{{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>}}
The board recently approved the 2013 Activity Plan, which includes a sizeable travel grants budget, including approximately 4x£500 places for the 2013 Amsterdam Hackathon, to be held in late May. I realise that's four months away, but equally things need to be booked in advance and application processes take time. Is there any plan to start working on the process pages that can support such applications? (I'm interested in applying.) Or do they already exist out of the way somewhere? Thanks, [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] ([[User talk:Jarry1250|talk]]) 16:36, 20 January 2013 (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.
: Thanks for this Harry - and your reminder email. We had a short discussion at the board meeting this weekend. Here is where we stand (Mike Peel might want to supplement).
Who was involved with that editathon? Who has used it elsewhere? I would love to hear how it has been used in practice.
: Wikimania Hong Kong - applications in the first instance to the Foundation. When they have allocated their places we will see who has not been successful from the WMUK community and a small panel will decide our scholarships. Wikisym - we have two scholarships advertised at the moment. Amsterdam - Amsterdam Hackathon: Mike Peel and Richard Nevell are about to advertise this. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:: Richard Nevell posted the Amsterdam Hackathon page earlier today, it's at [[Amsterdam Hackathon travel grants]], and I understand a blog post about it will be coming out soon. The Wikimania and Wikisym scholarships pages are linked to from [[Scholarships]]. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
== Interwikis ==
[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (GMT)
Is there any chance we can have an English Wikipedia interwiki prefix set up? Currently, we have :w:en: but that's a bit hacky to remember - and if you get it the wrong way around, as :en:w:, you end up with a rather forbidding error message (en.wikimedia.org does not exist).
: 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 also seen people (including myself) use :w: (which drops you on the Ukranian Wikipedia) or :en: (error message again). It's really quite daunting, especially for people who're loosely familiar with interwiki links but have only just come over to uk.wikimedia.
::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)
I think :enwp: would be a good solution, and fit with a generally used shorthand form. Any thoughts, & if there's interest, how do we get it enabled? [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 14:28, 4 February 2013 (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)
:Yes! Fantastic idea. No idea how we go about it, however... [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
:: The <nowiki>{{w}}</nowiki> template should work, and is quick and easy to remember, but having the interwikis set up better would be good. A request to make a change would have to go through [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ Bugzilla]. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 17:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
:Can we get w: fixed so it links to English? This wiki was initially misconfigured with Ukrainian as the default language, if memory serves - is that what caused the interwikis to be set up wrong? If so, it should be possible to fix it. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 21:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
::[[:Wikipedia:Main Page]] works. But yes, it would be nice if [[w:Main Page]] and/or [[wp:Main Page]] worked too. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 09:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Should the request go on Bugzilla? I'm not completely sure of the status of this site - has it been migrated to our own hosting, or is that just the internal wikis? [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 09:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Only the various non-public wikis were migrated, this one is still hosted on foundation servers. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 11:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Indeed - see [http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_21Jan13#Hosting_UK_Wiki_on_our_server here] for the update - the next progress meeting will be at the end of this month, feel free to use discussion page of minutes [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Right - it's probably best holding off any bugzilla request until we have a definite decision on whether it'll be hosted by us or WMF. [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 16:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::: The pros/cons of moving this wiki to WMUK hosting are at [[IT Development/This wiki]]; it's on the agenda for the board meeting this weekend to decide on. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:20, 7 February 2013 (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)
The charity has a budget of £2,000 to purchase equipment to be used by volunteers. There are some suggestions already, and people are invited to take a look and make their own suggestions. The page is at [[2013 Activity Plan/Volunteer equipment]]. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:I am concerned that we can demonstrate good value for any capital spend. In the example of the 3 (or is it more?) volunteer laptops, how much use have these had over the last four weeks and how many different volunteers have benefited from their purchase? Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::If you want to review the return on investment on those laptops, you need to consider a longer timescale. There could be months where they have minimal use, and months where they are actively used. Just considering the last four weeks where Wikimedia UK have been relatively quiet in terms of outreach events for example wouldn't necessarily be fair. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Sure, okay, any number of months then, at the moment I have no numbers at all. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Hi Fae, we supplied numbers at your request in [http://office.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Response_to_Faes_report_of_17_November_2012.pdf this report (on office wiki)] on 17 November last year. We recorded their use over ten weeks, and estimated that an individual laptop is, on average, used for 23 days out of every 50. To break down the cost, the laptops have a three year life expectancy, which equates to a cost of £9.49/month. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 22:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Richard, I am unsure what the benefit is of keeping these numbers on the office wiki when they are of use to our members in justifying other purchases. I asked about the last four weeks as I thought that staff could recall roughly how many times volunteers had been in and taken the laptops on loan off the top of their heads without spending ages doing an expensive and complex analysis. Presumably there is also a register so we know who booked them out, in line with how most organizations would meet their insurance requirements, so that would be an easy way of checking whether the 50% usage rate from last autumn has been sustained. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I am afraid that I can't recall off the top of my head how many times they have been used recently. I'm happy to make the numbers public, but as you can see they are part of a much longer five-page response which I have not broken down. Will you trust me (as the office manager) when I say that the laptops were a good use of our funds? I am not so sure about the cameras - we really need input from volunteer photographers for that, which is why Richard was asking for suggestions. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Asking questions as a trustee is a duty I have, you don't really have to ask about trust when I do so. Though my notorious gay intuition is perfectly happy to leave these matters to your best judgement, particularly as an employee that I took personal responsibility for recruiting, there has to be a point where outcomes and value for the charity is measurable in a consistent and simple way, even if there is an additional cost of measurement and reporting, that I can point to if we get scrutinized for our governance at a later date. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I would just like to note that suggestion on this are still very much welcome. Whether it's equipment that you would find useful yourself, or just ideas on equipment that you think other people would find useful, we would love to hear it! Thanks -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
== 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]]
== Governance: Co-option of trustees ==
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.
I realized this morning, after looking again at the current co-option process, that there are features of it I am unclear on. Could one of our old hands summarize here the interplay between AGM elections and the co-option process including issues with the board of trustees offering a co-option seat of different durations? For example, Saad is a highly successful example of co-option, but I think, had we chosen to do so, the board could have offered him a 2 year term. In practice, I believe we are hoping Saad will stand for election at the AGM, so this is moot. As co-option is relatively new for us to try, we may want to discuss the alternatives and different possible future scenarios (such as a trustee standing down before an AGM avoiding the election process, and then being co-opted shortly after the AGM). Though we need not cover every eventuality by detailed policy (the trustees should be expected to apply good judgement), it would be nice to see if the mechanics of the current process are sufficient to avoid major pitfalls. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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:
: The [[Articles#Appointment_of_Directors|Articles]], 17.4, state "A Director appointed by a resolution of the other Directors must retire at the next annual general meeting." A trustee being co-opted shortly after an AGM could only happen if another trustee resigned, died or turned out to be ineligible to be a trustee. Co-option isn't new to us as an organisation, as we co-opted Tango in the '09-'10 board term. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::Indeed. The requirement to resign at the next AGM is standard for co-options to fill casual vacancies. We did modify the CC's model articles slightly regarding co-option. The model articles all co-option for any vacancy, we only allow it for a vacancy resulting from a board member leaving the board. That means if an AGM fails to elect a full board (as happened in 2010 - only 5 people stood for the seven seats) the board can't fill the extra places by co-option and either has to call an EGM or allow the vacancies to remain for the year (we did the latter). I can't remember why we made that change... if we're amending the articles regarding co-option as part of the governance review, we may want to change that bit back to the standard rules. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 12:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Thanks Mike, I think that's clear enough, so any Co-option is limited by the date of the next AGM. If we follow the Compass recommendation to have 3 or more co-optees, then the board of trustees will need to openly plan to reappoint some co-opted trustees and by-pass the election process or change the Articles in some minimal way. Under the current system, this may mean that co-option is essentially a one-shot process, each time lasting less than one year. Maintaining 3 or more co-opted trustees every year, might turn out to be quite an administrative burden if the members do not want to change the Articles. Anyway, I'm sure this is a great topic for GovCom to thrash out and advise on. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::The current Articles are designed for an all elected board with the ability to co-opt if a filled seat goes vacant. If Wikimedia UK want to have any co-opted trustees as a matter of course, then it have to change the Articles. If the members do not want to change the Articles, then the board does not have the mandate or legal power to co-opt as a matter of course. -- [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 12:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Absolutely, I'm all for limiting powers to the bare necessities. I would just like a future board to avoid being criticised for having a co-opted trustee stand down at an AGM, just to be re-appointed shortly afterwards. Crafting a well written and clearly explained resolution seems the way forward, though this would be a challenge to sort out in time for the next AGM. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Recommendation 9 on p. 19 of [[:File:Wikimedia UK gov review rpt v5.pdf|Compass's review]] clearly envisages a change of the articles. I agree that a well written and clearly explained resolution in time for the next AGM would be good. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
:::WMUK has received legal advice on the changes to the articles that would be required to implement the Compass recommendations. The advice is on this wiki somewhere (I'm at work, so I'm not going to go searching now). One of the changes would be to allow co-option for more than just filling casual vacancies. The way the articles are written now, you couldn't do it without someone being elected to the board and resigning the next day in order to make room for the co-opted trustee to come back, which would just be silly (the co-opted trustee could have just stood themselves!). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 17:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
== VLE talk at WikiConf UK ==
# Diverse content and contributors
# Promoting open knowledge
# Education and Learning
I've [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiConference_UK_2013%2FSpeakers&diff=35932&oldid=34436 posted] a suggestion at [[WikiConference UK 2013/Speakers]]. Anyone agree, disagree or able to speak to the right people? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 13:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
These strands are directly related to our three strategic goals, which are to:
:Hi Yaris678, thank you for your comment. I think it's a really sensible suggestion. I'm not a part of the organising group, but if someone involved can confirm whether there's a space I can certainly speak to some of the people involved in the project and identify a speaker. People can either let me know here or via email and I'll look into it. Thank you. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::Propose it here: [[WikiConference UK 2013/Talk submissions]]. I'm sure there will be space. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 14:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::ErrantX, I'd prefer it if someone who knew something about the subject proposed it there. Ideally the person who is going to give the talk. But who do we get to speak on the subject? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 16:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Well, Charles is the obvious person... :) --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Cool. Can someone ask Charles? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 17:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I can certainly suggest it to Charles, that's no problem. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Cool. Thanks. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 22:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Hello again. I've been in touch with Charles and he isn't planning to be at WikiConference so I'm more than happy to do this instead. I'll add something to the proposals page to see if there's an appetite for something along these lines. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:I had a chat with Charles only a couple of weeks ago with regard to demonstrating the VLE, it may be one of those things that is better for folks to try driving than to explain. I suspect a quick taster and a brief overview of what the outcomes are for the project might be all there would be time for anyway, if the previous model of 15 minutes slots is what we are going for. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
== Human readable summary of the STV variant to be chosen ==
* 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.
Can someone respond to my post at [[User talk:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules#Details of the system]]. I think it is essential to have a human-readable summary of the rules of the STV varient that we will be using. This summary should be available well before [[EGM 2013]] so that people can analyse it at at their leisure. Ideally we would give people time to develop any alternatives they may think up. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 13:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
There are several questions in particular that I’d like to ask:
::I asked this very question. I was told we would adopt the Electoral Reform Society [http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/single-transferable-vote/ system]. On their website there is a good explanation of how it works in practice. [[User:Jon Davies WMUK|Jon Davies WMUK]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies WMUK|talk]]) 14:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
* 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?
:::Have you got a link to a good explanation of the specific version of STV that we are going to use? The best I could find is [http://www.openstv.org/votingmethods/ers97 this], but it needs summarising. I'm looking for something similar to my bullet points at [[User talk:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules#Details of the system]], except written by people who know what they are talking about.
With many thanks indeed for your input.
:::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:::: It is quite difficult to summarise the ERS97 voting method, although http://www.crosenstiel.webspace.virginmedia.com/stvrules/details.htm#Section5 is slightly better laid out with hyperlinks for anyone needing to see how exactly it works. If people want to get an idea of what's involved, you could give a rough outline of an example like this:
::::* An election for 4 places has 50 valid votes cast. Voters have listed as many candidates as they wish in order of preference: 1, 2, 3, ...
::::* The quota is 50/(4+1) = 10. So each of 4 candidates needs 10 preference votes to be elected.
::::* The number of first preferences are counted for each candidate. Anyone receiving 10 votes or more is elected.
::::* If candidates receive more votes than the 10 needed to be elected, the surplus is redistributed proportionately to the candidates who were second preference (so candidates will receive fractions of a vote).
::::* Anyone who now has received 10 votes or more after the redistribution is elected. The redistribution of surpluses continues until 4 candidates are elected or no candidate is elected at that stage.
::::* If the redistribution of surplus does not result in another candidate being elected at that stage, then the candidate with the lowest vote is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the next preferences. This continues until another candidate is elected, then the redistribution of surpluses continues, and so on.
:::: So the system requires voters to give candidates an order of preference; and the counting is designed to minimise the number of wasted votes. There are special modifications to the detailed procedures (for example to resolve ties), but they don't change the broad principles. Variants of the system exist and are described at [[w:en:Single transferable vote]]; the [[w:en:Hagenbach-Bischoff quota]] is the quota described by ERS97. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 20:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Thanks RexxS. This is very helpful. Not a million miles from what I put at [[User talk:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules#Details of the system]]... but its good to confirm my understanding.
:::::N.B. This could be moot unless the draft resolution is changed. See [[Talk:EGM 2013/Draft Resolutions#The precise terms of the election shall be determined by the Board]].
:::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
== High quality photographs for Wikimedia UK ==
== ACTRIAL and new users creating new pages at events ==
Hi All,
Hi All,
So, by now you'll have seen the first couple of members newsletters, a soon to be published donors e-newsletter, and ongoing publications coming up including Annual Review, handouts for conferences, other leaflets and forms.
Some thoughts on {{wp|WP:ACTRIAL}} and our events:
*It makes sense to encourage new users to work in {{wp|Wikipedia:Drafts|Draft: name space}}.
*This doesn't change the fact that it is worth asking people to create an account in advance (and to remember their password!)
*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.
*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.
Its becoming increasingly difficult to find high quality 'marketing-materials' type images to use - not necessarily because of a lack of images in some cases, but because when we document WMUK events we're not necessarily approaching it like we do a 'Wiki Takes...' event. This is a real shame, as I know week-in, week-out exciting events are happening around the UK but we simply don't have enough new images representing us. I think we're all keen to see the numbers of volunteers, members and donors creep up and show increasing diversity and engagement, and high quality publications with exciting images that really encapsulate who we are and what we do are vital.
[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (BST)
To that end I've created a page called [[Photographs]] as an acorn from which I hope great oaks can grow. I know there are experienced and talented photographers among you, and many of us who go to events but perhaps don't think to document them in this way and for this purpose as a matter of course. I'm open to all suggestions about how we can grow and improve the flow of photos covering our work, as I'm really keen to avoid having to use paid-for photographers to plug the gap.
: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)
::[[: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)
: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)
Let me know what you think here, and please go mash-up the page so we're getting something useful put together [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
: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)
:[[Commons:Commons:First steps/Quality and description]] is a useful basic guide to point to for those less familiar with uploading photos. Any volunteer with more experience, can always benefit by asking for some feedback on their uploads at [[Commons:Commons:Photography critiques]]. I believe that avoiding the use of paid photographers is quite easy, the chapter has never done this and has no plan to start, though expenses have been paid for volunteers supporting events with video and audio recording or webcasting. We may want to experiment more with techniques such as the British Museum time-lapse video taken in 2010, which demonstrated how an edit-a-thon works. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
::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.
::Thanks for the links, I've added them to the page(as external links, the interwiki linking doesn't seem to work for me in your links?) Please feel to add any other useful resources you know there directly?
::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.
::I really don't want to use paid photographers, because its not been budgeted for and because we should be supporting volunteers to do this kind of thing. However, we're not getting sufficient images either a) with the frequency we need e.g. last meetup photos on commons under that category were November last year or b) Of the variety we need - we need to be representing the diverse nature of our community, and the things it does. We seem to have a lot of pictures of Wikimedians in windowless basements lit only by the glare of laptop screen as they edit. Where this isn't the case, the pictures are of events quite some time ago. I would love to better reflect our social side in an up to date way - and not always in pub meets. Some people aren't that fussed for the pub :D [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 12:59, 19 October 2017 (BST)
:::Just fixed the links, I had missed out the extra 'Commons'. We should recognize the fact that most of what we do is primarily to support people on their own, editing from their home computers or having meetings in shady basements and pubs, however we should find some rather photogenic things coming up soon, for example the Natural History Museum will be great for photos (it is incredibly noisy with over-excited screaming children) and some of their collections are outdoors. I'm glad you are determined not to pay photographers, neither am I, and would be against any such proposal should it come to the board, as I believe using the charity's funds this way fails sufficiently to meet our [[Volunteer Policy]] or our values. However I would support a significant budget to pay expenses for volunteers to be encouraged to do more, and would consider the merits of equipment hire or purchase to support a well proposed plan of volunteer activities to create better representative media as well as more experimental media and virtual presence innovation. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I will bear all this in mind when talking to Katy about this as a part of volunteer development work. I agree NHM a good opportunity, screaming kids aside... I think for now I will work on getting a photography permissions system a bit more firmly in place on events pages and trying to alert volunteers to events we would like photos of. A worked out policy on these specific expenses and a budget like is a good idea. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
:I'm glad you asked Tom. :-) One of the fundamental components of the chapter's mission is to support ''Access'' to open knowledge. It is therefore bizarre that when I think through our history of events over the last 3 years, we appear to be going backwards in terms of the proportion of events with effective access for "e-volunteers" who would like to join us live, but cannot, or prefer not to, join us in the physical world. WMCH has been doing good work with experimenting with the open source Big Blue Button virtual conferencing system, which makes a great free practical alternative for the closed systems of Skype or Google Hangout, but sadly in these access stakes WMUK has been failing to take a lead. In fact, we are in the process of reducing the access to our board meetings, by locking away draft minutes and the trustees even discussing whether we should block any future attempt to video or webcast our "open" meetings for fear of negative press should anyone ever make a misstatement during a meeting. In practice we do not need a policy to go into lock-down; if you check through our track record of making video available after our meetings over the last six months, you can see this has effectively already happened; I believe the answer is ''zero''.
:Hence my recommendation that the charity firmly encourages volunteers to make suggestions for how we can innovate live virtual access to events, as well as finding better, faster, cheaper ways to capture the event as a passive record through photography, video and audio. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
::I agree we need to do a lot, LOT more virtual and online. When I was based in t'north it was very frustrating as a volunteer that events in london were expensive and rarely webcast. We need to get better at this. We've been asked to cover the open day on the 23rd March by Skype by one volunteer; we can take lessons for this and start to look at how to build this into other events. Big Blue Button is an interesting development too - I understand there is an idea we could trial that on the 23rd instead of Skype? Meanwhile, I'll put 'Supporting Virtual Presence' on the next agenda for the Tech Committee. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I'll be looking into the Big Blue Button in an effort to learn more about how it compares to the alternatives. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the response, Fæ. Finding ways to work with e-volunteers on projects would be worthwhile. I participated remotely with one of the editathons in the US, for instance, but that was just IRC. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 12:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Come to next Tech Committee and discuss? PLEASE! :-) Good cross over with potential [[Virtual Learning Environment| VLE]] usage as well, which is also on the [[IT_Development/Progress_meetings/18_April_2013| agenda]]...[[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
====Big Blue Button====
Any update on the office experimenting with this? I would hope we can show it off at the EGM. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:So far we haven't yet taken the Big Blue Button for a test run. We have, however, been in touch with the WMF to learn from their experience of streaming videos which they do so regularly (eg: metrics meetings). [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
==Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2017 awards announced==
[[File:The Derelict West Pier of Brighton.jpg|thumb|1st prize: The derelict West Pier in Brighton, by Matthew Hoser]]
I am very pleased to be able to announce the 2017 award winners for Wiki Loves Monuments in the UK.
== Lua and Pizza ==
First place goes to '''Matthew Hoser''' for his image of the derelict West Pier in Brighton.
We are thinking of having Learn to Lua event in the office for people wanting to get to grips with the template creating language.
In second place was '''Paul Stümke''', who captured the Glenfinnan Viaduct at Loch Shiel.
There has been some positive reaction on the UK lists, especially when Pizza was mentioned. Anyone interested?
Third was '''Oliver Tookey''' for the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill on Sea.
:Which UK lists was this notified on? I would like to avoid repeating material already discussed by chapter volunteers. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::If wikimediauk-l is the official and only way that chapter staff are choosing to first communicate with volunteers and members (in preference to a chapter members list or this public wiki, for example), then this should raised as a risk at the next board meeting. The chapter office appears to have forgotten that the chapter has no control over the list management and cannot recommend its use to members of the charity. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::: wikimediauk-l is not the "official and only way" that chapter staff are communicating with volunteers and members. Honestly I'm not sure how anyone could arrive at that view. We do also use this wiki. We use other mailing lists where appropriate, such as the cultural partners list. We use our blog. We use Twitter and Facebook. We have monthly reports (on this wiki, shared via as many channels as we can). We have a monthly IRC chat (tomorrow is the next one, hope to see plenty of people there!). We have newsletters to members and donors. We attend and host events. Staff try to visit meetups to speak with community members in person. Sometimes the wikimediauk-l is a convenient way to reach many members of our community. As far as I am aware we have never said that we own, or control, the mailing list. Of course, we always welcome any further channels that might be viewed as useful although I think we actually have enough channels already. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::: Hi Stevie, I was specifically referring to how we choose to communicate with volunteers and members in the context of planning future events; as per the title of this thread. In this case I believe none of the alternative channels in your list was used or considered. I would be happy to be corrected if you can point to any emails on lists such as cultural-partners, on posts to the blog, twitter or facebook with regard to this proposed event that pre-date Jon's note. You may want to apply these alternative channels now if they have not been used, and formulate a better guide for staff in terms of how to make best use of our communications channels if you think that improvement is desirable. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::: In this case, the list is one of our most active outlets for collaboration. A lot of volunteer collaboration occurs on there, so it would be illogical for WMUK not to utilise that :) All the other venues you list would have been sub-optimal for the discussion that happened. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::: So best not to try then? Communicating with volunteers and members of the charity using this list alone certainly excludes me, and I am not the only member of the charity who is uninterested in received emails from wikimediauk-l in the light of how some people have been treated there as a permanent public record. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
== Chronology version seven. ==
The special prize for the best image taken in Scotland was awarded to '''Keith Proven''' for Smailholm Tower.
This is [[File:Wikimedia_UK_Governance_Review_Descriptive_Chronology_v6.djvu|version seven of the chronology]].
The special prize for the best image taken in Wales went to '''Sterim64''' for Craig-y-mor.
It differs from version six in that John Cummings, who had not been interviewed for the study, felt it was inaccurate in one place. After being interviewed the chronology was amended at the end of February. Apologies for the delay in getting this version up. Thanks to Stevie and David Gerrard for overcoming some technical hurdles. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2013 (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]].
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)
== Effects of broadband ==
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
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)
::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)
Latest revision as of 19:35, 13 August 2022
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.
WMUK Grants programme - a piece of cake?
Applying for a grant is easy.
If Wikimedia UK can help you improve Wikimedia projects, check out our grants page.
A kanban board at the Women in Classical Studies editathon at Senate House, London
I just saw the newsletter with a picture of the 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.
Who was involved with that editathon? Who has used it elsewhere? I would love to hear how it has been used in practice.
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? Yaris678 (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2017 (GMT)
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. Eartha78 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2017 (GMT)
Thank you Eartha78. That is really interesting. I will use this next time I do an editathon. Yaris678 (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (GMT)
Wikimedia UK's plans for 2018 - community consultation
Watch our video about our plans for 2018
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.
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:
Diverse content and contributors
Promoting open knowledge
Education and Learning
These strands are directly related to our three strategic goals, which are to:
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 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.
There are several questions in particular that I’d like to ask:
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?
This doesn't change the fact that it is worth asking people to create an account in advance (and to remember their password!)
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.
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.
Obvious question, where do we find data on how many non-autoconfirmed users and IPs actually make pages that satisfy Wiki Criteria? 82.132.237.141 15:31, 26 September 2017 (BST)
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. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (BST)
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. 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.
1st prize: The derelict West Pier in Brighton, by Matthew Hoser
I am very pleased to be able to announce the 2017 award winners for Wiki Loves Monuments in the UK.
First place goes to Matthew Hoser for his image of the derelict West Pier in Brighton.
In second place was Paul Stümke, who captured the Glenfinnan Viaduct at Loch Shiel.
Third was Oliver Tookey for the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill on Sea.
The special prize for the best image taken in Scotland was awarded to Keith Proven for Smailholm Tower.
The special prize for the best image taken in Wales went to Sterim64 for Craig-y-mor.
You can see all of these images, and the other stunning pictures that were awarded Highly Commended status at Wikimedia Commons.
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. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2017 (GMT)
Is someone monitoring the trend of average internet speed and the impact it has on user activity in the Wikimedia projects? Nemo bis (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2018 (BST)
Hi 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. John Lubbock (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2019 (BST)
