|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| I think it would be helpful for people to sign their ideas to help with any follow-up. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | | I think it would be helpful for people to sign their ideas to help with any follow-up. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC) |
| :Good idea. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | | :Good idea. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| |
| == Comment re: Wikipedia in Schools ==
| |
|
| |
| I notice that Ed has suggested this as an area of work. It's a sensible suggestion and I'm developing a project at the moment around digital literacy, online research skills and other related topics. I'll add some more details of this to this wiki later on today. --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 08:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :This being a plan for next year, there has to be a reasonable goal of what can be achieved in a year. Ed writes, "there should be wikipedia editing lessons as part of every school's curriculum for every subject." Yes, this is a desirable goal, but what's an achievable way to progress toward it in the next year? Without that, we don't have an activity. What's happened in the past is that people have signed up to do "education projects" but people's interests are so spread across the sector that not much concrete happens. So we need to pull together on something achievable. I do want there to be a workshop for teachers some time in the next year and I've made a start on [[Wikimedia for schools workshop|writing up some suggested activities]], and Leutha and Tom Morton are making improvements. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 09:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Sex-ed improvement project ==
| |
|
| |
| Andreas' proposal is already covered and budgeted in planned activity under [[expert outreach]]. We are working with a range of scientific and scholarly bodies to get improvements to Wikipedia in their area, and we have a budget and support for volunteers who want to meet with partners or to arrange training events or editathons, but nothing so far that specifically addresses sex education. Rather than trying to put sex ed into the activity plan, Andreas, your effort would be better spent finding a contact in a relevant partner body, having a meeting and getting something going. We can't put each individual project into an activity plan, otherwise we'd have a "cancer pages improvement" project, a "Parkinson's pages improvement" project and so on. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 09:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Training events for volunteers ==
| |
|
| |
| Speaking selfishly, I'd like there to be a workshop for Wikipedians who want to be admins eventually. I hope and expect that some of the participants in the Train the Trainers workshop will take the initiative and put something together. In fact, why wait until 2013? [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 09:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :In my mind, it is more urgent to have a workshop for potential Commons admins. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Ideas relying on more staff == | | == Ideas relying on more staff == |
I think it would be helpful for people to sign their ideas to help with any follow-up. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good idea. The Land (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ideas relying on more staff
I believe WMUK has recruited staff more quickly than any other chapter created to date, if someone is aware otherwise I would love to look at an alternative case study. Compared to other chapters we can probably claim to have a (comparatively) robust plan and strategy, however going away from our plan and increasing staff numbers further while it is less than a year since our first employee started, means that we should be cautious about assessing the benefits and risks. Ideas that heavily rely on new permanent staff being recruited, as opposed to contractors or similar arrangements, are likely to need a lot of work shaping a convincing proposal to address these reasonable reservations.
Here's the jargon bit -- The charity has to maintain an appropriate balance of cost of overheads and fundraising administration against the outcomes that deliver our mission (see CC19 and RS3). Keep in mind that where reasonable to do so, proposals based on limited project costs rather than staffing overheads reduce long term risks; saying that, a track record of successful projects may often be used as a proposal for staffing as a more effective and efficient solution for an indefinite core programme of activities. --Fæ (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)