Water cooler: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(WMF assessment of WMUK's $707,000 bid)
(Revert to revision 82259 dated 2020-09-22 02:51:05 by 86.21.206.209 using popups)
 
(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__


== WMUK T-shirts ==
== Kanban for editathons ==


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.
[[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.


Here are some previous suggestions:
Who was involved with that editathon?  Who has used it elsewhere?  I would love to hear how it has been used in practice.


[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (GMT)
*Don’t revert me I’m a Wikimedian.
 
*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”.
 
*Wikipedia, read by hundreds of millions, written by tens of thousands.
 
*Our mission “To make the sum of human knowledge available to all humanity” Wikipedia
 
*Ask me about Wikipedia
 
 
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)
 
:"Don't trust Wikipedia: Improve it!" [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::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
Mae dyfodol Cymru yn dy law (Transl: The future of Wales is in your hand! (Handheld pencil with “Wikipedia” written on it).
 
{{angen ffynhonnell}} (Transl: ‘citation needed’)
 
Wicipedia Cymraeg - Cefnfor Gwybodaeth! (Transl: WC - An ocean of knowledge)
 
And why not use any of these I created / adapted around 5 years ago:
https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defnyddiwr:Llywelyn2000/Bwrdd_plymio
 
Our current pop-up says: Wicipedia - Byd o wybodaeth (Transl: A world of knowledge)
 
Wicipedia - yn RHYDD o’r diwedd! (Transl: WP - FREE at last!)
 
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)
 
'''Time to bring this fun to an end - any more suggestions?''' [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Possibly all with "I edit Wikipedia" or "I support Wikimedia UK" on the back:
*I'm teaching the world
*Knowledge is power, so I'm sharing mine
*Bringing knowledge to the world
*I edit, therefore I am
*287 languages / 30 million articles / and counting [arranged either as three lines or as a circle around the puzzle globe]
*Wiktionary: Every word in every language, and all for free
*Wikivoyage: Where do you want to explore today?
**maybe these two should have the project name (and logo?) on the back rather than on the front?
*<nowiki>{{Citation needed}} · {{angen ffynhonnell}} · {{उद्धरण आवश्यक}} · {{Kilde mangler}} · {{Εκκρεμεί παραπομπή}} · {{Doplňte zdroj}} </nowiki> etc.
Maybe one with all the project logos as on https://www.wikimedia.org/
 
Most of these could have Welsh and English versions (and some possibly bilingual). [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 16:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 
== A Water Cooler for members only? ==
 
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:
 
'''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)
: 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)


===Change is required===
::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)
: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)
===Splitting the Watercooler===
::: (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)
::: 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)


So, could we have some suggestions for short, snappy names for the proposed "Governance and Membership" and "Events and Endeavours" spaces? --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 11:51, 12 November 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)
:This is a proposal for the renaming of the Water Cooler and the creation of a new public facing page if I understand it correctly. I am not sure about names but where will each page be positioned in the navigation? [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 15:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
::If by "the navigation" you mean the sidebar on the left, then I'd suggest the "Events and endeavours" page takes the Water cooler's spot at the top of the "wiki" section with the "Governance and Membership page" appearing on the line below. Alternatively the public facing page could move to the "participate" section (either at the top, or after Events, Join us or Volunteer) and the inward-facing page would take a spot in the "Organisation" section (probably after either People or Board meetings). I think there would also be benefit in adding linking both pages from the "Get involved" section on the main page.
::As for names, "Smoky back room" comes to mind for the membership page but that's completely inappropriate! "The pub" might work for the public page, but I'm in two minds about that. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 17:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
:::This discussion seems to have morphed from making the Water cooler members only to changing its name and possibly changing its position too. I acknowledge the sometimes fractious nature of the debate but I am not sure that there is consensus to do either right now. Under "Participate" we have events, join us and volunteer which seem eminently useful pages and where I would go first if I was new. I actually wouldn't head to Water cooler first because it is not a term in everyday use in the UK. And if visitors are going there and being put-off participating (for which we have not seen the evidence) it may only because they are seeing us as we really are. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 14:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
::::I've added a couple of section headers to try and clarify that this discussion is about splitting the present Water cooler page into two separate spaces, one friendly and welcoming to everyone that focuses on public-facing things; the other for internal-facing discussions of governance and membership that is open to all but primarily of interest to members. Obviously that should be friendly too, but there will sometimes be reason to be harder and more interrogative which can be offputting. The names issue is purely because we cannot have two pages both called "Water cooler" and so we need a new name for at least one of the pages. The only person to bring up changing position is you - based on your comment I floated an idea, which may be the best thing since sliced bread, the worst idea in the history of the world or anywhere in between. With exactly zero feedback on it I can't say. Your point today that the name and change of position may not be independent isn't something I'd previously thought of. A sidebar link saying something like "discuss at [the Water cooler]" or "Talk with us (at [the Water cooler])" may or may not help (I've given it only a few seconds thought). The split isn't dependent on the change of name of course - temporary names can be used until we come up with something better.
:::::As for what there is consensus for, I'd say that there is consensus that the status quo needs changing, and of the possibilities for change splitting has the most support and seemingly meets with the approval of Jon, who was the person who noted the issue with the member of staff having problems with this place (it seems that this is not a [[w:safe space|safe space]] (for a reason that is likely confidential)). I don't know whether Jon has discussed the splitting proposal with that member of staff (I'm not sure whether it is appropriate for us to know that or not?), but if they have and both Jon and that staff member think it would help (or would at least be worth trying) then in my opinion it should be done. If something within the control of the Chief Exec is preventing the charity from getting the full value from a member of staff then I want him to do what he can to improve the situation as doing otherwise is wasting the charity's money. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Sorry, but I am unclear how renaming this page (and/or moving it) or creating a new public facing page (we already have several good ones) will make anyone feel any more comfortable. Won't it just be the same people posting the same things? Unless you vary posting rights and/or access in some way, which has been rejected, then you essentially have the same participants as you do now. I don't want to be defeatist about it but I think the problem, to the extent there is one, relates to the conduct of individuals and no amount of messing around with the pages will change that. We also need to be very careful not to further reduce member discussion of the activities of the chapter even if occasionally it might result in bruised egos. Can we have more details please of how the new arrangements will make the staff feel safer reading or commenting here, or is the idea that the staff will not be expected to post on or read the new Water cooler? [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::The basic premise underlying the proposal is that there are two sorts of topics discussed here, for ease of reference only I'll call them A and B. Type A topics are the ones about events, activities, workshops, etc, These are the ones that most interest non-members and new members, and the discussion around them is generally positive and friendly. Type B topics are the ones which discuss membership, governance and similar things - including this thread. They are typically less interesting to non-members, but it is around these sorts of topics that the ill feeling happens (and I agree it's only a small number of individuals responsible in almost all cases). This navel gazing and intemperateness is not welcoming to newcomers and outsiders.
:::::Based on this premise, my theory (and it is just that) is that if we split the Water Cooler into Space A and Space B then things will improve. By becoming more welcoming to everyone, Space A will draw more people in (everybody wants this) and it will be a non-toxic environment to which staff, members and everyone feel welcome in. This should lead to more input into everything and hopefully more members. Space B will not be fixed by this proposal alone, but it should be less contaminating. With more people becoming members then that should lead to more discussion - once people are comfortable that is. I am unusual in being prepared to jump right in to a policy discussion and not be afraid to offer suggestions, even when the environment is hostile. Sensible newcomers would run for the hills.
:::::My intention is most definitely not to reduce member commenting, indeed exactly the opposite. I hope that is what will happen anyway - I have no evidence. Nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary though, nor any better alternatives, and something needs to be done. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 22:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


== QRpedia Donation Update ==
== Wikimedia UK's plans for 2018 - community consultation ==
[[File:Programmes Consultation Video - Wikimedia UK.webm|centre|thumb|800x800px|Watch our video about our plans for 2018]]


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).
Wikimedia UK is in the process of writing our proposal to the Wikimedia Foundation for funding during 2018/19. The deadline for the bid is 1st October after which it is assessed by staff at the Foundation, there is an opportunity for community feedback and questions, and the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meet to consider proposals and make recommendations about grants.  


As of today, whois.com shows ownership of the QRPedia related domains as:
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:
* 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)
# Diverse content and contributors
# Promoting open knowledge
# Education and Learning


::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)
These strands are directly related to our three strategic goals, which are to:
::: 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)
* Increase the quality and quantity of coverage of subjects that are currently underrepresented on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects
: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)
* 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
:Perhaps the trustee handling the matter could comment? [[User:TheOverflow|TheOverflow]] ([[User talk:TheOverflow|talk]]) 22:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
* Support the use of the Wikimedia projects as important tools for education and learning in the UK
:+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)
 
== 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.
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.  


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.
There are several questions in particular that I’d like to ask:


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.
* 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?


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.”
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)


Bottom line is that Commons now has 12,000 more images that can support our movement.
== ACTRIAL and new users creating new pages at events ==
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)
Hi All,


== Monuments ceremony ==
Some thoughts on {{wp|WP:ACTRIAL}} and our events:
We are really pleased to announce that during our volunteer [[WLM_awards_ceremony|Christmas party]] at the office between 4 and 8 on December 10th Jimmy Wales will be coming to present the prizes to the winners. We hope to see as many people there as possible. [[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
*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.


== Facebook, Twitter and Linked-In buttons ==
[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (BST)


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)
: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)
: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)
::[[: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)
::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)
: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)


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:
: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)
# 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.
::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.
# 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.
::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.
Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 12:59, 19 October 2017 (BST)
: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)
==Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2017 awards announced==
::: 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)
[[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.


::::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.
First place goes to '''Matthew Hoser''' for his image of the derelict West Pier in Brighton.
::::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)
In second place was '''Paul Stümke''', who captured the Glenfinnan Viaduct at Loch Shiel.


==Outcomes from Berlin Diversity Conference==
Third was '''Oliver Tookey''' for the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill on Sea.
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)
The special prize for the best image taken in Scotland was awarded to '''Keith Proven''' for Smailholm Tower.


: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)
The special prize for the best image taken in Wales went to '''Sterim64''' for Craig-y-mor.
::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)
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]].
::::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=&section=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)
 
:Perhaps some of the issues raised by Philip Sandifer need to be considered also. See [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/24/chelsea-manning-name-row-wikipedia-editors-banned-from-trans-pages Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages]. [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 11:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
::We should all be deeply concerned at how badly this incident has been handled, and continues to be badly managed, creating rifts in the community. As part of the generally odd and unpredictable nature of how the English Wikipedia works, I would not dream of commenting about this on the English Wikipedia for fear of being blocked or banned.
::The draft blog post touches on LGBT related bullying and if you feel it needs to be more direct, or should do more than take the long view, please do comment on the talk page of [[m:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Wikimedia LGBT is about to happen]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 06:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 
== Diversity conference blog - copyedits needed ==
 
Could someone with appropriate permissions, please make the following changes to the otherwise good blog post:
 
The world we live in split'''s''' people into two discrete mutually exclusive categories of male and female. However, human beings aren’t so simpl<s>y</s>'''e'''. Increasing amount'''s''' of both research and anecdotal evidence have shown that gender <s>are</s> '''is''' actually a continuum or spectrum. In addition, not everyone’s sex appearance, gender identity and gender role matches.
 
'''An''' <s>E</s>'''e'''stimate by the Gender Identity Research and Education Society in 2011 gives a figure of 1% of the population for the number of people that experience<s>s</s> some degree of gender variance and 0.2% for those that undergo transition from one gender binary to the other.
 
For article<s>s</s> subjects that are transsexual, the situation is fairly okay if the majority of their notability is post-transition. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 08:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
: Thanks for the spot. I've picked those up now. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 
== Education Committee meeting minutes, 12 November 2013 ==
 
Hello everyone, the Education Committee has just concluded this evening's meeting. For those interested, you can see the [[Education_Committee/Education_Committee_meeting_12_November_2013/Minutes |draft minutes here]]. Thank you. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 
== Wikimedia Diversity Conference - Kwaku's report ==
 
Hello everyone. One of the volunteers that attended the Wikimedia Diversity Conference, Kwaku BBM, has submitted a very useful, engaging and insightful report of his experiences. It's well worth a read and can be seen on the [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/11/a-report-from-the-wikimedia-diversity-conference-by-kwaku-bbm/ Wikimedia UK blog here]. Enjoy! [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
:One of the best blog posts I've read this year! Thanks Kwaku! [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 22:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 
== WMF assessment of WMUK's $707,000 bid ==
{{anchor|WMF and expert feedback on WMUK's $707,000 proposal}}
Chapter members and volunteers may be interested in the feedback from WMF staff and independent experts review of WMUK's annual funding proposal.
 
The top 3 concerns were reported as:
{|style='background:lightgreen;padding:0.2em;padding-right:2em;border:1px grey solid'
|
# Potential for impact on Wikimedia projects is too low in proportion to funds requested
# Programmatic strategy is diffused and unfocused in the context of WMUK’s size and history
# Plan lacks clear metrics or a feasible plan to evaluate work
|}


This is an interim stage of assessment (round 1) but will strongly influence the FDC recommendation and the final WMF board decision on annual funding for WMUK. This has been published at [[m:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Staff_proposal_assessment#Scores.2C_comments_and_feedback|Staff proposal assessment]]. The scores average below 3/5, making WMUK's evaluation as "weak" or below "moderate" alignment with the evaluation criteria. As well as the numbers and summary, there are a number of well explained concerns in the review that would be valuable for the board and CEO to respond to with new plans and commitments in the December board meeting.
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)


;Sample comparison
== Effects of broadband ==
Picking one smaller and one larger proposal [[m:FDC portal/Proposals/2013-2014 round1|from the list]] to compare, gives the following results:
* WMUK's proposal appears a close comparison with '''[[m:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_CH/Staff_proposal_assessment#Scores.2C_comments_and_feedback|WMCH's proposal]]''' for a 30% smaller bid of $500,000, though WMCH scored slightly higher in almost all areas. The main differences appear to relate to the quality of planning and clearer measures of success than WMUK were able to put forward.
* '''[[m:FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment|WMDE's proposal]]''' was for $2.4m, 3x larger than WMUK's, and scored higher in all areas and significantly higher with their quality of measurement. There are interesting aspects of community feedback highlighted, including a key risk of ''"Relationships among board, staff, and community have been challenging."''
;Signpost summary


The following summary graph was used to compare all bids in [[en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-11-13/Special_report|this week's Signpost article]] and shows that Wikimedia UK's assessed abilities as an organization has declined, with a significant drop in quality ratings from a middle of the pack bid in 2012 to an embarrassing second to last this year, with Wikimedia India beating us to last place. The main difference between the way these two proposals were created was that in 2012 the proposal was driven by unpaid volunteers who managed to pull the bid out of the fire at the last minute, creating an adequate proposal through herculean efforts, and this year the proposal was professionally managed by Jon Davies with lead time measured in months rather than days, but with an unfortunately visibly unsatisfactory outcome. This bid is essential to the funding and strategy of Wikimedia UK as a charity, and the board of trustees will count this as the principle measure of success in their duty to monitor operations and deciding what changes needs to be implemented for the remainder of 2013/14 to show improvement rather than comparative decline.
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


[[File:FDC staff assessments 2013–14 round 1.jpg]]
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)


Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
::Hi [[User:Nemo bis|Nemo bis]], I'm not sure that our small charity has the capacity to do something like this, or how it might benefit us. You are welcome to expand on why you think this would be a good idea if you like. [[User:John Lubbock (WMUK)|John Lubbock (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:John Lubbock (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:29, 2 April 2019 (BST)

Latest revision as of 19:35, 13 August 2022

Welcome to the water cooler
This is a place to find out what is happening and to discuss our external projects and activities. Feel free to suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission or ask questions about how you can help. To discuss the inner workings of the charity, head over to the engine room.
WMUK Grants programme - a piece of cake?
Tile wmuk.jpeg
Applying for a grant is easy.

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

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

Kanban for editathons

A kanban board at the Women in Classical Studies editathon at Senate House, London

I just saw the newsletter with a picture of the kanban board used at the Women in Classical Studies editathon. What a great idea! It helps people share what they are working on. Helps to avoid edit conflicts. Enables organisers to list all the articles that have been improved. It could possibly work well for a recap session at the end too, where people talk about the changes they made.

Who was involved with that editathon? Who has used it elsewhere? I would love to hear how it has been used in practice.

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

Hi Yaris678, I was the lead trainer at the Women in Classical Studies editathon. I saw the kanban in an Instagram post for an Art+Feminism editathon. It worked much better than expected - a fantastic indicator of the achievements of the day.Eartha78 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (GMT)
Cool. So how did you use it? Did you get people to brainstorm a load of post-its of articles to look at, at the beginning of the day? Did you just say 'if you have an idea, stick it on the board'? Did you come with the post-its filled out already? Yaris678 (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2017 (GMT)
The group were quite well prepared prior to the editathon. They had identified a number of articles to create - some had already done the research and started to writing in their sandbox. When we began the second part of the editathon they each committed to an article, wrote it on a sticky note and stuck it to the wall! Moving the notes from left to right was surprisingly motivating and a good excuse to stretch ones legs. Also used the sticky notes for an evaluation exercise at the end of the session. Eartha78 (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2017 (GMT)
Thank you Eartha78. That is really interesting. I will use this next time I do an editathon. Yaris678 (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (GMT)

Wikimedia UK's plans for 2018 - community consultation

Watch our video about our plans for 2018

Wikimedia UK is in the process of writing our proposal to the Wikimedia Foundation for funding during 2018/19. The deadline for the bid is 1st October after which it is assessed by staff at the Foundation, there is an opportunity for community feedback and questions, and the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meet to consider proposals and make recommendations about grants.

As 2018/19 is the final year of our 2016 - 2019 strategy, our programme for next year is in many ways a continuation of our activities in 2017 and falls under three key strands:

  1. Diverse content and contributors
  2. Promoting open knowledge
  3. Education and Learning

These strands are directly related to our three strategic goals, which are to:

  • Increase the quality and quantity of coverage of subjects that are currently underrepresented on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects
  • Contribute to the development of open knowledge in the UK, by increasing understanding and recognition of the value of open knowledge and advocating for change at an organisational, sectoral and public policy level
  • Support the use of the Wikimedia projects as important tools for education and learning in the UK

We would welcome input from the UK community into our plans for next year - which we are still shaping - and have created a short video to highlight our programme strands which you can watch here. You can give us feedback on our programme anytime, but if you’d like your views to be taken into account in our submission to the Wikimedia Foundation for funding, please do comment below by Friday 29th September. If you’d prefer to get in touch by email, feel free to contact me on lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk.

There are several questions in particular that I’d like to ask:

  • Is there anything that Wikimedia UK should be doing more of, or new activities that we should consider, in 2018/19?
  • What work would you like to see us continue?
  • Is there anything you think we should do less of or stop doing?
  • How would you like to be involved in Wikimedia UK’s programme next year?

With many thanks indeed for your input.

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

ACTRIAL and new users creating new pages at events

Hi All,

Some thoughts on WP:ACTRIAL and our events:

  • It makes sense to encourage new users to work in Draft: name space.
  • This doesn't change the fact that it is worth asking people to create an account in advance (and to remember their password!)
  • We have to expect that some people won't create an account and most of those who have won't be auto-confirmed - this is OK.
  • If there are admins present at the event, they can make new users confirmed.... although I wouldn't stress over it - there is no harm in the Draft: name space.
  • All the above is less of an issue if we take the approach of #Training from the back of the room described above. If the group is split into teams that are deliberately set to have the full spread of ability, we can encourage people to help other team members, including the following:
    • Middle-ability people to show the people with no account how to create an account.
    • Experienced editors to help newer editors to find a page that might need editing.
    • Experienced editors to create pages that other team members are interested in editing.

You could even get admins to confirm accounts of non-confirmed people in their team, but it might actually be better to not do that. If the experienced people in the team have actually created the article then at least we know it is in their contributions and so they can steward the article towards improvement. e.g. 1. the day after the event, they might go back to the article and tidy it up, 2. if the article gets tagged for deletion, they are better able to discuss it and improve it, whereas a new user may feel bitten.

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

Obvious question, where do we find data on how many non-autoconfirmed users and IPs actually make pages that satisfy Wiki Criteria? 82.132.237.141 15:31, 26 September 2017 (BST)
According to WMF research, of the 1,180 articles created every day on the English Wikipedia, about 7% are by non-autoconfirmed editors. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2017 (BST)
Thanks for your input Yaris678. Working in Draft: or User: space is probably going to be integral to dealing with this. I've not used Draft: much myself, but I'm keen on getting people to use their sandbox to prepare material and then copy it over. It does mean a chunk of the pages people work on aren't copied over the to the mainspace but that's a reasonable trade-off. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (BST)
The #Training from the back of the room sounds like a really interesting idea, I'm interested in this kind of collaborative/peer learning process. Sadly for the bulk of editathons I manage, this wouldn't be applicable, as I'm generally working with a whole bundle new users, trying to advocated for further use in their organisations. Lirazelf (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2017 (BST)
Thanks Lirazelf. I guess you'll have to rely on the first four bullets - especially the draft namespace. I think it would be useful to have a non-new user move the drafts across. Preferably during the training session, so people can see their work "live" on Wikipedia, which will create excitement. Ideally, well before the end of the training so that people can continue to edit their articles in main space - seeing that this is a normal thing to do is important.
I fringe benefit of this approach is that each article edited will be in the contributions list of at least one non-new user. That way, they can "steward" the article to a certain extent. This will be particularly important if the article is nominated for deletion - having someone who knows the ropes will help to get the article in a position to keep - and help to argue that it should be kept. But more generally it will be useful, to keep the article quality up.
Yaris678 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2017 (BST)

Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2017 awards announced

1st prize: The derelict West Pier in Brighton, by Matthew Hoser

I am very pleased to be able to announce the 2017 award winners for Wiki Loves Monuments in the UK.

First place goes to Matthew Hoser for his image of the derelict West Pier in Brighton.

In second place was Paul Stümke, who captured the Glenfinnan Viaduct at Loch Shiel.

Third was Oliver Tookey for the De La Warr Pavilion in Bexhill on Sea.

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

The special prize for the best image taken in Wales went to Sterim64 for Craig-y-mor.

You can see all of these images, and the other stunning pictures that were awarded Highly Commended status at Wikimedia Commons.

Many congratulations to all of our prizewinners, and thanks to all who volunteered to help make the contest a success: contestants, judges, reviewers and Wikimedians in many roles. Thanks also for the kind support we received from the International team, from our friendly staff at Wikimedia UK, and from our 2017 prize sponsors, Wikimedia UK and Archaeology Scotland. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2017 (GMT)

Effects of broadband

Looks like BT wants to push more people to faster internet where it has fiber: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bt-group-broadband/bt-incentivises-operators-to-move-customers-to-faster-broadband-idUKKBN1KE0LR

Is someone monitoring the trend of average internet speed and the impact it has on user activity in the Wikimedia projects? Nemo bis (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2018 (BST)

Hi Nemo bis, I'm not sure that our small charity has the capacity to do something like this, or how it might benefit us. You are welcome to expand on why you think this would be a good idea if you like. John Lubbock (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2019 (BST)
Retrieved from "https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Water_cooler&oldid=155821"