
buttonlabel= Add new proposal
</inputbox>

If you have any problem using the form, please email m.l.poulter{{@}}bristol.ac.uk

== Interested Wikimedians ==
Add yourself here to indicate an interest. Optionally, add a one-line description of why the conference is relevant to you.
* [[User:MartinPoulter]] (Former Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador; former WMUK Associate promoting Expert outreach)
* [[User:Johnbod]] (Wikipedian in Residence, The Royal Society; Wikipedian in Residence, Cancer Research UK)
* Andy Mabbett, [[User:Pigsonthewing]] (Wikipedian in Residence, ORCID; Wikimedian in Residence, Royal Society of Chemistry)
* [[User:Yaris678]]
* [[User:HenryScow]] (Cancer Research UK)
* [[User:Fnorman]] (Librarian, MRC National Institute of Medical Research)
* [[User:Sjgknight]]
* [[User:Daniel Mietchen]] (Creator of OAI Importer bot; former Wikipedian in Residence at Open Knowledge Foundation)
* Brian Kelly ([[User:Lisbk]])
* [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton]] (WMUK staff)
* [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:10, 15 September 2014 (BST)
* [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]]
* [[:en:User:The_anke|Anke Holst]]
* {{U-en|RexxS}}
* {{U-en|Ben Moore}}
* [[:en:User:Samwalton9|Sam Walton]] (astrophysics student)
* [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]
* [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]])
* [[User:Jcmolloy | Jenny Molloy]] (Coordinator, Open Knowledge Open Science Working Group)
* [[:en:User:Magnus Manske|Magnus Manske]]
* [[:en:User:ACrockford|Ally Crockford]] (Wikimedian in Residence, National Library of Scotland; Medical Humanities researcher/teacher)
* [[:en:User:Amterotesis|John Levin]]
* [[:en:User:bondegezou|Henry Potts]] (Senior Lecturer @ UCL Institute of Health Informatics; have carried out research on Wikipedia)
* [[:en:User:Melissa Highton|Melissa Highton]] (Director of IT, University of Edinburgh)
* [[:en:User:Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE)|Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE)]]
* [[:en:User:Paul W|Paul Wilkinson]] (on CIPR working group on science communications)
* [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) (Wikimedia editor and trainer)
* [[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]])

'''[http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ The Wellcome Trust]''' is "a global charitable foundation dedicated to achieving extraordinary improvements in health by supporting the brightest minds". in the UK, it is one of the leading organisations promoting open access to research and encouraging scientists to engage with the public. It funds an enormous amount of cutting-edge research related to health, as well as the preservation and use of existing knowledge. Its other activities with Wikimedia include funding the [http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/01/16/weve-joined-forces-with-wikipedia-to-improve-cancer-information/ Cancer Research UK Wikipedian In Residence]. In January 2014, Wellcome Images [http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture-made-free-through-wellcome-images/ released 100,000 historical images under a Wikipedia-compatible licence] which have been [[:Commons:Category:Files_from_Wellcome_Images|uploaded to Wikimedia Commons]] by [[User:Fæ|Fæ]].

==Planning==
See [[/Planning]] subpage for suggestions about timescale/ publicity etc.

[[Category:Events in 2015]]
[[Category:Events in London]]
[[Category:Expert Outreach]]
[[Category:Conferences organised by Wikimedia UK]]

Wikipedia Science Conference

2015-03-06T16:24:30Z

Fæ: /* Interested Wikimedians */ I see no reason why I cannot be credited for my own independent volunteer work.

[[File:The_Wellcome_Building.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Wellcome Building, home to the conference centre|360px]]
'''In partnership with the Wellcome Trust, we are hosting a two-day conference, around the intersection of STEM subjects and Wikimedia, on 2nd and 3rd September 2015.'''

This is prompted by the growing interest in Wikipedia, Wikidata, Commons, and other Wikimedia projects as platforms for opening up the scientific process.

[[#Propose a session|The call for papers is open]] and a booking form is in preparation.

== Details ==
;Where?
[http://www.wellcomecollection.org/event-spaces/rooms/henry-wellcome-auditorium The Henry Wellcome Auditorium] and Wellcome Collection Conference Centre, the Wellcome Collection, 183 Euston Road, London [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Wellcome+Trust/@51.525706,-0.135021,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x48761b25fe44f4b7:0x8d0b599119134025 NW1 2BE], UK. This is opposite Euston Square tube and within easy walking distance of three other tube stations. It is close to the Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras rail stations, and a short tube ride from Paddington.

Despite the London location, this aims to be a national conference and we will try to schedule it with long-distance travellers in mind. There will be a fund to help with speakers' and moderators' travel costs.

;When?
Weds 2nd to Thurs 3rd September

;Cost?
Costs are low thanks to the generosity of the two charities involved (Wellcome and Wikimedia UK), so the charge to attendees will be small. There will be a fund to support some travel costs.

== Audience ==
* Researchers and educators in STEM subjects
* Science communicators
* Librarians & other information professionals
* Managers & funders of research
* Wikipedia/ Wikimedia volunteers and staff

Wikimedia UK's [[Friendly space policy]] will apply at the event and there will be trusted individuals on hand with whom you can raise any related issues.

== Themes ==
Note: a theme appearing here does not mean that it will be covered exhaustively in the conference. These themes define the overlap of Wikipedia and science: it will be up to the participants to decide which themes to focus on.

* Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (including [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page Wikidata], [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimedia Commons]...) as platforms for promoting informed public discussion of scientific topics (acknowledging that the public have a curiosity about all sorts of scientific topics, and overwhelmingly use Wikipedia as a starting point to self-educate).
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as platforms for research, including citizen science (e.g. the [[:meta:Research:Index|Research portal]]).
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as models for scientific publishing (including [http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/652/565 Wiki-to-Journal publication], [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ Journal-to-Wiki publication], [[:wikipedia:Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_open_access_publications|adding OA paper text to Wikipedia]], [http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/wikimedia-and-metrics/ altmetrics], machine-extraction of data from published research, open bibliographic data, data citation, [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/practice/ crowdsourced enhancement of scholarly databases], integration of Wikipedia with open/free services such as Figshare, ORCID, Flickr...)
* Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia as platforms for scientific education.
* Under-represented groups in STEM subjects: is Wikipedia reinforcing stereotypes or providing role models? What is being done?

== Programme ==
;Keynotes
* Dr Peter Murray Rust ([[:w:User:Petermr|User:Petermr]]) has confirmed [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpkgGSaX7KE (see his Wikimania 2014 talk)].
* [[:w:Wendy Hall|Dame Wendy Hall]] has confirmed for the first day of the conference

;Other confirmed speakers
* There will be someone from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, who are using Wikipedia to share and improve data about proteins. MLP has been in touch with Dr Darren Logan.
* Dr Daniel Mietchen ([[:w:User:Daniel Mietchen|User:Daniel Mietchen]]) has agreed.
* [http://quantumplations.org/about/ Michelle Brook], formerly of Open Knowledge, has agreed
* [http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/information-services/about/organisation/learning-teaching-web/directors-office Melissa Highton], Director of Learning, Teaching and Web Services at the University of Edinburgh, has agreed to talk about Women in Science editathons


;Submitted talks/ panels/ demos
Session formats (except for keynotes) will follow the pattern used at Wikimania:
* Lightning talks/demos (10 mins)
* Presentations (20 mins + 10 mins questions)
* Panels (at least 3 speakers, 50 mins)
Proposals are being accepted until '''8 May''': [[#Propose_a_session|use the form below]].

;Unconference
A block of the conference will not have pre-arranged talks scheduled. An {{wp|unconference}} method will be used to enable conference delegates to define the programme they want. This allows people to find others interested in the same topic and start a discussion. There are a number of breakout rooms in the conference centre.

;Training
Attendees should be able to get training on wiki editing, and on finding articles in their subject area. This could be done as a half-day session.

;Evening event
There will be a reception in the evening between the two days, in the same building as the rest of the conference.

== Propose a session ==
Note that the conference will feature a large ''unconference'' block, so even if your proposed session is not accepted, it will be possible to shape the conference just by turning up.

'''Note: You need to [[Special:UserLogin|log in (or create an account here)]] in order to submit a proposal.'''

Entering your title in the box below and filling in the pro-forma will create a public submission on this wiki.
<inputbox>
type= create
placeholder = Your proposal title
prefix = Wikipedia Science Conference/Submissions/
preload= Template:SciConf submission template
buttonlabel= Add new proposal
</inputbox>

If you have any problem using the form, please email m.l.poulter{{@}}bristol.ac.uk

== Interested Wikimedians ==
Add yourself here to indicate an interest. Optionally, add a one-line description of why the conference is relevant to you.
* [[User:MartinPoulter]] (Former Jisc Wikimedia Ambassador; former WMUK Associate promoting Expert outreach)
* [[User:Johnbod]] (Wikipedian in Residence, The Royal Society; Wikipedian in Residence, Cancer Research UK)
* Andy Mabbett, [[User:Pigsonthewing]] (Wikipedian in Residence, ORCID; Wikimedian in Residence, Royal Society of Chemistry)
* [[User:Yaris678]]
* [[User:HenryScow]] (Cancer Research UK)
* [[User:Fnorman]] (Librarian, MRC National Institute of Medical Research)
* [[User:Sjgknight]]
* [[User:Daniel Mietchen]] (Creator of OAI Importer bot; former Wikipedian in Residence at Open Knowledge Foundation)
* Brian Kelly ([[User:Lisbk]])
* [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton]] (WMUK staff)
* [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:10, 15 September 2014 (BST)
* [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]]
* [[:en:User:The_anke|Anke Holst]]
* {{U-en|RexxS}}
* {{U-en|Ben Moore}}
* [[:en:User:Samwalton9|Sam Walton]] (astrophysics student)
* [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]
* [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]])
* [[User:Jcmolloy | Jenny Molloy]] (Coordinator, Open Knowledge Open Science Working Group)
* [[:en:User:Magnus Manske|Magnus Manske]]
* [[:en:User:ACrockford|Ally Crockford]] (Wikimedian in Residence, National Library of Scotland; Medical Humanities researcher/teacher)
* [[:en:User:Amterotesis|John Levin]]
* [[:en:User:bondegezou|Henry Potts]] (Senior Lecturer @ UCL Institute of Health Informatics; have carried out research on Wikipedia)
* [[:en:User:Melissa Highton|Melissa Highton]] (Director of IT, University of Edinburgh)
* [[:en:User:Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE)|Julia Kloppenburg (WMDE)]]
* [[:en:User:Paul W|Paul Wilkinson]] (on CIPR working group on science communications)
* [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) (Wikimedia editor and trainer)

'''[http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ The Wellcome Trust]''' is "a global charitable foundation dedicated to achieving extraordinary improvements in health by supporting the brightest minds". in the UK, it is one of the leading organisations promoting open access to research and encouraging scientists to engage with the public. It funds an enormous amount of cutting-edge research related to health, as well as the preservation and use of existing knowledge. Its other activities with Wikimedia include funding the [http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/01/16/weve-joined-forces-with-wikipedia-to-improve-cancer-information/ Cancer Research UK Wikipedian In Residence]. In January 2014, Wellcome Images [http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture-made-free-through-wellcome-images/ released 100,000 historical images under a Wikipedia-compatible licence] which have been [[:Commons:Category:Files_from_Wellcome_Images|uploaded to Wikimedia Commons]] by [[User:Fæ|Fæ]].

==Planning==
See [[/Planning]] subpage for suggestions about timescale/ publicity etc.

[[Category:Events in 2015]]
[[Category:Events in London]]
[[Category:Expert Outreach]]
[[Category:Conferences organised by Wikimedia UK]]

User:Fæ

2014-11-18T18:32:29Z

Fæ: update

[[File:Fæ having a cup of tea at The Kymin.jpg|x300px|right]]
{|
|-
|{{user Commons}}
|}
I was a [[Board|Wikimedia UK board member]] during 2011-2013, being part of the board that with enormous unpaid volunteer effort created the UK Charity. I was the chair of Wikimedia UK in 2012. In the same year, I was the first Chair of the Wikimedia Chapters Association and I co-founded the Wikimedia LGBT group, which became recognized as a User Group in 2014 for which I am a co-signature. Until 2014, I am the only openly gay trustee for Wikimedia UK, being voted in with LGBT projects as part of my stated reasons for becoming a trustee.

On the Wikimedia Projects I am best known for contributions on Wikimedia Commons, with more than 750,000 uploaded media files and more than 4,500,000 edits under my main account and my bot account, mostly GLAM project related volunteer work, with no funding.

A sad final note with regard to my volunteer work has been that in 2014 the board of WMUK rejected my membership for reasons of "tone", shortly after I publicly complained about a misleading report about the work of the charity (which was corrected). This went to a vote of members at the AGM where the board had a specialist charity lawyer advising them on what to say, and all members attending were allowed to speak, apart from myself (the current chairman using the rationale that I was not a member). I remain the only Wikimedia volunteer in the history of the chapter who has had their membership payment rejected and I remain a non-member of WMUK unable to borrow equipment and unable to make project proposals for chapter funding, these aspects of the work of the charity having their policies changed to be restricted to members and therefore exclude me; after the 2014 AGM.

[[Category:Wikimedia UK volunteers]]

Talk:Volunteer Strategy Gathering/November 2014

2014-11-18T15:09:49Z

Fæ: /* Technology development */ c

We need a timescale for organising this.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:02, 6 October 2014 (BST)

== Insights from WMDE ==

There was a really interesting talk at Wikimania by Dirke Franke of Wikimedia Germany. He talked about how different volunteers want different things and that the volunteers get to do the cool stuff and the staff do the less-cool stuff that enables the cool stuff to happen. Do we have a video of the talk? That would be very useful.

[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 10:17, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

:Thanks for that. I have had a bit of an online search and found one of Dirk's presentations at the [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pre-conference:_Volunteer_Support Pre-conference Volunteer Support meeting] meeting is available [http://prezi.com/kyaavvx7nyyg/the-community-is-your-friend/ here]. Is this what you mean? There is a video on You-tube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay3Br-3OeDM here], but I think this is something different? [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:24, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

:You make a good point. One thing that then emerges is how to design a project so that volunteers can do the cool stuff and that there a funds for someone to br paid to do the less exciting work? [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

::Looking at [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme the programme,] the talk was 12:00 to 12:30 in the Fountain Room, as part of the Technology VII stream. It was called "Engineering volunteering – what’s this volunteer support all about anyway?" but the presenter started by saying that it wasn't specific to engineering volunteering.
::That Prezi presentation you linked to ''[http://prezi.com/kyaavvx7nyyg/the-community-is-your-friend/ The community is you friend]'' covers similar ground, although obviously it is just the slides - not what came out of the presenters mouth.
::Designing a project so there are cool bits and bits we need to get funding for sounds like a sensible response to this way of looking at things. Maybe we could also do some kind of survey to work out what things people think are cool.
::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 11:00, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
:::Thanks for that. I have tracked down the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5tJdQCnGWQ here], starts around 35 mins and goes on until 52 mins. I found it rather hard to hear, but the slides are also available [http://prezi.com/_jg9f4kttkxx/anyway/ here].[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:21, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
::::Thanks for finding that video. I have watched it back and I think it had some really good stuff. I especially like the Q&A at the end. e.g. the very last question, about project management. His point was that they generally don't manage volunteers - they try to support the volunteers to manage their own projects. Maybe doing that is easier said than done, but it is a good thing to aim for. It means people have to work out what is the best way to give support. Food for thought. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (GMT)
::Yes that is an interesting piece which I have transcribed below:
:::'''Member of audience''': Do you have any tools to manage the volunteers, for project management of volunteers?
:::'''Dirk Franke''':"We do have some project management, but normally the projects are managed by the volunteers themselves and we try to support them. So the projects are managed by one or two of the volunteers and we try to support them with talking to them and asking questions and just try to help them managing their own projects. It is not like we are managing the volunteers, they are managing themselves and basically they tell us what to do, not the other way around. Sometimes people say that's not the way, but that is really not true: it is always the other way around." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5tJdQCnGWQ Wikimania 2014, Technology VII - Invention]
::This very much fits in with how WMUK is likely to develop, with a move to much more project-based funding. What this implies, though, is that our volunteers are starting to think in terms of projects and are keen to take on suitable roles to deliver projects. On the other hand it also implies that WMUK has suitable processes to enable and support such volunteers meet the requirements of such roles, particularly in relationship to reporting both for accountability to the movement and in regards to good governance of the charity. One of my hopes is that we shall make some progress in developing this at this gathering.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:40, 4 November 2014 (GMT)
:::This pre-dates the official version of WMUK's history and thus is probably heresy, but volunteers used to run projects within WMUK, not least because there was nobody else to do it. For example, a volunteer would take the lead in a relationship with, say, a museum, and work with others as necessary to develop events and other things. Whereas now staff take the lead, develop events behind closed doors, advertise them, and bring in volunteers only at the very end of the process. I'm not going to pretend that the WMUK of 2010/11/12 was some sort utopia; it lacked strategy or indeed any idea of what it was trying to do and how its projects tied into each other and it was at a very early stage of its development as an organisation, but one of the things it had in its favour (and the reason I joined) was that it was a grassroots organisation and volunteers could actually play a central role. The WMUK of 2010/11/12 had a small number of volunteers who were very engage, whereas now it has a much larger number of volunteers (on paper, using a very dubious definition) but they are much less engaged. Neither is sustainable in the long term, but at least in the past the board listened to the (albeit small) community. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 18:09, 16 November 2014 (GMT)
::::Harry, the board is listening. You haven't indicated above the practical steps you think that the charity should take to improve volunteer engagement, but I hope you'll be able to come and share your thoughts on the day. I'll be there. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:19, 17 November 2014 (GMT)

==Agenda suggestions==
* What are the most important things for WMUK to focus on in the coming year? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
* Which of WMUK's current activities are making the most impact? How can their impact be increased? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
* How can WMUK better support and engage volunteers? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
* What role does WMUK have in the Wikimedia movement's technology development? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
* What is our view of the [[:m:Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015 round1/Wikimedia UK/Staff proposal assessment|comments of the FDC staff]] on our annual funding proposal?
* What characteristics/skills/experience would the community like to see in a new CEO?
* What is the purpose of Wikimedia UK? Is it currently fulfilling that purpose? Is the current framework the best way to fulfil it?
* How is Wikimedia UK as an organisation relevant to the Wikimedia projects? Should it be more so?
* WMUK focus for 2015. We will not know what funding we have been allocated by FDC until 1st December. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (GMT)
* Impact of current WMUK activities. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (GMT)
* Better support and engagement for volunteers. I think this has to be a key element of the conference. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (GMT)

===Technology development===
I am not sure how many people attending the conference will be up on all the tech issues. I am hoping that we will have some people from the recently formed Wikidata Working Group to give a report back on how the group functions. What I feel we may need is a one-day tech gathering focussing specifically on such issues. Then it would be possible to get to grips with things and come up with practical steps forward. A decision to organise such an event could be an important outcome of this gathering.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (GMT)
:To give praise where it's due, a separate meeting focused on technology is a very good idea. But, rather than a hackathon/developer conference type event, I'd love to see an event where on-techy people can talk to techy people about the things they'd like to see and get feedback on how practical the ideas are in terms of the amount of development work required and then discuss how WMUK could support them. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (GMT)

:I suggest steering clear of making plans about wikidata for a time when the right technical people are available. I spent this weekend at the wikidata hackerthon after WMNL invited me and offered to cover my expenses (on the presumption that the UK would not), and managed to build a general bot for wikidata to upload the Tate dataset (potentially 440,000 items) as well as attending a related Europeana task force meeting. The only other UK person at the hackerthon was Jheald, which may be an indicator of something.
:I'm not available this month, and if I wanted to come I'm sure there would be reasons found to exclude me, what with me being "deeply disturbed". --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:08, 18 November 2014 (GMT)

===Engaging new people===
I was recently shown [http://wiki.okfn.org/Open_Science/GetInvolved this], I'm sure there are other examples we could examine and explore for Wikimedia context. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:43, 4 November 2014 (GMT)
:That is awesome. A lot of thought has obviouasly gone into it, but it is very concise and, because of its tabular nature, should be very quick to use. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 22:07, 4 November 2014 (GMT)

==Travel and subsistence==
For speed and convenience, I plan to drive from London. Will there be car parking provision? As I'm not familiar with the venue, I'd appreciate some general information about directions, refreshments, &c. [[User:Andrew Davidson|Andrew Davidson]] ([[User talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 13:51, 15 November 2014 (GMT)
:There are a number of car parks, but not cheap. The nearest two are i) Brindley Drive, immediately at the rear of the library, and ii) at the NIA, just along Cambridge Street (the North, rather than South, carpark is closest). There are plenty of food outlets, inside and nearby outside the library. If approaching via M40/M5, leave the latter at junction 3, and follow signs for the city, then NIA. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 18:01, 16 November 2014 (GMT)
:: I understand that WMUK will be covering travel costs for attendees (as per the announcement on 7 October), so presumably that will also cover car parking? It would make sense to keep costs low by car-sharing where possible, perhaps we could add a section to this page to facilitate this? I'll be driving from Manchester, and would be happy to offer a lift to anyone traveling from the same direction. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 01:02, 18 November 2014 (GMT)

Talk:Volunteer Strategy Gathering/November 2014

2014-11-18T15:08:30Z

Fæ: /* Technology development */ c

We need a timescale for organising this.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:02, 6 October 2014 (BST)

== Insights from WMDE ==

There was a really interesting talk at Wikimania by Dirke Franke of Wikimedia Germany. He talked about how different volunteers want different things and that the volunteers get to do the cool stuff and the staff do the less-cool stuff that enables the cool stuff to happen. Do we have a video of the talk? That would be very useful.

[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 10:17, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

:Thanks for that. I have had a bit of an online search and found one of Dirk's presentations at the [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pre-conference:_Volunteer_Support Pre-conference Volunteer Support meeting] meeting is available [http://prezi.com/kyaavvx7nyyg/the-community-is-your-friend/ here]. Is this what you mean? There is a video on You-tube [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay3Br-3OeDM here], but I think this is something different? [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:24, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

:You make a good point. One thing that then emerges is how to design a project so that volunteers can do the cool stuff and that there a funds for someone to br paid to do the less exciting work? [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (GMT)

::Looking at [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme the programme,] the talk was 12:00 to 12:30 in the Fountain Room, as part of the Technology VII stream. It was called "Engineering volunteering – what’s this volunteer support all about anyway?" but the presenter started by saying that it wasn't specific to engineering volunteering.
::That Prezi presentation you linked to ''[http://prezi.com/kyaavvx7nyyg/the-community-is-your-friend/ The community is you friend]'' covers similar ground, although obviously it is just the slides - not what came out of the presenters mouth.
::Designing a project so there are cool bits and bits we need to get funding for sounds like a sensible response to this way of looking at things. Maybe we could also do some kind of survey to work out what things people think are cool.
::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 11:00, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
:::Thanks for that. I have tracked down the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5tJdQCnGWQ here], starts around 35 mins and goes on until 52 mins. I found it rather hard to hear, but the slides are also available [http://prezi.com/_jg9f4kttkxx/anyway/ here].[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:21, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
::::Thanks for finding that video. I have watched it back and I think it had some really good stuff. I especially like the Q&A at the end. e.g. the very last question, about project management. His point was that they generally don't manage volunteers - they try to support the volunteers to manage their own projects. Maybe doing that is easier said than done, but it is a good thing to aim for. It means people have to work out what is the best way to give support. Food for thought. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (GMT)
::Yes that is an interesting piece which I have transcribed below:
:::'''Member of audience''': Do you have any tools to manage the volunteers, for project management of volunteers?
:::'''Dirk Franke''':"We do have some project management, but normally the projects are managed by the volunteers themselves and we try to support them. So the projects are managed by one or two of the volunteers and we try to support them with talking to them and asking questions and just try to help them managing their own projects. It is not like we are managing the volunteers, they are managing themselves and basically they tell us what to do, not the other way around. Sometimes people say that's not the way, but that is really not true: it is always the other way around." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5tJdQCnGWQ Wikimania 2014, Technology VII - Invention]
::This very much fits in with how WMUK is likely to develop, with a move to much more project-based funding. What this implies, though, is that our volunteers are starting to think in terms of projects and are keen to take on suitable roles to deliver projects. On the other hand it also implies that WMUK has suitable processes to enable and support such volunteers meet the requirements of such roles, particularly in relationship to reporting both for accountability to the movement and in regards to good governance of the charity. One of my hopes is that we shall make some progress in developing this at this gathering.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:40, 4 November 2014 (GMT)
:::This pre-dates the official version of WMUK's history and thus is probably heresy, but volunteers used to run projects within WMUK, not least because there was nobody else to do it. For example, a volunteer would take the lead in a relationship with, say, a museum, and work with others as necessary to develop events and other things. Whereas now staff take the lead, develop events behind closed doors, advertise them, and bring in volunteers only at the very end of the process. I'm not going to pretend that the WMUK of 2010/11/12 was some sort utopia; it lacked strategy or indeed any idea of what it was trying to do and how its projects tied into each other and it was at a very early stage of its development as an organisation, but one of the things it had in its favour (and the reason I joined) was that it was a grassroots organisation and volunteers could actually play a central role. The WMUK of 2010/11/12 had a small number of volunteers who were very engage, whereas now it has a much larger number of volunteers (on paper, using a very dubious definition) but they are much less engaged. Neither is sustainable in the long term, but at least in the past the board listened to the (albeit small) community. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 18:09, 16 November 2014 (GMT)
::::Harry, the board is listening. You haven't indicated above the practical steps you think that the charity should take to improve volunteer engagement, but I hope you'll be able to come and share your thoughts on the day. I'll be there. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:19, 17 November 2014 (GMT)

==Agenda suggestions==
* What are the most important things for WMUK to focus on in the coming year? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
* Which of WMUK's current activities are making the most impact? How can their impact be increased? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
* How can WMUK better support and engage volunteers? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
* What role does WMUK have in the Wikimedia movement's technology development? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (GMT)
* What is our view of the [[:m:Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015 round1/Wikimedia UK/Staff proposal assessment|comments of the FDC staff]] on our annual funding proposal?
* What characteristics/skills/experience would the community like to see in a new CEO?
* What is the purpose of Wikimedia UK? Is it currently fulfilling that purpose? Is the current framework the best way to fulfil it?
* How is Wikimedia UK as an organisation relevant to the Wikimedia projects? Should it be more so?
* WMUK focus for 2015. We will not know what funding we have been allocated by FDC until 1st December. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (GMT)
* Impact of current WMUK activities. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (GMT)
* Better support and engagement for volunteers. I think this has to be a key element of the conference. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (GMT)

===Technology development===
I am not sure how many people attending the conference will be up on all the tech issues. I am hoping that we will have some people from the recently formed Wikidata Working Group to give a report back on how the group functions. What I feel we may need is a one-day tech gathering focussing specifically on such issues. Then it would be possible to get to grips with things and come up with practical steps forward. A decision to organise such an event could be an important outcome of this gathering.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 October 2014 (GMT)
:To give praise where it's due, a separate meeting focused on technology is a very good idea. But, rather than a hackathon/developer conference type event, I'd love to see an event where on-techy people can talk to techy people about the things they'd like to see and get feedback on how practical the ideas are in terms of the amount of development work required and then discuss how WMUK could support them. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (GMT)

:I suggest steering clear of making plans about wikidata for a time when the right technical people are available. I spent this weekend at the wikidata hackerthon after WMNL invited me and offered to cover my expenses (on the presumption that the UK would not), and managed to build a general bot for wikidata to upload the Tate dataset (potentially 440,000 items) as well as attending a related Europeana task force meeting. The only other UK person at the hackerthon was Jheald, which may be an indicator of something.
:I'm not available this month, and if I wanted to come I'm sure there would be reasons found to exclude me, what with me being "deeply
disturbed". --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:08, 18 November 2014 (GMT)

===Engaging new people===
I was recently shown [http://wiki.okfn.org/Open_Science/GetInvolved this], I'm sure there are other examples we could examine and explore for Wikimedia context. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:43, 4 November 2014 (GMT)
:That is awesome. A lot of thought has obviouasly gone into it, but it is very concise and, because of its tabular nature, should be very quick to use. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 22:07, 4 November 2014 (GMT)

==Travel and subsistence==
For speed and convenience, I plan to drive from London. Will there be car parking provision? As I'm not familiar with the venue, I'd appreciate some general information about directions, refreshments, &c. [[User:Andrew Davidson|Andrew Davidson]] ([[User talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 13:51, 15 November 2014 (GMT)
:There are a number of car parks, but not cheap. The nearest two are i) Brindley Drive, immediately at the rear of the library, and ii) at the NIA, just along Cambridge Street (the North, rather than South, carpark is closest). There are plenty of food outlets, inside and nearby outside the library. If approaching via M40/M5, leave the latter at junction 3, and follow signs for the city, then NIA. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 18:01, 16 November 2014 (GMT)
:: I understand that WMUK will be covering travel costs for attendees (as per the announcement on 7 October), so presumably that will also cover car parking? It would make sense to keep costs low by car-sharing where possible, perhaps we could add a section to this page to facilitate this? I'll be driving from Manchester, and would be happy to offer a lift to anyone traveling from the same direction. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 01:02, 18 November 2014 (GMT)

Water cooler

2014-10-07T13:20:27Z

Fæ: /* Volunteer Equipment */ ce

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

== Proposal: Science/STEM Conference ==

This is an idea I have had on the back burner for a long time. Note the following:
* We have [[Expert_outreach|existing relationships with many scientific bodies]] such as the Institute of Physics, Geological Society, Medical Research Council, and many more. However, individual societies are usually unwilling to take the risk of running a big event centred on Wikimedia because, although they have ''some'' interest from their members, they can't be sure that enough [physicists, geologists, psychologists, whatever] will turn up.
* Many scientists are pure researchers working in small research centres: they aren't associated with universities, or at least university teaching. These small research centres or groups can easily be missed in our outreach but they can be very receptive: e.g. [[European_young_researchers_network_Wikipedia_workshop|Sphingonet]]
* Scientists are under professional pressure 1) to engage with the public, 2) to make all the outputs of their research open-access and freely reusable. This is the case much more so now than just a few years ago. This makes them receptive to explanations of how they can achieve this. This has also led to a great expansion of science communicators/ public engagement professionals.
* Scientists are likely to do coding/markup in their daily work. This makes them "low-hanging fruit". It's not that they are more valuable to Wikipedia than arts/humanities experts: in fact I think WP is clearly ''more'' in need of content and expertise in arts/humanities areas. I mean that in the current atmosphere, outreach to scientists is more likely to result in enthusiasm and concrete outcomes.
* We have [[Wikimedia_as_a_public_engagement_tool_for_scientists|documentation]] and [[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Research_impact_and_open_education|workshops]] aimed at scientists and their bosses, explaining how Wikimedia relates to their goals of research impact and public engagement. These materials need continual improvement and wide publicity.
* There are articulate scientist-Wikipedians such as [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/03/wikipedia-and-the-digital-enlightenment/ Peter Murray Rust], [[w:User:Daniel_Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]], [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7325/full/468765c.html Darren Logan, and Alex Bateman] who are great at demonstrating Wikimedia's relevance to scientific practice.
* Wikimania 2014 and other events have shown that Wikimedia has useful friends in the scientific sphere, including the Public Library of Science and the many Open Access/Open Science advocates.
* We have raised a lot of awareness of Wikipedia as a platform for dissemination or for education, but not so much yet about WP as a platform for research itself.
* Wikimedia UK volunteers have run sessions at science conferences but there is just too much overlap between Wikimedia and science to cover in a single session.

I think all these facts suggest that a large conference (aiming at 100 attendees) on Science and Wikipedia would have a lot of impact. The themes of the conference would be:
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as platforms for promoting informed public discussion of scientific topics and theories (acknowledging that the public have a curiosity about all sorts of scientific topics, and overwhelmingly use Wikipedia as a starting point to self-educate).
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for research (e.g. the [[:meta:Research:Index|Research portal]]).
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a model for scientific publishing and citizen science (including Wiki-to-Journal publication, [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ Journal-to-Wiki publication], altmetrics, machine-extraction of data from published research, open bibliographic data, data citation, [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/practice/ crowdsourced enhancement of scholarly databases], integration of Wikipedia with open/free services such as Figshare, ORCID, Flickr...)
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for scientific education. (The answer to "I haven't time to edit Wikipedia." is "Allocate your students to do it and assess them.")
* Women in Science and Technology: is Wikipedia reinforcing stereotypes or providing role models? What is being done?
* Since a lot of the attendees will be personally interested in editing Wikipedia, the event should include training.

I see this as potentially a day or day-and-a-half event, on the model of EduWiki. Much as I advocate for geographic diversity, the scholarly societies and science communicators are so concentrated in London that this event would realistically have to be in London. This means that for it to be financially feasible we'd need a host organisation to provide a cheap venue. It would need about a year's lead time to organise and publicise.

I realise that WMUK's funding makes it hard to plan costly activities in advance, that staff have a lot on their plate and that at this point the suggestion of organising another conference may come like fatty food after a powerful hangover. On the other hand, I think an event like this could be a great success, would continue the partnerships we've already worked to build up, could spawn more editors and more partnerships, and could involve shared effort with other Open Coalition organisations, such as Open Knowledge. Feedback welcome on this suggestion. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:20, 29 August 2014 (BST)
:Sounds like a good idea in principle. Wearing my "Wikipedian-in-Residence at ORCID" hat, I'm in. We should consider whether there are other events to which this could be attached (to save/ share costs), and whether we need a traditional or "unconference" format (or a blend). Does the medical project do anything like this? What about the open access/ open publishing folk? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:36, 29 August 2014 (BST)
::Would be great to have you involved, Andy. Yay for a blend of keynotes/ scheduled sessions/ unconference blocks! That way we have appealing stuff to publicise, but lots of attendees get a chance to speak and people can talk about very new activities. I think medicine on Wikipedia could be a conference itself, but throwing the net wider means a wider potential audience, and STEM is a wide net. A conference like this is probably a necessary step on the way to more specialised conferences, and that's a big reason I'd like us to do it.
::There are relevant conferences where we've previously been represented, like Science Online London and the national public engagement conference, and we've run workshops adjacent to major subject conferences (you may well have done this yourself), but I think the interesting work going on under the above themes has outgrown one subject or one session in a conference. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (BST)
:: Worth noting that the Science Online London (now branded as SPOTON) has gone silent - no word whether there will be a 2014 event so I guess that means there won't. There is certainly a gap waiting to be filled. I would be happy to help out. [[User:fnorman|Frank Norman]]
:::Love the idea of the conference. I have organised and facilitated an unconference as part of a wider conference before, so could do similar for this. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 19:15, 30 August 2014 (BST)
::::I think this is a great idea, thank you for sharing. Wikimedia UK's proposal to the FDC needs to be complete and handed in on 1st October. If we wanted to include something like this in our proposal we would need to get a handle on how much it would cost and where it would fit into our [[Strategic Goals|strategic goals]] - which of course it does. If anyone is keen to start a wiki page for the proposed event where we can thrash out some details, I would be happy to help. We'd need to be fairly quick about it. If there is anything the office can do to help please do let me know. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:24, 1 September 2014 (BST)
I think this is a great idea and would happily help out17:30, 2 September 2014 (BST)[[Special:Contributions/143.65.196.4|143.65.196.4]] <-- this is HenryScow, unfortunately I'm having login probs on WMUK!

Sounds a great idea. There's only so much you can do in a day (or 1.5) though, especially if training is included. Some narrower focus might be a good idea, leaving space for the next year .... [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:27, 4 September 2014 (BST)
:@[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]]: I agree that pursuing each of these themes at length would make the conference too big. The idea is that we invite contributions on these themes and the conference participants decide which to prioritise. Also, the unconference format would mean that there could be sessions that cover a lot of ideas in a short time, eg. lightning talks or round-table discussions. I share the hope that follow-up events would have a different emphasis.
:@[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]]: I want to take up your offer. I'm kind of worn out writing stuff, but I'm clear in my head how this relates to the strategic goals. If we talk over Skype and you ask me some questions, can you write down the details you need?
:@all: So we need to decide quickly if this is actually happening, and it's not happening unless we have a venue we can use freely or very cheaply. That means that we must get a suitable host organisation. The Wellcome Trust/Wellcome Library would be an ideal location, as would the Royal Society, as would the British Library, as would the Science Museum (where we've previously had an AGM). My recollection of the Institute of Physics building is that its rooms are not quite big enough for the conference I envisage, but there are other scholarly societies that have suitable venues and would like to do a jointly badged event with Wikimedia UK. I'm assuming that once we have a venue, WMUK could pay for refreshments, handle bookings and we volunteers can organise programme and publicity. So let's all pump our respective contacts and try to get at least an in-principle agreement. This could be a headline-making event, especially with the right controversial speakers. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 15:02, 6 September 2014 (BST)
:An additional thought: the one-and-a-half-day format assumes people are staying overnight. This will be more difficult in London than in other places. Perhaps it would be better to run the conference for two days, with a late start both days so that people can commute in (e.g. from Cambridge or Oxford) on off-peak trains. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:27, 6 September 2014 (BST)
::Okay, good news everyone: contacts have been pumped and we have a willing host organisation which is absolutely ideal: the Wellcome Trust (who hosted the [[Wellcome_Library_editathon|Medical Humanities editathon]] earlier this year)! Next important task is to decide *dates* for the conference. This would appeal to scientists, academics, science communicators, librarians and of course Wikimedia volunteers- very much the same bunch who would have attended SpotOn. For those based in universities, it's hard to find a convenient slot. May-to-mid-June will be difficult because of exams/marking. Mid-September onwards is the start of term. July is when people are usually away on holiday. The first week of August is out because Wikimedians will be in Mexico for Wikimania. We need to suggest some dates to Wellcome. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:13, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:::Awesome. Great work and great location. I am flexible on date. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:24, 8 September 2014 (BST)
::::@[[User:Yaris678]]: Thanks. I'll be taking you and everybody else up on their offers of help. :) [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)
@all: We now have a planning page for the conference, at [[Wikipedia Science Conference]], so please join in there. As the page develops, I hope we can move some planning stuff to sub-pages. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)

== Automated membership welcomes and renewal process - feedback sought ==

Dear all,

We are now working with a contractor to improve the way our database supports membership applications, approvals and renewals and reminders!

I have created a flowchart to describe what we are currently planning as a process - you can see it [[:File:Draft - membership welcome and reminder process.pdf| here]]. The shapes that are not green represent different email templates that are customised by linking to member details held on each person's database record.

I would love feedback about:

*What stages are missed
*What else might we include in these emails in terms of content
*What problems can you see with this

I will review comments on Friday 12th September so '''please get back to me by then - the talk page for the flow chart would be best or you can email me directly.''' Unfortunately I am on holiday Saturday 6th - Thursday 11th so won't reply on those days but other members of staff will keep an eye out for any requests for info and if I can check in from a French campsite I will :-) [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:33, 3 September 2014 (BST)

== Tweaks to the front page Wordpress template ==

I just did some testing of the WMUK home page. Well done for embedding the Youtube video in a way that doesn't track the users!

A few quite minor things that could be changed in the template:

The "Welcome" top-level heading on the front page is a common error: it suggests to search engines that the word "welcome" is relevant to the content of the site. The heading does nothing at best, or dilutes the relevance of content search terms to the content of the site. Better to have "Wikimedia UK" as the h1 on that page: we want people searching for "Wikimedia UK" to find that page, don't we?

The source code contains <nowiki><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="wikimedia.org.uk » Welcome Comments Feed" href="https://wikimedia.org.uk/wellcome/feed/" /></nowiki> but this is a broken link, as is /welcome/feed/ and /feed/ . I don't think there's any need for this tag at all.

This og:description meta tag includes a sentence fragment: "We can teach you how to ...". The description would be fine without this.

These are minor quibbles but fixing them would help the appearance of the site in search engines. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (BST)

== Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development ==

Hello everyone. Wikimedia UK is considering signing the [http://www.lyondeclaration.org/ Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development]. This is a very common sense document that calls on members of the EU to work to make access to information a priority as it is key to sustainable development and democracy. There is nothing controversial in there and I strongly recommend that we sign. Please do take a look and let me know if you have any serious objections. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:Having had a look at the declaration and other signatories, this looks very much in line with our mission. The list of signatories, with many national libraries and professional bodies, seems to be substantially the sort of organisation we want to work with and show ourselves to be aligned with. No objections from me. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:I would also be happy to recommend supporting the declaration (this is a personal view, and I am here not speaking as chair).--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 20:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)
::I'd support this too [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (BST)

== Padmini Ray Murray steps down as trustee ==

As many in the community may already know, Padmini announced some time ago that she would be stepping down from her role as trustee in order to take up a new position teaching digital humanities at [http://www.srishti.ac.in Srishti] in Bangalore. Her final day as trustee will be Thursday 18th September. On behalf of us all, I'd like to thank her for the work she has done and wish her all the best for the future.

The board hopes to appoint a replacement trustee shortly. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 05:46, 15 September 2014 (BST)
==Volunteer job list==
We are creating a list of [[volunteer jobs]], some online, some at specific locations. Please check if there is anything you are up for, or make some suggestions.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:46, 18 September 2014 (BST)
:This is a really good idea. How to coordinate volunteers has always been an issue that we're not sure about. This is a good step in the right direction... and one that no on can disagree with and that should fit naturally with how Wikimedians work. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== Preparations for EduWiki 2014 ==
[[File:Edinburgh University St-Leonard's Hall 01.JPG|250px|thumbnail|Edinburgh First's St Leonard's Hall - venue for EduWiki Conference 2014]]
Preparations for [[EduWiki Conference 2014]] are now in full swing. The event will take place on Friday 31 October 2014 in Edinburgh. [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=99 Registration is open until Monday 6 October]; the reduced rate for Wikimedians and other concessions is £25. Details about [[EduWiki Conference 2014/Accommodation|accommodation options at and around the conference venue]] have also been released. A limited budget to support scholarships for the conference has been allocated and applications; please contact education{{at}}wikimedia.org.uk by Monday 29 September to apply for a scholarship.

Kindly direct any personal questions or concerns to me. We hope to see many members of the WMUK community at the conference, especially those who live within easy traveling distance from Edinburgh. --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:53, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== An opportunity at the Science Museum Late ==

Wikimedia UK has been in discussion with our friends at the Science Museum regarding taking part in a Science Museum Lates event on Wednesday 26 November. The theme of the event will be The Information Age to celebrate the opening of [http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/exhibitions/information_age.aspx their new gallery on this theme] in October. This gallery is a significant development, the biggest of its kind in the museum for more than a decade. Entry is free and the Late audience is going to be around 5,000 people, most between 18 and 35 and with a roughly equal gender balance.

The discussions are going well and we are now looking for suggestions of the kind of activities we could offer in the Museum during the evening event. If you have any ideas for events or displays - make them ambitious and exciting! - please comment here, or email [mailto:stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk Stevie Benton] or [mailto:roberta.wedge@wikimedia.org.uk me], and we will bring you on board to help make the plans and arrangements. It's also possible we will need some volunteers on the night. If you're keen to be involved, again, please do let us know.

Lates take place in the museum on the last Wednesday of every month. [http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/lates/ September's is about the science of magic and illusion], while October's is about food and drink, so drop in for a flavour (sorry) of how these events work.

So that we have enough time to prepare for November's Information Age Late, please give us your suggestions by the end of September. [[User:Roberta Wedge (WMUK)|Roberta Wedge (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Roberta Wedge (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== ORCID user template ==

{{tl|User ORCID}} is now available, for those of you who have an [[:w:en:ORCID|ORCID]] identifier (and I encourage you to register for one). You can see an example on my user page. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 23:31, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== Volunteer Strategy==
I have just put up the notes from our recent Volunteer Strategy Meeting. Please have a look [[Volunteer Strategy Meeting, September 2014|here]]. Any comments welcome.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:40, 21 September 2014 (BST)
:{{U|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian}}, in the first list it says: [[Volunteer_Strategy_Meeting,_September_2014#Volunteering_Strategy_Conference|First one in late November 2014, second in March 2014]]; should this be March 2015? -- [[User:Marek69|Marek.69]][[user_talk:Marek69|'' talk'']] 18:42, 30 September 2014 (BST)
::Thanks Marek, I have made the correction. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:21, 1 October 2014 (BST)

== Technology Scoping report ==

At the Board meeting on October 4th the trustees will be considering a report from an IT consultant on how the Chapter could develop its support of technical innovation. There are several options in [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Technology_scoping_report,_September_2014_%28draft%29.pdf the document]. The board would be very keen to hear community opinions on the discussion page. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:18, 23 September 2014 (BST)

==Wikidata training==
Wikimedia UK is providing our second Wikidata training day on Saturday 11th October. This will be in the basement of Development House, London, the building where Wikimedia UK offices are located. If you are interested in coming please register [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?id=147&reset=1 here]. We are very lucky to have Magnus Manske lead the session and we are particularly keen to encourage our accredited trainers to attend as we plan to build the capacity to run more sessions up and down the country. Wikidata is an amazing innovation which promises to have an increasingly significant impact both on the way Wikipedia works as well as on the wider Open Data movement. This is a good opportunity to get a clearer understanding of how Wikidata works.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:48, 26 September 2014 (BST)

== Volunteers needed to help pre-screen Wiki Loves Monuments UK entries ==

As you may know, the Wiki Loves Monuments competition closes tonight, and over the next couple of weeks we need to decide on the winning entries. [http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk/ In the UK], we have over 7000 entries, from which we need to select the 500 best for formal judging by the jury.

I'm seeking volunteers to help out with the pre-screening process, which we have to complete within the next two to three weeks.

Can you help us, please?

To help, you’ll need the following:

1. A minimum of few hours free between now and 14th October

2. A good level of ability to distinguish high-quality photography from lower quality (guidelines will be provided)

3. A fast broadband connection for downloading to your local computer several hundred high-resolution images (we’ll tell you how to do it)

4. Suitable software (eg Adobe Lightroom or some other photo-review software) for reviewing the images at full screen size.

You don’t need to be based in the UK to help.

If you can help, please get in touch now! Either reply directly to this posting, or [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Special:EmailUser/MichaelMaggs contact me directly by email].

Many thanks, --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:46, 30 September 2014 (BST)

:I have listed this at [[Volunteer jobs#Help pre-screen Wiki Loves Monuments UK entries]]. Feel free to tweak the listing. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:49, 1 October 2014 (BST)
::Good thought. Thank you. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (BST)

== Wiki hard to reach on mobile ==

On my mobile (HTC Desire HD, Android 2.3.5) there seems to be no way to reach this wiki, from the main page at https://wikimedia.org.uk/ [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:02, 1 October 2014 (BST)
:Hello Andy. I've just taken a look at this. In the top right hand corner there's a menu. Select that and select the "Wiki" button. On the desktop version (and I believe tablet version) there's a green button labelled "Wiki" that is immediately available. Hope this helps. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:41, 2 October 2014 (BST)
::There's no such menu link when viewing on my device (I've just double-checked). [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 12:19, 3 October 2014 (BST)
:::OK, that's interesting. Are you able to send me a screenshot or photo please? I will look into this a bit more deeply. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:52, 3 October 2014 (BST)
::::On its way. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 20:06, 3 October 2014 (BST)
:::::Thank you for the screenshot Andy. I will pass this on and see what I can find out. I'm not around today or tomorrow but will keep you posted. In the meantime, a work around is to go to the URL wikimedia.org.uk/wiki and I'll let you know when I've found a resolution. Speak soon. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:21, 6 October 2014 (BST)

==Volunteer Equipment==
Following the Board Meeting on Saturday 4th October, anyone wishing to use [[volunteer equipment]] will have to be a [[membership|member]] of the charity.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:17, 7 October 2014 (BST)
:Wow. This hard on the heels of the Chapter refusing to allow me to borrow a projector for this month's LGBT editathon and without tracking all attendees of the event on chapter databases. I would like to see a detailed public explanation of why it is necessary and in the interests of open knowledge to only loan equipment purchased to fulfil the shared open knowledge mission of the charity to members, and exclude non-members with active Wikimedia projects on the go who happen to not have membership along with the privilege of voting in chapter elections. Timing would seem to indicate this change has been agreed to ensure I am further excluded from working with the charity that I helped to create, so another "Fae case" change in membership policy.

:By the way, we wrote the policy on volunteer loan equipment to state that "The borrower need not be a member of Wikimedia UK" (which nicely fits our the original values of the charity of not just existing for the benefit of members) and the policy still states this. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:12, 7 October 2014 (BST)

==Friends Newsletter 06==
The latest [[Friends'_Newsletter/2014/Issue_06#Wikidata_goes_from_strength_to_strength|Friends Newsletter 06]] has been posted. Any comments, feedback etc would be welcome on the [[Talk:Friends'_Newsletter/2014/Issue_06|talk page]]. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:21, 7 October 2014 (BST)

Water cooler

2014-10-07T13:17:56Z

Fæ: /* Volunteer Equipment */ c

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

== Proposal: Science/STEM Conference ==

This is an idea I have had on the back burner for a long time. Note the following:
* We have [[Expert_outreach|existing relationships with many scientific bodies]] such as the Institute of Physics, Geological Society, Medical Research Council, and many more. However, individual societies are usually unwilling to take the risk of running a big event centred on Wikimedia because, although they have ''some'' interest from their members, they can't be sure that enough [physicists, geologists, psychologists, whatever] will turn up.
* Many scientists are pure researchers working in small research centres: they aren't associated with universities, or at least university teaching. These small research centres or groups can easily be missed in our outreach but they can be very receptive: e.g. [[European_young_researchers_network_Wikipedia_workshop|Sphingonet]]
* Scientists are under professional pressure 1) to engage with the public, 2) to make all the outputs of their research open-access and freely reusable. This is the case much more so now than just a few years ago. This makes them receptive to explanations of how they can achieve this. This has also led to a great expansion of science communicators/ public engagement professionals.
* Scientists are likely to do coding/markup in their daily work. This makes them "low-hanging fruit". It's not that they are more valuable to Wikipedia than arts/humanities experts: in fact I think WP is clearly ''more'' in need of content and expertise in arts/humanities areas. I mean that in the current atmosphere, outreach to scientists is more likely to result in enthusiasm and concrete outcomes.
* We have [[Wikimedia_as_a_public_engagement_tool_for_scientists|documentation]] and [[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Research_impact_and_open_education|workshops]] aimed at scientists and their bosses, explaining how Wikimedia relates to their goals of research impact and public engagement. These materials need continual improvement and wide publicity.
* There are articulate scientist-Wikipedians such as [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/03/wikipedia-and-the-digital-enlightenment/ Peter Murray Rust], [[w:User:Daniel_Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]], [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7325/full/468765c.html Darren Logan, and Alex Bateman] who are great at demonstrating Wikimedia's relevance to scientific practice.
* Wikimania 2014 and other events have shown that Wikimedia has useful friends in the scientific sphere, including the Public Library of Science and the many Open Access/Open Science advocates.
* We have raised a lot of awareness of Wikipedia as a platform for dissemination or for education, but not so much yet about WP as a platform for research itself.
* Wikimedia UK volunteers have run sessions at science conferences but there is just too much overlap between Wikimedia and science to cover in a single session.

I think all these facts suggest that a large conference (aiming at 100 attendees) on Science and Wikipedia would have a lot of impact. The themes of the conference would be:
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as platforms for promoting informed public discussion of scientific topics and theories (acknowledging that the public have a curiosity about all sorts of scientific topics, and overwhelmingly use Wikipedia as a starting point to self-educate).
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for research (e.g. the [[:meta:Research:Index|Research portal]]).
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a model for scientific publishing and citizen science (including Wiki-to-Journal publication, [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ Journal-to-Wiki publication], altmetrics, machine-extraction of data from published research, open bibliographic data, data citation, [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/practice/ crowdsourced enhancement of scholarly databases], integration of Wikipedia with open/free services such as Figshare, ORCID, Flickr...)
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for scientific education. (The answer to "I haven't time to edit Wikipedia." is "Allocate your students to do it and assess them.")
* Women in Science and Technology: is Wikipedia reinforcing stereotypes or providing role models? What is being done?
* Since a lot of the attendees will be personally interested in editing Wikipedia, the event should include training.

I see this as potentially a day or day-and-a-half event, on the model of EduWiki. Much as I advocate for geographic diversity, the scholarly societies and science communicators are so concentrated in London that this event would realistically have to be in London. This means that for it to be financially feasible we'd need a host organisation to provide a cheap venue. It would need about a year's lead time to organise and publicise.

I realise that WMUK's funding makes it hard to plan costly activities in advance, that staff have a lot on their plate and that at this point the suggestion of organising another conference may come like fatty food after a powerful hangover. On the other hand, I think an event like this could be a great success, would continue the partnerships we've already worked to build up, could spawn more editors and more partnerships, and could involve shared effort with other Open Coalition organisations, such as Open Knowledge. Feedback welcome on this suggestion. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:20, 29 August 2014 (BST)
:Sounds like a good idea in principle. Wearing my "Wikipedian-in-Residence at ORCID" hat, I'm in. We should consider whether there are other events to which this could be attached (to save/ share costs), and whether we need a traditional or "unconference" format (or a blend). Does the medical project do anything like this? What about the open access/ open publishing folk? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:36, 29 August 2014 (BST)
::Would be great to have you involved, Andy. Yay for a blend of keynotes/ scheduled sessions/ unconference blocks! That way we have appealing stuff to publicise, but lots of attendees get a chance to speak and people can talk about very new activities. I think medicine on Wikipedia could be a conference itself, but throwing the net wider means a wider potential audience, and STEM is a wide net. A conference like this is probably a necessary step on the way to more specialised conferences, and that's a big reason I'd like us to do it.
::There are relevant conferences where we've previously been represented, like Science Online London and the national public engagement conference, and we've run workshops adjacent to major subject conferences (you may well have done this yourself), but I think the interesting work going on under the above themes has outgrown one subject or one session in a conference. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (BST)
:: Worth noting that the Science Online London (now branded as SPOTON) has gone silent - no word whether there will be a 2014 event so I guess that means there won't. There is certainly a gap waiting to be filled. I would be happy to help out. [[User:fnorman|Frank Norman]]
:::Love the idea of the conference. I have organised and facilitated an unconference as part of a wider conference before, so could do similar for this. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 19:15, 30 August 2014 (BST)
::::I think this is a great idea, thank you for sharing. Wikimedia UK's proposal to the FDC needs to be complete and handed in on 1st October. If we wanted to include something like this in our proposal we would need to get a handle on how much it would cost and where it would fit into our [[Strategic Goals|strategic goals]] - which of course it does. If anyone is keen to start a wiki page for the proposed event where we can thrash out some details, I would be happy to help. We'd need to be fairly quick about it. If there is anything the office can do to help please do let me know. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:24, 1 September 2014 (BST)
I think this is a great idea and would happily help out17:30, 2 September 2014 (BST)[[Special:Contributions/143.65.196.4|143.65.196.4]] <-- this is HenryScow, unfortunately I'm having login probs on WMUK!

Sounds a great idea. There's only so much you can do in a day (or 1.5) though, especially if training is included. Some narrower focus might be a good idea, leaving space for the next year .... [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:27, 4 September 2014 (BST)
:@[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]]: I agree that pursuing each of these themes at length would make the conference too big. The idea is that we invite contributions on these themes and the conference participants decide which to prioritise. Also, the unconference format would mean that there could be sessions that cover a lot of ideas in a short time, eg. lightning talks or round-table discussions. I share the hope that follow-up events would have a different emphasis.
:@[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]]: I want to take up your offer. I'm kind of worn out writing stuff, but I'm clear in my head how this relates to the strategic goals. If we talk over Skype and you ask me some questions, can you write down the details you need?
:@all: So we need to decide quickly if this is actually happening, and it's not happening unless we have a venue we can use freely or very cheaply. That means that we must get a suitable host organisation. The Wellcome Trust/Wellcome Library would be an ideal location, as would the Royal Society, as would the British Library, as would the Science Museum (where we've previously had an AGM). My recollection of the Institute of Physics building is that its rooms are not quite big enough for the conference I envisage, but there are other scholarly societies that have suitable venues and would like to do a jointly badged event with Wikimedia UK. I'm assuming that once we have a venue, WMUK could pay for refreshments, handle bookings and we volunteers can organise programme and publicity. So let's all pump our respective contacts and try to get at least an in-principle agreement. This could be a headline-making event, especially with the right controversial speakers. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 15:02, 6 September 2014 (BST)
:An additional thought: the one-and-a-half-day format assumes people are staying overnight. This will be more difficult in London than in other places. Perhaps it would be better to run the conference for two days, with a late start both days so that people can commute in (e.g. from Cambridge or Oxford) on off-peak trains. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:27, 6 September 2014 (BST)
::Okay, good news everyone: contacts have been pumped and we have a willing host organisation which is absolutely ideal: the Wellcome Trust (who hosted the [[Wellcome_Library_editathon|Medical Humanities editathon]] earlier this year)! Next important task is to decide *dates* for the conference. This would appeal to scientists, academics, science communicators, librarians and of course Wikimedia volunteers- very much the same bunch who would have attended SpotOn. For those based in universities, it's hard to find a convenient slot. May-to-mid-June will be difficult because of exams/marking. Mid-September onwards is the start of term. July is when people are usually away on holiday. The first week of August is out because Wikimedians will be in Mexico for Wikimania. We need to suggest some dates to Wellcome. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:13, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:::Awesome. Great work and great location. I am flexible on date. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:24, 8 September 2014 (BST)
::::@[[User:Yaris678]]: Thanks. I'll be taking you and everybody else up on their offers of help. :) [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)
@all: We now have a planning page for the conference, at [[Wikipedia Science Conference]], so please join in there. As the page develops, I hope we can move some planning stuff to sub-pages. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)

== Automated membership welcomes and renewal process - feedback sought ==

Dear all,

We are now working with a contractor to improve the way our database supports membership applications, approvals and renewals and reminders!

I have created a flowchart to describe what we are currently planning as a process - you can see it [[:File:Draft - membership welcome and reminder process.pdf| here]]. The shapes that are not green represent different email templates that are customised by linking to member details held on each person's database record.

I would love feedback about:

*What stages are missed
*What else might we include in these emails in terms of content
*What problems can you see with this

I will review comments on Friday 12th September so '''please get back to me by then - the talk page for the flow chart would be best or you can email me directly.''' Unfortunately I am on holiday Saturday 6th - Thursday 11th so won't reply on those days but other members of staff will keep an eye out for any requests for info and if I can check in from a French campsite I will :-) [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:33, 3 September 2014 (BST)

== Tweaks to the front page Wordpress template ==

I just did some testing of the WMUK home page. Well done for embedding the Youtube video in a way that doesn't track the users!

A few quite minor things that could be changed in the template:

The "Welcome" top-level heading on the front page is a common error: it suggests to search engines that the word "welcome" is relevant to the content of the site. The heading does nothing at best, or dilutes the relevance of content search terms to the content of the site. Better to have "Wikimedia UK" as the h1 on that page: we want people searching for "Wikimedia UK" to find that page, don't we?

The source code contains <nowiki><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="wikimedia.org.uk » Welcome Comments Feed" href="https://wikimedia.org.uk/wellcome/feed/" /></nowiki> but this is a broken link, as is /welcome/feed/ and /feed/ . I don't think there's any need for this tag at all.

This og:description meta tag includes a sentence fragment: "We can teach you how to ...". The description would be fine without this.

These are minor quibbles but fixing them would help the appearance of the site in search engines. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (BST)

== Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development ==

Hello everyone. Wikimedia UK is considering signing the [http://www.lyondeclaration.org/ Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development]. This is a very common sense document that calls on members of the EU to work to make access to information a priority as it is key to sustainable development and democracy. There is nothing controversial in there and I strongly recommend that we sign. Please do take a look and let me know if you have any serious objections. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:Having had a look at the declaration and other signatories, this looks very much in line with our mission. The list of signatories, with many national libraries and professional bodies, seems to be substantially the sort of organisation we want to work with and show ourselves to be aligned with. No objections from me. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:I would also be happy to recommend supporting the declaration (this is a personal view, and I am here not speaking as chair).--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 20:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)
::I'd support this too [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (BST)

== Padmini Ray Murray steps down as trustee ==

As many in the community may already know, Padmini announced some time ago that she would be stepping down from her role as trustee in order to take up a new position teaching digital humanities at [http://www.srishti.ac.in Srishti] in Bangalore. Her final day as trustee will be Thursday 18th September. On behalf of us all, I'd like to thank her for the work she has done and wish her all the best for the future.

The board hopes to appoint a replacement trustee shortly. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 05:46, 15 September 2014 (BST)
==Volunteer job list==
We are creating a list of [[volunteer jobs]], some online, some at specific locations. Please check if there is anything you are up for, or make some suggestions.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:46, 18 September 2014 (BST)
:This is a really good idea. How to coordinate volunteers has always been an issue that we're not sure about. This is a good step in the right direction... and one that no on can disagree with and that should fit naturally with how Wikimedians work. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== Preparations for EduWiki 2014 ==
[[File:Edinburgh University St-Leonard's Hall 01.JPG|250px|thumbnail|Edinburgh First's St Leonard's Hall - venue for EduWiki Conference 2014]]
Preparations for [[EduWiki Conference 2014]] are now in full swing. The event will take place on Friday 31 October 2014 in Edinburgh. [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=99 Registration is open until Monday 6 October]; the reduced rate for Wikimedians and other concessions is £25. Details about [[EduWiki Conference 2014/Accommodation|accommodation options at and around the conference venue]] have also been released. A limited budget to support scholarships for the conference has been allocated and applications; please contact education{{at}}wikimedia.org.uk by Monday 29 September to apply for a scholarship.

Kindly direct any personal questions or concerns to me. We hope to see many members of the WMUK community at the conference, especially those who live within easy traveling distance from Edinburgh. --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:53, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== An opportunity at the Science Museum Late ==

Wikimedia UK has been in discussion with our friends at the Science Museum regarding taking part in a Science Museum Lates event on Wednesday 26 November. The theme of the event will be The Information Age to celebrate the opening of [http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/exhibitions/information_age.aspx their new gallery on this theme] in October. This gallery is a significant development, the biggest of its kind in the museum for more than a decade. Entry is free and the Late audience is going to be around 5,000 people, most between 18 and 35 and with a roughly equal gender balance.

The discussions are going well and we are now looking for suggestions of the kind of activities we could offer in the Museum during the evening event. If you have any ideas for events or displays - make them ambitious and exciting! - please comment here, or email [mailto:stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk Stevie Benton] or [mailto:roberta.wedge@wikimedia.org.uk me], and we will bring you on board to help make the plans and arrangements. It's also possible we will need some volunteers on the night. If you're keen to be involved, again, please do let us know.

Lates take place in the museum on the last Wednesday of every month. [http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/lates/ September's is about the science of magic and illusion], while October's is about food and drink, so drop in for a flavour (sorry) of how these events work.

So that we have enough time to prepare for November's Information Age Late, please give us your suggestions by the end of September. [[User:Roberta Wedge (WMUK)|Roberta Wedge (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Roberta Wedge (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== ORCID user template ==

{{tl|User ORCID}} is now available, for those of you who have an [[:w:en:ORCID|ORCID]] identifier (and I encourage you to register for one). You can see an example on my user page. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 23:31, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== Volunteer Strategy==
I have just put up the notes from our recent Volunteer Strategy Meeting. Please have a look [[Volunteer Strategy Meeting, September 2014|here]]. Any comments welcome.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:40, 21 September 2014 (BST)
:{{U|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian}}, in the first list it says: [[Volunteer_Strategy_Meeting,_September_2014#Volunteering_Strategy_Conference|First one in late November 2014, second in March 2014]]; should this be March 2015? -- [[User:Marek69|Marek.69]][[user_talk:Marek69|'' talk'']] 18:42, 30 September 2014 (BST)
::Thanks Marek, I have made the correction. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:21, 1 October 2014 (BST)

== Technology Scoping report ==

At the Board meeting on October 4th the trustees will be considering a report from an IT consultant on how the Chapter could develop its support of technical innovation. There are several options in [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Technology_scoping_report,_September_2014_%28draft%29.pdf the document]. The board would be very keen to hear community opinions on the discussion page. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:18, 23 September 2014 (BST)

==Wikidata training==
Wikimedia UK is providing our second Wikidata training day on Saturday 11th October. This will be in the basement of Development House, London, the building where Wikimedia UK offices are located. If you are interested in coming please register [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?id=147&reset=1 here]. We are very lucky to have Magnus Manske lead the session and we are particularly keen to encourage our accredited trainers to attend as we plan to build the capacity to run more sessions up and down the country. Wikidata is an amazing innovation which promises to have an increasingly significant impact both on the way Wikipedia works as well as on the wider Open Data movement. This is a good opportunity to get a clearer understanding of how Wikidata works.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:48, 26 September 2014 (BST)

== Volunteers needed to help pre-screen Wiki Loves Monuments UK entries ==

As you may know, the Wiki Loves Monuments competition closes tonight, and over the next couple of weeks we need to decide on the winning entries. [http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk/ In the UK], we have over 7000 entries, from which we need to select the 500 best for formal judging by the jury.

I'm seeking volunteers to help out with the pre-screening process, which we have to complete within the next two to three weeks.

Can you help us, please?

To help, you’ll need the following:

1. A minimum of few hours free between now and 14th October

2. A good level of ability to distinguish high-quality photography from lower quality (guidelines will be provided)

3. A fast broadband connection for downloading to your local computer several hundred high-resolution images (we’ll tell you how to do it)

4. Suitable software (eg Adobe Lightroom or some other photo-review software) for reviewing the images at full screen size.

You don’t need to be based in the UK to help.

If you can help, please get in touch now! Either reply directly to this posting, or [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Special:EmailUser/MichaelMaggs contact me directly by email].

Many thanks, --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:46, 30 September 2014 (BST)

:I have listed this at [[Volunteer jobs#Help pre-screen Wiki Loves Monuments UK entries]]. Feel free to tweak the listing. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:49, 1 October 2014 (BST)
::Good thought. Thank you. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (BST)

== Wiki hard to reach on mobile ==

On my mobile (HTC Desire HD, Android 2.3.5) there seems to be no way to reach this wiki, from the main page at https://wikimedia.org.uk/ [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:02, 1 October 2014 (BST)
:Hello Andy. I've just taken a look at this. In the top right hand corner there's a menu. Select that and select the "Wiki" button. On the desktop version (and I believe tablet version) there's a green button labelled "Wiki" that is immediately available. Hope this helps. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:41, 2 October 2014 (BST)
::There's no such menu link when viewing on my device (I've just double-checked). [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 12:19, 3 October 2014 (BST)
:::OK, that's interesting. Are you able to send me a screenshot or photo please? I will look into this a bit more deeply. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:52, 3 October 2014 (BST)
::::On its way. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 20:06, 3 October 2014 (BST)
:::::Thank you for the screenshot Andy. I will pass this on and see what I can find out. I'm not around today or tomorrow but will keep you posted. In the meantime, a work around is to go to the URL wikimedia.org.uk/wiki and I'll let you know when I've found a resolution. Speak soon. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:21, 6 October 2014 (BST)

==Volunteer Equipment==
Following the Board Meeting on Saturday 4th October, anyone wishing to use [[volunteer equipment]] will have to be a [[membership|member]] of the charity.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:17, 7 October 2014 (BST)
:Wow. This hard on the heels of the Chapter refusing to allow me to borrow a projector for this month's LGBT editathon and without tracking all attendees of the event on chapter databases. I would like to see a public explanation than this of why it is in the interests of open knowledge to only loan equipment purchased to fulfil the shared open knowledge mission of the charity to members, and exclude non-members with active Wikimedia projects on the go who happen to not have membership along with the privilege of voting in chapter elections.

:By the way, we wrote the policy on volunteer loan equipment to state that "The borrower need not be a member of Wikimedia UK" (which nicely fits our the original values of the charity of not just existing for the benefit of members) and the policy still states this. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:12, 7 October 2014 (BST)

==Friends Newsletter 06==
The latest [[Friends'_Newsletter/2014/Issue_06#Wikidata_goes_from_strength_to_strength|Friends Newsletter 06]] has been posted. Any comments, feedback etc would be welcome on the [[Talk:Friends'_Newsletter/2014/Issue_06|talk page]]. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:21, 7 October 2014 (BST)

Water cooler

2014-10-07T13:12:03Z

Fæ: /* Volunteer Equipment */ c

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

== Proposal: Science/STEM Conference ==

This is an idea I have had on the back burner for a long time. Note the following:
* We have [[Expert_outreach|existing relationships with many scientific bodies]] such as the Institute of Physics, Geological Society, Medical Research Council, and many more. However, individual societies are usually unwilling to take the risk of running a big event centred on Wikimedia because, although they have ''some'' interest from their members, they can't be sure that enough [physicists, geologists, psychologists, whatever] will turn up.
* Many scientists are pure researchers working in small research centres: they aren't associated with universities, or at least university teaching. These small research centres or groups can easily be missed in our outreach but they can be very receptive: e.g. [[European_young_researchers_network_Wikipedia_workshop|Sphingonet]]
* Scientists are under professional pressure 1) to engage with the public, 2) to make all the outputs of their research open-access and freely reusable. This is the case much more so now than just a few years ago. This makes them receptive to explanations of how they can achieve this. This has also led to a great expansion of science communicators/ public engagement professionals.
* Scientists are likely to do coding/markup in their daily work. This makes them "low-hanging fruit". It's not that they are more valuable to Wikipedia than arts/humanities experts: in fact I think WP is clearly ''more'' in need of content and expertise in arts/humanities areas. I mean that in the current atmosphere, outreach to scientists is more likely to result in enthusiasm and concrete outcomes.
* We have [[Wikimedia_as_a_public_engagement_tool_for_scientists|documentation]] and [[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Research_impact_and_open_education|workshops]] aimed at scientists and their bosses, explaining how Wikimedia relates to their goals of research impact and public engagement. These materials need continual improvement and wide publicity.
* There are articulate scientist-Wikipedians such as [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/03/wikipedia-and-the-digital-enlightenment/ Peter Murray Rust], [[w:User:Daniel_Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]], [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7325/full/468765c.html Darren Logan, and Alex Bateman] who are great at demonstrating Wikimedia's relevance to scientific practice.
* Wikimania 2014 and other events have shown that Wikimedia has useful friends in the scientific sphere, including the Public Library of Science and the many Open Access/Open Science advocates.
* We have raised a lot of awareness of Wikipedia as a platform for dissemination or for education, but not so much yet about WP as a platform for research itself.
* Wikimedia UK volunteers have run sessions at science conferences but there is just too much overlap between Wikimedia and science to cover in a single session.

I think all these facts suggest that a large conference (aiming at 100 attendees) on Science and Wikipedia would have a lot of impact. The themes of the conference would be:
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as platforms for promoting informed public discussion of scientific topics and theories (acknowledging that the public have a curiosity about all sorts of scientific topics, and overwhelmingly use Wikipedia as a starting point to self-educate).
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for research (e.g. the [[:meta:Research:Index|Research portal]]).
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a model for scientific publishing and citizen science (including Wiki-to-Journal publication, [http://wikiambassador.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/03/28/publishing-scholarly-wikipedia/ Journal-to-Wiki publication], altmetrics, machine-extraction of data from published research, open bibliographic data, data citation, [http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/crowdsourcing/practice/ crowdsourced enhancement of scholarly databases], integration of Wikipedia with open/free services such as Figshare, ORCID, Flickr...)
* Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for scientific education. (The answer to "I haven't time to edit Wikipedia." is "Allocate your students to do it and assess them.")
* Women in Science and Technology: is Wikipedia reinforcing stereotypes or providing role models? What is being done?
* Since a lot of the attendees will be personally interested in editing Wikipedia, the event should include training.

I see this as potentially a day or day-and-a-half event, on the model of EduWiki. Much as I advocate for geographic diversity, the scholarly societies and science communicators are so concentrated in London that this event would realistically have to be in London. This means that for it to be financially feasible we'd need a host organisation to provide a cheap venue. It would need about a year's lead time to organise and publicise.

I realise that WMUK's funding makes it hard to plan costly activities in advance, that staff have a lot on their plate and that at this point the suggestion of organising another conference may come like fatty food after a powerful hangover. On the other hand, I think an event like this could be a great success, would continue the partnerships we've already worked to build up, could spawn more editors and more partnerships, and could involve shared effort with other Open Coalition organisations, such as Open Knowledge. Feedback welcome on this suggestion. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:20, 29 August 2014 (BST)
:Sounds like a good idea in principle. Wearing my "Wikipedian-in-Residence at ORCID" hat, I'm in. We should consider whether there are other events to which this could be attached (to save/ share costs), and whether we need a traditional or "unconference" format (or a blend). Does the medical project do anything like this? What about the open access/ open publishing folk? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:36, 29 August 2014 (BST)
::Would be great to have you involved, Andy. Yay for a blend of keynotes/ scheduled sessions/ unconference blocks! That way we have appealing stuff to publicise, but lots of attendees get a chance to speak and people can talk about very new activities. I think medicine on Wikipedia could be a conference itself, but throwing the net wider means a wider potential audience, and STEM is a wide net. A conference like this is probably a necessary step on the way to more specialised conferences, and that's a big reason I'd like us to do it.
::There are relevant conferences where we've previously been represented, like Science Online London and the national public engagement conference, and we've run workshops adjacent to major subject conferences (you may well have done this yourself), but I think the interesting work going on under the above themes has outgrown one subject or one session in a conference. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (BST)
:: Worth noting that the Science Online London (now branded as SPOTON) has gone silent - no word whether there will be a 2014 event so I guess that means there won't. There is certainly a gap waiting to be filled. I would be happy to help out. [[User:fnorman|Frank Norman]]
:::Love the idea of the conference. I have organised and facilitated an unconference as part of a wider conference before, so could do similar for this. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 19:15, 30 August 2014 (BST)
::::I think this is a great idea, thank you for sharing. Wikimedia UK's proposal to the FDC needs to be complete and handed in on 1st October. If we wanted to include something like this in our proposal we would need to get a handle on how much it would cost and where it would fit into our [[Strategic Goals|strategic goals]] - which of course it does. If anyone is keen to start a wiki page for the proposed event where we can thrash out some details, I would be happy to help. We'd need to be fairly quick about it. If there is anything the office can do to help please do let me know. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:24, 1 September 2014 (BST)
I think this is a great idea and would happily help out17:30, 2 September 2014 (BST)[[Special:Contributions/143.65.196.4|143.65.196.4]] <-- this is HenryScow, unfortunately I'm having login probs on WMUK!

Sounds a great idea. There's only so much you can do in a day (or 1.5) though, especially if training is included. Some narrower focus might be a good idea, leaving space for the next year .... [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:27, 4 September 2014 (BST)
:@[[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]]: I agree that pursuing each of these themes at length would make the conference too big. The idea is that we invite contributions on these themes and the conference participants decide which to prioritise. Also, the unconference format would mean that there could be sessions that cover a lot of ideas in a short time, eg. lightning talks or round-table discussions. I share the hope that follow-up events would have a different emphasis.
:@[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]]: I want to take up your offer. I'm kind of worn out writing stuff, but I'm clear in my head how this relates to the strategic goals. If we talk over Skype and you ask me some questions, can you write down the details you need?
:@all: So we need to decide quickly if this is actually happening, and it's not happening unless we have a venue we can use freely or very cheaply. That means that we must get a suitable host organisation. The Wellcome Trust/Wellcome Library would be an ideal location, as would the Royal Society, as would the British Library, as would the Science Museum (where we've previously had an AGM). My recollection of the Institute of Physics building is that its rooms are not quite big enough for the conference I envisage, but there are other scholarly societies that have suitable venues and would like to do a jointly badged event with Wikimedia UK. I'm assuming that once we have a venue, WMUK could pay for refreshments, handle bookings and we volunteers can organise programme and publicity. So let's all pump our respective contacts and try to get at least an in-principle agreement. This could be a headline-making event, especially with the right controversial speakers. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 15:02, 6 September 2014 (BST)
:An additional thought: the one-and-a-half-day format assumes people are staying overnight. This will be more difficult in London than in other places. Perhaps it would be better to run the conference for two days, with a late start both days so that people can commute in (e.g. from Cambridge or Oxford) on off-peak trains. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:27, 6 September 2014 (BST)
::Okay, good news everyone: contacts have been pumped and we have a willing host organisation which is absolutely ideal: the Wellcome Trust (who hosted the [[Wellcome_Library_editathon|Medical Humanities editathon]] earlier this year)! Next important task is to decide *dates* for the conference. This would appeal to scientists, academics, science communicators, librarians and of course Wikimedia volunteers- very much the same bunch who would have attended SpotOn. For those based in universities, it's hard to find a convenient slot. May-to-mid-June will be difficult because of exams/marking. Mid-September onwards is the start of term. July is when people are usually away on holiday. The first week of August is out because Wikimedians will be in Mexico for Wikimania. We need to suggest some dates to Wellcome. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:13, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:::Awesome. Great work and great location. I am flexible on date. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:24, 8 September 2014 (BST)
::::@[[User:Yaris678]]: Thanks. I'll be taking you and everybody else up on their offers of help. :) [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)
@all: We now have a planning page for the conference, at [[Wikipedia Science Conference]], so please join in there. As the page develops, I hope we can move some planning stuff to sub-pages. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)

== Automated membership welcomes and renewal process - feedback sought ==

Dear all,

We are now working with a contractor to improve the way our database supports membership applications, approvals and renewals and reminders!

I have created a flowchart to describe what we are currently planning as a process - you can see it [[:File:Draft - membership welcome and reminder process.pdf| here]]. The shapes that are not green represent different email templates that are customised by linking to member details held on each person's database record.

I would love feedback about:

*What stages are missed
*What else might we include in these emails in terms of content
*What problems can you see with this

I will review comments on Friday 12th September so '''please get back to me by then - the talk page for the flow chart would be best or you can email me directly.''' Unfortunately I am on holiday Saturday 6th - Thursday 11th so won't reply on those days but other members of staff will keep an eye out for any requests for info and if I can check in from a French campsite I will :-) [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:33, 3 September 2014 (BST)

== Tweaks to the front page Wordpress template ==

I just did some testing of the WMUK home page. Well done for embedding the Youtube video in a way that doesn't track the users!

A few quite minor things that could be changed in the template:

The "Welcome" top-level heading on the front page is a common error: it suggests to search engines that the word "welcome" is relevant to the content of the site. The heading does nothing at best, or dilutes the relevance of content search terms to the content of the site. Better to have "Wikimedia UK" as the h1 on that page: we want people searching for "Wikimedia UK" to find that page, don't we?

The source code contains <nowiki><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="wikimedia.org.uk » Welcome Comments Feed" href="https://wikimedia.org.uk/wellcome/feed/" /></nowiki> but this is a broken link, as is /welcome/feed/ and /feed/ . I don't think there's any need for this tag at all.

This og:description meta tag includes a sentence fragment: "We can teach you how to ...". The description would be fine without this.

These are minor quibbles but fixing them would help the appearance of the site in search engines. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (BST)

== Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development ==

Hello everyone. Wikimedia UK is considering signing the [http://www.lyondeclaration.org/ Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development]. This is a very common sense document that calls on members of the EU to work to make access to information a priority as it is key to sustainable development and democracy. There is nothing controversial in there and I strongly recommend that we sign. Please do take a look and let me know if you have any serious objections. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:Having had a look at the declaration and other signatories, this looks very much in line with our mission. The list of signatories, with many national libraries and professional bodies, seems to be substantially the sort of organisation we want to work with and show ourselves to be aligned with. No objections from me. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (BST)
:I would also be happy to recommend supporting the declaration (this is a personal view, and I am here not speaking as chair).--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 20:10, 8 September 2014 (BST)
::I'd support this too [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (BST)

== Padmini Ray Murray steps down as trustee ==

As many in the community may already know, Padmini announced some time ago that she would be stepping down from her role as trustee in order to take up a new position teaching digital humanities at [http://www.srishti.ac.in Srishti] in Bangalore. Her final day as trustee will be Thursday 18th September. On behalf of us all, I'd like to thank her for the work she has done and wish her all the best for the future.

The board hopes to appoint a replacement trustee shortly. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 05:46, 15 September 2014 (BST)
==Volunteer job list==
We are creating a list of [[volunteer jobs]], some online, some at specific locations. Please check if there is anything you are up for, or make some suggestions.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:46, 18 September 2014 (BST)
:This is a really good idea. How to coordinate volunteers has always been an issue that we're not sure about. This is a good step in the right direction... and one that no on can disagree with and that should fit naturally with how Wikimedians work. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== Preparations for EduWiki 2014 ==
[[File:Edinburgh University St-Leonard's Hall 01.JPG|250px|thumbnail|Edinburgh First's St Leonard's Hall - venue for EduWiki Conference 2014]]
Preparations for [[EduWiki Conference 2014]] are now in full swing. The event will take place on Friday 31 October 2014 in Edinburgh. [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=99 Registration is open until Monday 6 October]; the reduced rate for Wikimedians and other concessions is £25. Details about [[EduWiki Conference 2014/Accommodation|accommodation options at and around the conference venue]] have also been released. A limited budget to support scholarships for the conference has been allocated and applications; please contact education{{at}}wikimedia.org.uk by Monday 29 September to apply for a scholarship.

Kindly direct any personal questions or concerns to me. We hope to see many members of the WMUK community at the conference, especially those who live within easy traveling distance from Edinburgh. --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:53, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== An opportunity at the Science Museum Late ==

Wikimedia UK has been in discussion with our friends at the Science Museum regarding taking part in a Science Museum Lates event on Wednesday 26 November. The theme of the event will be The Information Age to celebrate the opening of [http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/exhibitions/information_age.aspx their new gallery on this theme] in October. This gallery is a significant development, the biggest of its kind in the museum for more than a decade. Entry is free and the Late audience is going to be around 5,000 people, most between 18 and 35 and with a roughly equal gender balance.

The discussions are going well and we are now looking for suggestions of the kind of activities we could offer in the Museum during the evening event. If you have any ideas for events or displays - make them ambitious and exciting! - please comment here, or email [mailto:stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk Stevie Benton] or [mailto:roberta.wedge@wikimedia.org.uk me], and we will bring you on board to help make the plans and arrangements. It's also possible we will need some volunteers on the night. If you're keen to be involved, again, please do let us know.

Lates take place in the museum on the last Wednesday of every month. [http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/lates/ September's is about the science of magic and illusion], while October's is about food and drink, so drop in for a flavour (sorry) of how these events work.

So that we have enough time to prepare for November's Information Age Late, please give us your suggestions by the end of September. [[User:Roberta Wedge (WMUK)|Roberta Wedge (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Roberta Wedge (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== ORCID user template ==

{{tl|User ORCID}} is now available, for those of you who have an [[:w:en:ORCID|ORCID]] identifier (and I encourage you to register for one). You can see an example on my user page. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 23:31, 19 September 2014 (BST)

== Volunteer Strategy==
I have just put up the notes from our recent Volunteer Strategy Meeting. Please have a look [[Volunteer Strategy Meeting, September 2014|here]]. Any comments welcome.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:40, 21 September 2014 (BST)
:{{U|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian}}, in the first list it says: [[Volunteer_Strategy_Meeting,_September_2014#Volunteering_Strategy_Conference|First one in late November 2014, second in March 2014]]; should this be March 2015? -- [[User:Marek69|Marek.69]][[user_talk:Marek69|'' talk'']] 18:42, 30 September 2014 (BST)
::Thanks Marek, I have made the correction. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:21, 1 October 2014 (BST)

== Technology Scoping report ==

At the Board meeting on October 4th the trustees will be considering a report from an IT consultant on how the Chapter could develop its support of technical innovation. There are several options in [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Technology_scoping_report,_September_2014_%28draft%29.pdf the document]. The board would be very keen to hear community opinions on the discussion page. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:18, 23 September 2014 (BST)

==Wikidata training==
Wikimedia UK is providing our second Wikidata training day on Saturday 11th October. This will be in the basement of Development House, London, the building where Wikimedia UK offices are located. If you are interested in coming please register [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?id=147&reset=1 here]. We are very lucky to have Magnus Manske lead the session and we are particularly keen to encourage our accredited trainers to attend as we plan to build the capacity to run more sessions up and down the country. Wikidata is an amazing innovation which promises to have an increasingly significant impact both on the way Wikipedia works as well as on the wider Open Data movement. This is a good opportunity to get a clearer understanding of how Wikidata works.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:48, 26 September 2014 (BST)

== Volunteers needed to help pre-screen Wiki Loves Monuments UK entries ==

As you may know, the Wiki Loves Monuments competition closes tonight, and over the next couple of weeks we need to decide on the winning entries. [http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk/ In the UK], we have over 7000 entries, from which we need to select the 500 best for formal judging by the jury.

I'm seeking volunteers to help out with the pre-screening process, which we have to complete within the next two to three weeks.

Can you help us, please?

To help, you’ll need the following:

1. A minimum of few hours free between now and 14th October

2. A good level of ability to distinguish high-quality photography from lower quality (guidelines will be provided)

3. A fast broadband connection for downloading to your local computer several hundred high-resolution images (we’ll tell you how to do it)

4. Suitable software (eg Adobe Lightroom or some other photo-review software) for reviewing the images at full screen size.

You don’t need to be based in the UK to help.

If you can help, please get in touch now! Either reply directly to this posting, or [https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Special:EmailUser/MichaelMaggs contact me directly by email].

Many thanks, --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:46, 30 September 2014 (BST)

:I have listed this at [[Volunteer jobs#Help pre-screen Wiki Loves Monuments UK entries]]. Feel free to tweak the listing. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:49, 1 October 2014 (BST)
::Good thought. Thank you. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (BST)

== Wiki hard to reach on mobile ==

On my mobile (HTC Desire HD, Android 2.3.5) there seems to be no way to reach this wiki, from the main page at https://wikimedia.org.uk/ [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:02, 1 October 2014 (BST)
:Hello Andy. I've just taken a look at this. In the top right hand corner there's a menu. Select that and select the "Wiki" button. On the desktop version (and I believe tablet version) there's a green button labelled "Wiki" that is immediately available. Hope this helps. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:41, 2 October 2014 (BST)
::There's no such menu link when viewing on my device (I've just double-checked). [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 12:19, 3 October 2014 (BST)
:::OK, that's interesting. Are you able to send me a screenshot or photo please? I will look into this a bit more deeply. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:52, 3 October 2014 (BST)
::::On its way. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 20:06, 3 October 2014 (BST)
:::::Thank you for the screenshot Andy. I will pass this on and see what I can find out. I'm not around today or tomorrow but will keep you posted. In the meantime, a work around is to go to the URL wikimedia.org.uk/wiki and I'll let you know when I've found a resolution. Speak soon. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:21, 6 October 2014 (BST)

==Volunteer Equipment==
Following the Board Meeting on Saturday 4th October, anyone wishing to use [[volunteer equipment]] will have to be a [[membership|member]] of the charity.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:17, 7 October 2014 (BST)
:Wow. This hard on the heels of the Chapter refusing to allow me to borrow a projector for this month's LGBT editathon and without tracking all attendees of the event on chapter databases. I would like to see a public explanation than this of why it is in the interests of open knowledge to only loan equipment purchased to fulfil the shared open knowledge mission of the charity to members, and exclude non-members with active Wikimedia projects on the go who happen to not have membership along with the privilege of voting in chapter elections. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:12, 7 October 2014 (BST)

==Friends Newsletter 06==
The latest [[Friends'_Newsletter/2014/Issue_06#Wikidata_goes_from_strength_to_strength|Friends Newsletter 06]] has been posted. Any comments, feedback etc would be welcome on the [[Talk:Friends'_Newsletter/2014/Issue_06|talk page]]. [[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:21, 7 October 2014 (BST)

Engine room

2014-09-19T15:55:28Z

Fæ: /* Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget? */ thanks

Engine room

2014-09-19T11:32:19Z

Fæ: /* Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget? */ c

Events

2014-09-09T14:43:48Z

Fæ: /* October */ +1

{{Meetings}}
{| style="margin-bottom: .5em; float: right; padding: .5em 0 .8em 1.4em; background: none; width: auto;" class="toclimit-2" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
| __TOC__
|}

The events in the list below may be of interest to Wikimedia UK volunteers and members. The list includes events run by or related to the charity, as well as unconnected Wikimedia or Open Knowledge events that may be of interest, especially within the UK. You can expect to find Wikimedia UK volunteers at most of these.

If you know of an upcoming event that is not listed, please add it below.

* [http://h2vx.com/ics/wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Events Download the events on this page in iCal format].
* URL to subscribe to an iCal of events on this page: '''webcal://h2vx.com/ics/wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Events'''

Other Wikimedia events lists include:
* [[outreachwiki:Template:Activities|Chapters Activity Calendar]]
* [[meta:Events|Events listed on Meta]]
* [[:wikipedia:Wikipedia:Meetup|Wikipedia meetups]]
* For events before 2014, see [[/Archive|our events archive]]

=Current and future events=

====September====
* {{event inline|2014|09|01|end=30|[http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk/ Wiki Loves Monuments]}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|1|[[DRHA Conference 2014]] - Wiki Workshop for Researchers in Humanities & Arts at Greenwich University}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|4|[[TaPRA Conference 2014]] - Wikipedia Editing Workshop at Royal Holloway, University of London}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|11|[[IT Development/Technology committee meetings/Agenda 11 September 2014|Tech Com]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|12|[[Anna Kavan Edit-a-thon|Who Are You ? Anna Kavan Edit-a-thon]] - Wiki Workshop at Wikimedia UK, London}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|12|[[wmukcivi:civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=115|Campus Ambassadors Workshop]] at University College London}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|13|[http://www.icg.port.ac.uk/events/event/zoocon-portsmouth/ Zoocon Portsmouth], including a wikiathon.}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|14|[[:m:Meetup/London/85|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|20|[[:m:Meetup/Cambridge/23|Cambridge meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|20|[[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Judges' Lodgings/event|Judges' Lodgings tour and editathon]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|21|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/20|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|23|[[:wmukcivi:civicrm/event/info?id=116&reset=1|Editathon at Institute of Classical Studies "Women in Classicism" (London)]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|27|[[:m:Meetup/Manchester/25|Manchester meetup]]}}

====October====
* {{event inline|2014|10|01|[[GLAM Committee Agenda 2014-10-01|GLAM Committee meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|11| [[Cinema_Museum_Back_Stage_Pass|Back Stage Pass to the Cinema Museum, London]].}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|11|end=12|AdaCamp Berlin}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|12|[[:m:Meetup/London/86|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|14|[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford/AdaLovelaceDay2014|Ada Lovelace day 2014 in Oxford]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|18|[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Editathons/Bishopsgate_Library,_London|LGBT editathon, Bishopsgate Library, London]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|19|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/21|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|25|[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Ballet/October 2014 editathon|Editathon at the Royal Opera House, London]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|31|[[EduWiki Conference 2014]]}} in Edinburgh

====November====
* {{event inline|2014|11|01|end=02|[[Training the Trainers/November 2014 event|Training the Trainers/November 2014 event - Edinburgh]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|11|09|[[:m:Meetup/London/87|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|11|22|[[:en:Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Senate_House_Library_Nov_2014|WW1 editathon at Senate House Library "WW1 and Dissent" (London)]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|11|22|[[:en:Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Library of Birmingham Nov 2014|WW1 editathon at Library of Birmingham "WW1 and Dissent" (B'ham)]]}}

====December====
====January 2015====
* {{event inline|2015|01|26|[[:en:Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/BFI editathon January 2015|Editathon for users of the BFI library.]]}}

= Past events in 2014 =
==== August ====
* {{event inline|2014|08|04|end=05|Train the Trainers International}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|06|end=07|[http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference Wikimania Education Pre-conference]}}
* '''<big>{{event inline|2014|08|06|end=10|[http://www.wikimanialondon.org/ Wikimania London 2014]}}</big>
* {{event inline|2014|08|07|[[:meta:Boards training workshop August 2014|Boards training workshop]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|07|[https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pre-Conference:_Medical_Wikipedians Medical Wikipedians at Cancer Research UK]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|09|[[2014 Annual General Meeting|Annual General Meeting]] @ The Barbican}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|12|[[ZSL London Zoo Library editathon 12 August 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|14|[[World_Science_Fiction_Convention|Learn to edit workshop at Loncon 3]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|16|[[World_Science_Fiction_Convention|"How Wikipedia Works" session at Loncon 3]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|17|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/19|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|23|[[:m:Meetup/Liverpool/13|Liverpool meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|27|end=29|[http://www.opensym.org/ OpenSym 2014]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|31|[[m:Meetup/Portsmouth/2|Portsmouth meetup]]}}

====July====
* {{event inline|2014|07|01|HJM running [[training session for Physiology Conference 2014]], London}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|01|Marc Haynes from Coleg Cymraeg presenting a JISC webinar}} [http://jiscevents.force.com/E/EventsDetailPage?id=a06U000000IJUpXIAX&srvc=JISC%20RSC%20Wales]
* {{event inline|2014|07|05|[[Media_training_for_volunteers_-_background/July_2014_session|Media training for volunteers]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|05|end=06|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Open Data Hack|Open Data Hack, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|07|[[Wiki Workshop for Geographers]] at RGS in London}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|07|Jonathan Cardy speaking to London Skeptics}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|13|[[:m:Meetup/London/83|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|15|end=17|[http://2014.okfestival.org/ OKFestival 2014]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|15|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|19|end=20|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Open Scholarship Hack|Open Scholarship Hack, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|20|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/18|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|23|[[:en:Wikipedia:Meetup/London/Editathon at Conway Hall, Rationality and Skepticism on the Internet|Editathon at Conway Hall, Rationality and Skepticism on the Internet]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|25|[[SHE MUST BE WIKI: Feminist Film Wiki-a-thon]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|26|[[:m:Meetup/Manchester/24|Manchester meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|26|[[:m:Meetup/Glasgow/4|Glasgow meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|30|[[GLAM Committee Agenda 2014-07-30|GLAM Committee meeting]]}}

====June====

* {{event inline|2014|06|06|[[Working with Wikimedia workshop, Edinburgh]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|07|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Royal_Society/Neuroscience_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_at_the_Royal_Society,_June_2014 Royal Society Neuroscience Editathon]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|07|end=08|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Free Culture Hack|Free Culture Hack, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|08|[[:m:Meetup/London/82|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|08|[[:m:Meetup/Edinburgh 6|Edinburgh meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|12|[[:en:Wikipedia:Barclays edit-a-thon|Barclays edit-a-thon]]}}
* <s>{{event inline|2014|06|12|end=14|[[:meta:Datafest Scotland 2014|Datafest Scotland 2014]], University of Glasgow}}</s> '''postponed'''
* {{event inline|2014|06|14|[[:m:Meetup/Leeds/3|Leeds meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|15|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/17|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|16-17|Brian Kelly facilitating an Open Knowledge session at [http://www.cetis.ac.uk/2014-cetis-conference/ Cetis Conference 2014]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|16-18|[[6th_International_Integrity_and_Plagiarism_Conference|Toni Sant delivering keynote at 6th International Integrity & Plagiarism Conference]]}}.
* {{event inline|2014|06|17|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|19|[[Communications and Public Engagement workshop - Wikipedia]], London}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|21|[[:m:Meetup/Liverpool/12|Liverpool meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|21|end=22|[[Future of Education Workshop|Future of Education Workshop, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|21|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2014-June/012353.html Authoring King's Cross] at Central St. Martin's}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|23|Ally Crockford speaking at the Library Science Talks 2014 at [http://bit.ly/XCwzaE CERN] }}
* {{event inline|2014|06|23|[[Royal Academy of Engineering workshop]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|23|[[Southampton Solent University editathon June 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|28|[[Train the Trainers refresher 2014|Train the Trainers refresher]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|29|[[:m:Meetup/Portsmouth/1|Portsmouth meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|29|[[WLM 2014 planning meeting|Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2014 planning meeting]]}}

====May====
* {{event inline|2014|05|01|[[Education Committee/Education Committee meeting 21 April 2014|Education Committee meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|06|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|06|<s>[[Women in Physics event at the Institute of Physics May 2014]]</s>}} postponed - tube strike
* {{event inline|2014|05|07|<s>[[Wikipedia editathon at Conway Hall - 6pm 7th May 2014]]</s>}} postponed - tube strike
* {{event inline|2014|05|09|end=11|[[:mw:Zürich Hackathon 2014|Zürich Hackathon 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|10|[[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Queen Street Mill Museum/event 2|Queen Street Mill Museum editathon, Burnley]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|11|[[:m:Meetup/London/81|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|13|[[Women in Science Wikipedia edit-a-thon 13 May 2014 - University of Liverpool]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|15|Brian Kelly presenting about [http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/cilip-wales-2014-editing-wikipedia/ Editing Wikipedia] at the [http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/cilip-wales-2014-editing-wikipedia/ CILIP Cymru Wales Library and Information Conference 2014]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|17|[[:m:Meetup/Cambridge/22|Cambridge meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|18|[[:m:Meetup/Manchester/23|Manchester meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|18|[[:m:Wikiwalks/London/3|Wikiwalks London 3]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|22|[[Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the University of Manchester 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|24|end=25|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Social Machines Hack|Social Machines Hack, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|25|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/16|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|29|[[DNAdigest Wiki Editathon]] ([http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-dnadigest-wikipedia-editathon-tickets-11414183129 Eventbrite Signup]}})
* {{event inline|2014|05|31|[[:m:Meetup/Cardiff/3|Cardiff meetup / Wicigyfarfod Caerdydd]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|31|[[:en:Wikipedia:Wadewitz Tribute Edit-a-thons/London|Wadewitz Tribute Edit-a-thons]]}}

==== April ====
* {{event inline|2014|04|01|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|03|HJM leading [[Marjon editathon|editathon/training session in Plymouth]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|05|[[Brainstorm meeting to review the WIR programme]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|10|end=13|[[:meta:Wikimedia Conference 2014|Wikimedia Conference 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|13|[[m:Meetup/London/80|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|19|[[m:Meetup/Liverpool/11|Liverpool meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|19|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Battle_of_Clontarf_Editathon_April_2014 Battle of Clontarf editathon]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|23|[http://www.lilacconference.com/WP/programme/abstracts-wednesday/#kelly Brian Kelly presenting at the LILAC 2014 conference], also [http://www.lilacconference.com/WP/programme/abstracts-wednesday/#graham]. Andrew Gray presenting at the LILAC 2014 conference [http://www.lilacconference.com/WP/programme/abstracts-wednesday/#gray]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|25|[[Live Art, Feminism and Archives]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|26|[[Wikidata workshop 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|27|[[m:Meetup/Oxford/15|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|28|end=29|Wikimedia UK sessions at [[Open Educational Resources conference]] (OER14)}}, Newcastle University

==== March====
* {{event inline|2014|03|01|end=02|[[meta:Boards training workshop March 2014|Boards training workshop]] - London}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|03|[[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Research_impact_and_open_education|Using Wikimedia to link research impact and open education]] - workshop for staff in Coventry University}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|04|[[University of Hull at Scarborough 2014|Student Presentations on Editing Wikipedia at the University of Hull in Scarborough]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|04|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|04|[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, March 2014|Wikipedia Women in Science Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|04|[[SLA Wikipedia Talk and Info Session, Edinburgh|Do you have the facts on Wikipedia? Special Library Association Europe talk]] - event for information professionals, Edinburgh}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|08|[[Women's_Arts_Practices_editing_event_at_Women's_Art_Library,_Goldsmiths|Women's Art Library at Goldsmiths editing event]] - London}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|08|[[Women Archaeologists editing event at the Petrie Museum]]}} - London
* {{event inline|2014|03|09|[[m:Meetup/London/79|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|11|[[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Jisc_Digital_Festival_2014|Wikipedia in Education workshop and helpdesk, Jisc Digital Festival]], Birmingham}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|11|[[UHI Training, Inverness College|Staff training session, University of the Highlands & Islands]], Inverness College, Inverness}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|12|[[Women in Maths Editathon, Cambridge University]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|13| [[Scottish Women in Contemporary Art Wikifest and Editathon, Dundee 2014| Scottish Women in Contemporary Art Editathon]], Dundee}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|15|[[w:Wikipedia:GLAM/WM Police Museum|West Midlands Police Museum editathon]], Birmingham.}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|15|[[m:Meetup/Leeds/2|Leeds meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|16|[[m:Meetup/Oxford/14|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|16|[[w:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-editathon|Edit-a-thon: York Luminaries 1800-1950, at York Museum Trust]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|19|[[What I Know Is|What I Know Is. A Research Symposium on Online Collaborative Knowledge Building]] - University of Stirling}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|20|[[TaPRA_Wikipedia_Workshop_March_2014|TaPRA Wikipedia Workshop - Glasgow]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|21|[[Edinburgh Women in Computing editathon 2014|Scottish Women in Computing editathon - Edinburgh]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|23|[[m:Meetup/Manchester/22|Manchester meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|25|[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Diversity in Science Edit-a-thon, Royal Society, March 25, 2014|An editathon on the broad theme of diversity in science in gender, culture and geography at the Royal Society]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|28|[[Royal Society of Chemistry 2014 Event|Royal Society of Chemistry training and editathon]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|28|[[BritishBlackMusic.com in assn with BTWSC/Wikimedia UK | Talking Wikipedia In Ghana]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|30|[[m:Meetup/Coventry/9|Coventry meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|30|[[m:Meetup/Edinburgh 5|Edinburgh meetup]]}}

==== February ====
* {{event inline|2014|02|01|[[TaPRA Wikipedia Workshop February 2014|TaPRA Wikipedia Workshop]] - London}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|01|{{w|Wikipedia:Meetup/London/ArtAndFeminism 2014|Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon, Middlesex University}}}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|01|{{w|Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism 2014#Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism#Dundee: Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design|Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon, Dundee}}}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|01|end=02|[[Training the Trainers/February 2014 event]] - Cardiff}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|04|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|05|[[UEA Wikipedia Workshop February 2014|UEA Wikipedia Workshop for PhD Students]] - Norwich}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|09|[[:m:Meetup/London/78|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|14|[http://www2.le.ac.uk/colleges/artshumlaw/almanac0809 Wikipedia and Archaeology or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the free Encyclopedia]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|15|[[:m:Meetup/Cambridge/21|Cambridge meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|16|[[m:Meetup/Oxford/13|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|17|end=20|[[Wikipedia Takes UCL]] - London}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|20| [[Cornwall GLAMs workshop]] - hosted by the National Maritime Museum Cornwall in Falmouth. Contact:[[Special:EmailUser/F%C3%A6|Fæ]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|23|[[:m:Meetup/Liverpool/10|Liverpool meetup and museum visit]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|25|[[University_of_Hull_at_Scarborough_2014|WWI editathon with students at University of Hull in Scarborough]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|25|[[Education Committee/Education Committee meeting 25 February 2014|Education Committee meeting 25 February 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|26|[[Wellcome Library editathon]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|27|end=28|[[w:User:ACrockford|Ally Crockford]] at [[The EDGE Conference 2014]] - Edinburgh}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|27|{{w|Wikipedia:Cambridge_University_Wikipedia_Society|Magnus Manske speaking about Wikidata to Cambridge University Wikipedia Society, all are welcome}}}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|27|Sharing York’s Art Collections in the 21st Century: Lessons from Wikipedia - Friends of York Art Gallery - Pat Hadley speaking}}

==== January ====
* {{event inline|2014|01|07|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2013|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|12|[[:m:Meetup/London/77|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|14|[[Education Committee/Education Committee meeting 14 January 2014|Education Committee meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|18|[[:commons:Commons:BBC voice project|Speakerthon: uploading voice samples from the Radio 4 archive to Wikipedia]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|18|[[:commons:Commons:BBC voice project#Timetable for the day|Post speakerthon meetup]] (from 5pm)}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|18|[[ZSL_Editathon|Women in zoology and natural history editathon at London Zoo]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|19|[[m:Meetup/Oxford/12|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|23|[[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Research_impact_and_open_education|Using Wikimedia to link research impact and open education]] - workshop for staff in Bath Spa University}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|25|[[Anybody but Burns editathon]], Edinburgh}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|26|[[:m:Meetup/Swansea/1|Swansea Editathon and Wiki training]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|26|[[m:Meetup/Manchester/21|Manchester meetup]]}}

[[Category:Events| ]]

Talk:DRHA Conference 2014

2014-08-26T14:50:17Z

Fæ: q

==Confused==
Could the purpose of the page be made a bit clearer? This looks like an event registration page for the editing workshop and is listed on the main "attend events" page (for events of interest to Wikimedia UK volunteers and members), but I'm left unclear what the purpose of this page is, as I think it would be more accurately described as a report from the workshop. I note that a 1 day pass to DRHA2014 would cost £100, were anyone not already registered be interested in joining in. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:50, 26 August 2014 (BST)

Engine room

2014-08-26T12:26:27Z

Fæ: /* Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget? */ update

Water cooler

2014-08-12T10:05:37Z

Fæ: /* 2014 AGM */ link?

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 19:49, 28 May 2014 (BST)

== Wikimedian in Residence - review of the programme ==

Hi All, over the last couple of months I've been working on reviewing the Wikimedian in Residence programme run by Wikimedia UK. I will be promoting it more widely later this week and further on in July, but it would be great to hear your early thoughts. Please see the report [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review|'''here''']]. One possible space for comments could be [[Cultural partnerships/2014 WIR community consultation|here]].

Many thanks! [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (BST)
:NB I would like to get the report printed, and to be able to do so for Wikimania I would need to introduce any changes to the content itself by Friday 4th July. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (BST)

== WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today ==

[[File:Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604, Australia - Air Force AN0564834.jpg|thumb|Airliners project image of a Canadair Challenger 604]]
The image on the right is one of the Airliners uploads that I have been running as a Commons project. The photograph is the primary image on the the main page of Wikipedia today, as it illustrates the Featured Article[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/July_7,_2014] {{w|No. 34 Squadron RAAF}}. I uploaded this image in July 2013, and WMUK started supporting uploads of this project in February 2014 after supplying me with a macmini (a more powerful version of my 7 years old one). You can read more about my active upload projects on [[Commons:User:Fæ|my Commons user page]]. Over 82,000 images of aircraft have been uploaded using my tools as part of the project, though the total is larger as a variety of methods have been used by volunteers.

In a similar vein, my upload of a [[:File:A Royal Canadian Air Force CC-150 Polaris aircraft, left, assigned to the 437 Transport Squadron conducts an aerial refueling with two CF-18 Hornet aircraft assigned to the 409 Tactical Fighter Squadron over 130828-O-ZZ999-003-CA.jpg|Royal Canadian Air Force CC-150 Polaris aircraft]] during aerial refueling from the US Department of Defense was a featured picture on the Persian Wikipedia last month.[http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%86%DA%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%A8%D8%B1%DA%AF%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%87] My semi-automated uploads to Commons of DoD photographs started in 2012. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:51, 7 July 2014 (BST)
:Thank you for your work on these uploads. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 22:14, 7 July 2014 (BST)

== Campus Ambassadors workshop on 6 August ==

[[File:Wikipedia-Ambassador-Program-Logo.png|thumb|right|Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors logo]]
WMUK is co-hosting a Campus Ambassadors workshop as part of the [http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference Education Pre-Conference at Wikimania] on Wednesday 6 August 2014. This is part of the chapter's renewed efforts to organise a [[Ambassadors|Campus Ambassadors Programme in the UK]].

Are you interested in using Wikipedia as a teaching tool? Do you want to support the use of Wikipedia on a university campus? Whether you're a student, a teacher, a policymaker or just a curious individual, come along to our free training session at the Barbican. [https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=97 Registration is required] and, if you're an educator, you may also attend the Educator training workshops on Thursday 7 August 2014 using the same registration form.

[https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=97 Please register now!] --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:50, 17 July 2014 (BST)

== Celtic Meet-up at Wikimania ==

[[File:Croix_celtique_sur_Inisheer,_îles_d'Aran,_Irlande.jpg|thumb|right|Celtic cross - Ireland]]
There's a welcome to all those directly involved with all Celtic langauage wikis at Wikimania [https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Languages_Meetup here], or anyone who wishes to support in any way eg AWB, infoboxes, databases, dbpedia, or just making the tea. [[User:Robin Owain (WMUK)|Robin Owain (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Robin Owain (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:08, 18 July 2014 (BST)

== Applications for a [[Fundraising Assistant]] ==

Wikimedia UK are now accepting applications for a [[Fundraising Assistant]] to support the delivery of the charity's fundraising programme in particular working with our donors and undertaking the essential administrative tasks involved with donor stewardship. If you are interested in applying, more details can be found [[Fundraising Assistant|here]]. The deadline for applications is 5pm BST on Friday 1st August 2014. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:24, 18 July 2014 (BST)

== GLAM-Wiki 2013 Conference - long term survey ==

The memories of attending the GLAM-Wiki Conference in London last year may have faded for many of us, but a year after the conference we wanted to see what impact it made on the participants. For this reason in Spring 2014 we have run a 'long term effects' survey that was circulated to all the attendees and answered by 34 people. The full results - only a couple of pages - can be seen [[wmuk:GLAM-WIKI_2013/Long_term_report|here]]. Particularly inspiring is the [[wmuk:GLAM-WIKI_2013/Long_term_report#Action|'Action']] section, which shows what a great effect the event had on the participants. Enjoy reading the report! [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (BST)

== New outreach publications ==

We have three new booklets for outreach and our annual review, due to arrive at the office at the end of the month. If you think they'd be useful in your work, drop me an email at richard.nevell{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:45, 22 July 2014 (BST)
<gallery mode="nolines" widths="250px" heights="250px">
File:Education program basics (WMUK specific).pdf|How to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool
File:Wikimedian in Residencce Programme Review - WMUK 2014.pdf|Wikimedian in Residence Programme Review (2014)
File:WMUK GLAM booklet 2014.pdf|GLAM booklet
File:Wikimedia AR 2014 download.pdf|2013–14 Annual Review
</gallery>

== NIACE calls for evidence on implementation of new GCSEs for post-16 education ==

Hello everyone. National Institute of Continuing Adult Education (NIACE) are calling for submissions to a consultation about new GCSEs and their implementation in the world of post-16 education. Could be a fair amount of work but equally a really good opportunity to make the case for the Wikimedia projects and open knowledge more generally. The [http://lists.niace.org.uk/lz//lz.aspx?p1=05385702S9171&CC=&p=0 basics of the call are here] and the [http://www.niace.org.uk/documents/Call_for_Evidence-NIACE_FINAL.pdf?utm_source=http%3a%2f%2flists.niace.org.uk%2flz%2f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1151+GCSE+Call+for+Evidence&utm_term=New%20GCSEs%20and%20their%20implementation%20in%20the%20post-16%20sector:%20Have%20your%20say!&utm_content=207583 full details are here]. Wikimania is coming, but the submissions aren't due until 30 September so time shouldn't be a factor. Thanks for any and all suggestions. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:31, 23 July 2014 (BST)

== Conference about communicating research, 25-26 September 2014, London - anyone interested? ==

Hi All,

I recently read about the 1:AM Altmetrics conference (http://www.altmetricsconference.com/). The event focuses on new trends in scholarly publishing and measuring its impact . Where Wikimedia UK becomes relevant is when the debate focuses on how research could be used on Wikimedia projects, how could that be measured, and why it is important to do. Delegates will be invited to share their ideas and experiences in communicating research - Wikimedia UK could add an interesting perspective to that.

Is anyone interested in attending and representing Wikimedia UK? Reasonable expenses would be covered.

Get in touch - daria.cybulska{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk.

Thanks! [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:36, 24 July 2014 (BST)

== House of Lords Digital Skills Committee calls for evidence ==

Hello everyone. The House of Lords has established a Digital Skills Committee and has called for evidence. The investigation will explore how the UK can be prepared to compete in a global digital economy, examining issues such as whether we're developing a workforce that is appropriately skilled for the future in jobs that may not yet exist, and how we are encouraging people of all ages to choose careers which will benefit the future digital era. The [http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/digital-skills-committee/news/digital-skills-call-for-evidence/ call for evidence can be found here]. Wikimedia UK should consider making a submission to this committee on this issue. Among the many groups they are asking to submit, they include four that are of relevance: technology companies [or charities], digital literacy groups, civil society and lifelong learning organisations. There is plenty of time for us to make a submission as the consultation closes on 5 September. Perhaps a burst of activity after Wikimania? [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:52, 24 July 2014 (BST)
:If anyone has any preliminary thoughts, I've started a drafting page [[House of Lords Digital Skills Committee evidence|here]]. I wouldn't be in the least offended if nothing there at the moment remains obviously! If anyone wants an impromptu hack at this over Wikimania I'm sure we could self-organise something [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 13:08, 24 July 2014 (BST)

== Right to be forgotten - Google consultation ==

Google are seeking comments in a [https://services.google.com/fb/forms/advisorycouncilcomments/ consultation on the right to be forgotten], and will be asking some of those submitting to in-person meetings in the future. From the page:

To further its understanding of the issues raised by the ruling, the Council seeks input on these topics among others that may arise:
*Are there any procedural issues raised by the case (e.g., responsibilities of search engines, data protection authorities,, publishers, individuals)?
*What is the nature and delineation of a public figure’s right to
*How should we differentiate content in the public interest from content that is not?
*Does the public have a right to information about the nature, volume, and outcome of removal requests made to search engines?
*What is the public’s right to information when it comes to reviews of professional or consumer services? Or criminal histories?
*Should individuals be able to request removal of links to information published by a government?
*Do publishers of content have a right to information about requests to remove it from search?

August 11th deadline for the public meetings (they say they'll read ones after) with a list of meetings on the site (London, October 16th). I imagine this will be of interest to some individuals, I don't know if it's something Wikimedia UK should submit something collectively on. [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 11:55, 26 July 2014 (BST)
:I would expect a collective process, that were to include interested Wikimedia volunteers as well as the charity's board members and employees, would result in a mix of opinions. However it would be interesting to see an engaging collective submission attempted. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:13, 26 July 2014 (BST)
::Agreed, it'd be interesting to see if we can show an interesting range of opinions perhaps alongside what insight we think the Wikimedia context has to offer on the issue (e.g. BLP policy). I've created the '''[[Google right to be forgotten consultation|start of a page here]]''' anyway if people want to collate ideas/start working. Time scale is relatively short unfortunately. [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 17:48, 26 July 2014 (BST)

== Clean-up of old wiki ==

Because this concerns everyone who was an admin on the old wiki, I'm letting you know of [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards%27_noticeboard#.22Ghost.22_admins_on_a_.22ghost_wiki.22 this]. When the old wiki was redirected to the new one, the advanced rights were not cleared up.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 05:11, 28 July 2014 (BST)
:Apparently, this requires your endorsement, even though no-one has physical control of the wiki anymore.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 07:41, 28 July 2014 (BST)
::Thank you Jasper, I have replied on meta wiki. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:06, 28 July 2014 (BST)

== Applications open for a Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry ==

The Royal Society of Chemistry, an organisation based in Cambridge and London, is looking for a Wikipedian in Residence to deliver a six-month full-time project. The deadline for applications is 17th August. If you or someone you know would be interested in applying, details can be found [https://careers-rsc.icims.com/jobs/1246/wikimedian-in-residence/job?mobile=false&width=960&height=500&bga=true&needsRedirect=false here]. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:19, 30 July 2014 (BST)

== Wikimania Future of Education Workshop - feedback from attendees ==
[[File:Future of education event 17 crop.jpg|thumb|right|150 px|Future of Education Workshop attendees]]
WMUK volunteers Raya Sharbain and Hannah Jones have assisted Richard Nevell, Fabian Tompsett, and me in gathering feedback from attendees to the recent [[Future of Education Workshop]], presented as part of the Wikimania Fringe. Here are the final reports from this feedback:

* [[Media:Future_of_Education_(day_1)_feedback.pdf|Feedback from the first day]]
* [[Media:Future_of_Education_(day_2)_feedback.pdf|Feedback from the second day]]

Further comments are welcome, either here or on [[Talk:Future_of_Education_Workshop|the event talk page]]. Thank you. --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:40, 30 July 2014 (BST)

== Visual Editor ==
Hello all! I am currently typing this message on the Visual Editor, which has been rolled out across this wiki thanks to Emmanuel, our resident magician. Do let us know if there are any issues - there shouldn't be, but just in case. The first issue is that I can't sign this post. Otherwise, everything works so far. Richard Symonds, WMUK, 16:22, 31/07/2014

== Celebrations at the National Library of Scotland - one year anniversary! ==

Ally Crockford, the Wikimedian in Residence at the NLS, has completed her first year in post, making her the longest standing WIR in the UK. To celebrate... she wrote a great 12 month summary report - click [[:File:NLS Wikimedian in Residence 12 month report.pdf|here]] to enjoy. Congratulations [[w:en:User:ACrockford|Ally]]!

-- [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:25, 31 July 2014 (BST)

: Bravo! [[User:Kelson|Kelson]] ([[User talk:Kelson|talk]]) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (BST)

== Armenian citizens encouraged to write WP articles in new campaign ==

Hello everyone. The BBC is reporting on a new campaign called "One Armenian, One Article" in a bid to encourage Armenian citizens to write articles on Wikipedia. This seems to be a part of a drive to encourage preservation and acknowledgement of Armenian culture. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-28588188 You can read the article here] - and thanks to [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] for the spot! [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:01, 1 August 2014 (BST)

== We're recruiting a Programme Intern (paid) ==

Hello everyone, Wikimedia UK has just begun recruiting for a paid intern to join our programme team for three months. The main focus of the role will be to organise and support the delivery of Wikimedia gender gap related events, particularly Women in Science editathons, focusing on Ada Lovelace October celebrations. We would particularly welcome applicants with an understanding of, and experience of, our mission.
[[Programme_intern|You can see full details of the role here]] and the closing date is 5pm on Monday 18 August. We do hope that you will apply, or share the details with your networks. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:04, 1 August 2014 (BST)

== Shaping our programme 2014-19 ==
[[File:Shaping our programme 2014.pdf|right|200px]]
Dear community,

We are now preparing for plans for next year. This is a complicated task with many viewpoints and factors to consider. Your view are an important part of this and I am publishing today a discussion paper with suggestions for how the chapter can develop over the next year and beyond.

It is based on previous year's work and interviews with trustees, community members and staff.

You can access it [[:File:Shaping our programme 2014.pdf|here]]

Please comment on the [[File_talk:Shaping_our_programme_2014.pdf|discussion page]].

Thanks and hope to see many of you at Wikimania. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (BST)

== New overlaying website is live ==

Hello everyone, I'm very happy to report that our new overlay website is live. Just to reiterate that this is intended for people new to our work and encountering us for the first time. Experienced Wikimedians and our community are not the primary audience for this. But I'd like to know what you think, so please do take a look. [https://wikimedia.org.uk/ It's here]. I expect there are refinements needed and I have spotted a couple myself but on the whole I am happy with it. I hope you like it. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:14, 8 August 2014 (BST)

== Voting at the AGM ==

Yesterday a number of concerns were raised about expired membership and voting at the AGM. Evidently this year a number of people’s memberships have expired without their realising. We adopted a new procedure this year on AGM voting in response to concerns about security, and sent out voting forms in the post. It was obviously not clear to everyone that they needed the form posted to them in order to vote.
After Wikimania I’ll start a discussion on the wiki about whether we should continue to post voting forms in future years – unless anyone else wants to start it sooner. As far as voting at this year’s AGM is concerned the Board has asked me to say the following:

1. If you are a member and for any reason have not received/forgotten to bring your voting paper, you can ask for a new voting paper shortly before the AGM. Papers will be available for any member who needs them. There will be a check to confirm that your membership is current.

2. As in previous years, it will be possible for applications for membership to be considered in advance of the AGM, and for the Board to have oversight when it holds a meeting just before the AGM. If you have come to Wikimania believing that you are a member and just discovered that you aren’t any more, and you want to rejoin and vote: you can apply to rejoin up to noon tomorrow using the online form at https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=4

If you are readmitted you will be given voting papers and may vote.

Apologies for any difficulty caused this year. I hope this answers the concerns raised.

Thanks

Alastair McCapra
WMUK Secretary

== 2014 AGM ==

In all the hubbub of Wikimania it could be easy to forget that we held our 2014 AGM! Unless I am mistaken we had 72 people through the door making it our best attended ever. The minutes are being written up and will be published as soon as possible. Holding it in the middle of Wikimania meant that an unusually large number of people could attend. For instance volunteers who had received WMUK or Foundation scholarships. We also attracted a number of observers from other countries.

It is important to put on record my thanks to:
*The volunteer tellers, Richard Symonds and James Farrar.
*Michael Maggs for calmly chairing despite time restrictions and a packed agenda.
*Greyham Dawes for a concise and authoritative Treasurer's report.
*The Wikimania Team for accommodating us.
*Everyone who turned up, and those that were unable to who cast their votes by post or proxy.
*Those who contributed to the discussions and debates.

Next year's will be on September 13th, venue to be decided.
[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:10, 12 August 2014 (BST)

:Could someone add a link here to the parallel Facebook discussion that informed so many members and interested Wikimedians about events throughout the AGM? Unfortunately I was unaware that this was a feature of the AGM either beforehand, or at the time. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:05, 12 August 2014 (BST)

Water cooler

2014-07-26T15:13:59Z

Fæ: /* Right to be forgotten - Google consultation */ c

Water cooler

2014-07-07T12:51:02Z

Fæ: /* WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today */ add

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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? TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB]]
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)

Can we make a 3D wiki globe? Or half a globe for wall mounting? At least a meter in diameter, one piece at a time, as in the jigsaw? Could then be painted with symbols. One for Cymru, please! [[User:Robin Owain (WMUK)|Robin Owain (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Robin Owain (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:47, 27 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)

== Wikimedian in Residence - review of the programme ==

Hi All, over the last couple of months I've been working on reviewing the Wikimedian in Residence programme run by Wikimedia UK. I will be promoting it more widely later this week and further on in July, but it would be great to hear your early thoughts. Please see the report [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review|'''here''']]. One possible space for comments could be [[Cultural partnerships/2014 WIR community consultation|here]].

Many thanks! [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (BST)
:NB I would like to get the report printed, and to be able to do so for Wikimania I would need to introduce any changes to the content itself by Friday 4th July. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (BST)

== WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today ==

[[File:Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604, Australia - Air Force AN0564834.jpg|thumb|Airliners project image of a Canadair Challenger 604]]
The image on the right is one of the Airliners uploads that I have been running as a Commons project. The photograph is the primary image on the the main page of Wikipedia today, as it illustrates the Featured Article[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/July_7,_2014] {{w|No. 34 Squadron RAAF}}. I uploaded this image in July 2013, and WMUK started supporting uploads of this project in February 2014 after supplying me with a macmini (a more powerful version of my 7 years old one). You can read more about my active upload projects on [[Commons:User:Fæ|my Commons user page]]. Over 82,000 images of aircraft have been uploaded using my tools as part of the project, though the total is larger as a variety of methods have been used by volunteers.

In a similar vein, my upload of a [[:File:A Royal Canadian Air Force CC-150 Polaris aircraft, left, assigned to the 437 Transport Squadron conducts an aerial refueling with two CF-18 Hornet aircraft assigned to the 409 Tactical Fighter Squadron over 130828-O-ZZ999-003-CA.jpg|Royal Canadian Air Force CC-150 Polaris aircraft]] during aerial refueling from the US Department of Defense was a featured picture on the Persian Wikipedia last month.[http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%86%DA%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%A8%D8%B1%DA%AF%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%AF%D9%87] My semi-automated uploads to Commons of DoD photographs started in 2012. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:51, 7 July 2014 (BST)

Water cooler

2014-07-07T12:02:35Z

Fæ: /* WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today */ link

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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? TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB]]
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)

Can we make a 3D wiki globe? Or half a globe for wall mounting? At least a meter in diameter, one piece at a time, as in the jigsaw? Could then be painted with symbols. One for Cymru, please! [[User:Robin Owain (WMUK)|Robin Owain (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Robin Owain (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:47, 27 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)

== Wikimedian in Residence - review of the programme ==

Hi All, over the last couple of months I've been working on reviewing the Wikimedian in Residence programme run by Wikimedia UK. I will be promoting it more widely later this week and further on in July, but it would be great to hear your early thoughts. Please see the report [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review|'''here''']]. One possible space for comments could be [[Cultural partnerships/2014 WIR community consultation|here]].

Many thanks! [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (BST)
:NB I would like to get the report printed, and to be able to do so for Wikimania I would need to introduce any changes to the content itself by Friday 4th July. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (BST)

== WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today ==

[[File:Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604, Australia - Air Force AN0564834.jpg|thumb|Airliners project image of a Canadair Challenger 604]]
The image on the right is one of the Airliners uploads that I have been running as a Commons project. The photograph is the primary image on the the main page of Wikipedia today, as it illustrates the Featured Article[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/July_7,_2014] {{w|No. 34 Squadron RAAF}}. I uploaded this image in July 2013, and WMUK started supporting uploads of this project in February 2014 after supplying me with a macmini (a more powerful version of my 7 years old one). You can read more about my active upload projects on [[Commons:User:Fæ|my Commons user page]]. Over 82,000 images of aircraft have been uploaded using my tools as part of the project, though the total is larger as a variety of methods have been used by volunteers. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (BST)
{{clear}}

Water cooler

2014-07-07T11:32:52Z

Fæ: /* WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today */ u

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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? TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB]]
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)

Can we make a 3D wiki globe? Or half a globe for wall mounting? At least a meter in diameter, one piece at a time, as in the jigsaw? Could then be painted with symbols. One for Cymru, please! [[User:Robin Owain (WMUK)|Robin Owain (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Robin Owain (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:47, 27 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)

== Wikimedian in Residence - review of the programme ==

Hi All, over the last couple of months I've been working on reviewing the Wikimedian in Residence programme run by Wikimedia UK. I will be promoting it more widely later this week and further on in July, but it would be great to hear your early thoughts. Please see the report [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review|'''here''']]. One possible space for comments could be [[Cultural partnerships/2014 WIR community consultation|here]].

Many thanks! [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (BST)
:NB I would like to get the report printed, and to be able to do so for Wikimania I would need to introduce any changes to the content itself by Friday 4th July. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (BST)

== WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today ==

[[File:Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604, Australia - Air Force AN0564834.jpg|thumb|Airliners project image of a Canadair Challenger 604]]
The image on the right is one of the Airliners uploads that I have been running as a Commons project. The photograph is the primary image on the the main page of Wikipedia today, as it illustrates the Featured Article {{w|No. 34 Squadron RAAF}}. I uploaded this image in July 2013, and WMUK started supporting uploads of this project in February 2014 after supplying me with a macmini (a more powerful version of my 7 years old one). You can read more about my active upload projects on [[Commons:User:Fæ|my Commons user page]]. Over 82,000 images of aircraft have been uploaded using my tools as part of the project, though the total is larger as a variety of methods have been used by volunteers. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (BST)
{{clear}}

Water cooler

2014-07-07T11:28:17Z

Fæ: /* WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today */ c

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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? TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB]]
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)

Can we make a 3D wiki globe? Or half a globe for wall mounting? At least a meter in diameter, one piece at a time, as in the jigsaw? Could then be painted with symbols. One for Cymru, please! [[User:Robin Owain (WMUK)|Robin Owain (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Robin Owain (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:47, 27 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)

== Wikimedian in Residence - review of the programme ==

Hi All, over the last couple of months I've been working on reviewing the Wikimedian in Residence programme run by Wikimedia UK. I will be promoting it more widely later this week and further on in July, but it would be great to hear your early thoughts. Please see the report [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review|'''here''']]. One possible space for comments could be [[Cultural partnerships/2014 WIR community consultation|here]].

Many thanks! [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (BST)
:NB I would like to get the report printed, and to be able to do so for Wikimania I would need to introduce any changes to the content itself by Friday 4th July. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (BST)

== WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today ==

[[File:Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604, Australia - Air Force AN0564834.jpg|thumb|Airliners project image of a Canadair Challenger 604]]
The image on the right is one of the Airliners uploads that I have been running as a Commons project. This is on the the main page of Wikipedia today, as it illustrates the Featured Article {{w|No. 34 Squadron RAAF}}. I uploaded this image in July 2013, and WMUK started supporting uploads of this project in February 2014 after supplying me with a macmini (a more powerful version of my 7 years old one). You can read more about my active upload projects on [[Commons:User:Fæ|my Commons user page]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (BST)
{{clear}}

Water cooler

2014-07-07T11:27:20Z

Fæ: /* WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today */ 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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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? TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB]]
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)

Can we make a 3D wiki globe? Or half a globe for wall mounting? At least a meter in diameter, one piece at a time, as in the jigsaw? Could then be painted with symbols. One for Cymru, please! [[User:Robin Owain (WMUK)|Robin Owain (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Robin Owain (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:47, 27 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)

== Wikimedian in Residence - review of the programme ==

Hi All, over the last couple of months I've been working on reviewing the Wikimedian in Residence programme run by Wikimedia UK. I will be promoting it more widely later this week and further on in July, but it would be great to hear your early thoughts. Please see the report [[Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review|'''here''']]. One possible space for comments could be [[Cultural partnerships/2014 WIR community consultation|here]].

Many thanks! [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (BST)
:NB I would like to get the report printed, and to be able to do so for Wikimania I would need to introduce any changes to the content itself by Friday 4th July. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (BST)

== WMUK sponsored project image on the front page of Wikipedia today ==

[[File:Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 604, Australia - Air Force AN0564834.jpg|thumb|Airliners project image of a Canadair Challenger 604]]
The image on the right is one of the Airliners uploads that I have been running as a Commons project. This is on the the main page of Wikipedia today, as it illustrates the Featured Article {{w|No. 34 Squadron RAAF}}. I uploaded this image in July 2013, and WMUK started new uploads of this project in February 2014 by supplying me with a macmini (a more powerful version of my 7 years old one). You can read more about my active upload projects on [[Commons:User:Fæ|my Commons user page]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (BST)
{{clear}}

Talk:Train the Trainers refresher 2014

2014-06-27T17:20:37Z

Fæ: /* Workshop facilitator */ u

==Setting the details for the post-training meet-up==
It looks like Saturday evening is the most popular time to meet up after the refresher. i.e. Straight after the refresher. ReXX mentioned the Italian place near the office. Does this sound like a good idea? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 22:32, 16 June 2014 (BST)
:It's a nice place with a good selection, a bit pricey if you just want a pizza. I suspect the charity would cover the basic bill though. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:07, 16 June 2014 (BST)

== Workshop facilitator ==

Could the contact details please be added? I have a matter to raise about the timetable on the day with them. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:31, 23 June 2014 (BST)
:As the workshop is tomorrow, I had to go ahead and confirm arrangements with others. I'll go over this with the facilitator when I meet them in person in the morning. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:20, 27 June 2014 (BST)

Engine room

2014-06-25T09:36:31Z

Fæ: /* Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget? */ u

__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| [[/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> 6 weeks 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]]) 10:36, 25 June 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::I'm not massively against having a website, especially if done in the way described. I am just wary of statements like "all expressed concerns have been taken into account." Or was that some kind of in-joke between Michael and Mike?
:::::::I've had a look at [https://www.wikimedia.de WMDE] and [https://www.wikimedia.se WMSE]. WMDE seem to be using MediaWiki in a similar way to our current system. WMSE has a nice-looking non-MediaWiki website, but it doesn't look that different from [https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiVoyage]. I suppose the main difference is that it doesn't have the tabs at the top and the menu down the side. Is the aim to hide these to newcomers and present them only with things that they can "get" easily, so that we don't overwhelm them?
:::::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:15, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I quite like Wikimedia Sweden's site, and also [https://www.wikimedia.ch/ WMCH's]. Though I think they should have a clearer link to the Chapter's Wiki.
But, I think a Chapter's site is essential to how it's viewed by external organisations and people. Something that is more evocative of our identity, location and work is important to this audience. Additionally, though Wikipedia is the flagship project, Wikimedia isn't just about MediaWiki, and will be increasingly less so as Wikidata grows.

I think it would be interesting to hear from WMDE on what they think about this. A different site is something they might have considered or might be considering, so it would be interesting to hear their views on this.--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (BST)

:Yes, opinions from other selected chapters would be useful input, and something to be carefully taken into account before making changes rather than afterwards. It remains unclear as to why the process for deciding on this change is no longer a suitable one <s>to be</s> that could ever be reached by consensus with volunteers. Past discussion was not encouraging, nor was general opinion from volunteers on Wikimediauk-l. Value 3 "Community" of [[Vision, values and mission]] suggests that our decision making processes should always be designed to put the volunteer at the centre of driving fundamental changes. When opinion is divided, I would expect reasonable consensus with volunteers to become more important to achieve, rather than a situation where the Chief Executive and the board of trustees are not successfully bringing significant proportions of volunteer opinions along with their plans.
:As has been highlighted above, "all expressed concerns have been taken into account" appears dismissive and intended to firmly close down any potential discussion, rather than remaining cooperative and consultative in line with our values put in place to underpin the way the charity operates. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:35, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure that changing the website qualifies as a "fundamental" change as the mission and values of the charity remain the same. Also it would be in line with what many other chapters in our peer group (so to speak) have done, so hardly without precedent.

The aim as I see it is to present a non-Wikipedian friendly image to the public, and I think would neatly fulfil Value 2 "Accessibility and Quality" and encourage Value 5 "Diversity" by widening the appeal and accessibility of the charity.

I'm sure there's a compromise that will appeal to both the public and the existing community that will encourage that community to grow.
Best
--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (BST)
:Quite possibly there is a comfortable compromise, it would be nice to get to that position. As far as I know, there has been no non-subjective attempt to assess the opinions and issues of a significant number of users of this website, who do not identify as "existing community". It would be a useful input to help reach a community consensus. Unpaid active volunteers include members and non-members that rarely read or may never have edited on this site, for example readers of wikimediauk-l who have never created an account on this wiki, yet may be interested in the communications and strategy of the UK chapter. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:59, 17 June 2014 (BST)

I'm somewhat worried that my emails to wikimediauk-l haven't been directly responded to. In particular, I was asking whether this is being done purely for aesthetic reasons (in which case it could still be done on-wiki), or if this is actually incorporating features that mediawiki can't support? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:43, 16 June 2014 (BST)

::Just spotted this Mike - the simple answer would be that we want to do things that mediawiki won't allow. We tried very hard and you will see from the edit history that one leading wikimedian spent five days doing his best to make the site work. It was a real improvement but in terms of the functionality we want and the accessibility we need something better. We have held back from this longer than many chapters but the time has come to make our 'shop window' work better for the people we want to attract. As Stevie says the majority of the pages 2k+? will be just the same (although some volunteer spring cleaners would be much appreciated - we have far too many dead, incomplete or never really started pages), and of course there will be an 'opt around' possibility to go straight to the wiki website. Ultimate aim though is to make it look a whole lot better. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:17, 20 June 2014 (BST)
::: Hi Jon. Thanks for the reply, but I'm afraid it doesn't answer my questions. What functionality, specifically, are you thinking about here? As I said, if it's just design work rather than interactive features, then I'm sure it can be implemented on-wiki rather than requiring an off-wiki website. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 22:12, 23 June 2014 (BST)
::I am not an expert but those that are were drew a blank with some of the things we want to do which is one of the reasons we are doing this. A couple I am aware of is creating a rolling picture carousel of random chosen images from a source of pics (in this case the collection of visitors to the office) and another is an easy way to embed videos. Have a look at the Swiss and Swedish sites and see what they have been able to do. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:26, 24 June 2014 (BST)
:::Those are interesting requirements, the first I've seen these written down. If there were requests asking about these requirements, perhaps someone could provide a link?
:::We can already embed videos neatly on a wiki page. Perhaps the requirement is to play it on first view? This should be achievable by a local tweak to the wiki introducing a parameter to allow it.
::: It should be possible to allow an open-source javascript plug-in to do a carousel, possibly by extending the gallery tag. There are pages on-wiki that show a different image every time you view them from a pre-selected album, and a couple of years ago I had a feature like this on my user page, relying on simple templates. Now we have lua available, it should be possible to do something more sophisticated, perhaps to the extent of a full carousel.
:::It would be worth asking volunteers to put together demonstrations of what can be done for free, or highlighting existing interesting on-wiki solutions, before doing similar stuff through commercial contracts, especially if there is no particular time-table for delivering these features. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:03, 24 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)
:::: (Comment/reply below. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:41, 16 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)
* 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) (Comment moved from above to avoid it being lost in the recent vandalism. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:41, 16 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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)
::I will ask {{u|Richard Nevell (WMUK)}} to look into this. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:45, 19 June 2014 (BST)
:::Having looked into it, I couldn't work out how to change it myself so have filed [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org.uk/show_bug.cgi?id=277 a bug] for our tech contractors to look at. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (BST)

== In camera resolutions of the board ==

In line with our transparency commitments, we now have a page where we set out such information as we are able to release about resolutions that have been made in camera: [[In camera resolutions of the board]].

This follows the resolution at the [[Minutes 8Mar14|March 2014 board meeting]] stating that "''Board resolutions between meetings are dealt with by means of an on-wiki vote. Unless there is a need for confidentiality, such votes will take place on WMUK's public wiki. Where a confidential vote is required, a record of the vote will be made public to the extent possible"''.
--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:31, 19 June 2014 (BST)

== Our commitment to transparency ==

Please have a look at our new [[Transparency|transparency page]] which represents a start at setting out some specific commitments in this area. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (BST)

Engine room

2014-06-24T09:28:17Z

Fæ: /* Digital design work required */ ce

__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| [[/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)

== 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::I'm not massively against having a website, especially if done in the way described. I am just wary of statements like "all expressed concerns have been taken into account." Or was that some kind of in-joke between Michael and Mike?
:::::::I've had a look at [https://www.wikimedia.de WMDE] and [https://www.wikimedia.se WMSE]. WMDE seem to be using MediaWiki in a similar way to our current system. WMSE has a nice-looking non-MediaWiki website, but it doesn't look that different from [https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiVoyage]. I suppose the main difference is that it doesn't have the tabs at the top and the menu down the side. Is the aim to hide these to newcomers and present them only with things that they can "get" easily, so that we don't overwhelm them?
:::::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:15, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I quite like Wikimedia Sweden's site, and also [https://www.wikimedia.ch/ WMCH's]. Though I think they should have a clearer link to the Chapter's Wiki.
But, I think a Chapter's site is essential to how it's viewed by external organisations and people. Something that is more evocative of our identity, location and work is important to this audience. Additionally, though Wikipedia is the flagship project, Wikimedia isn't just about MediaWiki, and will be increasingly less so as Wikidata grows.

I think it would be interesting to hear from WMDE on what they think about this. A different site is something they might have considered or might be considering, so it would be interesting to hear their views on this.--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (BST)

:Yes, opinions from other selected chapters would be useful input, and something to be carefully taken into account before making changes rather than afterwards. It remains unclear as to why the process for deciding on this change is no longer a suitable one <s>to be</s> that could ever be reached by consensus with volunteers. Past discussion was not encouraging, nor was general opinion from volunteers on Wikimediauk-l. Value 3 "Community" of [[Vision, values and mission]] suggests that our decision making processes should always be designed to put the volunteer at the centre of driving fundamental changes. When opinion is divided, I would expect reasonable consensus with volunteers to become more important to achieve, rather than a situation where the Chief Executive and the board of trustees are not successfully bringing significant proportions of volunteer opinions along with their plans.
:As has been highlighted above, "all expressed concerns have been taken into account" appears dismissive and intended to firmly close down any potential discussion, rather than remaining cooperative and consultative in line with our values put in place to underpin the way the charity operates. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:35, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure that changing the website qualifies as a "fundamental" change as the mission and values of the charity remain the same. Also it would be in line with what many other chapters in our peer group (so to speak) have done, so hardly without precedent.

The aim as I see it is to present a non-Wikipedian friendly image to the public, and I think would neatly fulfil Value 2 "Accessibility and Quality" and encourage Value 5 "Diversity" by widening the appeal and accessibility of the charity.

I'm sure there's a compromise that will appeal to both the public and the existing community that will encourage that community to grow.
Best
--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (BST)
:Quite possibly there is a comfortable compromise, it would be nice to get to that position. As far as I know, there has been no non-subjective attempt to assess the opinions and issues of a significant number of users of this website, who do not identify as "existing community". It would be a useful input to help reach a community consensus. Unpaid active volunteers include members and non-members that rarely read or may never have edited on this site, for example readers of wikimediauk-l who have never created an account on this wiki, yet may be interested in the communications and strategy of the UK chapter. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:59, 17 June 2014 (BST)

I'm somewhat worried that my emails to wikimediauk-l haven't been directly responded to. In particular, I was asking whether this is being done purely for aesthetic reasons (in which case it could still be done on-wiki), or if this is actually incorporating features that mediawiki can't support? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:43, 16 June 2014 (BST)

::Just spotted this Mike - the simple answer would be that we want to do things that mediawiki won't allow. We tried very hard and you will see from the edit history that one leading wikimedian spent five days doing his best to make the site work. It was a real improvement but in terms of the functionality we want and the accessibility we need something better. We have held back from this longer than many chapters but the time has come to make our 'shop window' work better for the people we want to attract. As Stevie says the majority of the pages 2k+? will be just the same (although some volunteer spring cleaners would be much appreciated - we have far too many dead, incomplete or never really started pages), and of course there will be an 'opt around' possibility to go straight to the wiki website. Ultimate aim though is to make it look a whole lot better. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:17, 20 June 2014 (BST)
::: Hi Jon. Thanks for the reply, but I'm afraid it doesn't answer my questions. What functionality, specifically, are you thinking about here? As I said, if it's just design work rather than interactive features, then I'm sure it can be implemented on-wiki rather than requiring an off-wiki website. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 22:12, 23 June 2014 (BST)
::I am not an expert but those that are were drew a blank with some of the things we want to do which is one of the reasons we are doing this. A couple I am aware of is creating a rolling picture carousel of random chosen images from a source of pics (in this case the collection of visitors to the office) and another is an easy way to embed videos. Have a look at the Swiss and Swedish sites and see what they have been able to do. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:26, 24 June 2014 (BST)
:::Those are interesting requirements, the first I've seen these written down. If there were requests asking about these requirements, perhaps someone could provide a link?
:::We can already embed videos neatly on a wiki page. Perhaps the requirement is to play it on first view? This should be achievable by a local tweak to the wiki introducing a parameter to allow it.
::: It should be possible to allow an open-source javascript plug-in to do a carousel, possibly by extending the gallery tag. There are pages on-wiki that show a different image every time you view them from a pre-selected album, and a couple of years ago I had a feature like this on my user page, relying on simple templates. Now we have lua available, it should be possible to do something more sophisticated, perhaps to the extent of a full carousel.
:::It would be worth asking volunteers to put together demonstrations of what can be done for free, or highlighting existing interesting on-wiki solutions, before doing similar stuff through commercial contracts, especially if there is no particular time-table for delivering these features. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:03, 24 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)
:::: (Comment/reply below. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:41, 16 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)
* 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) (Comment moved from above to avoid it being lost in the recent vandalism. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:41, 16 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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)
::I will ask {{u|Richard Nevell (WMUK)}} to look into this. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:45, 19 June 2014 (BST)
:::Having looked into it, I couldn't work out how to change it myself so have filed [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org.uk/show_bug.cgi?id=277 a bug] for our tech contractors to look at. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (BST)

== In camera resolutions of the board ==

In line with our transparency commitments, we now have a page where we set out such information as we are able to release about resolutions that have been made in camera: [[In camera resolutions of the board]].

This follows the resolution at the [[Minutes 8Mar14|March 2014 board meeting]] stating that "''Board resolutions between meetings are dealt with by means of an on-wiki vote. Unless there is a need for confidentiality, such votes will take place on WMUK's public wiki. Where a confidential vote is required, a record of the vote will be made public to the extent possible"''.
--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:31, 19 June 2014 (BST)

== Our commitment to transparency ==

Please have a look at our new [[Transparency|transparency page]] which represents a start at setting out some specific commitments in this area. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (BST)

Engine room

2014-06-24T09:03:10Z

Fæ: /* Digital design work required */ c

__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| [[/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)

== 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::I'm not massively against having a website, especially if done in the way described. I am just wary of statements like "all expressed concerns have been taken into account." Or was that some kind of in-joke between Michael and Mike?
:::::::I've had a look at [https://www.wikimedia.de WMDE] and [https://www.wikimedia.se WMSE]. WMDE seem to be using MediaWiki in a similar way to our current system. WMSE has a nice-looking non-MediaWiki website, but it doesn't look that different from [https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiVoyage]. I suppose the main difference is that it doesn't have the tabs at the top and the menu down the side. Is the aim to hide these to newcomers and present them only with things that they can "get" easily, so that we don't overwhelm them?
:::::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:15, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I quite like Wikimedia Sweden's site, and also [https://www.wikimedia.ch/ WMCH's]. Though I think they should have a clearer link to the Chapter's Wiki.
But, I think a Chapter's site is essential to how it's viewed by external organisations and people. Something that is more evocative of our identity, location and work is important to this audience. Additionally, though Wikipedia is the flagship project, Wikimedia isn't just about MediaWiki, and will be increasingly less so as Wikidata grows.

I think it would be interesting to hear from WMDE on what they think about this. A different site is something they might have considered or might be considering, so it would be interesting to hear their views on this.--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (BST)

:Yes, opinions from other selected chapters would be useful input, and something to be carefully taken into account before making changes rather than afterwards. It remains unclear as to why the process for deciding on this change is no longer a suitable one <s>to be</s> that could ever be reached by consensus with volunteers. Past discussion was not encouraging, nor was general opinion from volunteers on Wikimediauk-l. Value 3 "Community" of [[Vision, values and mission]] suggests that our decision making processes should always be designed to put the volunteer at the centre of driving fundamental changes. When opinion is divided, I would expect reasonable consensus with volunteers to become more important to achieve, rather than a situation where the Chief Executive and the board of trustees are not successfully bringing significant proportions of volunteer opinions along with their plans.
:As has been highlighted above, "all expressed concerns have been taken into account" appears dismissive and intended to firmly close down any potential discussion, rather than remaining cooperative and consultative in line with our values put in place to underpin the way the charity operates. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:35, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure that changing the website qualifies as a "fundamental" change as the mission and values of the charity remain the same. Also it would be in line with what many other chapters in our peer group (so to speak) have done, so hardly without precedent.

The aim as I see it is to present a non-Wikipedian friendly image to the public, and I think would neatly fulfil Value 2 "Accessibility and Quality" and encourage Value 5 "Diversity" by widening the appeal and accessibility of the charity.

I'm sure there's a compromise that will appeal to both the public and the existing community that will encourage that community to grow.
Best
--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (BST)
:Quite possibly there is a comfortable compromise, it would be nice to get to that position. As far as I know, there has been no non-subjective attempt to assess the opinions and issues of a significant number of users of this website, who do not identify as "existing community". It would be a useful input to help reach a community consensus. Unpaid active volunteers include members and non-members that rarely read or may never have edited on this site, for example readers of wikimediauk-l who have never created an account on this wiki, yet may be interested in the communications and strategy of the UK chapter. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:59, 17 June 2014 (BST)

I'm somewhat worried that my emails to wikimediauk-l haven't been directly responded to. In particular, I was asking whether this is being done purely for aesthetic reasons (in which case it could still be done on-wiki), or if this is actually incorporating features that mediawiki can't support? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:43, 16 June 2014 (BST)

::Just spotted this Mike - the simple answer would be that we want to do things that mediawiki won't allow. We tried very hard and you will see from the edit history that one leading wikimedian spent five days doing his best to make the site work. It was a real improvement but in terms of the functionality we want and the accessibility we need something better. We have held back from this longer than many chapters but the time has come to make our 'shop window' work better for the people we want to attract. As Stevie says the majority of the pages 2k+? will be just the same (although some volunteer spring cleaners would be much appreciated - we have far too many dead, incomplete or never really started pages), and of course there will be an 'opt around' possibility to go straight to the wiki website. Ultimate aim though is to make it look a whole lot better. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:17, 20 June 2014 (BST)
::: Hi Jon. Thanks for the reply, but I'm afraid it doesn't answer my questions. What functionality, specifically, are you thinking about here? As I said, if it's just design work rather than interactive features, then I'm sure it can be implemented on-wiki rather than requiring an off-wiki website. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 22:12, 23 June 2014 (BST)
::I am not an expert but those that are were drew a blank with some of the things we want to do which is one of the reasons we are doing this. A couple I am aware of is creating a rolling picture carousel of random chosen images from a source of pics (in this case the collection of visitors to the office) and another is an easy way to embed videos. Have a look at the Swiss and Swedish sites and see what they have been able to do. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:26, 24 June 2014 (BST)
:::Those are interesting requirements, the first I've seen these written down. If there were requests asking about these requirements, perhaps someone could provide a link?
:::We can already embed videos neatly on a wiki page. Perhaps the requirement is to play it on first view? This should be achievable by a local tweak to the wiki introducing a parameter to allow it.
::: It should be possible to allow an open-source javascript plug-in to do a carousel. There are pages on-wiki that show a different image every time you view them from a pre-selected album, and a couple of years ago I have a feature like this on my user page, relying on simple templates. Now we have lua, it should be possible to do something more sophisticated, perhaps to the extent of a full carousel.
:::It would be worth asking volunteers to put together demonstrations of what can be done for free, before doing similar stuff through commercial contracts, especially if there is no particular time-table for delivering these features. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:03, 24 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)
:::: (Comment/reply below. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:41, 16 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)
* 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) (Comment moved from above to avoid it being lost in the recent vandalism. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:41, 16 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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)
::I will ask {{u|Richard Nevell (WMUK)}} to look into this. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:45, 19 June 2014 (BST)
:::Having looked into it, I couldn't work out how to change it myself so have filed [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org.uk/show_bug.cgi?id=277 a bug] for our tech contractors to look at. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (BST)

== In camera resolutions of the board ==

In line with our transparency commitments, we now have a page where we set out such information as we are able to release about resolutions that have been made in camera: [[In camera resolutions of the board]].

This follows the resolution at the [[Minutes 8Mar14|March 2014 board meeting]] stating that "''Board resolutions between meetings are dealt with by means of an on-wiki vote. Unless there is a need for confidentiality, such votes will take place on WMUK's public wiki. Where a confidential vote is required, a record of the vote will be made public to the extent possible"''.
--[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:31, 19 June 2014 (BST)

== Our commitment to transparency ==

Please have a look at our new [[Transparency|transparency page]] which represents a start at setting out some specific commitments in this area. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (BST)

Talk:Train the Trainers refresher 2014

2014-06-23T09:31:48Z

Fæ: /* Workshop facilitator */ new section

Events

2014-06-21T12:09:10Z

Fæ: /* June */ +1

{{Meetings}}
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin-bottom: .5em; float: right; padding: .5em 0 .8em 1.4em; background: none; width: auto;" class="toclimit-2"
| __TOC__
|}

The events in the list below may be of interest to Wikimedia UK volunteers and members. The list includes events run by or related to the charity, as well as unconnected Wikimedia or Open Knowledge events that may be of interest, especially within the UK. You can expect to find Wikimedia UK volunteers at most of these.

If you know of an upcoming event that is not listed, please add it below.

* [http://h2vx.com/ics/wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Events Download the events on this page in iCal format].
* URL to subscribe to an iCal of events on this page: '''webcal://h2vx.com/ics/wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Events'''

Other Wikimedia events lists include:
* [[outreachwiki:Template:Activities|Chapters Activity Calendar]]
* [[meta:Events|Events listed on Meta]]
* [[:wikipedia:Wikipedia:Meetup|Wikipedia meetups]]
* For events before 2014, see [[/Archive|our events archive]]

=Current and future events=
====June====

* {{event inline|2014|06|06|[[Working with Wikimedia workshop, Edinburgh]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|07|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Royal_Society/Neuroscience_Wikipedia_Edit-a-thon_at_the_Royal_Society,_June_2014 Royal Society Neuroscience Editathon]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|07|end=08|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Free Culture Hack|Free Culture Hack, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|08|[[:m:Meetup/London/82|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|08|[[:m:Meetup/Edinburgh 6|Edinburgh meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|12|[[:en:Wikipedia:Barclays edit-a-thon|Barclays edit-a-thon]]}}
* <s>{{event inline|2014|06|12|end=14|[[:meta:Datafest Scotland 2014|Datafest Scotland 2014]], University of Glasgow}}</s> '''postponed'''
* {{event inline|2014|06|14|[[:m:Meetup/Leeds/3|Leeds meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|15|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/17|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|16-17|Brian Kelly facilitating an Open Knowledge session at [http://www.cetis.ac.uk/2014-cetis-conference/ Cetis Conference 2014]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|16-18|Toni Sant delivering keynote at [http://www.plagiarismconference.org 6th International Integrity & Plagiarism Conference]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|17|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|19|[[Communications and Public Engagement workshop - Wikipedia]], London}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|21|[[:m:Meetup/Liverpool/12|Liverpool meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|21|end=22|[[Future of Education Workshop|Future of Education Workshop, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|21|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2014-June/012353.html Authoring King's Cross] at Central St. Martin's}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|23|[[Royal Academy of Engineering workshop]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|23|[[Southampton Solent University editathon June 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|28|[[Train the Trainers refresher 2014|Train the Trainers refresher]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|29|[[:m:Meetup/Portsmouth/1|Portsmouth meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|06|29|[[WLM 2014 planning meeting|Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2014 planning meeting]]}}

====July====
* {{event inline|2014|07|01|HJM running [[training session for Physiology Conference 2014]], London; details TBC}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|05|end=06|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Open Data Hack|Open Data Hack, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|07|[[Wiki Workshop for Geographers]] at RGS in London}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|07|Jonathan Cardy speaking to London Skeptics}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|13|[[:m:Meetup/London/83|London meetup]]}}
* {{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, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|20|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/18|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|23|[[:en:Wikipedia:Meetup/London/Editathon at Conway Hall, Rationality and Skepticism on the Internet|Editathon at Conway Hall, Rationality and Skepticism on the Internet]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|07|26|[[:m:Meetup/Manchester/24|Manchester meetup]]}}

==== August ====
* {{event inline|2014|08|04|end=05|Train the Trainers International}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|07|[[:meta:Boards training workshop August 2014|Boards training workshop]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|06|end=10|[http://www.wikimanialondon.org/ Wikimania London 2014]}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|09|[[2014 Annual General Meeting|Annual General Meeting]] @ The Barbican}}
* {{event inline|2014|08|27|end=29|[http://www.opensym.org/ OpenSym 2014]}}

====September====
* {{event inline|2014|09|14|[[:m:Meetup/London/85|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|09|23|[[:en:Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Institute of Classics_Sep_2014|Editathon at Institute of Classics "Women in Classicism" (London)]]}}
====October====
* {{event inline|2014|10|11| [[Cinema_Museum_Back_Stage_Pass|Back Stage Pass to the Cinema Museum, London]].}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|11|end=12|AdaCamp Berlin}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|12|[[:m:Meetup/London/86|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|14|[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Oxford/AdaLovelaceDay2014|Ada Lovelace day 2014 in Oxford]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|10|31|[[EduWiki Conference 2014]]}} in Edinburgh

====November====
* {{event inline|2014|11|01|end=02|Training the Trainers/November 2014 event - Edinburgh}}
* {{event inline|2014|11|09|[[:m:Meetup/London/87|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|11|22|[[:en:Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Senate_House_Library_Nov_2014|WW1 editathon at Senate House Library "WW1 and Dissent" (London)]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|11|22|[[:en:Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Library of Birmingham Nov 2014|WW1 editathon at Library of Birmingham "WW1 and Dissent" (B'ham)]]}}

= Past events in 2014 =
====May====
* {{event inline|2014|05|01|[[Education Committee/Education Committee meeting 21 April 2014|Education Committee meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|06|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|06|<s>[[Women in Physics event at the Institute of Physics May 2014]]</s>}} postponed - tube strike
* {{event inline|2014|05|07|<s>[[Wikipedia editathon at Conway Hall - 6pm 7th May 2014]]</s>}} postponed - tube strike
* {{event inline|2014|05|09|end=11|[[:mw:Zürich Hackathon 2014|Zürich Hackathon 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|10|[[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Queen Street Mill Museum/event 2|Queen Street Mill Museum editathon, Burnley]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|11|[[:m:Meetup/London/81|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|13|[[Women in Science Wikipedia edit-a-thon 13 May 2014 - University of Liverpool]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|15|Brian Kelly presenting about [http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/cilip-wales-2014-editing-wikipedia/ Editing Wikipedia] at the [http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/events/cilip-wales-2014-editing-wikipedia/ CILIP Cymru Wales Library and Information Conference 2014]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|17|[[:m:Meetup/Cambridge/22|Cambridge meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|18|[[:m:Meetup/Manchester/23|Manchester meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|18|[[:m:Wikiwalks/London/3|Wikiwalks London 3]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|22|[[Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the University of Manchester 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|24|end=25|[[:wm2014:Fringe/Social Machines Hack|Social Machines Hack, Wikimania Fringe]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|25|[[:m:Meetup/Oxford/16|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|29|[[DNAdigest Wiki Editathon]] ([http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-dnadigest-wikipedia-editathon-tickets-11414183129 Eventbrite Signup]}})
* {{event inline|2014|05|31|[[:m:Meetup/Cardiff/3|Cardiff meetup / Wicigyfarfod Caerdydd]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|05|31|[[:m:Meetup/London/Wadewitz memorial|London editathon "Wadewitz Memorial in the Mary Wollstonecraft room"]]}}

==== April ====
* {{event inline|2014|04|01|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|03|HJM leading [[Marjon editathon|editathon/training session in Plymouth]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|05|[[Brainstorm meeting to review the WIR programme]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|10|end=13|[[:meta:Wikimedia Conference 2014|Wikimedia Conference 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|13|[[m:Meetup/London/80|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|19|[[m:Meetup/Liverpool/11|Liverpool meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|19|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Battle_of_Clontarf_Editathon_April_2014 Battle of Clontarf editathon]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|23|[http://www.lilacconference.com/WP/programme/abstracts-wednesday/#kelly Brian Kelly presenting at the LILAC 2014 conference], also [http://www.lilacconference.com/WP/programme/abstracts-wednesday/#graham]. Andrew Gray presenting at the LILAC 2014 conference [http://www.lilacconference.com/WP/programme/abstracts-wednesday/#gray]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|25|[[Live Art, Feminism and Archives]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|26|[[Wikidata workshop 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|27|[[m:Meetup/Oxford/15|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|04|28|end=29|Wikimedia UK sessions at [[Open Educational Resources conference]] (OER14)}}, Newcastle University

==== March====
* {{event inline|2014|03|01|end=02|[[meta:Boards training workshop March 2014|Boards training workshop]] - London}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|03|[[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Research_impact_and_open_education|Using Wikimedia to link research impact and open education]] - workshop for staff in Coventry University}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|04|[[University of Hull at Scarborough 2014|Student Presentations on Editing Wikipedia at the University of Hull in Scarborough]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|04|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|04|[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, March 2014|Wikipedia Women in Science Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|04|[[SLA Wikipedia Talk and Info Session, Edinburgh|Do you have the facts on Wikipedia? Special Library Association Europe talk]] - event for information professionals, Edinburgh}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|08|[[Women's_Arts_Practices_editing_event_at_Women's_Art_Library,_Goldsmiths|Women's Art Library at Goldsmiths editing event]] - London}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|08|[[Women Archaeologists editing event at the Petrie Museum]]}} - London
* {{event inline|2014|03|09|[[m:Meetup/London/79|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|11|[[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Jisc_Digital_Festival_2014|Wikipedia in Education workshop and helpdesk, Jisc Digital Festival]], Birmingham}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|11|[[UHI Training, Inverness College|Staff training session, University of the Highlands & Islands]], Inverness College, Inverness}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|12|[[Women in Maths Editathon, Cambridge University]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|13| [[Scottish Women in Contemporary Art Wikifest and Editathon, Dundee 2014| Scottish Women in Contemporary Art Editathon]], Dundee}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|15|[[w:Wikipedia:GLAM/WM Police Museum|West Midlands Police Museum editathon]], Birmingham.}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|15|[[m:Meetup/Leeds/2|Leeds meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|16|[[m:Meetup/Oxford/14|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|16|[[w:Wikipedia:GLAM/YMT/Luminaries-editathon|Edit-a-thon: York Luminaries 1800-1950, at York Museum Trust]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|19|[[What I Know Is|What I Know Is. A Research Symposium on Online Collaborative Knowledge Building]] - University of Stirling}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|20|[[TaPRA_Wikipedia_Workshop_March_2014|TaPRA Wikipedia Workshop - Glasgow]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|21|[[Edinburgh Women in Computing editathon 2014|Scottish Women in Computing editathon - Edinburgh]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|23|[[m:Meetup/Manchester/22|Manchester meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|25|[[:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Diversity in Science Edit-a-thon, Royal Society, March 25, 2014|An editathon on the broad theme of diversity in science in gender, culture and geography at the Royal Society]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|28|[[Royal Society of Chemistry 2014 Event|Royal Society of Chemistry training and editathon]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|28|[[BritishBlackMusic.com in assn with BTWSC/Wikimedia UK | Talking Wikipedia In Ghana]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|30|[[m:Meetup/Coventry/9|Coventry meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|03|30|[[m:Meetup/Edinburgh 5|Edinburgh meetup]]}}

==== February ====
* {{event inline|2014|02|01|[[TaPRA Wikipedia Workshop February 2014|TaPRA Wikipedia Workshop]] - London}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|01|{{w|Wikipedia:Meetup/London/ArtAndFeminism 2014|Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon, Middlesex University}}}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|01|{{w|Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism 2014#Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism#Dundee: Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design|Art+Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon, Dundee}}}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|01|end=02|[[Training the Trainers/February 2014 event]] - Cardiff}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|04|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2014|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|05|[[UEA Wikipedia Workshop February 2014|UEA Wikipedia Workshop for PhD Students]] - Norwich}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|09|[[:m:Meetup/London/78|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|14|[http://www2.le.ac.uk/colleges/artshumlaw/almanac0809 Wikipedia and Archaeology or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the free Encyclopedia]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|15|[[:m:Meetup/Cambridge/21|Cambridge meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|16|[[m:Meetup/Oxford/13|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|17|end=20|[[Wikipedia Takes UCL]] - London}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|20| [[Cornwall GLAMs workshop]] - hosted by the National Maritime Museum Cornwall in Falmouth. Contact:[[Special:EmailUser/F%C3%A6|Fæ]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|23|[[:m:Meetup/Liverpool/10|Liverpool meetup and museum visit]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|25|[[University_of_Hull_at_Scarborough_2014|WWI editathon with students at University of Hull in Scarborough]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|25|[[Education Committee/Education Committee meeting 25 February 2014|Education Committee meeting 25 February 2014]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|26|[[Wellcome Library editathon]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|27|end=28|[[w:User:ACrockford|Ally Crockford]] at [[The EDGE Conference 2014]] - Edinburgh}}
* {{event inline|2014|02|27|{{w|Wikipedia:Cambridge_University_Wikipedia_Society|Magnus Manske speaking about Wikidata to Cambridge University Wikipedia Society, all are welcome}}}}

==== January ====
* {{event inline|2014|01|07|[[IT Development/Progress meetings#2013|Tech Com meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|12|[[:m:Meetup/London/77|London meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|14|[[Education Committee/Education Committee meeting 14 January 2014|Education Committee meeting]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|18|[[:commons:Commons:BBC voice project|Speakerthon: uploading voice samples from the Radio 4 archive to Wikipedia]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|18|[[:commons:Commons:BBC voice project#Timetable for the day|Post speakerthon meetup]] (from 5pm)}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|18|[[ZSL_Editathon|Women in zoology and natural history editathon at London Zoo]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|19|[[m:Meetup/Oxford/12|Oxford meetup]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|23|[[Expert_outreach/Jisc_Ambassador/Research_impact_and_open_education|Using Wikimedia to link research impact and open education]] - workshop for staff in Bath Spa University}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|25|[[Anybody but Burns editathon]], Edinburgh}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|26|[[:m:Meetup/Swansea/1|Swansea Editathon and Wiki training]]}}
* {{event inline|2014|01|26|[[m:Meetup/Manchester/21|Manchester meetup]]}}

[[Category:Events| ]]

Engine room

2014-06-17T16:59:19Z

Fæ: /* Digital design work required */ r

__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| [[/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)

== 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::I'm not massively against having a website, especially if done in the way described. I am just wary of statements like "all expressed concerns have been taken into account." Or was that some kind of in-joke between Michael and Mike?
:::::::I've had a look at [https://www.wikimedia.de WMDE] and [https://www.wikimedia.se WMSE]. WMDE seem to be using MediaWiki in a similar way to our current system. WMSE has a nice-looking non-MediaWiki website, but it doesn't look that different from [https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiVoyage]. I suppose the main difference is that it doesn't have the tabs at the top and the menu down the side. Is the aim to hide these to newcomers and present them only with things that they can "get" easily, so that we don't overwhelm them?
:::::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:15, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I quite like Wikimedia Sweden's site, and also [https://www.wikimedia.ch/ WMCH's]. Though I think they should have a clearer link to the Chapter's Wiki.
But, I think a Chapter's site is essential to how it's viewed by external organisations and people. Something that is more evocative of our identity, location and work is important to this audience. Additionally, though Wikipedia is the flagship project, Wikimedia isn't just about MediaWiki, and will be increasingly less so as Wikidata grows.

I think it would be interesting to hear from WMDE on what they think about this. A different site is something they might have considered or might be considering, so it would be interesting to hear their views on this.--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (BST)

:Yes, opinions from other selected chapters would be useful input, and something to be carefully taken into account before making changes rather than afterwards. It remains unclear as to why the process for deciding on this change is no longer a suitable one <s>to be</s> that could ever be reached by consensus with volunteers. Past discussion was not encouraging, nor was general opinion from volunteers on Wikimediauk-l. Value 3 "Community" of [[Vision, values and mission]] suggests that our decision making processes should always be designed to put the volunteer at the centre of driving fundamental changes. When opinion is divided, I would expect reasonable consensus with volunteers to become more important to achieve, rather than a situation where the Chief Executive and the board of trustees are not successfully bringing significant proportions of volunteer opinions along with their plans.
:As has been highlighted above, "all expressed concerns have been taken into account" appears dismissive and intended to firmly close down any potential discussion, rather than remaining cooperative and consultative in line with our values put in place to underpin the way the charity operates. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:35, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure that changing the website qualifies as a "fundamental" change as the mission and values of the charity remain the same. Also it would be in line with what many other chapters in our peer group (so to speak) have done, so hardly without precedent.

The aim as I see it is to present a non-Wikipedian friendly image to the public, and I think would neatly fulfil Value 2 "Accessibility and Quality" and encourage Value 5 "Diversity" by widening the appeal and accessibility of the charity.

I'm sure there's a compromise that will appeal to both the public and the existing community that will encourage that community to grow.
Best
--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (BST)
:Quite possibly there is a comfortable compromise, it would be nice to get to that position. As far as I know, there has been no non-subjective attempt to assess the opinions and issues of a significant number of users of this website, who do not identify as "existing community". It would be a useful input to help reach a community consensus. Unpaid active volunteers include members and non-members that rarely read or may never have edited on this site, for example readers of wikimediauk-l who have never created an account on this wiki, yet may be interested in the communications and strategy of the UK chapter. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:59, 17 June 2014 (BST)

I'm somewhat worried that my emails to wikimediauk-l haven't been directly responded to. In particular, I was asking whether this is being done purely for aesthetic reasons (in which case it could still be done on-wiki), or if this is actually incorporating features that mediawiki can't support? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:43, 16 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)
:::: (Comment/reply below. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:41, 16 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)
* 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) (Comment moved from above to avoid it being lost in the recent vandalism. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 15:41, 16 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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)

Talk:Train the Trainers refresher 2014

2014-06-16T22:07:11Z

Fæ: /* Setting the details for the post-training meet-up */ c

Engine room

2014-06-16T14:39:22Z

Fæ: /* Digital design work required */ grammar

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::I'm not massively against having a website, especially if done in the way described. I am just wary of statements like "all expressed concerns have been taken into account." Or was that some kind of in-joke between Michael and Mike?
:::::::I've had a look at [https://www.wikimedia.de WMDE] and [https://www.wikimedia.se WMSE]. WMDE seem to be using MediaWiki in a similar way to our current system. WMSE has a nice-looking non-MediaWiki website, but it doesn't look that different from [https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiVoyage]. I suppose the main difference is that it doesn't have the tabs at the top and the menu down the side. Is the aim to hide these to newcomers and present them only with things that they can "get" easily, so that we don't overwhelm them?
:::::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:15, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I quite like Wikimedia Sweden's site, and also [https://www.wikimedia.ch/ WMCH's]. Though I think they should have a clearer link to the Chapter's Wiki.
But, I think a Chapter's site is essential to how it's viewed by external organisations and people. Something that is more evocative of our identity, location and work is important to this audience. Additionally, though Wikipedia is the flagship project, Wikimedia isn't just about MediaWiki, and will be increasingly less so as Wikidata grows.

I think it would be interesting to hear from WMDE on what they think about this. A different site is something they might have considered or might be considering, so it would be interesting to hear their views on this.--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (BST)

:Yes, opinions from other selected chapters would be useful input, and something to be carefully taken into account before making changes rather than afterwards. It remains unclear as to why the process for deciding on this change is no longer a suitable one <s>to be</s> that could ever be reached by consensus with volunteers. Past discussion was not encouraging, nor was general opinion from volunteers on Wikimediauk-l. Value 3 "Community" of [[Vision, values and mission]] suggests that our decision making processes should always be designed to put the volunteer at the centre of driving fundamental changes. When opinion is divided, I would expect reasonable consensus with volunteers to become more important to achieve, rather than a situation where the Chief Executive and the board of trustees are not successfully bringing significant proportions of volunteer opinions along with their plans.
:As has been highlighted above, "all expressed concerns have been taken into account" appears dismissive and intended to firmly close down any potential discussion, rather than remaining cooperative and consultative in line with our values put in place to underpin the way the charity operates. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:35, 16 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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)

Engine room

2014-06-16T14:35:28Z

Fæ: /* Digital design work required */ c

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
:::::::I'm not massively against having a website, especially if done in the way described. I am just wary of statements like "all expressed concerns have been taken into account." Or was that some kind of in-joke between Michael and Mike?
:::::::I've had a look at [https://www.wikimedia.de WMDE] and [https://www.wikimedia.se WMSE]. WMDE seem to be using MediaWiki in a similar way to our current system. WMSE has a nice-looking non-MediaWiki website, but it doesn't look that different from [https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page WikiVoyage]. I suppose the main difference is that it doesn't have the tabs at the top and the menu down the side. Is the aim to hide these to newcomers and present them only with things that they can "get" easily, so that we don't overwhelm them?
:::::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:15, 16 June 2014 (BST)

I quite like Wikimedia Sweden's site, and also [https://www.wikimedia.ch/ WMCH's]. Though I think they should have a clearer link to the Chapter's Wiki.
But, I think a Chapter's site is essential to how it's viewed by external organisations and people. Something that is more evocative of our identity, location and work is important to this audience. Additionally, though Wikipedia is the flagship project, Wikimedia isn't just about MediaWiki, and will be increasingly less so as Wikidata grows.

I think it would be interesting to hear from WMDE on what they think about this. A different site is something they might have considered or might be considering, so it would be interesting to hear their views on this.--[[User:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|Stuart Prior (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stuart Prior (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (BST)

:Yes, opinions from other selected chapters would be useful input, and something to be carefully taken into account before making changes rather than afterwards. It remains unclear as to why the process for deciding on this change is no longer a suitable one to be that could ever be reached by consensus with volunteers. Past discussion was not encouraging, nor was general opinion from volunteers on Wikimediauk-l. Value 3 "Community" of [[Vision, values and mission]] suggests that our decision making processes should always be designed to put the volunteer at the centre of driving fundamental changes. When opinion is divided, I would expect reasonable consensus with volunteers to become more important to achieve, rather than a situation where the Chief Executive and the board of trustees are not successfully bringing significant proportions of volunteer opinions along with their plans.
:As has been highlighted above, "all expressed concerns have been taken into account" appears dismissive and intended to firmly close down any potential discussion, rather than remaining cooperative and consultative in line with our values put in place to underpin the way the charity operates. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:35, 16 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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)

Water cooler

2014-06-16T11:27:33Z

Fæ: /* Can you help categorize 6,000 photographs (photochrome) taken in the 19th-century? */ r

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

== 10,000 research quality maps of the world ==

[[File:A new and correct chart of the sea coast of ENGLAND, SCOTLAND and IRELAND NYPL1640559.tiff|thumb|<center>Map of Britain, Samuel Thornton, c.1705 Scan at 6,078 × 4,968 pixels. [[Commons:Commons:Batch uploading/NYPL Maps|NYPL maps project page]].]]
I have been drafting a note about this GWToolset based maps upload project for the Wikimedia Commons Village pump. The upload should complete within the next couple of days (due to extreme file sizes, and an WMF Operations request to throttle speed of uploads, this has taken a lot longer than I expected). As this is Chapter supported media, would a UK blog post along similar lines published at the same time be of interest? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:20, 8 May 2014 (BST)

:Notice posted [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&diff=123528187&oldid=123527636 here]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:04, 9 May 2014 (BST)
::A UK blog post would be very interesting. As I mentioned below, this should really be on the Water Cooler as it relates to an external programme. Would you be good enough to repost there? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 14:52, 11 May 2014 (BST)

::: Done.
::: If my blog account ("Fae") is re-enabled (it appears to have been restricted from editing without anyone informing me), then I will draft a post on WordPress. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:11, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::Hi Fae, if you'd like to draft a blog post about this excellent project I would be more than happy to publish it with an appropriate attribution on your behalf. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::: I would rather create it exactly as it will be displayed using my account, which is on the system. I was under the impression that volunteers can do that, rather than eating up employee time cut & pasting and reformatting. I assume that there is a review process for draft blog posts, though I recall that the board of trustees no longer needs to approve them. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::: I'm going to skip this now. Too many days have passed since my notice on Commons about the project, and time passed without further response here. My original intention was to hold off the Commons notice for a day or two so that the post on the chapter blog would be news.
::::: It would be nice if we could return to allowing unpaid volunteers to draft blog posts on WordPress, rather than this entirely relying on employees along with the associated lost opportunity costs. However this is just an observation comparing how things used to be done, not that long ago, to the reality of how the charity works today. This is not a request for an employee to do anything, neither is it a criticism of employees, the shift to using closed processes for managing the chapter blog being the choice of the board of trustees. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:21, 20 May 2014 (BST)

== Trained trainers - post-refresher meetup ==
[[File:Beer Bernard 1.jpg|thumb|Alcohol can encourage sharing, but may inhibit other brain functions required for learning.]]
[[File:Workshop 001.jpg|thumb|Not that kind of workshop!]]
Who is going to the refresher of the train-the-trainers course on Saturday the 28th of June?

Who would be interested in some kind of meet-up afterwards?

We could do something that evening or something on Sunday. We could do an informal chat over a pint or we could have some kind of workshop where we share and reflect on our experience as trained trainers and learn from that. It depends on who is around when and what exactly is planned for the refresher. I don't know what is planned for the refresher yet but perhaps we should start by asking questions of availability.

Who will be around the evening after the refresher? Who will be around - or could arange to be around - the next day?

[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 13:33, 14 May 2014 (BST)

:Sadly I can't make the training on the Saturday, but a meet up sounds like a cracking idea to me. It was great to get to know everyone better at the Manchester TtT event. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:49, 16 May 2014 (BST)

:Registration was opened two months ago, with prospective attendees approached by direct email, and there is no public registration page or schedule (the emailed link was to a restricted web page which specified timing as 9.30am—6.30pm). I would not like to make plans around it until there is a confirmation that there have been sufficient numbers, and confirmation that registrations were accepted. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:32, 20 May 2014 (BST)
::There is no public registration page because this is not a public event, rather one intended only for people who became accredited trainers for Wikimedia UK before February this year. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 11:41, 20 May 2014 (BST)
:::I would say it is an event restricted to past trainees, it does not automatically follow that we must not use an open page to coordinate the event, such as discussing the schedule and content, sharing a list of who is coming or negotiating the social side. Coordination by direct private email increases the number of touch-points needed to confirm anything, and makes change unlikely, rather than the wiki norm of self service and encouraging suggestions for changes.
:::As a counter example, ARC meetings are restricted yet have an openly shared agenda in advance of meetings, public minutes afterwards, and a long term open meeting schedule, all of which can be discussed by anyone. Ensuring processes of the charity default to openly sharing as much as we can, rather than defaulting to closed communications, is part of meeting Value 4 of [[Vision, values and mission]]. In this case, one consequence of coordinating using closed channels would be that no other volunteers who might happen to be interested in training, would think of joining an evening social nearby. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:01, 20 May 2014 (BST)
::::Registration is not on a pending-approval basis, anyone who registered has a place. If it were on a pending-approval basis, the registration confirmation page and email would have stated so. Yes, the event is happening. The exact programme for the day is determined by the training provider base on expectation provided by attendees during registration. There's nothing stopping discussion and or planning happening in public, such as is going on right here......... [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:56, 20 May 2014 (BST)
:::::Thanks for confirming that, I was unaware of it and would not want to presume. If the training provider (Midas?) can provide a schedule/description it might be an idea to create a simple event page and move this specific discussion about the day's logistics to that talk page. As there is time before the event, the provider might want attendees to have a pre-discussion on expectations, which is not relevant to share on the watercooler. Is there a reason to not share the attendee list? I doubt this has an expectation of privacy, or represents private data. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:50, 20 May 2014 (BST)
I have created the page [[Train the Trainers refresher 2014]]. Anyone got any thoughts on it before we link to it from [[Events]]? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:07, 27 May 2014 (BST)
:Cool. I note that Katie [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Events&diff=57276&oldid=57250 added the link] to the event from the events page. Now we have somewhere to keep discussions about the event. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 16:51, 29 May 2014 (BST)

== 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 19:49, 28 May 2014 (BST)

== Scholarships to Wikimania London ==

[[File:Wikimania 2013 Group Photograph.JPG|thumbnail|right|Wikimania 2013 group photo]]
Application for scholarship support to attend this year Wikimania is now open. Wikimania 2014, the 10th annual international conference of the Wikimedia movement, is being held between 6 and 10 August 2014. The venue is in the [[:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]], London.

To qualify for assistance, you must either be based in the UK or a UK citizen living abroad, and agree to produce a public report (which may be published on the Wikimedia UK blog and/or in our newsletters) summarising the key things that you have taken from the event. Applications may be made for the cost of conference registration, accommodation for the duration of Wikimania, and/or travel within the UK.

Application should be made by completing [http://bit.ly/wm2014scholar this application form]. The deadline for application is Sunday <s>8 June</s> 15 June. After the deadline, we will be in touch to offer scholarships as soon as possible. Any UK residents who have previously made an application for scholarship through the Wikimedia Foundation process and had agreed to share their application details with their local chapter need not apply again. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (BST)
: Thanks Katie. May I ask out of curiosity how many scholarships are on offer and/or how much money is being made available for this? [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]] · [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]] 19:10, 18 May 2014 (BST)
::It will be depending on needs and applications. The estimated amount is approximately £7,800, which is on par with last year. I hope that helps. Regards -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:22, 19 May 2014 (BST)

{{clear}}

== Bad copyright rules killed Hadfield's Space Oddity ==

There is an interesting op-ed in the ''Ottawa Citizen''[http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/story.html?id=9842445] complaining about misuse of bad copyright law to take down Chris Hadfield's cover of "Space Oddity" on the ISS. This is something that is probably of interest to many people here - maybe something we can issue a comment about? Also covered by [http://boingboing.net/2014/05/18/bowies-takedown-of-hadfield.html#.U3n5-jlTq74.facebook Boing Boing]. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (BST)
:The UK community of active volunteers might not have a solid consensus that this was "bad copyright law". It is no surprise that David Bowie would want to protect the copyright of his most well known works, or have the {{w|performing rights}} negotiated, before finding them globally published. If there is interest in taking official positions on copyright, there are other examples that would illustrate how UK copyright law or its frequent poor interpretation damages open knowledge; misunderstood orphan works or national institutions claiming commercial rights on publicly funded copies of public domain artwork spring to mind.
:Thanks for highlighting the story, there are interesting user comments on the article. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:20, 20 May 2014 (BST)

== Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2014 planning meeting ==

[[File:WLM United Kingdom.svg|thumb|right|Wiki Loves Monuments United Kingdom|150px]]
Wiki Loves Monuments is a public photo competition around cultural heritage monuments, organised by volunteers within individual countries taking part. Last year UK competition focusing on Listed Buildings resulted in over 11,000 photos being contributed by over 500 participants. An in-person planning meeting has been scheduled for this year UK participation of the competition. This is to take place on Sunday 29 June from 12:30pm BST at the Wikimedia UK office building in London. Wikimedia UK will cover travel cost of attendees going to the meeting. For more information, and to sign up to attend, see [[WLM 2014 planning meeting]]. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:55, 29 May 2014 (BST)
{{clear}}

== Connecting knowledge to power: the future of digital democracy in the UK ==

Hello everyone, Wikimedia UK and Demos are encouraging Wikimedians to participate in an attempt to crowdsource a submission to a call for evidence on digital democracy from the Speaker of the House of Commons. You can find the consultation page here and we look forward to hearing from you. [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Connecting_knowledge_to_power:_the_future_of_digital_democracy_in_the_UK Full information about this call can be found on the consultation page on Meta here]. It has also been shared via various Wikimedia mailing lists and I do hope you'll take part in what we hope will be interesting and useful. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:16, 29 May 2014 (BST)

== Supporting new editors and measuring retention. ==

Aaaron Halfaker from the Foundation says he is happy to share this posting from wikiemdia-l which I think might be of interest:

I'm a research scientist working for the WMF. My research focuses on the
nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production in
Wikipedia. See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal work
on the subject.

As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
substantial portion of the questions you've raised. See also my team's
work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5]. See [6] for an example of a
recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns. Also,
you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
about the speed of speedy deletions.

A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way done
since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
undocumented phenomena. The academic community, other researchers at the
WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
and how they can be best supported.

While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, production
and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us toward
our goals and which ones do not. See [8] and [9] for examples of such
studies.

I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
wiki-research-l[10]. There are a lot more researchers on that list than
wikimedia-l. FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.

1. Summary:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/

2. Full paper:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf

3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs

4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor

5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F

6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation

7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions

8. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout

9. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results

10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

-Aaron

[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:52, 30 May 2014 (BST)

:Rather than reposting emails on-wiki, the convention is to link to the original, [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072267.html like this]. One benefit is that interested volunteers can read the whole thread and take part on Wikimedia-l if they wish, rather than duplicating/dispersing discussion on the Chapter water cooler.
:If things are less stressful in the office now, could someone please remember to give an answer [[Engine_room#Where_can_I_find_2014_programmes_as_opposed_to_just_budget.3F|my outstanding question about expected WMUK plans]]? It has been waiting for 3 weeks for a link or anything more than a place-holder comment, and it was intended as a very simple question that would require hardly any employee time, or indeed none. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:18, 30 May 2014 (BST)

==Wikimania 2014: Informal visit to Barbican Centre==
[[File:Garden in the Barbican Centre.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Wikimedians visiting the Conservatory at the Barbican Centre, 8 June 2014]]
In order to start getting a feel for [http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimania 2014], we shall be having an informal visit to the [[w:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]] on Sunday 8th June. If you fancy coming along, please add your name [[meta:Meetup/London/82#Are_you_coming_on_this_walk.3F|here]]. We will be joining the [[meta:Meetup/London/82|London Meetup]] later. 18:46, 30 May 2014 (BST)
:Thanks to everyone who came along. I hope it gave you a better insight of what to expect for Wikimania 2014. Some photos have already been [[commons:Category:Free Culture Weekend|uploaded to commons]], which includes some pictures from the Free Culture Weekend.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (BST)

== Trainers needed for workshop in London ==

[[File:RGS_building_in_London.jpeg|thumb|right|RGS Headquarters]]
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. 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. Please direct questions to me or [[Wiki_Workshop_for_Geographers#Trainers|sign up on this page]], if you're willing to join in as a trainer. Thanks! --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:31, 3 June 2014 (BST)

==Bed/couch needed for Wikimedian this weekend in London==

Hi All

A Wikimedian is coming from the Netherlands ([[User:Ter-burg|Ter-burg]]) to one of the Wikimania fringe events this weekend and would like to know if anyone has a bed/couch available he could stay this Saturday in London.

Thanks

[[User:John Cummings (WMUK)|John Cummings (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:John Cummings (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:55, 5 June 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? TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB]]
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)

Water cooler

2014-06-15T07:13:42Z

Fæ: /* 3D printing? */ update

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

== 10,000 research quality maps of the world ==

[[File:A new and correct chart of the sea coast of ENGLAND, SCOTLAND and IRELAND NYPL1640559.tiff|thumb|<center>Map of Britain, Samuel Thornton, c.1705 Scan at 6,078 × 4,968 pixels. [[Commons:Commons:Batch uploading/NYPL Maps|NYPL maps project page]].]]
I have been drafting a note about this GWToolset based maps upload project for the Wikimedia Commons Village pump. The upload should complete within the next couple of days (due to extreme file sizes, and an WMF Operations request to throttle speed of uploads, this has taken a lot longer than I expected). As this is Chapter supported media, would a UK blog post along similar lines published at the same time be of interest? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:20, 8 May 2014 (BST)

:Notice posted [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&diff=123528187&oldid=123527636 here]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:04, 9 May 2014 (BST)
::A UK blog post would be very interesting. As I mentioned below, this should really be on the Water Cooler as it relates to an external programme. Would you be good enough to repost there? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 14:52, 11 May 2014 (BST)

::: Done.
::: If my blog account ("Fae") is re-enabled (it appears to have been restricted from editing without anyone informing me), then I will draft a post on WordPress. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:11, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::Hi Fae, if you'd like to draft a blog post about this excellent project I would be more than happy to publish it with an appropriate attribution on your behalf. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::: I would rather create it exactly as it will be displayed using my account, which is on the system. I was under the impression that volunteers can do that, rather than eating up employee time cut & pasting and reformatting. I assume that there is a review process for draft blog posts, though I recall that the board of trustees no longer needs to approve them. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::: I'm going to skip this now. Too many days have passed since my notice on Commons about the project, and time passed without further response here. My original intention was to hold off the Commons notice for a day or two so that the post on the chapter blog would be news.
::::: It would be nice if we could return to allowing unpaid volunteers to draft blog posts on WordPress, rather than this entirely relying on employees along with the associated lost opportunity costs. However this is just an observation comparing how things used to be done, not that long ago, to the reality of how the charity works today. This is not a request for an employee to do anything, neither is it a criticism of employees, the shift to using closed processes for managing the chapter blog being the choice of the board of trustees. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:21, 20 May 2014 (BST)

== Trained trainers - post-refresher meetup ==
[[File:Beer Bernard 1.jpg|thumb|Alcohol can encourage sharing, but may inhibit other brain functions required for learning.]]
[[File:Workshop 001.jpg|thumb|Not that kind of workshop!]]
Who is going to the refresher of the train-the-trainers course on Saturday the 28th of June?

Who would be interested in some kind of meet-up afterwards?

We could do something that evening or something on Sunday. We could do an informal chat over a pint or we could have some kind of workshop where we share and reflect on our experience as trained trainers and learn from that. It depends on who is around when and what exactly is planned for the refresher. I don't know what is planned for the refresher yet but perhaps we should start by asking questions of availability.

Who will be around the evening after the refresher? Who will be around - or could arange to be around - the next day?

[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 13:33, 14 May 2014 (BST)

:Sadly I can't make the training on the Saturday, but a meet up sounds like a cracking idea to me. It was great to get to know everyone better at the Manchester TtT event. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:49, 16 May 2014 (BST)

:Registration was opened two months ago, with prospective attendees approached by direct email, and there is no public registration page or schedule (the emailed link was to a restricted web page which specified timing as 9.30am—6.30pm). I would not like to make plans around it until there is a confirmation that there have been sufficient numbers, and confirmation that registrations were accepted. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:32, 20 May 2014 (BST)
::There is no public registration page because this is not a public event, rather one intended only for people who became accredited trainers for Wikimedia UK before February this year. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 11:41, 20 May 2014 (BST)
:::I would say it is an event restricted to past trainees, it does not automatically follow that we must not use an open page to coordinate the event, such as discussing the schedule and content, sharing a list of who is coming or negotiating the social side. Coordination by direct private email increases the number of touch-points needed to confirm anything, and makes change unlikely, rather than the wiki norm of self service and encouraging suggestions for changes.
:::As a counter example, ARC meetings are restricted yet have an openly shared agenda in advance of meetings, public minutes afterwards, and a long term open meeting schedule, all of which can be discussed by anyone. Ensuring processes of the charity default to openly sharing as much as we can, rather than defaulting to closed communications, is part of meeting Value 4 of [[Vision, values and mission]]. In this case, one consequence of coordinating using closed channels would be that no other volunteers who might happen to be interested in training, would think of joining an evening social nearby. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:01, 20 May 2014 (BST)
::::Registration is not on a pending-approval basis, anyone who registered has a place. If it were on a pending-approval basis, the registration confirmation page and email would have stated so. Yes, the event is happening. The exact programme for the day is determined by the training provider base on expectation provided by attendees during registration. There's nothing stopping discussion and or planning happening in public, such as is going on right here......... [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:56, 20 May 2014 (BST)
:::::Thanks for confirming that, I was unaware of it and would not want to presume. If the training provider (Midas?) can provide a schedule/description it might be an idea to create a simple event page and move this specific discussion about the day's logistics to that talk page. As there is time before the event, the provider might want attendees to have a pre-discussion on expectations, which is not relevant to share on the watercooler. Is there a reason to not share the attendee list? I doubt this has an expectation of privacy, or represents private data. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:50, 20 May 2014 (BST)
I have created the page [[Train the Trainers refresher 2014]]. Anyone got any thoughts on it before we link to it from [[Events]]? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:07, 27 May 2014 (BST)
:Cool. I note that Katie [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Events&diff=57276&oldid=57250 added the link] to the event from the events page. Now we have somewhere to keep discussions about the event. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 16:51, 29 May 2014 (BST)

== 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 19:49, 28 May 2014 (BST)

== Scholarships to Wikimania London ==

[[File:Wikimania 2013 Group Photograph.JPG|thumbnail|right|Wikimania 2013 group photo]]
Application for scholarship support to attend this year Wikimania is now open. Wikimania 2014, the 10th annual international conference of the Wikimedia movement, is being held between 6 and 10 August 2014. The venue is in the [[:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]], London.

To qualify for assistance, you must either be based in the UK or a UK citizen living abroad, and agree to produce a public report (which may be published on the Wikimedia UK blog and/or in our newsletters) summarising the key things that you have taken from the event. Applications may be made for the cost of conference registration, accommodation for the duration of Wikimania, and/or travel within the UK.

Application should be made by completing [http://bit.ly/wm2014scholar this application form]. The deadline for application is Sunday <s>8 June</s> 15 June. After the deadline, we will be in touch to offer scholarships as soon as possible. Any UK residents who have previously made an application for scholarship through the Wikimedia Foundation process and had agreed to share their application details with their local chapter need not apply again. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (BST)
: Thanks Katie. May I ask out of curiosity how many scholarships are on offer and/or how much money is being made available for this? [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]] · [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]] 19:10, 18 May 2014 (BST)
::It will be depending on needs and applications. The estimated amount is approximately £7,800, which is on par with last year. I hope that helps. Regards -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:22, 19 May 2014 (BST)

{{clear}}

== Bad copyright rules killed Hadfield's Space Oddity ==

There is an interesting op-ed in the ''Ottawa Citizen''[http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/story.html?id=9842445] complaining about misuse of bad copyright law to take down Chris Hadfield's cover of "Space Oddity" on the ISS. This is something that is probably of interest to many people here - maybe something we can issue a comment about? Also covered by [http://boingboing.net/2014/05/18/bowies-takedown-of-hadfield.html#.U3n5-jlTq74.facebook Boing Boing]. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (BST)
:The UK community of active volunteers might not have a solid consensus that this was "bad copyright law". It is no surprise that David Bowie would want to protect the copyright of his most well known works, or have the {{w|performing rights}} negotiated, before finding them globally published. If there is interest in taking official positions on copyright, there are other examples that would illustrate how UK copyright law or its frequent poor interpretation damages open knowledge; misunderstood orphan works or national institutions claiming commercial rights on publicly funded copies of public domain artwork spring to mind.
:Thanks for highlighting the story, there are interesting user comments on the article. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:20, 20 May 2014 (BST)

== Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2014 planning meeting ==

[[File:WLM United Kingdom.svg|thumb|right|Wiki Loves Monuments United Kingdom|150px]]
Wiki Loves Monuments is a public photo competition around cultural heritage monuments, organised by volunteers within individual countries taking part. Last year UK competition focusing on Listed Buildings resulted in over 11,000 photos being contributed by over 500 participants. An in-person planning meeting has been scheduled for this year UK participation of the competition. This is to take place on Sunday 29 June from 12:30pm BST at the Wikimedia UK office building in London. Wikimedia UK will cover travel cost of attendees going to the meeting. For more information, and to sign up to attend, see [[WLM 2014 planning meeting]]. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:55, 29 May 2014 (BST)
{{clear}}

== Connecting knowledge to power: the future of digital democracy in the UK ==

Hello everyone, Wikimedia UK and Demos are encouraging Wikimedians to participate in an attempt to crowdsource a submission to a call for evidence on digital democracy from the Speaker of the House of Commons. You can find the consultation page here and we look forward to hearing from you. [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Connecting_knowledge_to_power:_the_future_of_digital_democracy_in_the_UK Full information about this call can be found on the consultation page on Meta here]. It has also been shared via various Wikimedia mailing lists and I do hope you'll take part in what we hope will be interesting and useful. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:16, 29 May 2014 (BST)

== Supporting new editors and measuring retention. ==

Aaaron Halfaker from the Foundation says he is happy to share this posting from wikiemdia-l which I think might be of interest:

I'm a research scientist working for the WMF. My research focuses on the
nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production in
Wikipedia. See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal work
on the subject.

As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
substantial portion of the questions you've raised. See also my team's
work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5]. See [6] for an example of a
recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns. Also,
you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
about the speed of speedy deletions.

A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way done
since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
undocumented phenomena. The academic community, other researchers at the
WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
and how they can be best supported.

While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, production
and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us toward
our goals and which ones do not. See [8] and [9] for examples of such
studies.

I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
wiki-research-l[10]. There are a lot more researchers on that list than
wikimedia-l. FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.

1. Summary:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/

2. Full paper:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf

3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs

4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor

5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F

6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation

7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions

8. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout

9. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results

10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

-Aaron

[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:52, 30 May 2014 (BST)

:Rather than reposting emails on-wiki, the convention is to link to the original, [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072267.html like this]. One benefit is that interested volunteers can read the whole thread and take part on Wikimedia-l if they wish, rather than duplicating/dispersing discussion on the Chapter water cooler.
:If things are less stressful in the office now, could someone please remember to give an answer [[Engine_room#Where_can_I_find_2014_programmes_as_opposed_to_just_budget.3F|my outstanding question about expected WMUK plans]]? It has been waiting for 3 weeks for a link or anything more than a place-holder comment, and it was intended as a very simple question that would require hardly any employee time, or indeed none. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:18, 30 May 2014 (BST)

==Wikimania 2014: Informal visit to Barbican Centre==
[[File:Garden in the Barbican Centre.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Wikimedians visiting the Conservatory at the Barbican Centre, 8 June 2014]]
In order to start getting a feel for [http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimania 2014], we shall be having an informal visit to the [[w:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]] on Sunday 8th June. If you fancy coming along, please add your name [[meta:Meetup/London/82#Are_you_coming_on_this_walk.3F|here]]. We will be joining the [[meta:Meetup/London/82|London Meetup]] later. 18:46, 30 May 2014 (BST)
:Thanks to everyone who came along. I hope it gave you a better insight of what to expect for Wikimania 2014. Some photos have already been [[commons:Category:Free Culture Weekend|uploaded to commons]], which includes some pictures from the Free Culture Weekend.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (BST)

== Trainers needed for workshop in London ==

[[File:RGS_building_in_London.jpeg|thumb|right|RGS Headquarters]]
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. 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. Please direct questions to me or [[Wiki_Workshop_for_Geographers#Trainers|sign up on this page]], if you're willing to join in as a trainer. Thanks! --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:31, 3 June 2014 (BST)

==Bed/couch needed for Wikimedian this weekend in London==

Hi All

A Wikimedian is coming from the Netherlands ([[User:Ter-burg|Ter-burg]]) to one of the Wikimania fringe events this weekend and would like to know if anyone has a bed/couch available he could stay this Saturday in London.

Thanks

[[User:John Cummings (WMUK)|John Cummings (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:John Cummings (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:55, 5 June 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? TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB]]
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)

== 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)

Water cooler

2014-06-14T14:50:54Z

Fæ: /* 3D printing? */ r

__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.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| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013| [[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014| [[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

== 10,000 research quality maps of the world ==

[[File:A new and correct chart of the sea coast of ENGLAND, SCOTLAND and IRELAND NYPL1640559.tiff|thumb|<center>Map of Britain, Samuel Thornton, c.1705 Scan at 6,078 × 4,968 pixels. [[Commons:Commons:Batch uploading/NYPL Maps|NYPL maps project page]].]]
I have been drafting a note about this GWToolset based maps upload project for the Wikimedia Commons Village pump. The upload should complete within the next couple of days (due to extreme file sizes, and an WMF Operations request to throttle speed of uploads, this has taken a lot longer than I expected). As this is Chapter supported media, would a UK blog post along similar lines published at the same time be of interest? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:20, 8 May 2014 (BST)

:Notice posted [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump&diff=123528187&oldid=123527636 here]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:04, 9 May 2014 (BST)
::A UK blog post would be very interesting. As I mentioned below, this should really be on the Water Cooler as it relates to an external programme. Would you be good enough to repost there? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 14:52, 11 May 2014 (BST)

::: Done.
::: If my blog account ("Fae") is re-enabled (it appears to have been restricted from editing without anyone informing me), then I will draft a post on WordPress. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:11, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::Hi Fae, if you'd like to draft a blog post about this excellent project I would be more than happy to publish it with an appropriate attribution on your behalf. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:17, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::: I would rather create it exactly as it will be displayed using my account, which is on the system. I was under the impression that volunteers can do that, rather than eating up employee time cut & pasting and reformatting. I assume that there is a review process for draft blog posts, though I recall that the board of trustees no longer needs to approve them. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (BST)

::::: I'm going to skip this now. Too many days have passed since my notice on Commons about the project, and time passed without further response here. My original intention was to hold off the Commons notice for a day or two so that the post on the chapter blog would be news.
::::: It would be nice if we could return to allowing unpaid volunteers to draft blog posts on WordPress, rather than this entirely relying on employees along with the associated lost opportunity costs. However this is just an observation comparing how things used to be done, not that long ago, to the reality of how the charity works today. This is not a request for an employee to do anything, neither is it a criticism of employees, the shift to using closed processes for managing the chapter blog being the choice of the board of trustees. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:21, 20 May 2014 (BST)

== Trained trainers - post-refresher meetup ==
[[File:Beer Bernard 1.jpg|thumb|Alcohol can encourage sharing, but may inhibit other brain functions required for learning.]]
[[File:Workshop 001.jpg|thumb|Not that kind of workshop!]]
Who is going to the refresher of the train-the-trainers course on Saturday the 28th of June?

Who would be interested in some kind of meet-up afterwards?

We could do something that evening or something on Sunday. We could do an informal chat over a pint or we could have some kind of workshop where we share and reflect on our experience as trained trainers and learn from that. It depends on who is around when and what exactly is planned for the refresher. I don't know what is planned for the refresher yet but perhaps we should start by asking questions of availability.

Who will be around the evening after the refresher? Who will be around - or could arange to be around - the next day?

[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 13:33, 14 May 2014 (BST)

:Sadly I can't make the training on the Saturday, but a meet up sounds like a cracking idea to me. It was great to get to know everyone better at the Manchester TtT event. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:49, 16 May 2014 (BST)

:Registration was opened two months ago, with prospective attendees approached by direct email, and there is no public registration page or schedule (the emailed link was to a restricted web page which specified timing as 9.30am—6.30pm). I would not like to make plans around it until there is a confirmation that there have been sufficient numbers, and confirmation that registrations were accepted. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:32, 20 May 2014 (BST)
::There is no public registration page because this is not a public event, rather one intended only for people who became accredited trainers for Wikimedia UK before February this year. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 11:41, 20 May 2014 (BST)
:::I would say it is an event restricted to past trainees, it does not automatically follow that we must not use an open page to coordinate the event, such as discussing the schedule and content, sharing a list of who is coming or negotiating the social side. Coordination by direct private email increases the number of touch-points needed to confirm anything, and makes change unlikely, rather than the wiki norm of self service and encouraging suggestions for changes.
:::As a counter example, ARC meetings are restricted yet have an openly shared agenda in advance of meetings, public minutes afterwards, and a long term open meeting schedule, all of which can be discussed by anyone. Ensuring processes of the charity default to openly sharing as much as we can, rather than defaulting to closed communications, is part of meeting Value 4 of [[Vision, values and mission]]. In this case, one consequence of coordinating using closed channels would be that no other volunteers who might happen to be interested in training, would think of joining an evening social nearby. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:01, 20 May 2014 (BST)
::::Registration is not on a pending-approval basis, anyone who registered has a place. If it were on a pending-approval basis, the registration confirmation page and email would have stated so. Yes, the event is happening. The exact programme for the day is determined by the training provider base on expectation provided by attendees during registration. There's nothing stopping discussion and or planning happening in public, such as is going on right here......... [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:56, 20 May 2014 (BST)
:::::Thanks for confirming that, I was unaware of it and would not want to presume. If the training provider (Midas?) can provide a schedule/description it might be an idea to create a simple event page and move this specific discussion about the day's logistics to that talk page. As there is time before the event, the provider might want attendees to have a pre-discussion on expectations, which is not relevant to share on the watercooler. Is there a reason to not share the attendee list? I doubt this has an expectation of privacy, or represents private data. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:50, 20 May 2014 (BST)
I have created the page [[Train the Trainers refresher 2014]]. Anyone got any thoughts on it before we link to it from [[Events]]? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:07, 27 May 2014 (BST)
:Cool. I note that Katie [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Events&diff=57276&oldid=57250 added the link] to the event from the events page. Now we have somewhere to keep discussions about the event. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 16:51, 29 May 2014 (BST)

== 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 19:49, 28 May 2014 (BST)

== Scholarships to Wikimania London ==

[[File:Wikimania 2013 Group Photograph.JPG|thumbnail|right|Wikimania 2013 group photo]]
Application for scholarship support to attend this year Wikimania is now open. Wikimania 2014, the 10th annual international conference of the Wikimedia movement, is being held between 6 and 10 August 2014. The venue is in the [[:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]], London.

To qualify for assistance, you must either be based in the UK or a UK citizen living abroad, and agree to produce a public report (which may be published on the Wikimedia UK blog and/or in our newsletters) summarising the key things that you have taken from the event. Applications may be made for the cost of conference registration, accommodation for the duration of Wikimania, and/or travel within the UK.

Application should be made by completing [http://bit.ly/wm2014scholar this application form]. The deadline for application is Sunday <s>8 June</s> 15 June. After the deadline, we will be in touch to offer scholarships as soon as possible. Any UK residents who have previously made an application for scholarship through the Wikimedia Foundation process and had agreed to share their application details with their local chapter need not apply again. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (BST)
: Thanks Katie. May I ask out of curiosity how many scholarships are on offer and/or how much money is being made available for this? [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]] · [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]] 19:10, 18 May 2014 (BST)
::It will be depending on needs and applications. The estimated amount is approximately £7,800, which is on par with last year. I hope that helps. Regards -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:22, 19 May 2014 (BST)

{{clear}}

== Bad copyright rules killed Hadfield's Space Oddity ==

There is an interesting op-ed in the ''Ottawa Citizen''[http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/story.html?id=9842445] complaining about misuse of bad copyright law to take down Chris Hadfield's cover of "Space Oddity" on the ISS. This is something that is probably of interest to many people here - maybe something we can issue a comment about? Also covered by [http://boingboing.net/2014/05/18/bowies-takedown-of-hadfield.html#.U3n5-jlTq74.facebook Boing Boing]. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (BST)
:The UK community of active volunteers might not have a solid consensus that this was "bad copyright law". It is no surprise that David Bowie would want to protect the copyright of his most well known works, or have the {{w|performing rights}} negotiated, before finding them globally published. If there is interest in taking official positions on copyright, there are other examples that would illustrate how UK copyright law or its frequent poor interpretation damages open knowledge; misunderstood orphan works or national institutions claiming commercial rights on publicly funded copies of public domain artwork spring to mind.
:Thanks for highlighting the story, there are interesting user comments on the article. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:20, 20 May 2014 (BST)

== Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2014 planning meeting ==

[[File:WLM United Kingdom.svg|thumb|right|Wiki Loves Monuments United Kingdom|150px]]
Wiki Loves Monuments is a public photo competition around cultural heritage monuments, organised by volunteers within individual countries taking part. Last year UK competition focusing on Listed Buildings resulted in over 11,000 photos being contributed by over 500 participants. An in-person planning meeting has been scheduled for this year UK participation of the competition. This is to take place on Sunday 29 June from 12:30pm BST at the Wikimedia UK office building in London. Wikimedia UK will cover travel cost of attendees going to the meeting. For more information, and to sign up to attend, see [[WLM 2014 planning meeting]]. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:55, 29 May 2014 (BST)
{{clear}}

== Connecting knowledge to power: the future of digital democracy in the UK ==

Hello everyone, Wikimedia UK and Demos are encouraging Wikimedians to participate in an attempt to crowdsource a submission to a call for evidence on digital democracy from the Speaker of the House of Commons. You can find the consultation page here and we look forward to hearing from you. [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Connecting_knowledge_to_power:_the_future_of_digital_democracy_in_the_UK Full information about this call can be found on the consultation page on Meta here]. It has also been shared via various Wikimedia mailing lists and I do hope you'll take part in what we hope will be interesting and useful. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:16, 29 May 2014 (BST)

== Supporting new editors and measuring retention. ==

Aaaron Halfaker from the Foundation says he is happy to share this posting from wikiemdia-l which I think might be of interest:

I'm a research scientist working for the WMF. My research focuses on the
nature of newcomer participation, editor motivation and value production in
Wikipedia. See [1] and [2] (if you have the time) for my most seminal work
on the subject.

As you'll see in the study I referenced, my work directly addresses a
substantial portion of the questions you've raised. See also my team's
work with standardizing metrics[3] including survival measures[4] and my
work exploring retention trends in ptwiki[5]. See [6] for an example of a
recent, cross-language study of newcomer article creation patterns. Also,
you might be interested in [7] since it confirms your general concerns
about the speed of speedy deletions.

A lot of the work of /really understanding Wikipedia/ is only half-way done
since it takes a long time build understanding about previously
undocumented phenomena. The academic community, other researchers at the
WMF and myself are in the middle of developing a whole field around how
open collaboration systems like Wikipedia work, common problems they have
and how they can be best supported.

While we're developing this general knowledge about engagement, production
and retention in our communities, we (the research & data team) are also
working directly with product teams at the WMF to measure their impact on
key metrics (e.g. participation) with scientific rigor and to
challenge/develop/refine theory on which product strategies lead us toward
our goals and which ones do not. See [8] and [9] for examples of such
studies.

I welcome anyone who'd like to continue the conversation about what we do
and don't know about Wikipedia(s) to raise discussions at
wiki-research-l[10]. There are a lot more researchers on that list than
wikimedia-l. FWIW, I tend to follow that list more closely.

1. Summary:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/

2. Full paper:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfaker13rise-preprint.pdf

3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Editor_Engagement_Vital_Signs

4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor

5. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/Is_ptwiki_declining_like_enwiki%3F

6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_article_creation

7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Speed_of_Speedy_Deletions

8. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians/Rollout

9. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:VisualEditor%27s_effect_on_newly_registered_editors/Results

10. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

-Aaron

[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:52, 30 May 2014 (BST)

:Rather than reposting emails on-wiki, the convention is to link to the original, [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072267.html like this]. One benefit is that interested volunteers can read the whole thread and take part on Wikimedia-l if they wish, rather than duplicating/dispersing discussion on the Chapter water cooler.
:If things are less stressful in the office now, could someone please remember to give an answer [[Engine_room#Where_can_I_find_2014_programmes_as_opposed_to_just_budget.3F|my outstanding question about expected WMUK plans]]? It has been waiting for 3 weeks for a link or anything more than a place-holder comment, and it was intended as a very simple question that would require hardly any employee time, or indeed none. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:18, 30 May 2014 (BST)

==Wikimania 2014: Informal visit to Barbican Centre==
[[File:Garden in the Barbican Centre.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Wikimedians visiting the Conservatory at the Barbican Centre, 8 June 2014]]
In order to start getting a feel for [http://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimania 2014], we shall be having an informal visit to the [[w:en:Barbican Centre|Barbican Centre]] on Sunday 8th June. If you fancy coming along, please add your name [[meta:Meetup/London/82#Are_you_coming_on_this_walk.3F|here]]. We will be joining the [[meta:Meetup/London/82|London Meetup]] later. 18:46, 30 May 2014 (BST)
:Thanks to everyone who came along. I hope it gave you a better insight of what to expect for Wikimania 2014. Some photos have already been [[commons:Category:Free Culture Weekend|uploaded to commons]], which includes some pictures from the Free Culture Weekend.[[User:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Fabian Tompsett (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (BST)

== Trainers needed for workshop in London ==

[[File:RGS_building_in_London.jpeg|thumb|right|RGS Headquarters]]
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. 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. Please direct questions to me or [[Wiki_Workshop_for_Geographers#Trainers|sign up on this page]], if you're willing to join in as a trainer. Thanks! --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:31, 3 June 2014 (BST)

==Bed/couch needed for Wikimedian this weekend in London==

Hi All

A Wikimedian is coming from the Netherlands ([[User:Ter-burg|Ter-burg]]) to one of the Wikimania fringe events this weekend and would like to know if anyone has a bed/couch available he could stay this Saturday in London.

Thanks

[[User:John Cummings (WMUK)|John Cummings (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:John Cummings (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:55, 5 June 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? TIFF format, 2,736 × 3,680 pixels, 28.83 MB]]
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)

== 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 ;-) ). --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:50, 14 June 2014 (BST)

Engine room

2014-06-14T12:28:40Z

Fæ: /* Login errors - clarifying text needed */ +1

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)

<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. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 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)

User talk:Fæ

2014-06-13T20:54:41Z

Fæ: /* Retrospective 'improvement' of your posts */ c

{{/head}}

== Deletion request ==

Hi Fæ. I saw you recently deleted the page [[Fliter]]. Could you delete [[User talk:PauloHelene]] too please? See also [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Speedy_deletions&diff=3169112&oldid=3168728 here]. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]] 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
: Less sure about this one. Do you know what the wikia site linked is about? Unless obvious promotion I would tend to leave it unless the account does something else dubious. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] 07:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

== Popups ==

Did you get it to work on this wiki? [[User:HJ Mitchell|'''Harry Mitchell''']] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|Penny for your thoughts? ]] 21:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
:Nope, I'm not sure what the missing element is... --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

== Wikimedian in Residence (BL) ==

Hello Fæ, I have seen this post advertised and believe I meet many of the criteria; my question is, since I am not so long-established an editor as some, would I (or others of similar standing) nevertheless be someone Wikimedia UK might potentially be prepared to endorse - or are you looking for someone with a history going back to year zero? Many thanks, [[User:Maculosae tegmine lyncis|Maculosae tegmine lyncis]] 08:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC) ([[w:en:User_talk:Maculosae_tegmine_lyncis|User_talk:Maculosae_tegmine_lyncis]])
:Replied via email. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

==Wikimedia UK Annual Conference 2012==
I'm writing to let you know that [[WikiConference UK 2012]] is coming up, on Saturday 12 May 2012, in London. Some time ago you indicated that you are interested in attending the event. If this is still the case please help us in planning for the event by registering at http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/wikicon12.
The conference will incorporate both presentations and talks about Wikipedia/Wikimedia, as well as Wikimedia UK's Annual General Meeting. It is free to attend. If you have any questions please contact Daria Cybulska on daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk or 0207 065 0994.
Hope to see you there! [[User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|Richard Symonds]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|talk]]) 15:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

==Train the Trainers==
I am pleased to announce that the [[Train the Trainers event]] which you have expressed interest in will take place on the weekend of 9-10 June at the Wikimedia UK office, 56 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.

The timings of the training are roughly: Saturday 9:30 am - 6:30pm, Sunday 9am - 5pm. Light breakfast and lunch will be provided; we are also planning to go for a meal after the training on Sunday.

It is ''vital'' that you do not miss the start of the training session, so before confirming your availability please do make sure you can make the start time of the training.

We are able to cover travel and accommodation, including if you need to travel on Friday - an advance notice will be appreciated!

Please reply promptly by emailing daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk (or 0207 065 0994) and confirming your availability - places are limited.

If you are not able to attend this time, we will have another training in October, and you will be more than welcome to sign up then. [[User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|Richard Symonds]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|talk]]) 15:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

== Board report ==

FYI, I've updated a couple of figures on [[Reports 30Jun12]] after our conversation on Friday - the workshops have now happened, so we've got exact numbers rather than estimates. [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

== Board meeting categories ==

Hi Fæ. Have you seen [[:Category:Meetings]] and [[:Category:Meeting agendas]]? You seem to be duplicating that category structure with [[:Category:Board meetings]]... Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 12:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks, I'll take a look. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, I was aware but I think we ought to gravitate to organizing Board meetings as a child of Meetings. Now we have staff, sub-committees and programmes to organize, all these things need to have meeting notes and minutes documented on-wiki; even if they seem scarce at the moment. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
:: That's true, and makes sense. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 12:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

==Thanks==
Thanks for sorting out my inadvertent deletion, some of glitch I think.[[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 16:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

== Talk pages ==

Hi! Could you please make your talk page comments easier to follow? [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AReports_17Nov12&diff=30726&oldid=30719 This] edit, despite the summary "ce" (which I interpret as "copy-edit"), adds new content to a comment of yours from several days before and updates the date. Please post new comments - don't change old ones like that because it makes the chronology of the conversation very difficult to follow. The only way to understand what is going on is to look at the diffs, and it should be possible to follow a talk page without looking at diffs. (I also note that you tend to make a lot a copy edits - it would be easier to follow recent changes and page histories if you proof read your comments before posting them!) Thanks! --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 12:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
:NP, I'll try harder to be clearer. The convention is that you can tack on information if nobody has replied yet, but these are not hard and fast working practices as the intention is always to avoid confusion. Yes, ce is a shorthand for copyedit. We could import conventions for talk page discussion, but we would become in rapid danger of attracting too many wikilawyers; and a handful of those is enough for any wiki. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
::Tacking something on the end five minutes later because you thought of something just as you hit "Save" is one thing. Tacking something on after several days is confusing! I've just seen you added something to your report to the board meeting with "ce" as the edit summary - adding content is not a copy edit... I don't think we need to import formal conventions, but just try to be clear about what you are doing! Thanks! --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

== Image copyright ==

Hi Fæ. I'm sorry that you were upset by the tagging of [[:File:User Map sketch by Fae.jpg]] and other files that you've uploaded as copyright unclear. My intention was for that tagging to act as a prompt to those that have uploaded files to this wiki to clarify the copyright of their files using one of the templates referred to in the message. I'm hoping that most of the files can be clearly marked as freely licensed or copyrighted as appropriate. If you would be happy to clearly release your uploads under a free license, then would you mind posting a permission statement here, or update the copyright tags on the files as appropriate? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

== Library ==

Fae, I left you a question in January on [[Talk:Library]]. Please take a look when you get a moment. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:I've just sent you an email about this. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

== Rev del ==
Hi can you rev del my IP in [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_cooler&oldid=38470 this history?] Thanks in advance.
:Sure, done. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you. Choose your favorite barnstar and place it here with my name on it.--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 00:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

== User rights change ==

Hi, this is to let you know I have requested the removal of your bureaucrats rights on this wiki, which has since been carried out by a Steward, as per the [[Wikimedia:Bureaucrats|existing policy]] to restrict bureaucrats rights to current board members and staff. Regards -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

== WMUK members survey ==

Hello Fae! I know from the water cooler discussions that you are one of a number of people interested in thinking about membership recruitment/membership generally of the chapter. I am today drawing a few specific people's attention to [[WMUK_membership_survey_2013#Introduction| this]] as something I'm going to develop in the next couple of weeks. I'll announce on the Water cooler and mailing lists but I'm flagging it up to people who have been involved with membership matters or had strong feelings about last years survey questions - both non and current members. Please do throw in some thoughts or edit the questions as they develop :-) [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

== Water cooler comments ==

Hi Fae, this is just a friendly note, nothing more. I'm not an avid follower of the water cooler, but I've been following it more closely over the last few days, and I really don't think your tone there is constructive. I often agree with the issues you raise, and where I don't, I can often see your point, but the ''way'' you raise the issues is with such hostility and what comes across as a presumption of malice towards the board and the staff severely damages your persuasiveness. The water cooler is a public forum, and a good place for discussing issues that are of concern to members, but it is not a suitable venue for repeatedly lambasting the chief executive, the chair, or the board as a collective. It is perfectly appropriate for members to hold the board to account, but there are standards of decorum expected of participants in a public forum, and I think any of your contributions fall well below that standard - for example hijacking threads to berate Jon about the decline in membership (the reasons for which are discussed on that very forum and have little to do with Jon's actions, so it comes off as more than a little disingenuous), making accusations against Jon and the board, and lambasting other members of staff who comment on a thread in an attempt to answer your questions (or undermining Jon by continuing to attack him while addressing his subordinates). None of those thing are constructive, and all make this wiki (and the water cooler in particular) feel like a hostile, adversarial environment. This is a great shame, because when you make calm, reasoned post that simply states your opinion on a matter rather than attacking Jon, Chris, or anybody else, you add significant value to the discussion. I would really like to see a return of the intelligent, articulate Fae I so respected when you were chair. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for your feedback, I'll ponder it.
:With regard to Jon's role as CEO, in terms of how charities legally function, and in terms of job description, he is ultimately and fully responsible for the operational performance of the charity, whether a particular performance measure is claimed to be under his direct control or not. The Charity Commission expects charities to appoint trustees that hold their CEO publicly to account against agreed and documented performance measures, the top level of which should be available for members and the public to review. Without this level of reasonable accountability, it would be impossible to judge if the charity was taking due care with donated charitable funds. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

== Thank you for your help with the Members' survey ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Clipboard.jpg|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Survey Design'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your contributions and making sure we consulted widely on sensitive questions - I am confident the questions were considerably improved by this :-) [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
|}

== Content of your recent post ==

Fae, [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Water_cooler&diff=49688&oldid=49685 sarcastic personal criticisms] of WMUK staff should be avoided, please. They make no contribution whatsoever to our charitable mission, but merely drive volunteers and potential members away. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

== Spam deletions ==

When you delete spam pages, please remember to follow the instructions and remove the spam content from the reason field. You are the only admin I've seen on this wiki who leaves even spam URLs around, reducing the point of deleting the page in the first place. Thanks. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 23:43, 5 April 2014 (BST)
:I understand the logic, but I'm not aware of instructions for this, could you provide a link? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 06:32, 6 April 2014 (BST)
::It's above the delete box you see when you click to delete a page, "'''Please clear the "Other/additional reason" box of any text quoted from the deleted page, especially if it contains private information or is potentially libellous.'''" (bold in original). [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 10:50, 6 April 2014 (BST)
:::Thanks for that, I thought you might have been referencing guidance I was unaware of. In this case I do not believe there was any inappropriate private or libellous information, I would treat those cases with significant caution. Though I try to avoid accidentally leaving possible spam links hanging about in comment fields, it is bound to happen now and then; I think we can leave the decision of how much of the deleted information on view in a comment to the individual admin's discretion. In some cases, leaving some information does help others to have more of an idea of what is going on and many of the "spam" links we have seen are relatively innocuous in that the domain owners are merely service providers rather than spammers themselves.
:::If this is an area you think we could do with better guidelines on, I would be happy to see something proposed. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:41, 6 April 2014 (BST)

== Content of your recent post (2) ==

You have been warned before about using the charity's website to make personal attacks against individual staff members. [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=next&oldid=57577 This comment] you have just made on the Engine Room is such a personal attack, and I have removed it. Please feel free to refactor your comments or to repost some more general comment if you wish - for example criticising the charity as a whole - but if you respond with any further bad faith comments about staff members you will be blocked. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 16:28, 6 June 2014 (BST)

:I'll reflect on it. Your point of view on this seems radically different to mine and I am having difficulty seeing this as a personal attack but criticism of actions taken by the Chief Executive in that role. Consequently this, by definition, cannot be a criticism of the person.
:It would seem slightly bizarre if any member of the charity cannot publicly raise an issue with regard to actions taken by the Chief Executive without the Chairman immediately suppressing it as a possible personal attack. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:30, 6 June 2014 (BST)

Here's a "refactored" version, feel free to suggest more refactoring:
: ''I suggest that the trustees ensure this is part of tomorrow's agenda item "Board committee reports" when you discuss [[Reports_7Jun14/Governance_committee_report#Transparency]]. A quick vote of the trustees might ensure that the Chief Executive has no doubt that ''timeliness'' is an essential part of the charity's commitment to transparency.
--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:37, 6 June 2014 (BST)

== Retrospective 'improvement' of your posts ==

Fae, it's not proper for you to go back over your posts and retrospectively 'improve' them after other users have responded. It creates a false impression of the timeline. If you want to add later 'ps' postings as you have afterthoughts could you please do so at the end of the thread?

I have reverted the following seven posts of yours that you made on the Engine Room, sequentially over a 20-minute period, that appear to be designed to make your own earlier posts look better after the conversation had moved on: [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57918&oldid=5791], [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57919&oldid=57918], [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57920&oldid=57919], [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57921&oldid=57920], [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57922&oldid=57921], [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57923&oldid=57922], [https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Engine_room&diff=57924&oldid=57923]. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 21:27, 13 June 2014 (BST)
:Thanks. I intended these to be minor corrections. I'll amend the thread shortly as you appear to want it to be longer than it is. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:36, 13 June 2014 (BST)
::Thank you. See the section [[#Talk pages]] above, where a very similar issue was raised with you back in 2012. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 21:42, 13 June 2014 (BST)
:::Really? That's interesting and a long time ago to research. What would have been nice would be for you to ask me to fix my edits myself rather than reverting me without discussion. To my eyes, there seems a very determined effort to create argument here where there need be none. The charity asked me to renew my membership and a few hours later I did. It seems pretty simple what the right thing to do here ought to be. It has been a busy week. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:47, 13 June 2014 (BST)
::::Please be very, very careful to stick to the exact truth. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 21:50, 13 June 2014 (BST)
:::::That appears an odd comment, I am not sure why you would say something like that. I must be tired as it looks threatening and a possible allegation of something, however I'll write it down to being late and I'll look again at your words tomorrow at some point. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (BST)

User talk:Fæ

2014-06-13T20:47:27Z

Fæ: /* Retrospective 'improvement' of your posts */ yes, interesting

Engine room

2014-06-13T20:43:10Z

Fæ: /* Removal of sysop rights */ c

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)

<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)

User talk:Fæ

2014-06-13T20:36:08Z

Fæ: /* Retrospective 'improvement' of your posts */ thanks

Engine room

2014-06-13T18:30:44Z

Fæ: /* Removal of sysop rights */ format

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)

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.

: 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)

* 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)

Engine room

2014-06-13T18:27:26Z

Fæ: /* Removal of sysop rights */ trim

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)

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, 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 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]
#At 16:43 on 12 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 13 June @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.

: 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)

* 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)

Engine room

2014-06-13T18:24:07Z

Fæ: /* Removal of sysop rights */ ce

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)

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 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]
#At 16:43 on 12 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 13 June @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.

: 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)

* 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)

Engine room

2014-06-13T18:20:18Z

Fæ: /* Removal of sysop rights */ factual correction

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)

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 12 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 13 June @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.

: 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)

* 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)

Engine room

2014-06-13T18:16:45Z

Fæ: busy today

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)

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 12 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 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.

: 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)

* 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)

Engine room

2014-06-13T18:08:47Z

Fæ: /* Removal of sysop rights */ typo

__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| [[/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,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].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.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.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.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.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.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.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.[[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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)

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 12 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.

: 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)

* 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)