|
|
| (1,000 intermediate revisions by 90 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | | __NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
| {|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;" | | {{divbox|blue|Welcome to the water cooler| This is a place to find out what is happening and to discuss our external projects and activities. Feel free to suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission or ask questions about how you can help. To discuss the inner workings of the charity, head over to the [[engine room]].}} |
| | {{divbox|green|WMUK Grants programme - a piece of cake?[[file:Tile wmuk.jpeg|75px|left]]|<center>Applying for a grant is easy.<p>If Wikimedia UK can help you improve Wikimedia projects, check out our [[grants|grants page]].</center>}} |
| | {| style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;" |
| |- | | |- |
| |[[File:Archives.png|x100px]] | | |[[File:Archives.png|x100px]] |
| |- | | |- |
| |align=center|{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2010|<br>[[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011|<br>[[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012|<br>[[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013|<br>[[/2013|2013]]}} | | | align="center" |{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2010|<br>[[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011|<br>[[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012|<br>[[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2013|<br>[[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2014|<br>[[/2014|2014]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2015|<br>[[/2015|2015]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2016|<br>[[/2016|2016]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2017|<br>[[/2017|2017]]}} |
| |} | | |} |
| __TOC__ | | __TOC__ |
|
| |
|
| == Diversity Conference - how many UK volunteers are going? == | | == Kanban for editathons == |
|
| |
|
| Based on [[m:Wikimedia Diversity Conference/Schedule]] I can see that at least two UK staff members are being paid to join this conference but I cannot find any information on how many unpaid volunteers are attending. I know that travel grants from WMUK were offered, so could someone please confirm how many volunteers are being sponsored by Wikimedia UK to attend for this weekend in Berlin, and preferably publish a list somewhere? Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:21, 13 October 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. |
|
| |
|
| ::We are paying for two volunteers to attend and one member of staff, Daria, who has been organising it with WMDE. We had quite a few applicants, as you know, which is a good sign for the future, but made choosing difficult in order to get as broad a range of people as possible You can always phone the office to find out such things.[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 07:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| | Who was involved with that editathon? Who has used it elsewhere? I would love to hear how it has been used in practice. |
| ::: This is the sort of thing that should be in the monthly reports, not something that should require interested people to phone the office about! Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 08:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::: Hi Mike, Sorry for the slightly delayed response here, I've just noticed your comment. I agree it should be in the monthly report and it will be in the November report, along with any write-up of the conference which I am sure will be offered by those attending. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::: I do not understand this answer, it seems opaque. I can see from the official schedule, both Daria and Katie are going, this makes two members of staff being paid to go, I note that staff expenses for travel and accommodation come from staff budgets not volunteer budgets. Please just list the names of who are going so that the chapter's business can be seen to be transparent. One of the advantages of asking this question on-wiki is that the question is answered once, I cannot see the point of phoning the office and then writing answers I might get back on the Water cooler when you can do it directly and avoid bureaucracy or forcing members to behave like journalists to find out how money is being spent. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :: There are some sensitivities here, as you will be well aware of Fae from the treatment you have received in the past. For that reason I was/am reluctant to use people's names in this public forum without their permission. Given that Katie's name is already out there I can confirm that she will be attending but not as a member of staff. She will be attending in her own time as a volunteer and her funding will come from that budget. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| | [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (GMT) |
| ::: Thanks for reminding everybody about the four years of harassment I have endured, it does not seem relevant to this thread. It was certainly never a reason for my activities as a trustee nor for any funding I received from the chapter to be done in secret.
| |
| ::: Considering the issues we have seen with a lack of growth (or decline) in numbers of active volunteers, and issues with not appearing a "volunteer-centric" organization, I find it bizarre that the chapter has fallen into the habit of counting staff members as volunteers whenever convenient. According to what you have said here so far, the chapter turned down several applications for travel grants to go to this conference from unpaid volunteers, and has decided to send two members of staff and fund just one unpaid volunteer rather than several. I am concerned that the reasons for obscuring the numbers of staff going and avoiding explaining who is being funded to go, is how this would appear politically. If a volunteer is being paid to spend a weekend in Berlin at a conference, then I can think of no good reasons that could possibly meet the mission and values of the chapter with regard to openness and transparency by keeping this a secret. Spending donated funds on secret projects and secret beneficiaries is not why the chapter was established as a charity.
| |
| ::: If there is an undeclared issue here of potential conflict of loyalties with funding, it should be made openly. I remind you of the advice from Stone King last year with regard to making decisions for the charity that involve friends or close relatives. That advice for governance best practice applies to staff as well as trustees and requires transparency when it occurs. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::::I am always happy to respond to questions from members of the community and will try and find them in your post. With regard to the names of the attendees I am unwilling to name anyone going to the conference without asking them first. I have asked Daria to contact the other person and check it is OK with them. I am pretty certain they will not mind but it is common courtesy and good practice to ask first. This is not about secrecy. There is no decline in active volunteers, despite what you assert. We now have 101 people listed which is a steady increase from a year ago of 83. Not enough of course but not a decline. You are extremely adept at jumping to conclusions to justify your assertions, to quote you: 'I find it bizarre that the chapter has fallen into the habit of counting staff members as volunteers whenever convenient'. This is just not the case. I informed the board that we had just enough funding for two volunteers. We had to choose two who represented as broad a range of diversity as possible. Candidates who were not successful were informed and given the chance to talk to me to find out why they had not been chosen. Some took me up on this offer and accepted our reasoning. Katie and her fellow volunteer represent several areas in which we are very weak as a chapter. | | : 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) |
| ::::Katie applied as a volunteer as she knew she could not go as staff and as she remains an active volunteer, contributing many hours of unpaid volunteer effort, I believe this is entirely justified. Of our ten staff five were leading volunteers before they took up employment. Should they now be banned from being volunteers? To be personal, should I have to stop editing and taking part in Wiki Loves Monuments? If you have evidence that we have fallen into this habit can you let me have it instead of making vague assertions? I don't think we have. Richard S, Richard N, Jonathan, Katie and Toni are extremely careful to differentiate between their staff and volunteer roles. I am really pleased that Katie still wants to spend her own time as a volunteer in addition to the long hours she works as a member of staff. | |
|
| |
|
| ::::I hope this is helpful and that we can all assume a little more good faith. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | | ::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, it is helpful. The members can now see that the facts are that 2 current employees and one unpaid volunteer are being paid to go to this weekend conference in Berlin. | | ::: 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) |
| :::::Your original answer of "one member of staff" was not a complete enough answer to avoid misleading the reader. Please do not parody my question as "banning from being volunteers", I am questioning the logic of reporting paid staff members as volunteers in official statistics or reports, or the trustee judging this as an appropriate way of implementing the value of keeping the charity volunteer-centric rather than being a political trick to by-pass it.
| |
| :::::As for the numbers of volunteers, in 2012 we counted (by naming them) 87 active volunteers, not 83. We did not count staff as volunteers as far as I can recall. The figure of 101 volunteers is not one that I recognize, despite this being questioned for several months on this page. '''QUESTION''' Could you point me to where this has been published in a report to the board so that I can understand how this is counted (presumably using the logic here, it includes employees and "paid volunteers" rather than just "unpaid volunteers")?
| |
| :::::As you are having difficult assessing where questions are, I have highlighted one in this post to avoid ambiguity.
| |
| :::::<small>So that we can keep track and show the trend as we have just started to do with membership, I have created [[Volunteers/numbers]], please do add the source reports there.</small> --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::::::The document to which you refer was developed as a means of tracking who is involved with the charity. It is not a public document any more than our register of members is public, and has not been something reported on to the board as it is mainly for office use. I can report on the headline numbers, however because it is a working document it has updated periodically rather than kept up-to-date minute-by-minute.<p>The document was created in July 2012, at which point it was estimated the community had 58 active volunteers. At the end of the 2012-13 financial year this was 59. By March 2013, this had increased to 79. At the end of June 2013, this number was 82.<p>In September 2013, in our [[:meta:FDC portal/Proposals/2013-2014 round1/WMUK/Proposal form#Background, history, and mission|proposal to the FDC]] we wanted to include the figure to show what kind of volunteer community we have. At that point I updated the document and the number had increased to 101. Part of the jump is because there were some people who had already been volunteers but were not documented in the file. This was not really an issue since it was intended for internal use. At the moment, the number stands at 103 (my apologies to Jon for supplying the out-of-date number of 101 earlier). The volunteer community has grown, which is unsurprising considering how many people have gone through Training the Trainers, how many people have received grants of one sort or another, and have got involved with events such as organising Wiki Loves Monuments or delivering training. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:06, 14 October 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) |
|
| |
|
| :::::::Thanks Richard. I find it odd that Jon should start using this as tangential evidence of volunteer numbers in response to a question from me, if it has not been presented to the Board of Trustees before or used to respond to questions about volunteer numbers raised here over the last few months. In particular the board published figure of 87 volunteers (in [[Minutes_8Sep12/Strategy_day]]) was not challenged in 2012 as being at variance with any other document, in fact as a trustee at the time, though this was discussed in great detail with staff, the document you are now raising for the first time in public was not provided to the board.
| | == Wikimedia UK's plans for 2018 - community consultation == |
| :::::::If this is the evidence to be used by Operations in how we measure numbers of volunteers, the performance of the charity, and it has already been officially used as evidence for the FDC proposal, then I believe it is good practice to publish it openly on-wiki so that everyone can refer to it and understand how it is calculated (for example, counting anyone contributing to WLM might give over-generous figures if we want a count of long term active volunteers). I suggest you add the numbers you have quoted here to the table at [[Volunteers/numbers]]. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| | [[File:Programmes Consultation Video - Wikimedia UK.webm|centre|thumb|800x800px|Watch our video about our plans for 2018]] |
|
| |
|
| Having spoken to the second volunteer attending the conference, he is happy to let people know that he is {{w|User:Kwaku BBM}}. He was chosen as he represents BEM users, an area WMUK is particularly weak in, and has an interest in black music and history. [[User:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|Daria Cybulska (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Daria Cybulska (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:46, 16 October 2013 (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. |
| : What does 'BEM' mean? It doesn't seem to be an acronym that {{w|BEM|enwp knows}} (unless he's representing British Empire Medalists, or the endangered Black-eared Miner species). Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 10:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::Black Ethnic Minorities, or similar. Also known as BME or 'Black and Minority Ethnic' communities. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::: Thank you. I've updated the dab page accordingly, although it seems that a relevant article doesn't exist on enwp here. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :I do not believe it is reasonable to say that Kwaku represents BEM users as his total number of edits on all Wikimedia projects is '''[http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Kwaku+BBM 15]'''. In comparison my contributions number over a million and I co-founded the Wikimedia LGBT group/proposed thematic organization, making it fair to consider me a potential a representative of LGBT users, yet my application for a travel grant was rejected. This choice of funding verges on the bizarre if there was only sufficient funds to send 3 people, 2 of whom turn out to be Wikimedia UK employees (one employee having their expenses paid out of the volunteer budget) and the remaining applicant is highly problematic as they only registered a Wikimedia account in May this year, and have made no edits since June.
| |
| :This is a poor use of the charity's/WMF funds, especially in the light of the fact that there were "quite a few applications" from unpaid volunteers who had reasons to contribute to the success of this conference and its expected outcomes. I hope the Board of Trustees will be asking questions on the record about this at the next board meeting. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::I have to agree that this does appear to be a poor choice. Has Kwaku done anything else apart from that 15? Surely someone should have some sort of established track record before we can reasonably call them a volunteer and pay out of chapter funds to send them to Berlin and back? I note that there is a plug for his personal project (www.BritishBlackMusic.com) on his user page which appears to be a commercial site soliciting advertising. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 15:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::: Firstly to reiterate and I can only hope you understand at last Fae, Katy is NOT GOING AS A MEMBER OF STAFF IN HER OWN TIME. She is going as a volunteer and of course one, who represents the LGBT community, women and an ethnic minority, all areas we can do better in. Secondly Kwaku does not have many edits but has been involved in hosting with WMUK an editathon around Black Music. He has shown a lot of energy and enthusiasm and is exactly the sort of volunteer we need to be encouraging if we are to grow. Given I knew how controversial this decision would be I consulted the board. It is a pity Fae that instead of taking up the offer we made for an explanation of why the decision was made you went straight to a public forum. If I was thinking of getting involved as a volunteer this sort of discussion would put me off. I would get the impression that unless I had done a zillion edits I could never be considered worthy. Our charitable funds are there to develop new talent and editors. I will make sure Kwaku is asked about the link. Perhaps someone form the community could reach out to him and help? [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:11, 16 October 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: |
| :::: Jon, this remains a poor use of funds on apparent and unfortunate tokenism, regardless of how you politically reframe this decision, or try to pitch this as somehow my fault for asking very basic questions about who is being sent to a conference where getting factual answers rather than spin, has been like extracting teeth.
| |
| :::: Sending someone with just 15 edits under their belt off for a fully paid residential weekend conference in Belin and who has ''direct COI issues in promoting their website on the English Wikipedia'', is an obviously bad choice of how to spend several hundred pounds, when several other applications were made from unpaid willing and experienced volunteers to support this conference. Jon, please do not parody or marginalize this issue as being one of requiring a "zillion edits", this is someone who has barely made any edits, and has made ''no contributions on Wikimedia projects for the last four months''. A justification that we create "new talent and editors" by sending them away for an all expenses paid free weekend in Berlin is not something I would expect the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees to support. This would be a very, very, poor way to spend our £700,000 budget in order to create new Wikipedia editors.
| |
| :::: This was a serious mistake in the way the charity's money is spent, as the CEO you should recognize it as such and make a proper report back to the board on the improvements to the grant process that are required rather than expecting that typing in capitals makes a better justification that "we are doing fine, there is nothing to see here, go away and stop asking questions in public when you should only ask questions of the CEO in private and undocumented phone calls".
| |
| :::: Lastly this is not any fault of Kwaku's, he has been poorly advised by the charity as to his suitability to represent BEM users at this conference. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::<small>I note that britishblackmusic.com has an advertising page which states: "If you want to know about other opportunities please contact our exclusive marketing agents, CyberMedia Solutions on xxx xxxx xxxx alternatively you can visit their website at www.cybermediasolutions.net" I suggest that Wikimedia UK reviews relationships like this rather more carefully, and ask sensible questions ''openly'' in relation to grants. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
| |
| :::::Obviously this is not a Board-level decision, but the decision Jon's taken is quite reasonable in my view, and the Board will not interfere in cases like this. It'll be important for this conference that there are a wide range of perspectives represented, and the idea of sending two volunteers, one a long-standing Wikipedian with an interest in many aspects of diversity and one less experienced on-wiki but who has engaged with us enthusiastically off-wiki, seems eminently sensible. I would be very concerned if we started saying either that people need a certain number of edits to take part in our work, or indeed if we said that staff were no longer allowed to do any Wikimedia-related volunteering.
| |
| :::::If I've understood correctly, Fae, you are essentially saying that you ought to have received funding to attend this conference. I can appreciate your disappointment but I don't feel that castigating Jon (or indeed Kwaku) in is an appropriate or mature response. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Your position as Chairman is that the board of trustees is not prepared to discuss the problem of sending someone with only 15 edits, and who does not current contribute to Wikimedia projects, for a free weekend in Berlin with no commitment as to outcomes, apart from an apparent interest in promoting a sponsored website? I find that at odds with fact that the trustees have a duty to hold the CEO to account in order to ensure that the donated funds of the charity are wisely spent on the mission of the charity, and in line with the values of the charity. This is another case of the charities' money being involved in COI editing, I suggest you take time out to discuss this properly with your fellow trustees rather than dismissing it as an issue.
| |
| ::::::Jon said there were several applications for grants from volunteers. Please do not take this discussion off on a tangent as being about my application, I am just the only applicant to take time to ask questions about this conference on the Water Cooler. You will note Jon's response was to keep who was being funded a secret and leave secrecy as an option for the sponsored person, this was not in line with the values of openness, transparency and accountability that we value; especially considering the facts of this case. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::Hi Fae, I don't really know what you mean by "this is another case of the charity's money being involved in COI editing". This suggests two things; firstly that this is a case of the charity's money being involved in COI editing; second that there has been a previous one. I do not know of any evidence to suggest either of those things is true. Please could you either direct me to some, or withdraw your allegation. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::This is not a court of law, I suggest you avoid turning the water cooler into one if you actually want members to freely ask questions here without the impression that they might be prosecuted for doing so. I have made no "allegations". It is merely a fact on record that paid editing or COI editing was a long running project with CIPR. This took staff time and resources of the charity, especially considering the expense of the 2012 AGM where CIPR had members presenting.
| |
| ::::::::If you wish to talk about CIPR further, please create a new thread rather than diverting this one. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::I read your "the charity's money being involved in COI editing" as saying that the charity was funding people to engage in COI editing, but thank you for clarifying that's not what you meant. I am also struggling to see how to construe last year's CIPR project as "money being involved in COI editing" when the outcome was the CIPR telling people not to break Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, but never mind.... [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 18:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::You may wish to note that this thread shows a classic run-around. Jon points to the board of trustees for his authority on this decision ''"I knew how controversial this decision would be [so] I consulted the board"'' and you point back to Jon with ''"Obviously this is not a Board-level decision"''. I have been asking some basic questions, I do not expect spin and diversions with questions as simple as this. If Jon has full authority and responsibility for this decision, I suggest you make that completely clear to him, not just me, and hold him properly to account for the decision he then makes with how this money gets spent and any mistakes that might occur in the process. It is consequently Jon that has a responsibility to openly and transparently answer questions from members that may arise from his operational funding decisions.
| |
| ::::::::::I would be happy to discuss the apparent COI editing that promoting britishblackmusic.com and CyberMedia Solutions represents, should you have any real questions about that, and how this makes funding a weekend in Berlin to do the same, before this is properly and openly reviewed, an unacceptable use of the charity's money and a risk to the reputation of Wikimedia UK. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::I have had a look at Kwaku's edits and I can't see any "COI editing". He has a link to his site on his user page, which is quite allowed by the user page guidelines, and indeed recommended if there's a risk of getting into any vaguely COI-ish edits. The rest of his edits are clearly those of someone not used to using Wiki markup, but look to me like a good-faith attempt to improve coverage of the topic, very different to someone trying to promote something. Again, I read your post as saying we are sponsoring him to attend in order to promote two websites, which is certainly not the case (and you have no reason to believe it is the case). [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 18:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::::I'm afraid you did not look closely enough. Luckily I have more experience on that project than yourself, and from my experience as a past Admin (blocking many promotional accounts), I am aware that his user name fails the username policy, as it promotes his website (the shortcut is CORPNAME) and exceptions do not apply as he has promoted it on his user page. In addition, sadly, he appears to [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZQgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Wayne+Marshall,+Don+Campbell+Top+Winners+At+U.K.%27s+BMAs&source=bl&ots=COXpe6b0TQ&sig=Cx8jHjDebjAnk0ou5l3yx9b_KCU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=erGWUdf4J-jS0QX9rIHIBA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Wayne%20Marshall%2C%20Don%20Campbell%20Top%20Winners%20At%20U.K.%27s%20BMAs&f=false promote his own writing off-wiki in a reference] in the "Music of Black Origin Awards" article and has only made edits to two articles, the only really meaningful edits happening on 17 May. I think any proper review of this account would find it problematic and Kwaku should be warned to avoid undeclared COI editing, which he has already engaged in, and be required to change his promotional account name. From his ''one day'' of problematic edits on the English Wikipedia, this is not someone that Wikimedia UK should be sponsoring for a weekend in Berlin and effectively representing Wikimedia UK. He has neither made enough of a contribution to be considered representative of Wikimedia BEM users, nor understands Wikimedia policies sufficiently to be a reliable representative. Being a member of a minority group of itself is not a reason to pay for a member of the public to have a free weekend in Berlin, they should be an active volunteer on Wikimedia projects otherwise this is just pure and embarrassing tokenism.
| |
| :::::::::::: It is a pity that this is the first time these questions are being considered by the board of trustees or the CEO, when COI is such an important issue for the board otherwise. The ball has been dropped, please admit this is a mistake and act on it, rather throwing up chaff and defensive spin to make the problem go away. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::::: Is it really wise for you to boast about your experiences on the English Wikipedia? [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 19:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::::: I think it unwise for you to throw back obvious chaff to divert from the factual and clear evidence presented above showing that this funding decision is an embarrassing mistake for Wikimedia UK. If you wish to write about me and my boasting, I suggest you create a separate thread. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :::::::::::Oh, and - yes, Jon asked informally for the Board's advice. He felt it was unlikely your application would be supported but was concerned that, in that event, you would probably start some kind of public argument about it. The view I and other Board members expressed was that he ought to use his judgement without taking into consideration what individuals might end up posting on the Water Cooler. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 18:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| | # Diverse content and contributors |
| ::::::::::::Surprising then that despite this advice, Jon has twice recommended that members not post questions for him on the Water cooler but use private undocumented phone calls instead. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| | # Promoting open knowledge |
| | # Education and Learning |
|
| |
|
| :::It is perfectly reasonable to ask these sort of questions in writing in a way other members can see them. How else will we know what is going on? If Fae had not pressed this matter, these facts would never have been disclosed. We need greater scrutiny, not less. If this is all too public, can we please have a place where these matters can be discussed in such a way as not to be indexed by Google. The paid employees of the chapter are not a filter through which every matter relating to the chapter should be directed. There needs to be somewhere here that members can discuss things among themselves. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| | These strands are directly related to our three strategic goals, which are to: |
| ::::I am very uncomfortable having public discussions about whether a given individual should be participating in our activities. This should not become the norm. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Yes, I am not surprised. The charity has many years experience of discussing micro-grants ''openly'' that does precisely that (the members have Mike Peel to thank for this commitment to openness and transparency, during his time as a trustee he constantly and consistently reminded the board of this core value of the charity). Secrecy about how the charity's money is being spent, has only become a problem recently for this charity, mostly an aspect of your leadership with Jon. Perhaps the trustees should consider doing rather less of their important business in-camera or in secret, and instead where the members can comment and see that good work is being done. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :A couple of points here:
| |
| ::* I think it would be useful that when a member of staff is going to a Wikimedia event as a volunteer, this made clear. Being a member of staff is not simply a job, but it is also a role and they have a different relationship to the charity than someone who is simply a volunteer. It would have made this thread a lot more straight forward if Jon had reported at the outset that there was a second member of staff going in their own time as a volunteer. Whilst I agree that reading this discussion may be off-putting to volunteers, a little bit of clarity at the outset would have helped a lot.
| |
| ::: I did make it clear (although given the length of the string it is easy to miss) Quote 'Given that Katie's name is already out there I can confirm that she will be attending but not as a member of staff. ' The reason I did not do it at once was I did not have Katie around to ask for her permission to mention her name in this context which was not a staff context. Fae outed her and I think that was bad practice. Apologies if I don't reply anymore but away for four days. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Jon's statement that I outed Katie is a serious one, and it is blatantly false. In my first sentence, in fact the third word of it, on this thread I gave a link to [[m:Wikimedia Diversity Conference/Schedule]] which gives both Katie and Daria's names as presenters. Asking questions about what has been officially published on a Wikimedia website is not "bad practice", nor can this be construed in any possible way as me outing anyone. After 2 years as CEO of Wikimedia UK, I would expect Jon to understand the distinction of what is outing and what is not. I find the pattern of irrelevant chaff attempting to put blame on me for asking pretty straight-forward questions and highlighting an embarrassing funding error quite incredible. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 20:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::The basic problem is that you have scarcely asked a "straightforward question" for over a year. You ask questions then pick over the answers to find fault in whatever answer has been given, then leap to an unreasonable conclusion which gives you something else to get angry about, and unless someone denies it straight away you treat it as if it's somehow become an establish fact. Any constructive point there might have been gets lost in the wash. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 20:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::*I do not think rhetorical questions about staff being banned from volunteering really helps either. The issue is individuals being funded by WMUK to go to the diversity conference, not simply in participating in WMUK activities or editing WM sites.
| |
| ::*Furthermore I think that WMUK members who are being sponsored to attend an event should be asked to agree before hand about having that fact made public, and perhaps where the costs are significant that they provide a short statement as to how they think their sponsorship will help the Wikimedia community.
| |
| ::*Underlying all this it seems to me that in WMUK, some serious consideration has gone into the gender imbalance in the community and engaging with the Welsh language, I am not sure to what extent this has happened in other areas.
| |
| :I agree with [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] that a members only Wiki might be useful for these discussions. [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Just as a note (I only just got my wiki account setup): I was approached to go this conference (presumably because I have been involved in gendergap activism and because of being openly LGBT). The offer was very kind but I was too busy with work in order to make the appropriate arrangements and fill in the application forms and so on (I also didn't even have time to check whether I'd be able to take time off work). I say this only to note that staff ''did'' approach volunteers. The very nature of a diversity conference is going to present issues whoever is selected. I think this presents more of an issue regarding Wikimedia UK as an organisation than the suggestion of failings or bias among the staff: we have a very small number of member-volunteers even before you start talking about diversity in terms of race and gender and so on. It should definitely be one of the aims of the charity to increase the number of members and the number of active volunteer members so that for future conferences and events there is a larger pool of volunteers able to go to these kinds of events. Further bickering at this point seems unproductive. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 09:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I think that if we have an understanding of volunteers going in a personal capacity, rather than "representing" other WMUK volunteers/Wikimedia editors, then that's OK. I agree with Tom that it is a more a matter of looking at how WMUK as an organisation can handle diversity more effectively. I think that serious efforts have gone into the gender-gap and Welsh language, but feel other areas need more attention. [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 12:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| : +1 [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| : The end result of the way this has been handled is that 2 WMUK staff are going and there was only enough money to send 1 unpaid volunteer, who happens to have made only 14 edits to any Wikimedia project, whilst other volunteers were rejected. It appears that only one person is attending this conference who has been active with [[m:Wikimedia LGBT|Wikimedia LGBT]] and he is being paid to fly to Berlin from the USA. I will be able to double check this fact once the registration list is published, as the conference organizers have now promised to do after my request. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I need yet again to tell the truth about this, if anyone is still reading this, TWO volunteers are going and one member of staff. Fae might not be happy that he was not chosen by the German chapter to get funding and then not chosen by us. He was not alone, but decisions had to be made and I made them for WMUK knowing how sensitive this decision would be. I wanted a 'delegation' that was as broad as possible. Katie works for WMUK 35 hours a week and then has her own identity as a very well established and highly respected volunteer with an exemplary record of service to the community. She is also a representative of the LGBT community, a woman and from an ethnic minority. That she should choose to spend her own time, unpaid, as a volunteer attending this conference is amazing and should be applauded. As Someone else said Fae you have a habit of repeating what you believe until people give up refuting it. This latest post is misleading and I think that needs saying. Bottom line is when someone works for WMUK can they no longer be a volunteer? I hope not, as someone who still enjoys contributing and I know my colleagues agree. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::I assume this is Jon Davies from the IP address? Perhaps if you made it clear up front when employees are being funded from volunteer budgets to travel to conferences, rather than relating only selective partial facts for members, then there would be rather less to explain later. As for "the truth", anyone that re-reads my post can see it is accurate. You might consider how often on this Watercooler you can been seen deflecting discussions and valid questions about Wikimedia UK Operations and governance into ad hominem political spin about me and speculation as to what might be in my head, rather than actually answering the question; not good practice from anyone or what the public would expect from the CEO of a large and important charity.
| |
| :::That you are turning this question into a defence of Katie is unnecessary spin, when at no time in this thread have I said that Katie should not be funded to go. The question here is a lack of transparency and how budgets and scholarships should be managed so that employees can be funded to go to many events during the year, both as volunteers as well as in paid time, without needing to be in direct competition with volunteers who are not employees or contractors (and who also should be applauded for giving their time for free). This can be improved, however if you spend your time defending the status quo, then as the CEO you create an environment where these questions can only raised in closed meetings or private phone calls and improvement is constantly managed as a threat and a hassle, rather than a benefit to the charity. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 20:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Just in case anyone does worry about staff dominating events where the charity pays for people to go we did a quick tally up this morning and since October 2011 when I started volunteers (including trustees) have been supported to go to things 126 times and staff 22 times including the AGMs where we all need to be there. Here come the Tildas! Sorry everyone for forgetting them yesterday! [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Thanks for these figures, though they could be more meaningful with context and if the trend can be seen by showing them by year rather than an odd selective period. For the sake of transparency can the figures be separated so that trustee expenses taken from the board expenses budget and employee expenses taken from the employee travel and expenses budget be distinguished from the unpaid volunteer travel and expenses budget? The difference being that the first two methods of paying for travel are not in competition with unpaid volunteers who are not trustees. For example unpaid volunteers who are not on the board were not offered any expenses to attend the AGM - as far as I am aware they never will be, so counting these payments is like comparing oranges with apples. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == WMUK T-shirts ==
| |
| | |
| On an IRC with the community several centuries ago there were calls for us to make some t-shirts that would be fun and specifically WMUK branded. With Wikimania coming and as we are running out of our current 'nice but a bit predictable' stock we wonder if anyone has clever ideas for the designs.
| |
| | |
| Here are some previous suggestions:
| |
|
| |
|
| | * 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 |
| | | |
| *Don’t revert me I’m a Wikimedian.
| | 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. |
| | |
| *WMUK - helping share the world’s knowledge
| |
| | |
| *Wiki loves monuments survivor
| |
| | |
| *My difs bring all the boys to the yard
| |
| | |
| *My friends went to edit Wikipedia and all I got was this lousy t-shirt
| |
| | |
| *[citation needed]
| |
| | |
| *You are free to reuse, remix and distribute this t-shirt
| |
| | |
| *CC-BY-SA
| |
| | |
| *Rule Britannica!
| |
| | |
| *Could have the first couple of paragraphs from the T-shirt article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tshirt
| |
| (Perhaps with ‘I edit wikipedia‘ on the back? JD)
| |
| | |
| *A picture of the WP logo: Ceci n’est pas un Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MagrittePipe.jpg
| |
| | |
| *Break the mold!
| |
|
| |
|
| *I don’t like “Like”; I like “Edit”.
| | There are several questions in particular that I’d like to ask: |
|
| |
|
| *Wikipedia, read by hundreds of millions, written by tens of thousands. | | * 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? |
|
| |
|
| *Our mission “To make the sum of human knowledge available to all humanity” Wikipedia
| | 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) |
|
| |
|
| *Ask me about Wikipedia
| | == ACTRIAL and new users creating new pages at events == |
|
| |
|
| | Hi All, |
|
| |
|
| Feel free to add your suggestions. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:20, 15 October 2013 (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. |
|
| |
|
| :"Don't trust Wikipedia: Improve it!" [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
| | [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (BST) |
| ::I like this one! [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::I LOVE that one [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Thirded. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 15:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Some of the others are a lot more pithy than that, and shouldn't it have a question mark where the colon is? [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 15:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::I like that one two. And keep the colon. A question mark would miss the point. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::I think this would be a hit in Education circles. Well done, Leutha! --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| I like the one that is "I don’t like “Like”; I like “Edit”." It would be good to have images on the T-shirt that look like they are from a screen (but are higher res than an actual screen dump). A possible alternative/varient would be more graphical. It has the two images and then a big red cross through the "like" and a big green tick next to the "edit". [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :My favourite is still the redux of Magritte I think. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| Cymraeg
| | :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) |
| Mae dyfodol Cymru yn dy law (Transl: The future of Wales is in your hand! (Handheld pencil with “Wikipedia” written on it).
| | ::[[: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) |
|
| |
|
| {{angen ffynhonnell}} (Transl: ‘citation needed’)
| | :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) |
|
| |
|
| Wicipedia Cymraeg - Cefnfor Gwybodaeth! (Transl: WC - An ocean of knowledge)
| | ==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. |
|
| |
|
| And why not use any of these I created / adapted around 5 years ago:
| | First place goes to '''Matthew Hoser''' for his image of the derelict West Pier in Brighton. |
| https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defnyddiwr:Llywelyn2000/Bwrdd_plymio
| |
|
| |
|
| Our current pop-up says: Wicipedia - Byd o wybodaeth (Transl: A world of knowledge)
| | In second place was '''Paul Stümke''', who captured the Glenfinnan Viaduct at Loch Shiel. |
|
| |
|
| Wicipedia - yn RHYDD o’r diwedd! (Transl: WP - FREE at last!)
| | Third was '''Oliver Tookey''' for the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill on Sea. |
|
| |
|
| We can use an image of Rhys Ifans with bubble speak: Dw i’n Wici-Waci-Waciwr! (Transl: I’m a Wiki-Wacky-Whacker) All suggestions from Welsh Wikipedians. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
| | The special prize for the best image taken in Scotland was awarded to '''Keith Proven''' for Smailholm Tower. |
|
| |
|
| ==Members registry not public?==
| | The special prize for the best image taken in Wales went to '''Sterim64''' for Craig-y-mor. |
| Under another heading above it was suggested that the WMUK register of members is not public. Actually it is, and in fact anyone can view it, unless WMUK persuades the court that the information is not being sought for a proper purpose. The information can be found on the Companies House website [http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/infoAndGuide/faq/membersShareholders.shtml here] [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 18:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :I doubt that many members would object to a list of members being published on-wiki. Many other charities make their members lists available on websites and I would have thought that membership is something to be proud of. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::This is a timely reminder that the members are actually members of a company registered at Companies House, though I think I am right in saying that a full member list is not necessarily sent with every Annual Return. You can also get an officers report for any company for free here: http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/findCompanyInfo.shtml using the WebCheck service. Interestingly, for Wikimedia UK this shows Alastair McCapra as a Director but not Secretary and a form TM02 having been filed on 3 October noting his resignation as Secretary. I suspect, however, that this is purely a company secretarial matter and all the officers of Wikimedia UK are now simply listed as Directors, regardless of their real position on the board. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 20:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::That's correct. The Board decided to dispense with the role of Company Secretary, and that's what's been updated. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 20:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::What's the position with the members list please? Is it filed with every AR, or if not how often? When was the last one filed? [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 20:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Will need to get back to you on that! Bear with us... [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 20:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::That's fine. This does put a different perspective on the need to keep the membership list in the office up to date, since even if it is not filed with Companies House regularly, I assume that the Companies Act still requires it to be maintained accurately at all times, charity law too no doubt, and to be made available at any time in response to a valid request. (I am not planning on making any such request) [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 21:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::: That's really bad news. :-( I take it that the role has now been delegated to the office? If so, given how unsupported I was by the office when I was the company secretary, I have zero confidence in it being done well by the office. At the current time of WMUK's evolution, this really needs to be done directly by a board member rather than being delegated.
| |
| :::: With regards the members list - this is only held by WMUK, and isn't filed with companies house. It isn't 'public' in the sense of being published online, and we've always steered towards keeping it private (and also towards avoiding it cross-linking to usernames) to protect members' personal information. I don't believe that there is any requirement to file it with companies house - rather, the requirement is to have it available for inspection at the registered office. See [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/8/chapter/2 Part 8 Chapter 2 of the Companies Act 2006] for the full details. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::+1, zero confidence. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Mike is of course correct that we don't file the list of members at Companies House, and that we're not required to. We do of course hold a membership list, and if we ever received a request to inspect it we would comply with our obligations - I don't recall such a request having been received in the time I've been on the Board. We've never published the membership list online and I am not sure how doing so would square with our obligations under the Data Protection Act.
| |
| :::::Regarding Company Secretary, Mike - yes, the tasks involved have been delegated, but you can be reassured that we have several Trustees who are just as vigilant as you were in making sure everything happens. Our annual report and accounts to 2013 were filed [http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1144513&SubsidiaryNumber=0 here] in early October. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:09, 19 October 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]]. |
|
| |
|
| :::It certainly shouldn't link to user names as otherwise anyone on payment of the fee could discover the identity of every user who is a member. It also certainly should be maintained with the utmost scrupulousness as the Act makes clear that failure to maintain it accurately is an offense on the part of the company and every officer of the company who is in default. I don't believe it can be regarded as a private document. Has anyone run a test to see if it could be produced within the timescales required by law. I am not going to apply for it as I don't want to give Richard a heart attack but I assume our processes for adding or removing people are in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act? [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| | 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) |
| ::::A minor clarification, the list of members is not verified in any meaningful way. Even the address is not verified and you could give any name, it does not have to relate to the membership payment method and never has been tied to a Wikimedia account name. In this situation I would expect anyone terribly worried about their on-line identity would pay for their membership under a pseudonym or several pseudonyms. For the member at least, I don't believe that would even break any law. I raised the issue many times in board meetings. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::OK, I think you are correct that in English law a person can give themselves any name and that is not an offense in itself. It could cause considerable administrative problems in the office, however, and in paying subs so I think we must assume that most people have given their real name and address, I did. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 22:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Actually it is important that members and prospective members are aware that the list is available for public inspection with the proviso mentioned above. Whether a person uses a different name to that which they use in other aspects of their daily life is OK, however if someone registers in a variety of different names then that would be very problematic (20 votes for £100!). I would hope that WMUK has suitable processes in place to ensure that such abuses cannot occur. [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 07:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::If you look through past minutes, I publicly objected to passing new unverified members several times in a row, even though I knew the rest of the board would simply outvote me rather than not processing memberships. The reason for this was to put a line in the sand at this significant risk of disruption and entryism. It is public knowledge that rather than £100, £25 worth of memberships would give anyone the ability to force a disruptive EGM (the meeting would legally have to be arranged, even if pointless) and it would probably only take this number to seriously change the outcome at AGMs using proxy votes (only a fraction of the current 220 members would actually bother to vote on any issue or election, a key reason why 220 is far too small a number of members and allowing memberships to decline over the past 2 years has been a serious failure of the CEO). The board has a duty to ensure more than £700,000 is wisely spent, and yet entryism leaves that money subject to a hostile take-over, including replacing the current board, closing down the charity or spending the money in a partisan way. The fact that the only reason against doing something about this risk over the past year was that it would create minor verification work for the staff, who were overworked and too busy, always seemed an incredibly weak one to me, especially as I always supported the idea of contracting out some of the administration.
| |
| ::This may seem far fetched, but consider the fact that WMUK only has 220 members and yet CIPR has 10,500. If CREWE wanted greater representation in WMUK and mentioned this in their members newsletter, it would not be surprising if suddenly we had 100 or 200 members who were partisan to the PR sector (neither staff nor trustees would have any means of being aware of this happening, they would only be congratulating the CEO for increasing membership numbers). This may even happen with purely benign intent and yet would remain a serious reputational risk for the charity as I doubt the FDC or the WMF would take kindly to funding an organization that had the appearance of a partisan membership. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| Could I just say that the charity is very well aware of these issues which have been under active review by the board for some time prior to them being raised here. That active review is continuing. Discussing in a public forum potential ways in which a hostile take-over could be attempted does not help the board to minimize the risk of such an attempt being made. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 15:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| | == Effects of broadband == |
| :Where else would you suggest these matters are discussed Michael? If this is too public then there needs to be somewhere private. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 17:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::That is a good question, and I've opened an new thread about it, below: [[#A Water Cooler for members only?]]. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::Michael, everything I have said here has been said in public on this wiki before (as well as in public off-wiki). It is a problem that should have been solved last year. I am surprised at your suggestion that somehow members should not be allowed to either know about this issue with the charity they are members of, nor be allowed to discuss it with each other. Neither should we be keeping problems like this a secret from the WMF or the FDC.
| |
| ::You may want to go back through the long history of minutes of the in-camera meetings and the related in-camera vote of trustees about this. I would have thought spending well over a year talking, consulting and listening to reasons from the CEO as to why all employees are too busy to take action, rather than finding a way to resolve this serious risk (such as contracting it out if everyone is too busy with more important work), would be far too long for even the slowest charity or much smaller charities than ours, especially in the light of the informal advice I passed on to the board from the charity's excellent lawyers (Stone King) way back in 2012. I hope you and the other newer trustees can implement real changes, and promptly, where I failed to do so. Change is long overdue.
| |
| ::If you want a quick fix, then I recommend the trustees announce a halt to all new memberships until a system of verification is agreed and in place. That way the risk of entryism would be zero, at least from new applications, and members and trustees can discuss the problem completely in the open without accusations against anyone creating risks by being [[Values|open and transparent]]. It would have the benefit of putting significant pressure on the CEO to agree prompt and effective solutions. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :::The Board looked at a couple of potential solutions for this at the July board meeting, and we didn't adopt any of them. It's my view (along with most of the Board) that any additional "verification" step would be offputting for prospective members, as well as an unnecessary administrative headache. I've never seen any advice that such a step is necessary, and in my professional experience of running membership schemes I have never even heard of a membership organisation which does anything like this. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| | 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 |
| ::::You may want to go back to Stone King and get your professional experience balanced with theirs, especially if you are personally taking a lead in advising the board of trustees to take no corrective or preventative action on this risk. Perhaps you can share my summary email from 2012 of the conversation I had with Stone King, with the new board members that have yet to see it? By the way, I am unsure that a vote with a result of '''3:2''' is best described as "most of the board", in fact I would say that was a difficult vote that the new trustees might want to re-visit and ensure they have all the viewpoints and evidence, especially in the light of your statement "never seen such advice" when it exists in my 2012 email. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::I am not sure of how the present charity is set up in this regard, but I was involved with setting up Wiki Educational Resources, the first attempt at a UK chapter (sometimes described as Wikimedia UK 1.0). At that time we considered the possibility of a hostile takeover, and our attitude was that because the single biggest asset (by a long way) was the "Wikimedia" name that that was what needed defending. Accordingly everything was set up so that if a hostile takeover happened, the Wikimedia Foundation could quickly and easily revoke the right to use the name, meaning that the hostile board would be left with little more than a worthless shell. I can't remember if the impetus for this came from the Foundation or from the prospective chapter folks. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 23:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::It is an interesting point, however there are two massive differences between a hostile take-over of Wiki Educational Resources and Wikimedia UK, namely access to donated funds of nearly a million pounds and responsibility for employment of 9 people. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::My understanding of charity law (and I accept I might be wrong) is that the board is prohibited from spending any donated funds in a manner contrary to the charity's objectives, which would render some protection (and if the money is spent furthering our objectives that isn't actually a bad thing). I suppose it is possible that a hostile board could change the objectives, but I don't know to what extent that would need to be approved by bodies such as the charity commission. Again IANAL, but I believe that employment law gives protection to employees such that they cannot be forced to act contrary to their terms of employment, and while I don't know the terms on which WMUK employees are hired it would not surprise me if they are required not to bring the organisation into disrepute or similar. That would provide a limited defence against a hostile board acting contrary to the charity's interests. The main point though was to make it an unattractive target or a hostile takeover. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 10:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::Michael, by the way, I have raised a related question at [[meta:Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Proposal_form#Status_of_reports_and_some_numbers_underpinning_the_FDC_application|Status of reports and some numbers underpinning the FDC application]] which you may wish to consider. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ===Review of membership approvals process===
| |
| Michael, now I have had some time to check through the minutes of the [[Minutes_13Jul13#Discussion_on_membership_approvals|July board meeting]] in conjunction with Chris' statement on this thread that no action is being taken or planned, I am having difficulty reconciling your statement here of ''"That active review is continuing"''. Given the history of board and CEO level discussions and related actions dates back well over a year, could you explain for the benefit of interested members the ''scope'' of the continuing review of membership verification, exactly ''who'' has been actioned by the board, and ''when'' the members will be able to read a public report of the outcomes of the review of this issue? Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :The review has been ongoing by email and the issue is likely to be raised at the December board meeting. Chris did not say that "no action is being taken or planned". --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 12:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::Thanks for the partial clarification, though it would be useful for the members to openly know ''who'' has been actioned by the board and ''what'' the scope of this review is.
| |
| ::I note that a possible date of December to have another discussion, would make this a major risk that has been under discussion by the trustees for over 18 months, without any action, plan or committed resources that members have been informed about.
| |
| ::As for Chris' comment earlier in this thread, I made a reasonable paraphrasing I thought, however to avoid doubt, Chris stated ''"It's my view (along with most of the Board) that any additional "verification" step would be offputting for prospective members, as well as an unnecessary administrative headache"'' which to any casual reader indicates that the board has no intention to take any action on this, indeed there appears to be no action in the minutes of the last two board meetings. It is impossible for members to know the contents of unpublished emails between trustees, we can only form our opinion from the comments that trustees have made here. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == A Water Cooler for members only? ==
| | 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) |
|
| |
|
| It has been suggested several times above that it would be useful to set up a 'private' water cooler, for members of the charity only, where members can speak openly and raise issues that are perhaps best not discussed in an entirely open forum. I am myself in two minds about that, and it would be good to have a discussion here. As I see it, there are pros and cons:
| | ::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) |
| | |
| '''Pros'''
| |
| * There is nowhere else that members can discuss private issues of interest, nor internal or contentious issues that may not be easy to discuss openly in public. Having to ring the office is not always a good solution for a member who would like to start a quiet discussion.
| |
| * Members with concerns would be able to raise issues without contributing to what otherwise - to uninvolved readers - can easily come over as 'washing dirty linen in public' or 'navel-gazing'. Doing everything on a public forum can easily give the incorrect impression that the charity is more concerned about internal in-fighting than actually getting on with its mission.
| |
| | |
| '''Cons'''
| |
| * Transparency is part of the charity's mission, and we should not keep things confidential unless there are very good reasons to do so.
| |
| * The very existence of a closed discussion forum could and probably would generate suspicion, and provide fuel for conspiracy theories.
| |
| * Users with critical views to express may well not want them kept confidential, and may prefer to have an open discussion in a forum (here or elsewhere) where they might hope to garner non-member support. That could largely undermine the purpose of having a confidential forum.
| |
| | |
| I am sure there are more issues that I have not thought of. Comments and discussion would be welcome. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 18:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :We have long experience of closed wikis, they tend to be used rarely and only by small numbers of the groups they are intended for. If you consider the closed WMUK Board wiki, the closed OTRS wiki and the closed Chapters wiki as examples, they tend to be used as places to dump reference material, none is a good place to discuss any issue and are likely to disenfranchise those that are less wiki-passionate, in fact related open email lists tend to be far more popular. I'm not against an experiment, even if openness is at the heart of the WMUK values, however my expectation would be that few of the 220 members would join (after all only an average of 20 members ever write here) and even fewer would use it for anything. If we increase membership (the target for 2014 being 400), I would expect an even lower proportion to engage in closed wikis or closed email lists.
| |
| :If the incentive here is to close down discussion of topics such as entryism for this charity, it should be noted that the board of trustees openly published minutes of their vote and discussion on this issue of membership verification. The general way membership functions or fails to function correctly for a public charity, should be a matter of public record as it is of distinct public interest. I struggle to think of any topic that would be of genuine interest to members that should not be discussed publicly that would not create equivalent problems if encouraged to be discussed on a closed forum, for example suspected instances of financial fraud or defamatory allegations that should not be made in any written forum. Especially in the light of the fact that members are effectively anonymous, and we would have no way of stopping any member copying discussions back into an open forum, nor could we take any legal action in such circumstances unless it were a criminal matter or libel. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::No 'incentive' here from my perspective. I opened the thread as it is an idea that Philafrenzy has suggested several times, and it seems at the very least to merit discussion. But there are quite clearly serious 'cons'. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 20:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::I will give a fuller reply later but may I point out that it is hardly my original idea Michael. The chapter, and Jon in particular, have been worried for a long time about how the water cooler appears to the rest of the world including potential members and trustees, and I think several people including trustees and Jon have asked whether things raised here could have been raised in private. I am just stating the obvious which is that if this is too public, the only logical response is to make it more private. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 23:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Thanks for raising this, Michael. At the moment I would tend towards "no", for two reasons;
| |
| * It is useful and possibly important to have non-members looking at, and participating in, the kinds of issues that members discuss. For instance - a Wikimedian who's never quite got around to joining might see something that interested them, and add some useful comments, and then get more involved. Also, there are some people who have valuable input but have reasons for not joining: for instance because of professional reasons, or because they don't want to compromise their anonymity.
| |
| * Any shared space is vulnerable to abuse: if the frequency of negative interaction increases too much, people will start to avoid it and find other places to have conversations. This problem is worse in closed spaces which have fewer users. There was an example of this recently on a Wikimedia Foundation email list called internal-l, which used to include many Foundation staff and board members, chapter board members, and the like. Sadly, it became dominated by a couple of people sending shouty emails, a bunch of people unsubscribed, and it's now scarcely used. In general, more interaction, more positive interaction, and more community regulation of the shared space is more likely to make it successful, and these things are on the whole easier in the open.
| |
| But it would certainly be worth hearing more thoughts on this. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Some good points there, and in conjunction with Fae's point about the probable lack of engagement with such a forum I am also tending towards "no". More comments would be welcome, though. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Clearly there are major disadvantages in protecting this page in some way or making it member only and I don't think that two water coolers would work or be necessary. There remains, however, a reason for having a page, perhaps little used, where members only may raise matters that are not suitable for a public forum and which need to be raised in writing with the membership as a whole in a confidential way. I acknowledge the point that such confidentiality is easily broken but that is not an argument for not having such a page.
| |
| | |
| ::The page could act as a sort of safety valve that would allow members to "whistle blow" to other members and act as an early warning mechanism for the board that there may be something that demands their immediate attention. It would also give members a choice, which they do not have at present, of how they raise matters with the chapter and the membership and remove the excuse that there was no alternative but to post here. I acknowledge the possible anti-democratic implications of, for instance, having important debates such as about CIPR there rather than here but it is desirable, I think, that members should be able to communicate with each other in writing and in private without having to go through an intermediary on the board or the staff, as we are currently encouraged to do. It is irrelevant that such a page may be little used. It ought to exist for its own sake, much like the emergency brake on a train. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 14:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :The Water cooler had many uses, not the least of which showing me that tilde is not spelt like a 70's instant curry! Moving to a private space is not the answer but we need to think hard about how it is or is not functioning.
| |
| :It is not attracting more than 20 people. That cannot be good. It is uspetting people. That is certainly not good. Despite all the news of good initiatives and opportunities its content tends to be dominated by 'navel gazing'. Even I struggle to understand the nuances of some of the discussions. This IS our public forum after all and perhaps we should make more of an effort to be accessible? I would argue that it is far too introspective. From my observations much of the vibrant dialogue on the community happens on facebook (crosses himself lest the devil takes his open source soul). The watercooler has little levity or humour or lightness of touch. There is often a distinct lack of AGF. One of my staff fears looking at it and told me so this morning. Should I ban staff from using it? That would be so sad. How can we make it more interesting and accessible? We share a lot of brickbats and not enough barnstars on the Watercooler. As one ex-trustee once told me ' we are an organsiation that hasn't learnt to say thank you" Could the Watercooler be part of a change in this culture?
| |
| :I would like to see a watercooler where my member of staff logged on every morning with enthusiasm hoping to learn more about what people were thinking and feeling ready to contribute knowing people would be polite and even kind to them. I don't think this is impossible.
| |
| :Tilde time [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :: I somewhat agree with Jon here, particularly when it comes to not moving to a private space, and also when it comes to people fearing to look at this page. :-( This should be a place where everyone can discuss WMUK in a pleasant manner, without aiming to upset anyone. At the same time, though, everyone should be able to honestly and openly express and explain their viewpoints here. I think that introspection is a really important aspect of this - and I'm really disappointed to hear that there is dialogue taking place on facebook, since that excludes a lot of people (including myself since I only participate in personal conversations there!) Levity and humour doesn't necessarily need to be here, although I would hope that this would happen naturally where things are going well. I'm not sure what '{{w|brickbats}}' means (since enwp also doesn't know this term), and barnstars belong on user pages rather than this page, but it would be good to see more barnstar-worthy comments left here. I'm rather saddened by Jon's last line, though, as it really should be *our* members of staff rather than Jon's. :-( Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think Jon feels protective of the staff Mike, and that their efforts are under-appreciated and meet only with criticism. I understand why he might feel that way. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 21:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :In some ways I agree with Jon here, but I also feel he is also using polarising language: Should the CEO be either commanding staff to use the Watercooler, or banning them from using it. Could not they be given discretion as to how to handle whatever situations arise as they arise? And isn't it the ''tensions'' which surface on the Watercooler which upset people, rather than the water cooler itself. Yes, it is a public forum, but not a platform for WMUK to advertise itself. For myself I think one area where clarity would be useful is that I feel we need a clear distinction between Wikipedia/Wikimedia communities, and WMUK which is a [[w:The Nature of the Firm|firm]]. In fact they are like chalk and cheese, and whenever they are turned into an amalgam, it will generate problems. When I edit Wikipedia, I am not a "volunteer" so much as an "amateur" (I really dislike the way "professionalism" has come to imply a superior quality of performance, when this is so often far from the case.) When I edit are participate in what [[W:Yochai Benkler|Yochai Benkler]] calls [http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf Commons-based peer production]. However when I volunteer for Wikimedia UK, I am functioning as an unpaid member of a firm, donating my labour because I wish to contribute to the shared goals of the organisation. Now I realise this all getting somewhat theoretical, but it is my view that this is the only way to develop a way of coping with what I regard as inevitable tensions. Let's see! [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 22:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::: (after edit conflict with Leutha and Philafrenzy) Wiktionary is more illuminating about what a [[wikt:brickbat|brickbat]] is, possibly it could be more so but it is a start. The second sense is the one being used here.
| |
| :::As to the substance of the comment, I can understand why someone may not like reading this page. Far too often I'm seeing comments that read as if they are based on the assumption that the staff and/or trustees are bad, wrong and out to deliberately destroy the charity. Not a single one of the WMUK people I've met (at least two trustees and most of the office staff I think) has been anything of the sort and such attitudes should have no place on any Wikimedia-related project. If staff are frightened to come here how can we hope to attract volunteers?
| |
| :::Linking to Wiktionary has given me an idea for a possible way forward that might be a step in the right direction to fix this problem. At the English Wiktionary there are multiple central [[wikt:Wiktionary:Discussion rooms|discussion spaces]], all equally public, but each with their own purpose:
| |
| :::*An [[wikt:Wiktionary:Information desk|Information desk]], similar to the Help desk at the English Wikipedia. For minor problems, help and queries
| |
| :::*The [[Wikt:Wiktionary:Tea Room|Tea Room]], and [[Wikt:Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium|Etymology scriptorium]] which deal with queries about specific words and etymology (not dissimilar to the en.wp Reference desks).
| |
| :::*The [[Wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour|Beer parlour]] is where policy discussions happen; and
| |
| :::*The [[Wikt:Wiktionary:Grease pit|Grease pit]] is where technical requests, discussions and development happens.
| |
| :::I get the feeling that here the Water cooler is trying to be all of them, and isn't doing a good job of it. We don't need 5 spaces, we're not that big. So can I suggest the following reorganisation (but maybe with better names):
| |
| :::*Water Cooler (or maybe Lobby or Pub it wants an image change): A place that focuses on being an open and welcoming space for informal light-hearted discussion among everybody. The welcoming public face that we show the world. The atmosphere should be as friendly and welcoming as the office is.
| |
| :::*Break room: For discussions about internal matters that are not relevant to the world at large. While anyone is welcome to come and join in, it isn't thrust in their faces if they aren't interested. This should still have a welcoming atmosphere, but needn't necessarily be as jovial as the main area.
| |
| :::*Technical lounge (if needed): For technical requests and queries about the wiki. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 22:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::Since the discussions here are discursive, and making any of them private seems to be off the menu, how will we ensure appropriate use of the pages? Won't it just lead to discussions spread over three pages? [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 22:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I'm not even sure we need that many options: just one for "Governance and Membership" and one for "Events and Endeavours": that is, one where we discuss "serious, dull" issues, and one where we discuss "charitable, fun" issues - or similar. Just a thought! [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Richard, as frequently happens an idea of mine is improved by simplification! Thanks!
| |
| :::::Philarenzy, all it needs is someone to split threads when tangents arise. More thread discipline wouldn't go amiss regardless of what we do. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 23:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Cat herding? [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 23:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::I like the idea of "Governance and Membership" and "Events and Endeavours" spaces. The first is essentially internal-facing, the second external. What we need are two short, snappy names for them. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| A lovely discussion full of good ideas and faith - thanks. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == QRpedia Donation Update ==
| |
| | |
| The last thread on the announced donation of QRPedia to WMUK has now been archived, unresolved(see https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Water_cooler/2013#QRpedia_update for the last discussion).
| |
| | |
| As of today, whois.com shows ownership of the QRPedia related domains as:
| |
| * qrpedia.org – Terrence Eden
| |
| * qrwp.org – Bamkin Family
| |
| * qrpedia.org.uk – Michael Peel, but with WMUK’s contact details(1)
| |
| * qrpedia.net - Wiki UK Limited
| |
| * qrpedia.co.uk – Bamkin Family
| |
| (1) It appears that qrpedia.org.uk has not been properly transferred to Wiki UK Limited, as qrpedia.net was. I have alerted him to the problem on meta.
| |
| | |
| Given that it is now more than a year since the first announcement of the donation, more than six months since the last announcement of the donation, three months since the WMUK prepared agreement was provided to Roger Bamkin for signature, and one month since WMUK Chair advised that the situation could not go on indefinitely, could a definite statement on this donation please be given? Please, clearly either decline the donation, or advise a date by which the donation will be resolved and the transfer occur – or of course, better still, an announcement could be made that the donation has been completed, and the domains transferred to WMUK. [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 03:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Dear TheOverflow, the transfer agreement has been signed by ourselves, Terence but not yet by Roger. This was discussed at the last WMUK board meeting in September and is in the hands of the trustee dealing with the matter. We would all like to be able to report a resolution to this and will do so as soon as there is one. Apologies for the delays. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::: Thank you. By what date to you expect this to be resolved? As I noted above, the Chair has previously advised that this cannot continue indefinitely, but without a date for resolution, it is, effectively, continuing indefinitely. Has the trustee responsible had any recent correspondence regarding when resolution can be expected? [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Oh how I wish I could say but in the hands of the trustee handling it.[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :I imagine that is still Saad. From what I understand of the recent governance audit, the approach of using trustees to manage this sort of operational matter is to be avoided in future, and this will become wholly the responsibility and authority of the CEO. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Perhaps the trustee handling the matter could comment? [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 22:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :+1 Come on Saad. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Saad tells us that a final date in the very near future has been arrived at whereby we take ownership or move away. Fingers crossed. Tilde time. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::That's great to hear. And what is that date? [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 22:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Sorry, we are not publishing details of legal discussions. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 10:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::I have two regrets from when I was leading the QRpedia agreement in 2011/12, one was my failure to firmly drive the agreement through in 2012 and consequently hand the negotiation to a trustee who was the principle critic of that proposed agreement, the other was my failure to be more open about the issues and progress with our members. Considering it is a gift rather than a purchase, and the only tangible risk has already been discussed in public, it does seem a shame that the members are still being kept in the dark after two years due to it being a legal matter. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Mobile app for EduWiki 2013 ==
| |
| | |
| Further to my recent announcement on the Water Cooler about trialing a mobile app called EventSpark, which is being considered for Wikimania 2014, at [[EduWiki Conference 2013]]: the app is now live and available for download. [[:File:EduWiki13-EventSpark-instructions.pdf|Full instructions available here]]. --[[User:Toni Sant (WMUK)|Toni Sant (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Toni Sant (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Interested in helping Wiki take Leicester? ==
| |
| | |
| Hello everyone. I recently met with an editor of the Gujarati Wikipedia to explore some ideas of how the chapter can support outreach efforts to Gujarati speaking communities. The proposal we came up with was Wiki Takes Leicester. This would be a traditional Wiki Takes style event but with a slight emphasis on Indian culture and community. There would also be a parallel session offering editing training, on both the English and Gujarati Wikipedias. The draft proposal is at https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Draft_proposal:_Wiki_Takes_Leicester so please take a look and get involved. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Engagement with public libraries - a draft proposal ==
| |
| | |
| Hello everyone. Recently I spoke with a friend who is a librarian and we discussed how widely Wikipedia is used in public libraries. We got to thinking about how Wikimedia UK could engage with those users effectively. This led me to have a very useful exploratory conversation with the Operations and Data Manager of Thurrock Library Service. We discussed some possibilities and following on from that I've put together some notes into a draft proposal for how we may do this. It's at https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Draft_proposal:_Thurrock_Libraries and I'd welcome your thoughts. Please note that's it a draft at the moment and none of this is set in stone. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Hearing Loop ==
| |
| | |
| We've just purchased a hearing loop for the UK chapter, to make it easier for those with hearing difficulties to partake in discussions and events. The loop doesn't have a huge range, so it's not good for full conferences, and is instead best for smaller meetings of 3-4 people.
| |
| | |
| We'll work to update the various event pages to include this information in the next few weeks. This loop can be requested by anyone running or attending events (provided we know who's in charge of it). I'd be really keen on hearing from people how it can be "effectively utilised", and doesn't just sit around gathering dust. Every time that it could be used, we want it to be used. We'd be happy to lend it to other chapters for short periods too (although it's a UK/240v charging system). [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Monuments results ==
| |
| | |
| We are pleased to announce the winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the UK.
| |
| [[https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/| See the blog for the results and pictures.]]
| |
|
| |
| This was a magnificent effort for a band of devoted volunteers who got it all together, Richard Nevell and Katie Chan who offered staff input (and some) and of course the participants.
| |
| | |
| Wiki Loves Monuments is the world’s largest photography contest. The objective is to collect high quality photographs of some of the world’s most important buildings – in the UK, this means Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings.
| |
| | |
| Over 570 people took part in the UK competition, contributing more than 12,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons, one of the world’s largest repositories of freely licensed media files. Volunteer editors have already started making use of some of these new images to illustrate Wikipedia.
| |
| | |
| Steve Cole, one of the competition judges and Head of Imaging at English Heritage, said: ” The Wiki Loves Monuments photography competition produced a fantastic range of subjects and photographic styles. Choosing the winners was no easy task. The views of the judges varied enormously, individual favourites fell by the wayside as they failed to excite the other two judges. The winning images present not only a good eye for composition but also the ability to capture the mood of the moment.”
| |
| | |
| Bottom line is that Commons now has 12,000 more images that can support our movement.
| |
| We can't wait for the next one.
| |
| | |
| [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Facebook, Twitter and Linked-In buttons ==
| |
| | |
| Hello everyone. A volunteer has approached me with the suggestion that it would be a good idea to add Facebook, Twitter and Linked-In buttons to the UK wiki to make it easier to share interesting content with others. I think this is a good idea assuming we can work out things like privacy. I leave that to people with a better understanding! What I'm keen on here is to to understand what other people think. So - any thoughts? [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Certainly I can see the attraction for things like events pages and other things we want to publicise. I'd guess that just linking to a page on here via such a button would be no different privacy wise than copypasting the URL, but I have no actual knowledge. I have no objection if there are no privacy or similar obstacles. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 15:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::The standard share this page links/buttons leak information on which page someone is on to the social media sites (I'm assuming if you are logged in to the social media sites). It is possible to do share it via two clicks, where the first click activate the buttons, with the second click actually sharing the page that will get over this issue. Will need a more detailed look into how the script work and our privacy policy before definitely commenting that such a solution would be okay. Would do that, if the community think this is something worth having. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Two key issues with social media buttons (such as ''sharethis'', ''like'' or ''vote'') and common reasons raised over the last few years every time this comes up:
| |
| # These "social buttons" drive useful discussion and viewpoints out of the Wikimedia community (or any other open community) and moves them to a platform which is closed, spams you with intelligent advertising, and may require membership and logging in to even read. This will discriminate against those Wikimedians who will refuse to have to have to log in to Facebook in order read a discussion there or to set up a Twitter account to express their own views on that platform. Worse, where Wikimedians have driven discussion to off-wiki sites, such as Facebook groups, the discussion does not have to comply with local policies such as avoiding defamatory or discriminatory content. A good example was the Facebook campaign which moved discussion on the issue of sexually explicit content away from discussion pages on Commons, where these views may have actually influenced policy, and instead divided the community, effectively ensuring that a consensus would not be reached through cooperative discussion by sticking to one main on-wiki process.
| |
| # A key element of the Wikimedia UK charity's mission is to "promote an open approach to learning and knowledge", spending donated funds on integrating a Wikimedia site with closed platforms, that may then drive readers and editors away from our open projects in order to express their views on closed sites is the opposite of this mission. It would be better for Wikimedia UK to encourage discussion on this cooperative social wiki, rather than away from it.
| |
| Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :I tend to agree and don't want to have to monitor too many sites to keep up to date with discussions. Already there is a difficulty aggregating opinion in one place in order to form a coherent consensus and this wouldn't help. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 18:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::While I agree with the points you are making, I don't think that what is being proposed here is to divert any discussion away from this wiki. My reading of the initial proposal, and so my earlier comment, was that the buttons would be used to advertise content on this wiki on external sites. For example I know lots of people with an interest in history and archaeology, and we have an informal discussion group on Facebook where we link to various topics of mutual interest. I advertised the Wiki Takes Chester event on that group by linking to the event page on this wiki. I did this by copying and pasting the URI. If I have understood the initial proposal correctly, I could have done exactly the same thing by pressing a "share to facebook" button on this wiki. The aim of such would be to pull contributors from the closed source social network onto this free content wiki, which would be a good thing (in my opinion) rather than to push people away from here (which would be the bad thing you say it would be). I don't know which of us is reading the proposal right or wrong, I am simply pointing out that your (Fæ and Philafrenzy) reading is not the only one and explain the background to my comment. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 00:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::Fair enough, I think it depends on the exact technical mechanism, where the buttons would be, who could click them and what info was passed on to whom. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 00:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Thryduulf has it exactly correct. It's about making it easier for people to share information that they think is interesting with people that they think may find it interesting. It's just another way to encourage people to share information about the chapter and its work. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::This is a tough one but although we are growing gradually as a community not enough people know about what we do and how to get involved. This could help? Tildas [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::: If links are being shared on facebook or elsewhere, then it's inevitable that people will start talking about them there (since there's normally a nice easy comment box right below the link), so that is definitely something to bear in mind. It is something that is unavoidable, though - people will share links regardless of whether there's nice easy buttons to do so on a page. For me, it really comes down to whether we want to promote the other websites here, and how we choose which ones we promote. There's the obvious ones like facebook, twitter, etc., but there are also open source alternatives (e.g. status.net) - shouldn't WMUK be giving more of a presence to them? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 12:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::There is no evidence that integrating a Wikimedia project or Chapter wiki with the closed systems of Facebook or similar by adding buttons, would result in more contributions to Wikimedia projects or do anything other than drive discussion that could be held on-wiki to being off-wiki; if there is evidence that editor growth is an outcome then I would be very interested to see it as a justification for the investment, and the apparent deviation from the core values of the charity. However there is case evidence that well written blog posts and providing pieces and interviews for the press or other websites does attract more involvement, if nothing else by seeing the readership and editing of controversial or promoted topics increasing. Essentially the difference is creating media content that is intellectually engaging and attracts the types of people who might actually want to write solid content or publish quality photographs, from the ''haz cheezeburger'' twitterati with attention spans typically measured in seconds, even though engaging with the twitterati will give high "media engagement" values, the outcomes are non-existent or at best incredibly shallow, such as just attracting more vandalism or the mobile engagement exercise for Wikimedia Commons that resulted in 90%+ of mobile uploads being copyright violations that were an enormous drain on Administrator's time. Ensuring we had meaningful engagement with the media and high quality pieces that become reference stories for everyone else, is one of the reasons why that when Wikimedia UK started hiring employees, we believed that placing someone in a Communications role was a priority.
| |
| ::::To be honest, given an hour or two I could rehash some old code and create a user script to provide any Wikimedia project with "share this/tweet this" type buttons at the side of a page for a whole range of social media sites (so please do not pay a contractor out of donated funds when this can be done by unpaid volunteers). I have never wanted to release code of this type because it is antithetical to our values. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I agree that we should keep conversation on wiki, the problems of facebook include that it requires real life identities and it is difficult to mix Facebook and wikimedia without undermining pseudonymity. We also don't want to repeat the whole IRC problem that Wikipedia has, with one subset of the community having a parallel debate on IRC and another subset feeling left out by that process and being suspicious of anyone known to be active on IRC. However I would hope that people would not have problems with other editors promoting events and blogs within social media. At least one of the attendees of the last editathon in york was recruited via social media, and if we are to recruit editors for Wikipedia then we may need to go off wiki to find them. [[User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Outcomes from Berlin Diversity Conference==
| |
| The goals of the Diversity conference have been [[Meta:Wikimedia_Diversity_Conference|laid out quite clearly]]:
| |
| * Establish a sustainable dialogue with collaborators in Wikimedia Chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation and the international communities to frame the issue of diversity in the context of Wikimedia.
| |
| ::with an aim to build a shared understanding of what diversity means for Wikimedia projects and why it is important.
| |
| * Connect, multiply and create successful initiatives for increasing gender and other types of diversity in Wikimedia.
| |
| ::with an aim to turn ideas into action.
| |
| | |
| Particularly as WMUK is one of the partners of this initiative, I fell it would be useful to use the water cooler to reflect on what this might be in practice, and what could be some possible outcomes we would like to see from the event. [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I would like to see an appropriate proportion of WMUK's budget committed to diversity outreach spent on LGBT related initiatives. Despite having this budget around for a couple of years, I do not recall any money ever going to fund an LGBT project, such as the projects created by [[m:LGBT|Wikimedia LGBT]]. We may assume good will, but this track record seems to show that other projects invariably take a priority for attention. As no unpaid volunteer active in WM-LGBT from the UK has been funded to attend the conference, this would seem to put the UK as a laggard in addressing the balance in this area. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::I agree committing budget to diversity is a good idea, although I think many (you and I included) would be cautious about committing budget with no clear idea where it will go/appropriate actionable projects in mind. So certainly I think we should have a discussion about how WMUK can support LGBT issues and where it might have had opportunity to do so in the past but failed. The [[m:LGBT|Wikimedia LGBT]] looks great and it'd be fantastic if WMUK could engage with it, but Fae there's no need to stick the boot in at every opportunity, the project is young and mostly focused around wikimania 2012 as far as I can see, so sure let's talk about how WMUK can be supportive but the "laggard" comment is just detracting from opportunities to actually open up useful discussion. Not to mention, the choice of volunteers being sent has been discussed elsewhere. [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 08:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::The commitment to diversity was more than a good idea, it was a firm commitment of the [[2013 Activity Plan]] to spend £10,000 in this area, part of which was to be targeted at the LGBT community. My understanding is that 0% of this £10,000 was spent on LGBT projects. However, if asking questions about it is to be considered "sticking the boot in", then I doubt that other unpaid volunteers from the WM-LGBT community will be much interested in joining me in discussing how to improve that situation here and we will look for funding our projects more directly and leave the UK chapter to collaborate with itself. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Not what I said. Asking questions isn't sticking the boot in, accusations of lagging with respect to a specific young project is though. If the situation remains the same over time, particularly if there are missed opportunities to support organisations/projects who could've been supported then I'd be worried, as it is I think it's entirely reasonable to ask questions and think about how wmuk might be useful, while avoiding assumptions of bad faith...no? [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 11:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::I am unsure what the young project is. When I was voted to join the board as a trustee (2011), I was extremely clear in my candidate statement about my interest in LGBT projects, this was one of the things I wanted the UK Chapter to take a lead in where other Wikimedia organizations had failed. For example at that time the WMF had no openly gay employees even though they would talk to me in private about their support of LGBT projects. My openness as a board member of a chapter led to a number of people active in other chapters feeling they could discuss their plans with me (even in countries where anyone openly gay would definitely suffer public discrimination) and eventually we focused these ideas by creating WM-LGBT as an interest group with its own email list, IRC channel and presence on Meta; for whatever reasons a significant proportion of those involved remain covertly active. I can be criticised for failing to make any significant progress while a trustee, apart from ensuring that LGBT was an explicitly mentioned part of our funded outreach activity when it was removed from the list, though to be fair the implementation of the Activity plan is a matter for Operations rather than the Board of Trustees. In terms of missed opportunities, there has been plenty of outreach for other groups to encourage proposals and projects, in the case of events focused on women contributors, this has been successful. A lack of meaningful outreach for LGBT groups is an issue as it has already remained "the same over time" for a period of a couple of years. If every time someone asks a tricky question the answer is always to press the reset button and to put aside past history, I don't see how issues with implementation can ever be learned from. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Well that gives a lot more detail mostly not around WM-LGBT (which was where my concern re: laggard claim lay). It's worth remembering not everyone who reads cooler has such a long-standing history and contribution to wikimedia, nor will they have time to read up on all the history of the chapter (e.g., me) so these clarifications are useful. Thanks [[User:Sjgknight|Sjgknight]] ([[User talk:Sjgknight|talk]]) 12:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::No problem, I would imagine the Board of Trustees has the same issue; with Mike and myself having left the board this year and only Chris' personal perspective informing the in-camera discussions about events that are now considered part of "history" such as our original vision for the charity, and how best to interpret the values that we established at that time. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Something that came to light in a presentation at the EduWiki Conference over the weekend might be of interest here. Discussing the gender gap on Wikipedia, I learned that while there is a very large gap on the English Wikipedia - figures have ranged from about 85-90% of contributors are male - within the Wikipedia Education Program this shifts to around 60% of participants being female. Not really linked to the diversity conference outcomes but thought it worthwhile sharing that here. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Do we collect information about gender balance at events like editathons? Obviously it would be inappropriate to be surveying people at such events about their sexuality, so we can't know how well or otherwise we are doing inclusivity wise for that. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]])
| |
| | |
| I disagree about setting a budget aside for Diversity issues, as this in essence is creating artificial scarcity around rival resources, which can create real or perceived ill feeling. So for instance by allocating funds for x staff and y volunteers to go to the conference, with an unclear process of selection the board created precisely the sorts of problems discussed on the water-cooler earlier. I was very disappointed to see that people criticising the process were then caricatured as jealously suggesting that they should go instead of the person who was selected. I feel it is precisely this sort of approach which gives rise to some of the negative views expressed on the water cooler, and that attention should be given to these structural issues rather than the hand wringing which we have witnessed here.
| |
| :More specifically I think that one outcome of the Diversity Conference should be:
| |
| ::* all attendees leave with a clear understanding of the factors which have made WMUK interaction with the Welsh speaking community such a success.
| |
| :Speaking personally, I only really grasped these issues at the EduWiki conference, in particular, that there is a goal of reaching 200,000 pages of content as this is considered the tipping point to persuading Google to provide a version of their search engine in Welsh. Aside from the benefit of having a much larger on-line encyclopedia in Welsh, this provides a further bonus with a positive impact on Welsh speakers outside and beyond the Wikimedia community.
| |
| :Another lesson from the Welsh experience is that rather than simply dispersing relatively small sums of money from a limited budget, it is a matter of bringing in more funds to expand our activities. I would much rather see staff time being made available to explore additional funding which can impact on areas included in the discourse on "diversity" (I am uncomfortable with this term: it is a concept which has attracted criticism in that it hides power relations and thus impedes strategies for change from below). Such funding bids should include funds to cover the investment of time in drawing up the bid, and other management costs, so that each new project does not constitute a drain on limited resources, even if there still remains potential rivalry over supporting different projects when faced with tight deadlines. However, even this could be dealt with by having sessional staff to deal with any bottle-necks, with their costs being covered by an ultimately successful bid. (Safeguards would need to be worked out to cope with unsuccessful bids were covered, but this would not be too onerous.) To some that up as an outcome:
| |
| ::* a non-rival approach to developing "diversity" projects.
| |
| ::[[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 14:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Our response to LGBT issues in the chapter has indeed been disappointing. We were hopeful of having a Wikimedian in Residence at the Women's Library this year. This is an institution that contains a lot of material relevant to LGBT issues and history. We chose them but owing to circumstances beyond their control (their hosts closed the building and the collection was transferred) we were unable to go ahead but hope we can do so next year. In the meantime it would be great to see some grant applications to do work in this area. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :An odd example to put forward, considering the relationship with the LSE started with me, my contacts and long term personal friendships there and the fact that the LGBT archives in the LSE only exist because it is a part of the Hall-Carpenter Archives that I helped with as part of our small gay archive community for many years before Wikimedia UK existed. Considering how coldly my recent grant application was handled, I have hardly been encouraged. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I've been following the progress of WM-LGBT for a while, but I have to say I haven't noticed any initiatives resulting from it that the Chapter could be involved in funding. If there are then please do tell us! Indeed, any proposal from any quarter would be welcome - thinking about the LGBT Wikimedians I know, I think more of them aren't involved in WM-LGBT than are, and being part of an organisation isn't a prerequisite. Regards, [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 21:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Hi Chris, if you have questions or criticism for WM-LGBT, please do feel free to raise them at [[m:LGBT]] where the community can reply. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::Hi Fae, is there a particular outcome you'd like to see from this thread? You're coming across as rather hostile, but if there's something you think WMUK should be doing that it isn't, I'd be happy to work with you to try to rectify that. For example, if you have an idea for an event with a partner organisation, I'd be only too happy to help you facilitate it, but it seems a little unfair to criticise the chapter for not supporting LGBT-related projects if nobody has made any suggestions for such projects that WMUK could support. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 06:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::It seems odd to blame volunteers for failing to put in proposals if the UK Chapter has done hardly any outreach to LGBT groups. I '''have''' quietly made past suggestions for contacts and follow up, such as the gay history month group, but only my contacts at the LSE were followed up on in a sustained manner, presumably as this was the Women's Library rather than because it houses part of the Hall-Carpenter Archive (for which there has been no particular proposal from WMUK apart from Jon Davies mentioning the gay archive here, presumably without understanding its background). I am not the only gay in this village, and certainly when a Trustee it would have been particularly foolish for me to start intervening or leading any funding proposal for my own pet projects as this would have been jumped on as an inappropriate COI, indeed my nominal 6 months of "clear blue water" have yet to expire, even if most other trustees seem to ignore that gentleman's agreement. If WMUK wants to see more LGBT related projects then active outreach in the same way as we have seen with Women or BEM is the best way to achieve that. There are 9 members of staff and only one of me, and I have been pretty busy making 3 million edits on Wikimedia Commons after leaving the WCA.
| |
| :::As precious little has been arranged in the last two years, then I may set up an editathon at a gay archive and historic library I happen to be friendly with in 2014, when my 6 months window expires, something that would require no WMUK employee time and I can do under the WM-LGBT banner, but making this sort of thing work should not wait for me to get around to it, nor should it depend on the charity's money going to fund a WIR before anything happens. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I actually tried to set something up for LGBT History Month at the beginning of the year, as it happens. Fae, you were involved in those conversations. It didn't get very far as there wasn't a great deal of interest from the group we proposed it to via lgbthistorymonth.org.uk - perhaps if there's enough appetite the chapter could try again this year but approaching a different group. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Just to point out that there is no obstacle to you doing that now if you wished - the "6-month rule" in the Conflict of Interest policy relates only to remunerated positions at organisations funded by Wikimedia UK, not to volunteer activity. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 21:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Actually the policy includes partner organizations even where there is no direct funding from WMUK, such as CIPR, though as this has been conveniently put aside for Alastair's new job when there is significant remuneration, I guess the board is uninterested in taking that bit as seriously as I do. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::CIPR is not [[Conflict_of_Interest_Policy#Employment_related_to_the_Charity|"organisations funded by Wikimedia UK or Wikimedia movement organisations"]], nor would there be any COI in contacting organisations to set up partnership or events if you are not intending to apply for any possible post resulting from such partnership or accepting remuneration. I hope that clarify matters. Regards -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 23:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::The policy only relates to "any post or form of remuneration". Running an editathon is neither a paid post nor something that you have to be paid to do. So unless you intend to charge for giving it (which I hope isn't the case), then there's nothing stopping you going ahead and doing it if you want to. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 07:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::Katie, the COI policy states ''"A conflict of interest may occur even where a board member does not have a personal financial interest in a third party, but has a historical connection or loyalty to them"'', so we must consider COIs to exist when considering partners like CIPR where no direct funding has taken place but the partnership has been declared and many people have used this for their reputational benefit and a PR benefit for CIPR, for example on CIPR's website Gemma Griffiths states ''"In January 2012 I brokered a partnership between the CIPR and Wikimedia UK"''. The partnership with CIPR was a matter of public record for more than a year before Alastair applied for his new full time job as CEO of CIPR, that this is a conflict of interest is in no dispute and there has been no period of "clear blue water" as Alastair was unwilling to step down as a trustee to resolve his conflict of loyalties. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| And if there is one lesson we have to keep learning it is START EARLY! The sooner we make the approaches the better. Pride 2014 is only eight months away. We could be building the links now! [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| : Just now seeing this section, having posted an invitation below at the advice of Chris Keating (I had previously posted an invitation at the Wikimedia UK page at Meta-Wiki. If you have specific projects in mind, feel free to bring the discussion over to Wikimedia LGBT so other project participants can contribute as well. Thanks! --[[User:Another Believer|Another Believer]] ([[User talk:Another Believer|talk]]) 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Copyrights ==
| |
| | |
| Hi all. [[Wikimedia:Copyrights]] was set to redirect to the WMF version, which is out of date (it talks about GFDL rather than CC-BY-SA). I've changed it to point to [[Copyright Policy]], and am flagging it here just in case that's not correct. There's also a lot of files in [[:Category:Copyright_unclear_files]] that could do with having their copyright status cleared - presumably most of these (in particular the staff reports) are all <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0|Cc-by-sa-3.0]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 09:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Thanks for updating this. The transition from GFDL has been sluggish on many projects as well as confusing for many. On Commons the joint licence is still in use though there remains talk (but not consensus) that the project ought to be formally disallowing uploads of any new material under that licence (I happen to have just uploaded 60,000 images under the joint licence and the potential phasing out of the licence has been a reason to prioritize this project). With regard to WMUK, my understanding was that the board agreed policy had been in practice by Operations and that employee works were definitively CC-BY-SA under their employment contract unless there were exceptional confidentiality issues requiring greater restriction. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == London Meetup & WMUK anniversary ==
| |
| | |
| Last year, a cake was bought to the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/75 November London Meetup] in celebration of Wikimedia UK 4th birthday and 1st birthday of WMUK charitable status. We like cake, and I think other people do too, so we will be bringing a Wikimedia UK birthday cake to [[m:Meetup/London/75|this Sunday meetup]] again. If you are around the area, do pop in and have some cake, and a chat with some of your fellow Wikimedians. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == December 2013 Board and community social ==
| |
| | |
| There will be an [[December 2013 Board and community social|informal social event]] on the evening of Saturday 7 December in central Edinburgh after the day's board meeting. All are welcome. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Thank you ==
| |
| | |
| Hello everyone. It's been an incredibly busy few weeks and there's lots of work happening, both on and off wiki. I've been working on a few pieces of work lately that have taken a lot of time and effort from various people and so there's some folks I'd like to say thank you to. John Cummings has spent a good amount of time working with me on various things lately, such as the session we delivered at Mozfest and the ongoing work around that. Charles Matthews and Doug Taylor have been doing a lot of work on the Virtual Learning Environment, in terms of content and tech. Doug, along with Martin Poulter, gave me some excellent and useful prompts during my presentation at EduWiki. Hannah Jones and Jasbir Saund, who many of you may not know, spent an awful lot of time volunteering to make sure that EduWiki was just so. They both did a great job, along with the other volunteers involved. Wikimedia UK had a stand at the Open Government Partnership last week, and I'd like to thank Ed Saperia, Deskana, Harry Burt and Charles Matthews for giving up some volunteer time to help staff the stand over the course of the Summit, along with myself, Katherine and Richard Nevell from the office. I'm sure that a great deal more has been happening elsewhere, but I thought it important that I took a little time to publicly thank these people for all of their excellent efforts - we all appreciate it. With apologies to the people who I have inevitably missed... [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Knew I'd forgotten someone. Thanks to David Gerard for his very, very helpful briefing today. It was extremely useful. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 19:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::And of course, Leutha and Graeme Arnott who both gave me some very helpful feedback on World Cat and libraries. And Simon Knight for his really helpful views on badges and analytics. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 21:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Spambots ==
| |
| I see the UK wiki is suffering a targeted automated spam attack. What's the plan for a systems solution rather than volunteers and employees spending their time blocking individual accounts and deleting spam pages by hand? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :It's currently being discussed. May need someone more technical than I to explain it but the gist of it is there's a couple of solutions that could be employed. A captcha for new accounts is one. A limit to how many new accounts an IP can create is another. I don't think a decision has yet been made on this but we will, of course, keep people up to date with the solution that is implemented. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::Sounds good. Making the login more complex is probably to be avoided, while limiting by IP address seems relatively easy, so long as admins can easily add exceptions when requested. I would imagine that spambots eat up their available IP ranges fairly quickly. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::I'd hope that login wouldn't be affected, although I'd need to check. I'm comfortable if the captcha is only used at the registration phase. I don't know about the admin exceptions but perhaps Richard, Richard, Katie or Jonathan may be able to shed some light on that. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Account creation throttle have been enabled and set to 2 per IP per day. Sysops has noratelimit set to true. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Sounds like a fix neatly avoiding too many restrictions, hopefully that will be sufficient to keep the spam manageable. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::We have a numeric captcha that doesn't seem to slow the spambots. I have raised a bugzilla request to replace with a text based captcha. [[User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Is the spambot really doing that? Rather clever, it would take me ages to sort that out and make it reliable. I wish the spambot writer was helping to improve the projects. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::I'm assuming they have cracked it, otherwise there are a bunch of teleworkers doing this, and doing so very very quickly. I have heard that someone from the AI community has claimed to have cracked handwriting captcha, but they seem to be white hats so it should still work against spambots. [[User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Text Captcha [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org.uk/show_bug.cgi?id=141#c1 went live for new account creation last night], let's hope that fixes it. [[User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::The main thing is not to have a security clampdown as a knee-jerk reaction. The vast majority of the accounts created remain inactive, so are not actively disruptive. I would recommend not eating up too much volunteer/employee time even blocking these accounts when with a bit of thought we could probably get a bot to do this housekeeping (including deleting any spam pages they create), once a suitable long term pattern makes it worthwhile in programmer time. Right now I could block all the accounts using a bit of smart regex and a script sniffing the account creation log, or create a hit-list that could be human-vetted periodically, but there are more urgent Wikimedia content related things to spent this sort of effort on when the spambots might vanish or change tactics in a week. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::Thanks but I think we have blocked most of them and closed the door to bot creation of accounts. A txt based captcha is a trivial hurdle for human editors and I doubt that many will be deterred by it from creating accounts. [[User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :::Enwiki uses a CAPTCHA for edits by brand new (ie non-autoconfirmed) accounts which introduce an external link. Might be worth considering if the problems persist. But why is this happening now? Is it a side effect of the migration? [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 12:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::To an extent yes. Some, though certainly not all, of the account creation yesterday comes from open proxies / cross wiki spam bots that are blocked globally on Wikimedia Foundation's wiki. Since the migration, we are no longer affected/protected by WMF global block list. -- [[User:Katie Chan (WMUK)|Katie Chan (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katie Chan (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Our old site and indeed Wikipedia both require a text based captcha to create new accounts. When we first migrated we didn't have that feature and while it is still the first 24 hours, since we've installed it the problem seems to have been fixed. [[User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| Thanks everyone[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Wikimedia UK - members survey ==
| |
| | |
| Dear all -
| |
| | |
| In October 2012 I ran a survey of our membership which had a bit of bumpy ride but did produce some useful information. This year I'd like to put more collective time into planning the questions, making sure we have a clear commitment to data protection and privacy in collecting and storing the data, and work together to get good response rates to the survey itself.
| |
| | |
| I've started a page to discuss our options [[WMUK_membership_survey_2013#Introduction| here]] and maybe we can use this as an opportunity to channel some of the ideas that have been mooted in recent water cooler discussions into outcomes. Helpfully we have [[User_talk:Thryduulf| Thryduulf]] in the office with me today and we're going to start developing what we think are a useful series of questions but please get involved. I'd like to distribute the survey to all members alongside the members newsletter i.e. at the end of this month!
| |
| | |
| Thanks [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :: Hi All! I would like to close this survey draft tomorrow. There has been a lot of discussion and participation so far, and I am grateful to all contributors. Last chance to check it out and perhaps suggest the inclusion of a key question we've missed!
| |
| | |
| :: Cheers [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Wikimedia LGBT ==
| |
| | |
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
| |
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Wikimedia LGBT outreach logo.svg|100px]]
| |
| |rowspan="2" |
| |
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''[[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT|Wikimedia LGBT]]'''
| |
| |-
| |
| |[[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT|Wikimedia LGBT]] is a proposed [[:meta:Wikimedia thematic organizations|thematic organization]] that seeks to promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities. [[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Activities|Proposed activities]] include outreach at [[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/LGBT events|LGBT events]], [[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Wikimania|Wikimania]] and other [[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Wikimedia events|Wikimedia events]], an international campaign called [[:meta:Wiki Loves Pride|Wiki Loves Pride]], and work on [[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Safe space|safe space]] policies, among other [[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Collaborations|collaborations]] and [[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Interwiki|interwiki]] projects. Active Wikimedians are welcome to join this cause! Please consider [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikimedia+LGBT%2FParticipants%2FPreload&editintro=Wikimedia+LGBT%2FParticipants%2FIntro&preloadtitle=§ion=new&title=Wikimedia+LGBT%2FParticipants&create=Sign+on+as+a+supporter+or+participant adding your name] as a [[:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Participants|participant/supporter]]. Current tasks include translating pages, building a strong framework at Meta, and achieving [[:meta:Wikimedia user groups|user group]] status (with the eventual goal of becoming a thematic organization). Your feedback is welcome on the [[:meta:Talk:Wikimedia LGBT|discussion page]].
| |
| |}
| |
| Please considering supporting this project, or at least participating in discussions re: the LGBT community in the UK. I know Wikimedia LGBT hopes to have a strong presence at Wikimania 2014, so those conversations will be taking place soon, too. Thanks! (''BTW, pleased to be here. I will try to poke around a bit!'') --[[User:Another Believer|Another Believer]] ([[User talk:Another Believer|talk]]) 21:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
| |
