Water cooler: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Revert to revision 82259 dated 2020-09-22 02:51:05 by 86.21.206.209 using popups)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
We need somewhere for random chatter, so here is somewhere! --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
{{divbox|blue|Welcome to the water cooler| This is a place to find out what is happening and to discuss our external projects and activities.  Feel free to suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission or ask questions about how you can help.  To discuss the inner workings of the charity, head over to the [[engine room]].}}
{{divbox|green|WMUK Grants programme - a piece of cake?[[file:Tile wmuk.jpeg|75px|left]]|<center>Applying for a grant is easy.<p>If Wikimedia UK can help you improve Wikimedia projects, check out our [[grants|grants page]].</center>}}
{| style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;"
|-
|[[File:Archives.png|x100px]]
|-
| align="center" |{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2010|<br>[[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011|<br>[[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012|<br>[[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013|<br>[[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014|<br>[[/2014|2014]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2015|<br>[[/2015|2015]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2016|<br>[[/2016|2016]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2017|<br>[[/2017|2017]]}}
|}
__TOC__


==Transferring stuff from meta==
== Kanban for editathons ==
Ok, I've started transferring stuff over from meta, but we probably want something a little more organised than the random copying and pasting I'm doing at the moment (I thought it important to get the key information copied over ASAP so we can actually start pointing people to this site). How do we want to do this? Proper importing? Starting from scratch? Make it up as we go along? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:I think people should import, and those who wish to do it should ask for sysop rights from a bureaucrat. GFDL and all that... [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


: Importing to start with, before starting to generate new content. I'm currently trying to figure out how to enable importing (it seems to be disabled at the moment...) [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
[[File:WCCWiki4.jpg|thumb|A {{wp|kanban board}} at the Women in Classical Studies editathon at Senate House, London]]
::Leave a message on [[m:SR/P]] asking someone to give you import rights on this wiki. '''[[User:Cbrown1023|<span style="color:green">Cbrown1023</span>]]''' '''<small>[[User talk:Cbrown1023|<span style="color:#002bb8">talk</span>]]</small>''' 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
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.
::When I try, it says I need to be a sysop. Does being a sysop not help? We need to discuss user rights at some point, too... --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


::: I have 'crat status here, as does cfp (and the other board members will have too once they sign in). Who gets to be a sysop needs to be discussed... But atm, I can't import anything. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 23:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Who was involved with that editathon? Who has used it elsewhere? I would love to hear how it has been used in practice.
::::By default, there are no import sources specified for sysops to import. To get around this, you will need to ask a steward on [[m:SR/P]] to give you import rights so that you can export the pages on Meta and import them by file upload here. This is a lot faster than opening up a bug and asking them to set the import sources. '''[[User:Cbrown1023|<span style="color:green">Cbrown1023</span>]]''' '''<small>[[User talk:Cbrown1023|<span style="color:#002bb8">talk</span>]]</small>''' 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


==User rights==
[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (GMT)
No major urgency on this, but I thought I'd start this discussion. We need to decide how we are going to structure user rights on this site. We've already decided (I think) to use protection to handle official pages, so I suggest we request user groups of "Board member" and "Member" be created and restriction levels (ie. options in the list when protecting a page) created for them (having a "Member" group allows us to do online polls very easily - you just protect it to members only and suffrage sorts itself out). I suggest sysop and crat be kept as an independent hierarchy, since there is no need for the board to be the ones handling admin stuff here. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:Seriously, is all that necessary? [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
::Yes. Thing like [[Template:WikiUKDisclosure]] are legal requirements and it shouldn't be possible for any random vandal to fiddle with them. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:::We can just protect them then. It seems like a lot of bureaucracy to be honest. Sysopship for trusted users. Bureaucrat for board members. Nothing else is needed imo. [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Perhaps it's just my programmer mentality, but I like to keep separate things separate. Authority in the charity and ability to administrate the website seems like separate things to me. And I do think a Member group to facilitate polls would be very useful. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Member group does sound like a good idea. Though there's a danger it might end up being over used (too many pages protected as members only). I'm happy to make anyone I trust a sysop, but I guess we should run things past the board first.--[[User:Cfp|Cfp]] 23:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::The only pages I see any point restricting to members only are polls are other official uses of member powers. Other pages can be semiprotected (ie. restrict to autoconfirmed) if necessary. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


==Categories==
: 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)
What is the point of [[:Category:Wikimedia UK]] (which should contain the whole site) and [[:Category:Templates]] (which should contain the whole Template namespace)? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 11:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
: I created them so that things would be easier to find, without having to go through Special:Allpages. Not every page will end up in the Wikimedia UK category; it should end up more like [[:meta:Category:Wikimedia UK]] once everything's been imported. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 14:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


==Vandalism==
::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)


Thanks Tango for spotting and deleting the offensive usernames; can we have a debate about:
::: 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)
# which behaviour and content policies we adopt here
# How we communicate this (can we revise the text below the edit box?)
# how we enforce these policies (blocking, banning, abuse reports)
[[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


:I think you are giving me credit for other people's work, there, but thank you anyway! (I deleted an irrelevant page, other admins have done some similar work as well.) I think our current implicit policy of just trusting the judgement of admins is working pretty well. Do we need explicit policies? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 14:10, 18 March 2009 (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)


::Sorry I think I meant cfp! Admins are doing a great job in deleting accounts but this is about doing more. Do we need official policies? You can't do anything about misuse unless people misusing the wiki have a reasonable understanding of what is allowed and what isn't. First stage has to be designing policies and applying them. It only needs to be brief and simple - I'll put something together to show what I mean. [[Special:Contributions/155.202.254.82|155.202.254.82]] 13:18, 20 March 2009 (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]]  


:::I'm happy with people to use their discretion, but if you want to put together a set of guidelines that's fine too. And if anyone thinks my bans have been overly harsh I'm happy to change what I'm doing. I don't think there's any risk of us banning someone who could actually contribute to the project unlike on Wikipedia. To be honest though I think if we required log in to edit that would cut off most of it, and it wouldn't really inconvenience any of us. --[[User:Cfp|Cfp]] 18:23, 20 March 2009 (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.  
::::Except for certain people that will (by necessity!) remain nameless who can't remember to log in... ;) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I think something on the main page explaining what this site is for is all that's required. I think, given that, it should be pretty obvious what is acceptable use. Any non-obvious cases can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. If we find ourselves discussing the same things and reaching the same conclusions repeated, we can write it down for convenience. (That's how it is supposed to work on Wikipedia - policy pages describe common practice, that's all.) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


== Books ==
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:


Is it possible to get the "books" feature that's recently been enabled on en.wp enabled here? I though it might be nice to get a book printed off of all the newsletters. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
# Diverse content and contributors
: A bugzilla request would be needed, I believe. I'm not convinced it would be of much use, though... [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
# Promoting open knowledge
:It would be easy enough to get enabled but, like Mike, I'm not sure of the use. Newsletters are only really relevant at the time, is anybody going to want a copy of historical newsletters all nicely bound together? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
# Education and Learning


== Below the edit box ==
These strands are directly related to our three strategic goals, which are to:


Below the edit box there is a text that says:  
* 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.


"Please note that all contributions to Wikimedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License with the possibility of migration to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (see Wikimedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
There are several questions in particular that I’d like to ask:
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"


It is possible to change this and if so, how? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:34, 21 March 2009 (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?


: Yes; edit [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]], and/or possibly [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2]] (I'm unclear on the difference between the two). [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
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)


::Excellent cheers! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
== ACTRIAL and new users creating new pages at events ==


== Anonymous editing poll ==
Hi All,


Should anonymous editing be allowed on this wiki? Please put '''yes''' or '''no''' below with your reasons and signature. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
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.


*No. Too many problems caused by anons editing, and there is nothing to gain. It takes less than 30 seconds to create an account. I've never really thought IP editing was a good idea on Wikipedia, but this isn't Wikipedia. [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] 22:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (BST)
* Yes: anonymous editing is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, and we should continue in that spirit unless it causes problems. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 23:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
*Yes - as long as it isn't causing significant problems (which it isn't so far), then why not? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
* No. I don't see what we gain by it, and I do see what we risk by it (vandalism, potentially with legal repercussions). On Wikipedia anonymous editing makes sense. We want to make it as easy as conceivably possible to edit a page, and we do not want people to be put off by the small hurdle of having to register. On this wiki that does not apply. Virtually all our potential (non-vandal/lost) editors will already have Wikipedia accounts and will know the system. Those few that will not (if indeed there are any) will be coming from some other organisation with some specific request, and by dint of having gone to the effort of finding this wiki will not be put off by the five second hassle of creating an account. Note that by "anonymous editing" I understand Andrew to mean "editing from an IP address", which obviously is not particularly anonymous. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should prevent people from editing from accounts which give no identity information (which can often be more anonymous than an IP address). --[[User:Cfp|Cfp]] 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
* Neutral. <s>Yes. People from other chapters may want to edit without wanting to bother making another account.</s> I just realised this wiki, surprisingly, uses Wikimedia's shared user database. If it stays that way, then there's not so much benefit to allowing unregistered edits. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 04:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
* Yes per Tango. --[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] 07:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
* No. This is an area for open debate and comment. Create a new account if you want, but have an identity! [[User:LoopZilla|LoopZilla]] 08:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


== London Loves Wikipedia Project ==
: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)


I've opened a poll at [[Talk:Projects/Proposals#Poll_on_London_Loves_Wikipedia_project]] Please could you comment there. AndrewRT 21:47, 15 April 2009 (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)
::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)


== Poll: Rename "Projects" as "Initiatives" ==
==Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2017 awards announced==
{{Discussion-Closed-Start}}
[[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.


'''Thanks for your input: result was to rename, so I've completed this. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
First place goes to '''Matthew Hoser''' for his image of the derelict West Pier in Brighton.


To avoid confusing the efforts that we make with the Wikimedia Projects (Wikipedia, Wikinews etc), a few of us have been discussing at [[Talk:Projects]] renaming our efforts to something else. The most popular idea so far is "initiatives". Please comment below on whether you agree with renaming our "Projects" to "Initiatives"
In second place was '''Paul Stümke''', who captured the Glenfinnan Viaduct at Loch Shiel.


#'''Support''' Avoid confusion with Wikimedia Projects [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Third was '''Oliver Tookey''' for the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill on Sea.
#'''Support''' Seemed like a popular term in Berlin, so it might become part of inter-chapter lingo too. Might as well lead the trend! --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' makes sense. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 17:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' sounds logical to me! --[[User:Skenmy|Skenmy]] 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Discussion-Closed-End}}


== Page name ==
The special prize for the best image taken in Scotland was awarded to '''Keith Proven''' for Smailholm Tower.


The page name shown in the browser window is "Wikimedia" - how can we change that to Wikimedia UK? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The special prize for the best image taken in Wales went to '''Sterim64''' for Craig-y-mor.
:I believe this is a job for the developers, but I may be wrong. --[[User:Skenmy|Skenmy]] 11:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
:: It's set by "$wgSitename" in LocalSettings.php, which needs a developer to be changed. Will ask around... [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::: [[:meta:User:Werdna]] has changed it to "Wikimedia UK". [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 11:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Excellent - thanks! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


== Chapter Agreement Revision ==
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]].


The Wikimedia Foundation has recently published its proposals for a new standard Chaptar Agreement. They are hoping for all chapters to replace their existing chapter agreements with this new one by the end of June.
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)


They have agreed that we are ok to publish the draft in a public forum so our members have an opportunity to comment.
== Effects of broadband ==


The existing agreement is at [[Chapter_Agreement]] and I have uploaded the new draft to [[Chapter_Agreement_Revision]]
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


Please let us have your comments either on the talk page there or here. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:39, 1 May 2009 (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)


==Public IRC logs==
::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)
 
I've started a discussion at [[Talk:Meetings#Public IRC logs]] about whether we should continue to make publically available the IRC logs of old IRC discussions. Please let me know what you think there.
 
== Image copyright ==
 
Hi all. We seem to be gathering images on this site that don't make their copyright status clear; see pretty much any image currently listed at [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&namespace=6]. How do we sort this? Should we insist that all images are kept on Commons rather than here? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:Why not just say that "everything is under GFDL" applies to images as well as text? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 17:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 
==Wikipedia Loves Art & Freedom of Panorama==
I see that one of the Wikimedia UK initiatives is the Wikipedia Loves Art program - with the V&A event detailed at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/V&A rules]].
 
Why is it that the Wikipedia Loves Art V&A event stresses that only objects created before 1923 may be photographed?  I assume the 1923 cut off date is derived from the date works become public domain in the US - [[commons:Template:PD-US]]. But in the UK, it's different, our Freedom of Panorama laws are much [[commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom|less restrictive]], and we should be embracing those, by taking images of modern sculpture, objects and artwork on display in the UK as part of the initiative.
 
For future Wikipedia Loves Art events in the UK, the pre-1923 rule should not be applied. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnchen]] 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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?
Tile wmuk.jpeg
Applying for a grant is easy.

If Wikimedia UK can help you improve Wikimedia projects, check out our grants page.

Archives.png
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017

Kanban for editathons

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.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (GMT)

Hi Yaris678, I was the lead trainer at the Women in Classical Studies editathon. I saw the kanban in an Instagram post for an Art+Feminism editathon. It worked much better than expected - a fantastic indicator of the achievements of the day.Eartha78 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (GMT)
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:

  1. Diverse content and contributors
  2. Promoting open knowledge
  3. 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?

With many thanks indeed for your input.

LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2017 (BST)

ACTRIAL and new users creating new pages at events

Hi All,

Some thoughts on WP:ACTRIAL and our events:

  • It makes sense to encourage new users to work in 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.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (BST)

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)
According to WMF research, of the 1,180 articles created every day on the English Wikipedia, about 7% are by non-autoconfirmed editors. 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. 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.
Yaris678 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2017 (BST)

Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2017 awards announced

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)

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? 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)