|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | | __NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
| {|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;" | | {{divbox|blue|Welcome to the water cooler| This is a place to find out what is happening and to discuss our external projects and activities. Feel free to suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission or ask questions about how you can help. To discuss the inner workings of the charity, head over to the [[engine room]].}} |
| | {{divbox|green|WMUK Grants programme - a piece of cake?[[file:Tile wmuk.jpeg|75px|left]]|<center>Applying for a grant is easy.<p>If Wikimedia UK can help you improve Wikimedia projects, check out our [[grants|grants page]].</center>}} |
| | {| style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;" |
| |- | | |- |
| |[[File:Archives.png|x100px]] | | |[[File:Archives.png|x100px]] |
| |- | | |- |
| |align=center|{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2010|<br>[[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011|<br>[[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012|<br>[[/2012|2012]]}} | | | align="center" |{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2010|<br>[[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011|<br>[[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012|<br>[[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013|<br>[[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014|<br>[[/2014|2014]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2015|<br>[[/2015|2015]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2016|<br>[[/2016|2016]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2017|<br>[[/2017|2017]]}} |
| |} | | |} |
| __TOC__ | | __TOC__ |
|
| |
|
| == Request for comment == | | == Kanban for editathons == |
|
| |
|
| I am drafting a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pine/drafts/ENWP_Board_of_Education and would like input from chapters. I would appreciate comments on the talk page. Thank you! [[User:Pine|Pine]] ([[User talk:Pine|talk]]) 10:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC) | | [[File:WCCWiki4.jpg|thumb|A {{wp|kanban board}} at the Women in Classical Studies editathon at Senate House, London]] |
| | I just saw the newsletter with a picture of the {{wp|kanban board}} used at the Women in Classical Studies editathon. What a great idea! It helps people share what they are working on. Helps to avoid edit conflicts. Enables organisers to list all the articles that have been improved. It could possibly work well for a recap session at the end too, where people talk about the changes they made. |
|
| |
|
| == How do we reduce the creeping "legalese" of our constitution and policy documents? ==
| | Who was involved with that editathon? Who has used it elsewhere? I would love to hear how it has been used in practice. |
| Hi, I have raised a question around how better to handle difficult wording on our key documents at [[Talk:Articles_of_Association#Difficult_legal_language]], though I'm thinking that this is a more general problem that could do with rather more plain English advocacy. Anyone have good ideas on how to make this guff a bit more digestible? Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Does Navigation popups work for you on WMUK? ==
| | [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| I just tried out Navigation popups (check your preferences, gadgets) but it does not display correctly for me, in fact it leaves a nasty mess of un-wiped text for every internal link I hover over. Anyone have a fix? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| | : Hi [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]], I was the lead trainer at the [[ wikipedia:Meetups/UK/Institute_of_Classical_Studies_Jan_2017 |Women in Classical Studies editathon]]. I saw the kanban in an [https://www.instagram.com/p/BClfaSjhVdG/ Instagram post] for an [[wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism|Art+Feminism]] editathon. It worked much better than expected - a fantastic indicator of the [https://youtu.be/bAWxTPZZNrg?t=2m27s achievements of the day].[[User:Eartha78|Eartha78]] ([[User talk:Eartha78|talk]]) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (GMT) |
| : I've had a look and they don't work for me either. Pretty nasty! --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 15:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::This is something I've noticed with the popups on some other wikis, too. Does some custom CSS need to be added to [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]? [[User:Rock drum|Rock drum]] ([[User talk:Rock drum|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rock drum|contribs]]) 15:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == How commonly is the water cooler used? ==
| | ::Cool. So how did you use it? Did you get people to brainstorm a load of post-its of articles to look at, at the beginning of the day? Did you just say 'if you have an idea, stick it on the board'? Did you come with the post-its filled out already? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 10:25, 11 February 2017 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| Hello everyone. As you may be aware I'm working on reviewing our communications and writing our comms strategy at the moment. One thing I wanted to take a look at in my examination of the WMUK wiki is the water cooler. I'd like to get a handle on how many people come here. So, if you're reading this before Friday 8 June, would you please pop a note here? Many thanks. --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 15:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| | ::: The group were quite well prepared prior to the editathon. They had identified a number of articles to create - some had already done the research and started to writing in their sandbox. When we began the second part of the editathon they each committed to an article, wrote it on a sticky note and stuck it to the wall! Moving the notes from left to right was surprisingly motivating and a good excuse to stretch ones legs. Also used the sticky notes for an evaluation exercise at the end of the session. [[User:Eartha78|Eartha78]] ([[User talk:Eartha78|talk]]) 18:27, 16 February 2017 (GMT) |
| :I'm afraid this test isn't going to work. A lot of us follow this wiki by keeping an eye on recent changes, so having lots of people posting here will attract more people. It's not the kind of page that you specifically go to to see if anything interesting has been posted. You come here when you notice it on recent changes or your watchlist. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :: That in itself will have some value for me actually. I want to see how something on here develops in real time and how many people will respond to something without being directly pointed there. Thanks for the heads-up though, I appreciate it :) --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 16:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::You might be better off looking through the page history and seeing how actual discussions here developed. Asking people to respond is very artificial, which will severely limit the usefulness of your results. (I'm an actuary in real life, so I have a thing about statistically well-designed studies!) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I have recent changes on my RSS feed and that led me here. If the wiki gets busier and this becomes the place to announce new stuff I might switch to just having this page on my RSS (every history page is an RSS feed). [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::I agree, it's a matter of how long a piece of elastic might be. You start to get the [[w:en:Observer effect (physics)|Observer effect]]. I think you might find that what's most salient about your aim of trying to write a comms startegy is that you start developing relationships with different editors. These human interactions take place at a level somewhat distinct from the sort of formal assessment of what a strategy might be.[[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 23:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::I tried to adapt a metric from Wikiversity at [[Water cooler/metrics]] but I couldn't suss out the right code, so the first one (April 2011) gets us to the Ukrainian wikipedia. (I left the others unchanged so you end up at WV.) I tried looking at Meta, but they seem to have a way of jumping from UK.Wiki'''p'''edia to UK.wiki'''m'''edia. Anyway, I need a break so I thought someone else might like to have a crack at this. Basically it allows you to set up a metric on the page and keep track of viewings. [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :It doesn't get that much use, but it's the most logical place to discuss things to do with the wiki itself (as opposed to the chapter). Stevie, it might interest you to know that the Wikipedia equivalent, the [[w:en:WP:VP|village pumps]], also tend not to get very much attention except when people are pointed there. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''Harry Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::: Thanks everyone for your comments, very much appreciated. --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 12:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | | ::::Thank you Eartha78. That is really interesting. I will use this next time I do an editathon. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (GMT) |
|
| |
|
| == QRpedia coordination page == | | == Wikimedia UK's plans for 2018 - community consultation == |
| | [[File:Programmes Consultation Video - Wikimedia UK.webm|centre|thumb|800x800px|Watch our video about our plans for 2018]] |
|
| |
|
| I know that [[:outreach:GLAM/QR_codes]] exists, but I'm wondering if a page on :wmuk would be useful to point to for folks to understand the QRpedia agreement with WMUK, the status of the open source code, trademark agreement and where to report bugs in an emergency; or should we just point to the :outreach page and improve that? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
| | Wikimedia UK is in the process of writing our proposal to the Wikimedia Foundation for funding during 2018/19. The deadline for the bid is 1st October after which it is assessed by staff at the Foundation, there is an opportunity for community feedback and questions, and the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meet to consider proposals and make recommendations about grants. |
|
| |
|
| == How to attract an administrator's attention ==
| | As 2018/19 is the final year of our 2016 - 2019 strategy, our programme for next year is in many ways a continuation of our activities in 2017 and falls under three key strands: |
|
| |
|
| We have a template for recommending the speedy deletion of a page ([[:Template:Delete]]), which does sometimes get used by non-administrators when they need a page deleted. This includes the page in [[:Category:Speedy deletions]] so an administrator can spot it and delete it. However, as an administrator, I never look at that category. I keep an eye on this wiki simply by looking at recent changes. I do sometimes spot and delete pages tagged with that template, but only because I saw it on recent changes, so the template didn't actually help. Do other administrators check that category on a regular basis? If not, should we come up with a better way to find an admin? Or is having admins looking at recent changes enough, in which case we don't really need the template? What are people's thoughts (admins and non-admins alike)? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 13:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
| | # Diverse content and contributors |
| :I didn't even know that category existed. Whenever I delete something, it's always from the recent changes. I think the template is mostly used by people who do small wiki monitoring. With this being a fairly quiet wiki, there's probably no need for a dedicated system for reaching an admin (there are plenty of us compared to the amount of work for us to do), but the template does no harm and it might be useful if the wiki gets busier. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''Harry Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
| | # Promoting open knowledge |
| ::Personally, I did know that template & category existed, but I do things from recent changes as well given that the wiki is small enough to do that and not miss anything. The template does no harm, and maybe useful for some. Any other potential methods for contacting admins would probably be more bureaucracy than is worth. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 19:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
| | # Education and Learning |
|
| |
|
| == More about the footer ==
| | These strands are directly related to our three strategic goals, which are to: |
|
| |
|
| I just saw the thread [[#Huge foot]] and looked at the footer.
| | * Increase the quality and quantity of coverage of subjects that are currently underrepresented on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects |
| | * Contribute to the development of open knowledge in the UK, by increasing understanding and recognition of the value of open knowledge and advocating for change at an organisational, sectoral and public policy level |
| | * Support the use of the Wikimedia projects as important tools for education and learning in the UK |
| | |
| | We would welcome input from the UK community into our plans for next year - which we are still shaping - and have created a short video to highlight our programme strands which you can watch [https://youtu.be/56s3Ch7sHbQ here]. You can give us feedback on our programme anytime, but if you’d like your views to be taken into account in our submission to the Wikimedia Foundation for funding, please do comment below by Friday 29th September. If you’d prefer to get in touch by email, feel free to contact me on lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk. |
|
| |
|
| I thought "About Wikimedia UK! That would be a useful place to put info like an address..." But then discovered that the page explicitly isn't about Wikimedia UK, it is about the the Wikimedia UK wiki.
| | There are several questions in particular that I’d like to ask: |
|
| |
|
| Maybe where the footer says "About Wikimedia UK" it should say "About the Wikimedia UK wiki"
| | * Is there anything that Wikimedia UK should be doing more of, or new activities that we should consider, in 2018/19? |
| | * What work would you like to see us continue? |
| | * Is there anything you think we should do less of or stop doing? |
| | * How would you like to be involved in Wikimedia UK’s programme next year? |
|
| |
|
| And another thing... if the linked page is about the wiki, why is it called [[Help:Contents]]? Surely it should be called [[Wikimedia:About]]. ([[Wikimedia:About]] is currently a redirect to [[Help:Contents]])
| | With many thanks indeed for your input. |
| | |
| | [[User:LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK)|LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:39, 21 September 2017 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 17:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
| | == ACTRIAL and new users creating new pages at events == |
| : Good points. Perhaps you could be bold and improve the pages and links? :-) Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::OK... well... I have moved [[Help:Contents]] to [[Wikimedia:About]]... But that is about as far as I can take it. I can't edit [[MediaWiki:Aboutpage]] (I would need to be an admin)... so unfortunately if you click on "About Wikimedia UK" you now get the little message saying "(Redirected from Help:Contents)".
| |
| ::Someone with admin rights will also need to edit [[MediaWiki:Aboutsite]] so that it says "About the Wikimedia UK wiki".
| |
| ::Happy to make these changes myself if someone gives me admin rights.
| |
| ::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 21:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :::I have changed [[MediaWiki:Aboutpage]]. I'll leave any changes to [[MediaWiki:Aboutsite]] to someone else to decide whether the above suggestion is the best wording. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
| | Hi All, |
|
| |
|
| ::::Thanks for doing that change. | | Some thoughts on {{wp|WP:ACTRIAL}} and our events: |
| ::::Anyone got an idea for a better phrase to put in the footer?
| | *It makes sense to encourage new users to work in {{wp|Wikipedia:Drafts|Draft: name space}}. |
| ::::Would anyone like to argue in favour of the current situation (where it says "About Wikimedia UK" and then you click on it and the page says "This page is '''not''' for those seeking help in contacting WMUK (instead, see [[Contact us|here]]), and more details about the exact structure of WMUK are on the [[Main Page|main page]]. Instead, this page gives advice for editors of the wiki.")
| | *This doesn't change the fact that it is worth asking people to create an account in advance (and to remember their password!) |
| ::::Anyone think we should do something completely different? Like make "About Wikimedia UK" link to [[Contact us]]?
| | *We have to expect that some people won't create an account and most of those who have won't be auto-confirmed - this is OK. |
| ::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
| | *If there are admins present at the event, they can make new users confirmed.... although I wouldn't stress over it - there is no harm in the Draft: name space. |
| | *All the above is less of an issue if we take the approach of [[#Training from the back of the room]] described above. If the group is split into teams that are deliberately set to have the full spread of ability, we can encourage people to help other team members, including the following: |
| | **Middle-ability people to show the people with no account how to create an account. |
| | **Experienced editors to help newer editors to find a page that might need editing. |
| | **Experienced editors to create pages that other team members are interested in editing. |
| | You could even get admins to confirm accounts of non-confirmed people in their team, but it might actually be better to not do that. If the experienced people in the team have actually created the article then at least we know it is in their contributions and so they can steward the article towards improvement. e.g. 1. the day after the event, they might go back to the article and tidy it up, 2. if the article gets tagged for deletion, they are better able to discuss it and improve it, whereas a new user may feel bitten. |
|
| |
|
| == Page of volunteers? ==
| | [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| We have pages for [[Staff]] and the [[Board]], which would naturally come together under the heading of 'People' (in particular thinking about the sidebar link), but that wouldn't include the most important people for the organisation - volunteers. I'm wondering if it's worth starting a similar page giving profiles of some volunteers, or whether that wouldn't be sustainable, or if there aren't volunteers interested in being featured on such a page. What do you all think? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 00:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
| | :Obvious question, where do we find data on how many non-autoconfirmed users and IPs actually make pages that satisfy Wiki Criteria? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.141|82.132.237.141]] 15:31, 26 September 2017 (BST) |
| :We all have userpages don't we? I've no objection to others creating something else, but the first place I'd look for a profile would be someone's userpage. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 18:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | | ::[[:meta:Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal|According to WMF research]], of the 1,180 articles created every day on the English Wikipedia, about 7% are by non-autoconfirmed editors. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:55, 2 October 2017 (BST) |
| :How would you choose who to have on the page? We have lots of volunteers, contributing various amounts in various ways, and we'll hopefully have even more in the future - far too many to have profiles of all of them. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 16:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
| | :Thanks for your input Yaris678. Working in Draft: or User: space is probably going to be integral to dealing with this. I've not used Draft: much myself, but I'm keen on getting people to use their sandbox to prepare material and then copy it over. It does mean a chunk of the pages people work on aren't copied over the to the mainspace but that's a reasonable trade-off. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (BST) |
| Maybe interested volunteers could give their User page a category, ie: volunteers? That way it would be self administering and opt in.[[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 06:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::You could create a category for user pages & link that at a people page, or link to a Special: list (Eek, not [[Special:ListUsers]]!). Not sure it's worth doing more, per the above comments. But few people have much on their pages here, except links to WP. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |
| :::Something like [[:Category:Active volunteers for Wikimedia UK]]? I think it's important to specify that we are talking about people who do stuff for WMUK... if we get onto people who voluntarily contribute to a Wikimedia wiki then the list is long and useless. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Not too keen on this particular idea - "active ''blah''" categories always rot faster than you can update them. [[User:Deryck Chan|Deryck Chan]] ([[User talk:Deryck Chan|talk]]) 19:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Perhaps if we were to have volunteer cats they should be specific ones - this editor is willing to help do x or y. That way when you need a couple of volunteers to help out at an event you can contact people in that category rather than email the whole mailing list. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::::For what it's worth, I've been creating a UK "GLAM Connect" hub for GLAM professionals which includes (or at least, will include) a list of Wikimedians interested in GLAM and working with institutions. You can see this at [[Cultural partnerships/Connect]]; perhaps something like this could be created for other outreach projects, too. Regards, [[User:Rock drum|Rock drum]] ([[User talk:Rock drum|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rock drum|contribs]]) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| : OK, thanks for the feedback. I've created [[People]], and [[:Category:Wikimedia UK volunteers]] to serve these roles, please help improve the former and/or add yourself to the latter. :-) Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :: NB, I didn't go for specific categories as I was aiming for something simple that can organically grow, rather than going specific directly. Please feel free to create more specific categories as you think are needed, or want to categorise yourself into. :-) Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == en.wikipedia Meetups template ==
| | :The [[#Training from the back of the room]] sounds like a really interesting idea, I'm interested in this kind of collaborative/peer learning process. Sadly for the bulk of editathons I manage, this wouldn't be applicable, as I'm generally working with a whole bundle new users, trying to advocated for further use in their organisations. [[User:Lirazelf|Lirazelf]] ([[User talk:Lirazelf|talk]]) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (BST) |
| | ::Thanks Lirazelf. I guess you'll have to rely on the first four bullets - especially the draft namespace. I think it would be useful to have a non-new user move the drafts across. Preferably during the training session, so people can see their work "live" on Wikipedia, which will create excitement. Ideally, well before the end of the training so that people can continue to edit their articles in main space - seeing that this is a normal thing to do is important. |
| | ::I fringe benefit of this approach is that each article edited will be in the contributions list of at least one non-new user. That way, they can "steward" the article to a certain extent. This will be particularly important if the article is nominated for deletion - having someone who knows the ropes will help to get the article in a position to keep - and help to argue that it should be kept. But more generally it will be useful, to keep the article quality up. |
| | ::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 12:59, 19 October 2017 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| Just spotted this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Meetup-UK - which I think Pigsonthewing set up a couple of years ago. Looks like we could make use of it (I wouldn't mind putting it on my Wikipedia user page, for instance) but it doesn't seem to work at present... any idea whether this can be fixed? [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
| | ==Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2017 awards announced== |
| :It looks like it has to be updated manually. There is nothing broken about it, it just hasn't been updated for 2 years. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
| | [[File:The Derelict West Pier of Brighton.jpg|thumb|1st prize: The derelict West Pier in Brighton, by Matthew Hoser]] |
| :: [[:meta:Template:Meetup list]] is probably a better template to use, since that's where most (all?) UK wikimeets tend to be listed. Cross-wiki inclusion would be a really nice feature to have... Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
| | I am very pleased to be able to announce the 2017 award winners for Wiki Loves Monuments in the UK. |
|
| |
|
| == The co-opted trustee ==
| | First place goes to '''Matthew Hoser''' for his image of the derelict West Pier in Brighton. |
|
| |
|
| The press release says that the board would decide on a replacement for Joscelyn over the in-person board meeting last weekend, but I don't see anything along those lines in the minutes. What is going to happen? [[User:Deryck Chan|Deryck Chan]] ([[User talk:Deryck Chan|talk]]) 11:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
| | In second place was '''Paul Stümke''', who captured the Glenfinnan Viaduct at Loch Shiel. |
| :Hi Deryck. The Board are currently considering their options and there will be an update in due course. Thanks. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :: Hi Deryck, if you hadn't yet seen, [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/wikimedia-uk-appoints-saad-choudri-to-its-board/ the Board is pleased to announce the appointment of Saad Choudri to the Board]. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == WMUK membership survey ==
| | Third was '''Oliver Tookey''' for the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill on Sea. |
|
| |
|
| We're currently in the process of developing a WMUK membership survey. A page has been popped up on this Wiki for comments and suggestions. [[WMUK_membership_survey_-_suggestions_and_comments|Please do get involved with the discussion here]]. Thanks! --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
| | The special prize for the best image taken in Scotland was awarded to '''Keith Proven''' for Smailholm Tower. |
|
| |
|
| == Improvements to the [[Trustee Code of Conduct]] ==
| | The special prize for the best image taken in Wales went to '''Sterim64''' for Craig-y-mor. |
|
| |
|
| I have raised some suggestions for improvements to the code at [[Talk:Trustee_Code_of_Conduct#Conflict_of_Interest_Policy]]. I would welcome comments and further suggestions on how we can take a conservative approach to trustee interests without excluding anyone with reasonable expertise to bring to the board. We may be at a point where the consensus is that no trustee can serve who has any financial interest (as opposed to ''direct'' financial interest), though this might become difficult to interpret at the time of the next election if members come forward prepared to serve, who have related valuable experience to bring to the board that they claim is "manageable" and therefore allowable under Charity Commission guidelines. That word "manageable" is tripping us up right now, and some on-wiki discussion may help define it in a way that is credible to the outside world (such as the WMF) and yet pragmatic for the benefit of our charity. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| | You can see all of these images, and the other stunning pictures that were awarded Highly Commended status [[Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2017_in_the_United_Kingdom/Winners|at Wikimedia Commons]]. |
| :Glad to see such efforts. -- [[w:User:Lexein]] 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Resignation==
| | Many congratulations to all of our prizewinners, and thanks to all who volunteered to help make the contest a success: contestants, judges, reviewers and Wikimedians in many roles. Thanks also for the kind support we received from the International team, from our friendly staff at Wikimedia UK, and from our 2017 prize sponsors, Wikimedia UK and Archaeology Scotland. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 07:43, 31 October 2017 (GMT) |
| Thanks, WMUK, but it's not enough. This does nothing to a) address the public perception of Wikimedia/Wikipedia's ability to police itself (follow both the letter ''and spirit'' of all pillar/policy/guideline), or b) repair the damage done to Wikipedia's credibility and reputation.
| |
| *A public list of edits by whom at WMUK, related to Gibraltarpedia (including DYK promotions) should be published in a press release, with classification of each as non-controversial, promotional of Gibraltar, self-promotional of Wikipedia, or inappropriately collaborative with an external entity.
| |
| *The Gibraltarpedia project itself should be, as I've said elsewhere, '''shut, disavowed, and salted''', and all involved editors should publicly self-topic-ban for one year. The independence and status of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia which documents, but does not serve, any entity or individual, must be '''firmly reasserted,''' and if it has never been asserted before, it should be asserted now.
| |
| *I can't help thinking that none of these remedial actions would have been needed if ''clean hands'' had been kept at WMUK, with only independent volunteer public editors doing the edits, in the tradition of [[IRC:en-wikipedia-help]], with no meatpuppetry. --[[wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| * Oh, and by the way, I '''know''' this is self-draconian and extreme, but what else will strongly indicate Wikimedia/Wikipedia's commitment to independence, unalloyed neutrality, and ability to recognize and respond to even the appearance of impropriety? --[[wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| **AFAIK The only WMUK trustee involved (beyond the odd edit) in Gibraltarpedia is Roger (now ex-trustee of course). You can see his contributions at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Victuallers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Victuallers], which do include edits to some Gibraltarpedia articles, as well as organizing stuff on talk pages etc. Whether the 500-odd bytes he added to the 18th century [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_Tunnels Great Siege Tunnels], one of the articles he has added most to, are "non-controversial, promotional of Gibraltar, self-promotional of Wikipedia, or inappropriately collaborative with an external entity" I'll leave you to judge. He has stated that the consultancy he is doing does not include editing, though it does include training editors. It is not within the power of WMUK to shut down the project, even if we wished to do so. I have not seen any suggestion that the vast majority of edits to project articles are not being done by "independent volunteer public editors", as they have been in all the other very successful projects Roger has been involved with. Finding, channelling and enthusing such editors is Roger's special talent. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::Yes, it's officially only one person. I shall repeat: Resignation may be necessary, '''but''' it cannot be sufficient. ''This does nothing to a) address the public perception of Wikimedia/Wikipedia's ability to police itself (follow both the letter ''and spirit'' of all pillar/policy/guideline), or b) repair the damage done to Wikipedia's credibility and reputation.'' Organizational or procedural changes must also follow. If I'm wrong, correct me. Roger placed a well-detailed development report at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#A_short_History_of_DYK_-_where_are_the_people_in_charge.3F WT:Did you know], and I responded there. IMHO, full public disclosure like that, early, and instantly, would have gone far to blunt the damage done. Given that that's now impossible, WMF/WP has to do something else. --[[wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 04:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::::''I am taking some time out to write a longer reply, please read this as a personal viewpoint as I have chosen to respond without confirming that my (rather busy!) fellow trustees support the specific detail of this response. I would be happy to tweak my reply should any trustee be concerned about my wording.
| |
| ::::I agree we have been unacceptably slow to respond and communicate with our members. It should be noted that we have been in the process of seeking external advice and improving our [[Trustee Code of Conduct]] since March this year, in fact we had no such document in place for the trustees to sign up to, until the AGM in May. I first alerted the trustees to the issue blowing up on DYK on Saturday (and have been personally incredibly frustrated that we were incapable of making a response within 24 hours). Unfortunately our CEO is in the middle of a family emergency (spending much of his time at the hospital) and our Communication Officer is on holiday. As a result, much of the hard work of considering what the response to urgent inquiries should be, has been down to unpaid volunteer trustees. We take the matter seriously but only managed to have a telecon on Wednesday, where we could follow our due process and make the joint decisions to co-opt Saad as a trustee and sadly accept Roger's resignation from the board, it was an emotional and difficult discussion. At [[Agenda 19Sep12|that same meeting]] we *had* to agree the budget underpinning the [[2013 Activity Plan]] as part of our necessary functioning as a charity, it was a very, very full discussion.
| |
| ::::Lexein, please keep in mind that our role as trustees is quite limited. We have no control over what our individual members do on Wikimedia projects and trustees are expected to follow their conscience on such matters within the [[Trustee Code of Conduct]]. Roger's activities pre-date our code of conduct, a situation that has for many months caused the Board to have long and difficult discussion where we repeatedly failed to achieve a full consensus, and for current or future trustees this situation (where a trustee was receiving indirect but closely related financial benefit) could not happen as it would be in conflict with our reading of the code based on the conservative interpretation of Charity Commission guidelines we have adopted. Much of our difficult discussion has been in-camera, which in retrospect may have been a mistake in terms of applying our [[Values]] and I intend to clarify the limits of how the Board intends use in-camera sessions in future; a matter I have previously raised with the Board, particularly where there may be resulting delay in effectively managing a reputational risk to the charity (a key responsibility of trustees).
| |
| ::::I accept that organizational and procedural changes must follow this damaging incident, and I have already proposed improvements to the [[Trustee Code of Conduct|code]] to make it clearer on the issue of interests, I welcome your comments on further improvements you would like to see.
| |
| ::::The Board can take action to withdraw membership from anyone that has demonstrably failed to support our [[Mission]] and we would require any trustee to step down from the board if they fail to support the Trustee Code of Conduct; we have no authority over a member's or a trustee's actions on the Wikimedia projects, though their actions on the projects may be used as evidence of a failure to support the Mission or a failure to comply with the Trustee Code of Conduct.
| |
| ::::In response to an inquiry this week from the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been preparing a full explanation of the background to Roger's work with Gibraltarpedia, how his interest has been declared and managed throughout this year (Roger's interest has been a key topic of discussion at '''every''' board meeting this year), including gaining external expert advice from a charity governance expert in March 2012 and legal advice at the beginning of September 2012 (as a result of which we took the step of writing, before this incident, to the Charity Commission for their comments on our approach, and are awaiting their reply); the advice was given with explanation of Roger's declared interests and known plans for future work. Several trustees and staff have spent significant time checking the facts and putting the explanation together. I understand that a version of this same information will be made public shortly.
| |
| ::::I, and other trustees, have opinions on how the DYK process should improve and the analysis that could be done to support improvement, but that is a matter for those that contribute to the English Wikipedia rather than the UK Chapter.
| |
| ::::I certainly would like to be in a position where we can respond "instantly" (or at least within one working day of significant questions being raised), though in terms of disclosure, Roger has been making determined efforts to make full public disclosures, for example during his re-election at the AGM, at board meetings, at Wikimania and during Wikimeet discussions. Any question raised with Roger about his interest from any member or non-member has been responded to calmly and promptly. Despite no longer being on the Board, Roger has shown no shortage of goodwill in helping us with supplying information and clarifying his position; he has my full respect for keeping calm under pressure. However from the viewpoint of the charity, I do not dispute that our communication of the risk and our steps to deal with it over the last few months, was not effective or sufficiently proactive, and when our Communications Manager is available the Board will be seeking his advice and plan on the improvement necessary to our processes, and how we can disclose information in a more effective way to ensure we meet our values to stay open and transparent in our operations as a charity; ''in my view'' we are currently failing to meet those values that our members demand and as trustees we hold dear, that ''is not an acceptable situation'', fortunately I can assure you it is improving and the trustees are absolutely committed to delivering on these values.
| |
| ::::''Side note'' - For those in the UK, our next in-person [[Board meetings|board meeting]] is on the weekend of the 17th November. If at that time anyone still feels we have not taken sufficient action and would like to opportunity to publicly hold us to account, please do come along, ask for a slot on the agenda (preferably a couple of weeks in advance!), and bend our ears. Our quarterly board meetings are open, and we fully welcome independent views being presented on how we can improve processes and manage risks more effectively than we have seen to date. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::::''Update'' After posting the above, I can see an email confirming that a blog post as an official statement from the Chapter, with a summary of the facts, will be on the blog later today. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::::''Update'' I have now released the blog post at http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/gibraltarpedia-the-facts/ in which Chris lays out the key facts on behalf of the Board of trustees. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::::::I appreciate the extended response, as one who is as ignorant of the inner machinations of WMUK as the public. I'm not sure the WMUK chapter ''yet'' realizes the Wikipedia-wide exposure and crisis of confidence this has triggered. Unfortunately, the blog post's flat and somewhat angry declaration of "fact" is (to use [[:wikipedia:User;Orangemike]]'s term) ''tone-deaf'' to the appearance of impropriety, and thus does nothing to assert or guarantee Wikipedia's independence from other entities or persons. Why should Wikipedia or Wikimedia have any hand in helping Gibraltar expand its tourism? Is Wikipedia's job to ''document, but not serve'', or not?
| | == Effects of broadband == |
| ::::::I hope measures will be put in place to guarantee that the encyclopedia will always ''be and appear to be,'' at all costs, independent. I'd rather lose a project than have the encyclopedia suffer any further loss of credibility or public faith. Full and rapid crisis disclosure, and, better than that, full disclosure at the start of a project, will be helpful. The ''appearance'' of loss of independence was predicted by those of us who were called "paranoid". Fortunately, future risk of such appearance of loss of independence can be predicted by forward-looking ''risk analysis'', if implemented as organizational best practice. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 12:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::To pick up on one of your recommendations, you may want to take a look at [[Risk Register]]. I would say that is in a poor draft state with a lot more work needed, your viewpoint for some more forward-looking risks and suggestions on potential countermeasures would be welcome additions to the associated discussion page so that trustees and management can take them on-board.
| |
| :::::::As I mentioned above, I agree "full and rapid crisis disclosure" is a requirement we need to meet as our response times are inadequate. I find your criticism that the blog post appears an "angry declaration" or that we seem "tone-deaf" to the appearance of impropriety, hard to roll over and accept, having seen from the inside how desperately seriously the trustees have treated the issues this week, and the huge amount of work we have all put into governance and communications improvement throughout the year, I am prepared to accept that we have failed to communicate this improvement to the wider community and that trust in our charity will take a lot more work, from everyone involved, to rebuild. If the title "Gibraltarpedia, the facts" appears angry to you, I am open to suggestions of a better and less aggressive wording.
| |
| :::::::The fact is, that is less than a year since we became a charity and less than a year since we took on our first employee. Our rapid growth has been impressive, taking on employees more quickly, I believe, than any other chapter in the same position. That itself is a cause for concern, and as a trustee I have questioned several times if we have sufficiently established best practices that can support our new organization. It was with this in mind that in 2011, I first pushed the idea of being assessed against {{w|PQASSO}} before the 2012 fund-raiser, as the most prominent UK quality standard for charities, and this programme of improvement had put us in good standing in comparison to charities of a similar size. ''I make a personal commitment'' to continue to challenge, and reject, planning further rapid growth, should we be seen to be unable to put plans, processes and policies in place that can ''credibly'' handle the risks that we need to address, including the current one of failures to be seen properly to manage declarations of interest. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::But the blog post ''doesn't'' acknowledge the damage to Wikipedia's credibility and loss of public confidence, or the internal crisis of confidence, except to imply that they don't exist, because nothing bad happened. If it wasn't tone-deaf, what was it? Maybe it wasn't angry, but what was it? Cheerfully arms-crossed teeth-gritted "not our problem?" What sort of posture is that for WMUK to take? The Gibraltarpedia page, project page, articles, and DYKs are all still there, for everyone to see, and we don't have a position from WMUK except "not our problem." I'm not having a go, here. Just count the donations box, day by day (see below in re 2007). I wish I could have done a rewrite of that post - it was a truly lost opportunity. As for the rest, I heartily hope for the best in re PQASSO, and risk analysis. I'll look at that with interest. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 13:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::Fair comment. I'll pass on your paragraph here to the board and see if we are prepared to and add more to the post to address the point that we have not done sufficient to acknowledge a loss of credibility in our community. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
| :Lexein, your request is more than Draconian and extreme- it is phrased in ways that imply you object to Wikimedia's core activities. To carry out our mission to the fullest extent, we have to work in partnership with a variety of partner organisations. These are situations that should benefit all parties: when a museum or gallery helps improve Wikipedia improve coverage about its holdings, more of the world's knowledge and culture is made freely available, Wikipedia and its sister projects are improved, and the partner organisation benefits from increased public interest, maybe even increased funding.
| |
| :There are almost inevitably costs involved in these partnerships, and it's not possible or desirable for WMUK pay all of them. When the partner organisation pays practically all the costs, as is the case with Gilbraltarpedia, then we should count that as a very good thing, and well done to the Wikimedians who negotiated it.
| |
| :Wikimedia UK is the national charity promoting and supporting Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. It's absurd to imply that activity that is "promotional of Wikipedia" is some sort of offence, especially as the only activity promoting Wikipedia that seems to have taken place is putting more sourced, factual content so that search engines have more text to find. I'm not aware even of an allegation that information about Wikipedia, anywhere, was distorted by Gilbraltarpedia. As for "promotional of Gibraltar", show us some Gilbraltar-related edits by Victuallers that are not in line with Wikipedia's policies, then we have a concrete allegation to go on. If we get worked up about the mere logical possibility of biased edits, when the potential conflict of interest was already declared and public, that way madness lies.
| |
| :When reality and public perception wildly diverge, I personally urge the board to ground their decisions in the reality rather than the perception. I also urge them to ignore extreme requests: success in Wikipedia's/Wikimedia's mission is not some kind of horrible offence for which highly effective contributors have to be metaphorically flogged. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::No. Martin, you fail to understand just how much damage was done to the entire Wikipedia project by the ''appearance of impropriety'' and ''appearance of loss of independence.'' It is not the encyclopedia's mission to collaborate or be steered by external organizations. Its mission is to document, but not to serve. It's fine that articles were written and expanded, but ''that should have been done '''long before''' Gibraltar ever expressed any interest in expanding their tourism.'' Understand? Now, every one of those new and expanded articles is tainted, and must be combed through by uninvolved editors to assure NPOV, and citation only of independent reliable and hopefully scholarly sources. Wikipedia's core activity is to ''document, and not to serve, entities and individuals.'' I would rather lose some random pet project, than have Wikipedia suffer any further loss of credibility, public confidence, or independence. | | Looks like BT wants to push more people to faster internet where it has fiber: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bt-group-broadband/bt-incentivises-operators-to-move-customers-to-faster-broadband-idUKKBN1KE0LR |
| ::Martin, your notion of reality is distorted by what you want Wikimedia's mission to be, rather than what its stated aims are. If its stated aims are indeed to collaborate and serve external masters, then holy hell, this place really is a corrupt scam, and all the public detractors are right. -- [[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 12:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC) | | |
| ::Addendum1: Martin, I acknowledged above that other measures exist than shutting down a project. IMHO such a closure ''should be considered dispassionately'' in light of the long-term interests of the encyclopedia, over any short-term funding needs. In my opinion the needs of the encyclopedia (credibility, independence, neutrality) will always trump the needs of its parent organization(s). There are ways donors can contribute without a conflict of interest: Gibraltar, I think, was mishandled. Perhaps this can be remediated without draconian measures; to do so '''and''' regain public confidence? That's a (I think) much tougher challenge. -- [[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 13:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC) | | Is someone monitoring the trend of average internet speed and the impact it has on user activity in the Wikimedia projects? [[User:Nemo bis|Nemo bis]] ([[User talk:Nemo bis|talk]]) 08:43, 24 July 2018 (BST) |
| ::Assendum2: Damage to Wikipedia's credibility is concretely measurable. [http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2012/09/19/Wikipedia-Paid-Posts-Scandal-091912.aspx "Wikipedia Paid Posts Scandal"] shows a nice graph of the decline in 2007 donations from 22 Feb to 17 Mar around the Essjay scandal (if the causality and correlation is valid after correcting for normal donation fluctuations). I'm not making this stuff up. It's more like the stock market than you want to admit, I guess: public confidence drops will result in donation drops. Mixed-metaphorically, playing fast and loose will cost you, but running a tight ship and keeping a clean house provide long term benefits which are hard to deny. -- [[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 13:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| | |
| | ::Hi [[User:Nemo bis|Nemo bis]], I'm not sure that our small charity has the capacity to do something like this, or how it might benefit us. You are welcome to expand on why you think this would be a good idea if you like. [[User:John Lubbock (WMUK)|John Lubbock (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:John Lubbock (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:29, 2 April 2019 (BST) |
