WMUK risk discussion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(BOM) |
(ce) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
So please feel free to contribute. Please discuss this, add your own risks, disagree with these and chew them over on wiki or at the AGM. | So please feel free to contribute. Please discuss this, add your own risks, disagree with these and chew them over on wiki or at the AGM. | ||
#Reputational risk - Wikipedia and sister sites become discredited and usage declines. | #'''Reputational risk - Wikipedia and sister sites become discredited and usage declines. | ||
#:Not a risk that is particular to one country or language version but it could happen. How do we preserve our reputation and protect ourselves? | #:Not a risk that is particular to one country or language version but it could happen. How do we preserve our reputation and protect ourselves? | ||
#Financial risk - we run out of the funds needed to support our plans. | #'''Financial risk - we run out of the funds needed to support our plans. | ||
#:This could be through an over-ambitious programme or a reduction in our fund-raising success. What would we do if we needed to reduce our costs? | #:This could be through an over-ambitious programme or a reduction in our fund-raising success. What would we do if we needed to reduce our costs? | ||
#Organisational risk - the UK community fractures with disagreements between its members and constituent parts. | #'''Organisational risk - the UK community fractures with disagreements between its members and constituent parts. | ||
#:This is a real issue in the voluntary sector. The best charities have good working relationships between trustees, volunteers and staff. All parts of the community, from the chair of trustees to someone making their first edit, should feel they have a role to play and a voice in how WMUK develops. | #:This is a real issue in the voluntary sector. The best charities have good working relationships between trustees, volunteers and staff. All parts of the community, from the chair of trustees to someone making their first edit, should feel they have a role to play and a voice in how WMUK develops. | ||
#Collapsing editor base means a dive in quality. | #'''Collapsing editor base means a dive in quality. | ||
#:A key international concern. How do we maintain a flow of enthusiastic and gifted new editors and how do we keep them? One of our strengths is the way we keep entries up-to date if we fail to do this confidence in our websites could fade. | #:A key international concern. How do we maintain a flow of enthusiastic and gifted new editors and how do we keep them? One of our strengths is the way we keep entries up-to date if we fail to do this confidence in our websites could fade. | ||
#Schisms with the foundation. | #'''Schisms with the foundation. | ||
#:There can always be tensions between individual chapters and the Foundation. Sometimes differences of opinion are heartfelt. How do we make sure that disagreements are resolved and good working relationships maintained? | #:There can always be tensions between individual chapters and the Foundation. Sometimes differences of opinion are heartfelt. How do we make sure that disagreements are resolved and good working relationships maintained? | ||
#Decrease in diversity of editor base. | #'''Decrease in diversity of editor base. | ||
#:A key issue for the whole movement. Whether we are talking about gender or geography how can we fulfill our mission and reflect the world we serve? | #:A key issue for the whole movement. Whether we are talking about gender or geography how can we fulfill our mission and reflect the world we serve? | ||
Revision as of 14:24, 23 April 2012
As part of the process of developing Wikimedia UK the board asked the Chief Executive to look at what he saw as potential risks to the organisation.
His list, which is no in a particular order, was discussed at the Board meeting in Monmouth in April 2012 and it was agreed that it should be shared with the wider community for their input.
So please feel free to contribute. Please discuss this, add your own risks, disagree with these and chew them over on wiki or at the AGM.
- Reputational risk - Wikipedia and sister sites become discredited and usage declines.
- Not a risk that is particular to one country or language version but it could happen. How do we preserve our reputation and protect ourselves?
- Financial risk - we run out of the funds needed to support our plans.
- This could be through an over-ambitious programme or a reduction in our fund-raising success. What would we do if we needed to reduce our costs?
- Organisational risk - the UK community fractures with disagreements between its members and constituent parts.
- This is a real issue in the voluntary sector. The best charities have good working relationships between trustees, volunteers and staff. All parts of the community, from the chair of trustees to someone making their first edit, should feel they have a role to play and a voice in how WMUK develops.
- Collapsing editor base means a dive in quality.
- A key international concern. How do we maintain a flow of enthusiastic and gifted new editors and how do we keep them? One of our strengths is the way we keep entries up-to date if we fail to do this confidence in our websites could fade.
- Schisms with the foundation.
- There can always be tensions between individual chapters and the Foundation. Sometimes differences of opinion are heartfelt. How do we make sure that disagreements are resolved and good working relationships maintained?
- Decrease in diversity of editor base.
- A key issue for the whole movement. Whether we are talking about gender or geography how can we fulfill our mission and reflect the world we serve?