Engine room

Welcome to the engine roomThis is a place to ask about and discuss the inner workings of the charity. To discuss our external projects and activities, see how you can get involved or suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission, head over to the water cooler.

2013 2014

Museum photography

Would it be worth putting effort into trying to make this list as extensive as possible for the UK:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Arts/Museum_photography

04:46, 3 April 2014 (BST)

There are something like 2,500 museums in the UK. A comprehensive list noting how suitable they are for photography would be a pretty serious undertaking. Maybe if we narrow it down to something like the 100 most frequently visited museums. It could very easily end up that the UK would need it's own table or even a separate page. I think it would probably be a useful undertaking. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2014 (BST)

I wonder if this would be something best done via Wikipedia or Wikidata, rather than commons. On Wikipedia, it could maybe be done with an additional infobox parameter that categorises the museum's article into an appropriate hidden category. On Wikidata, I guess it would need an additional parameter to be added that would allow the (referenced) addition of the information. I'm not sure I can see the point in doing this just on Commons for the Commons community nowadays, when it could be done much more generally. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2014 (BST)

wikivoyage would be the other interested project. Trying to find out for all of them makes it a decent crowdsourced project. 100 isn't far off what I could dig out of my own archives.Geni (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (BST)

Something more proactive?

Perhaps we should be doing something more proactive here, and setting out the types of permissions we'd like to see museums give their visitors, and persuading the museums to adopt those permissions? Something along the lines of Creative Commons, but for museum photography permissions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (BST)

I suspect a good starting point for defining that is to understand what permissions different institutions currently grant. There is no sense in inventing a wheel before we know whether one has already been invented. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (BST)

I think the commons page gives a reasonable cross-spectrum of the types of permissions that institutions currently grant. I'd agree, though, about reinventing the wheel - I don't know if standard guidance exists for museums here or not. I guess the first step might be to ask an organisation like collections trust or culture24 if they have standard advice they give out at the moment that could be built on, if there's the interest in doing this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2014 (BST)

Transparency commitments

Our new Strategic goal G2b.2 states that: "We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector". See Strategy monitoring plan.

One of our transparency KPIs is a quarterly narrative to be prepared by the Governance Committee (Govcom). The narrative has to address "Transparency compliance as determined by Govcom against published transparency commitments".

We would be interested to hear from the community how Govcom should best address that quarterly task. At present, our 'published transparency commitments' are rather general. Our Vision (V4) states that "We are transparent in our operations, both to our communities and more generally to the public".

A list of more specific commitments might potentially be agreed, which would be easier to measure than a general standard but which could create a tendency to reduce transparency to box-ticking. Measuring many detailed and very specific commitments would also eat up huge amounts of staff and trustee time on a quarterly basis which may not be an efficient way to focus resources on our actual mission.

Thoughts would be welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2014 (BST)

Please refer to Talk:Volunteer_committees#Volunteer.3F for a concrete example. --Fæ (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Help needed to design surveys

As a result of our new Strategy, we need to be able to measure three new KPIs which depend on annual survey evidence. They are:

An awareness score in an annual national survey of public opinion

This relates to Strategic goal G1.3: "We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the development of Open Knowledge". This will need a survey of the general public (to be administered by an outside agency).

An annual survey capability score (self-identified)

This relates to Strategic goal G2a.3: "WMUK volunteers are skilled and capable.". This will need a survey of WMUK volunteers (to be administered by us).

A transparency score as measured by annual survey

This relates to Strategic goal G2b.2: "We have a high level of openness and transparency, and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector.". This will need a survey within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charitable sector (probably to be administered by us).

It would be good to have two or three volunteers who could take a lead in designing the survey questions, with help from the staff. Any takers, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (BST)

You need to ensure that there is volunteer buy-in for these measures before asking for volunteers to conduct surveys, otherwise you won't get volunteers willing to work on surveys about these measures... Mike Peel (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2014 (BST)

I think we need a survey to determine if we need these surveys. Volunteers? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2014 (BST)

I'd like to help on this, as it would follow-on well from the survey work I did last year. However I'm now committed to Wikimania work until late August. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 11:28, 9 May 2014 (BST)

A charter for our volunteer committees

Govcom made the following recommendation to the Wikimedia UK board in December 2013:

[We should] redefine the role and purpose of the non-board committees to give them greater prominence, and if need be re-constitute and re-vitalise them with greater volunteer input to drive forward programmes. At present, the roles and memberships of non-board committees are somewhat unclear, and that has led to atrophy and lack of focus. Board/committee communication needs to be improved, and better board support for the committees’ work is needed. We would hope and expect that this will result in considerably greater community involvement.

I have put up a draft charter for discussion at Volunteer committees, and would like to hear what everyone thinks. While it's not actually possible for a charter alone to re-vitalise our committees (bearing in mind it's only people not policy that can ultimate do that), is this a move in the right sort of direction? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2014 (BST)

A minor observation. Better defining the committees will help with focus, however I do not believe there is any evidence that this is the underpinning cause of "atrophy". There are a lot of committees listed by the board of trustees, certainly compared to 3 years ago, but the number of active members¹ who are interested in participating in the affairs of the Chapter has not grown (probably increased by 30-50% in 3 years) in proportion to other measures of growth such as employee numbers (1000%) or levels of WMF funding (300%+). However this is sliced, if we do not have a wealth of members keen to take on the responsibility of joining and pushing the development and activities of each committee, then the few that enjoy supporting the Chapter in this way will be overstretched and likely to burn-out after over-committing themselves.

I believe the solution to your perception of atrophy, must be to significantly grow the levels of active members, back before 2012 we were doubling this number every year, so there seems little in the way of prioritizing this key objective or setting ambitious targets for it. --Fæ (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (BST)

1—volunteers who are not members will not be allowed take part in committees under the proposed policy.

It is indeed prioritized. Increasing the number of volunteers is a specific measured KPI under our strategic goal G2a.1: We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers. And more active volunteers means more members. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Sure, I am aware of the published strategy. The targets do not include any specific targets for membership, such as doubling it, and as the same document notes, active volunteers on Wikimedia projects and events is not the same goal or measurement as increasing the number of paying or active members of the Chapter who might be interested in taking part in Committee meetings.

By the way, I do not think it is fair to claim that there is a KPI that measures the number of active volunteers, if there are actually no published reports of this number this year, and no plans to be any reports on this number for this in the future. --Fæ (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2014 (BST)

I'm afraid you have misunderstood the reporting. Volunteer numbers will be reported in the quarter 1 report to the FDC. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2014 (BST)

All the KPIs on the Strategy monitoring plan page are going to be published quarterly: that's the whole point. The first quarter's data will be published in the FDC report, in reports to the June Board, and on the wiki. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Then yes, this is confusing. I previously thought it had been made clear that the number of active volunteers was no longer going to be measured and the fact that it has not been reported for over six months would back that up. Presumably the charity is using a non-standard definition for the dates of Quarter 1; when will this report be available for members? --Fæ (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Not sure an exact date has been determined yet, but definitely well before the Board meeting on June 7th. So in few weeks time at the most. The charity's year starts on 1st February, for some historical reason, so the first quarter results will cover the period 1st February to 30 April. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (BST)

We used the same dates in 2012-13 and the financial year starts on 1 February. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Having been the Chair, I'm familiar with the financial year chosen for the charity and I was part of the discussions (more than once) making the decision to stick to February, this need not have been the same quarters now chosen for KPI reporting. Considering the dates of the FDC bid cycle, I would have thought the first quarter within that annual cycle (Quarter 4) could have adopted figures promised in the FDC bid, rather than having a six month gap. Anyway, as has been said many times in the last few years, that's in the past so I'll just wait for the next report to have the KPI based performance measures. --Fæ (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2014 (BST)

Charters of Board committees

I suspect this may be of very limited interest to most, but I am posting here for the sake of transparency. Govcom is considering recommending to the Board some minor changes to the Board committee charters. Details are as follows:

• Audit and Risk Committee charter/Draft
  • diff from existing
• Governance Committee Charter/Draft
  • diff from existing

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (BST)

Hi Michael. Please can you summarise what the key changes are here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Govcom: chaired by Chair of Board as recommended by Hudson review and approved by Board; general governance advice moved to top of the list to reflect actual workload. ARC: make it clearer that the Treasurer is a member ex officio; slight re-write of 'observer' wording, for consistency with Govcom; appointment of Chair to be ratified by the Board; meetings should be called by the Chair of the Committee. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2014 (BST)

Role of the Water cooler

Looking at posts over the last month or so on the Water cooler, rather than being a place to "discuss our external projects and activities", it seems to have become an effectively passive events announcements and official notices page, rather than its historical use as an unofficial volunteer community discussion forum. As any discussion of interest is invariably now moved to the Engine Room, would it be sensible to change the notice at the top of the page accurately to reflect the way the page is now used as a landing page to promote and post news of events of the charity? --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Your post immediately above this one is definitely project-related and would be an ideal community post for the Water Cooler. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks for the observation. I am unsure if you have any view on my question?

An absence of recent discussion by unpaid volunteers on the Water cooler, indicates to me that recent changes to how this is controlled have resulted in this significantly decreasing its value as a communications channel for active volunteers. Particularly when compared to how lively it was a year or two ago, as can be seen in the archives. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Since the split though the quality of the discussion has increased, which was the aim of the split. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 23:11, 10 May 2014 (BST)

My question was about the notice. Do you have any view on that? --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2014 (BST)

Yes, I have a view on the notice: it correctly sets out the scope of the Water Cooler. Answering your actual question is not possible as it includes a fallacious presupposition as a rhetorical tool. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks for the feedback. It is never my intention to engage in false political or meaningless rhetoric which cannot be supported. Which actual assertion or perceived presupposition do you believe is false, and makes answering it impossible? There are several possible that might be read into it, and I can certainly support the assertions such as the quote from the notice, historical usage and how it is currently not being used by volunteers who are not trustees, employees or contractors in the last month or so. I really wish to avoid wikilawyering, but if you think it is necessary I can unbundle it into a series of more direct questions supported by non-controversial evidence. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2014 (BST)

Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget?

I was wondering where last year's ideas for activities around this year's centenary of the First World War had gone, or what outcomes there had been in this area even if it had been reduced, considering there was originally £20,000 agreed by the trustees to be spent on it. Checking 2014 Activity Plan/GLAM Outreach I was surprised that this document contains no details of any GLAM projects, in fact it only appears to link to a budget for 2013 and the section on "timelines" remains blank apart from the note please add details.

Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan for GLAM, with details that can be measured as opposed to reports of stuff that has already happened? --Fæ (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2014 (BST)

Based on the fact that it has now been a week, this appears to be a "non-success".

I suggest that the board of trustees consider changing the Activity Plan wording so that there is a realistic expectation given to members that when we discuss plans, the charity means standard budget forecasts, reports of what happened in the previous quarter and actions (not plans) for the coming quarter.

These would normally be called "reports" and in addition one would expect the CEO to ensure a schedule spanning the funded programmes is maintained (the next 12 months in the case of this charity) and a work breakdown with associated measurable outcomes. The board of trustees may find this a useful strategic discussion at some point soon, in order to help provide the quality of oversight that most large national charities would expect. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2014 (BST)

While it has been almost a week since your question, our GLAM Organiser is part-time. A considerable amount of his time has been spent on helping with FDC reporting for Q1 so you may have to wait for an answer. When he is next in I will ask Jonathan Cardy when he has time to answer. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (BST)

I was expecting either a link to the plan so I could look at it, or a statement saying there is no plan. My question was not intended to be directed at anyone, I certainly am not asking employees direct questions. This could be answered by the CEO, any trustee as they follow and review these documents, or another unpaid volunteer up to date on programme reporting, who might be comfortable answering.

As it happens I have been in discussion with Jonathan on other matters in this time. I note that the Activity Plan does not name Jonathan as being responsible for a plan, and that the supporting detailed document says "Daria Cybulska with delegated support from Jonathan Cardy" which I was aware of, but had made no assumptions about. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Likewise Daria and the CEO have been extraordinarily busy in particular with drafting the FDC report. I'm afraid an answer will have to wait until staff workloads are more manageable. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks. I am sorry that the last week had been a bad time. Again, it was never my intention for this to be seen a question directed to an employee.

@MichaelMaggs: Would a trustee or a knowledgeable volunteer like to answer my question? It seems a simple and short one if anyone knows the answer. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2014 (BST)

It has now reached 2 weeks since my question "Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan" was raised. I am sorry if this has been seen as a trick question of some sort, it was not intended that way. --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2014 (BST)

Proposed amendments to update charity's security and data protection policies: Revised Deadline of 5th June!

Hi all,

I am going to be working over the next few days on amending the charity's policies that refer to processing and storage of personal information to bring them up to date or better reflect actual operational practice. What I will do is create sub-pages of the existing policies under a 'proposed revisions' page and then post those links under my posting here.

I would welcome help by either discussion on the broader themes that may interest our community (balancing the requirements of the law with flexible working and being able to be transparent) here, and specific suggestions for amendments or questions for why I have made amendments on the talk pages of the proposed revision drafts.

If there is anything I've missed I'm open to hearing about it - some gaps I know we need to fill in the coming months are a data retention policy in line with the Foundation's and a broader statement on data governance and risk which I hope to develop with GovComm. Anything else the (many!) savvy types on privacy and data issues want to highlight - please do. I will try and drop a line linking back here on talk pages to those who I know have expressed interest in these issues in the past.

This is quite a bit of work so I'll be pushing on with it on top of other things over the next two weeks with a view to propose amended versions to the Board in June by the end of next week (May 23rd) as I will be on annual leave the following week (27th - 30th May)

If there are policies that are causing obvious concern however I'm prepared to hold back on those to extend the discussion period so please do make that point if you need to. Lets try and keep things to Wiki but if you're concerned I'm not responding promptly please email me (katherine.bavage[@]wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks all - links to proposed amends pages to follow! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (BST)

After discussion with Michael as Chair he has agreed that these changes, while important, do not need to be submitted in order to meet deadlines for Board papers, because the board can review and approve/refuse recommended changes on wiki around the meeting rather than at it. This does not preclude there being more high level consideration of data governance matters at board or committee meetings in future - indeed I am envisioning there will be - but that we need to amend these now to ensure the charity remains in compliance with the law and staff are supported to use best practice in carrying out their work.

I am therefore proposing an extended deadline, both because it allows more time for community comment should there be some additional, and because it will allow me more time on my return from annual leave* to put in place some completed supporting documentation and other changes. If there are comments made in my absence I am sure other members of staff will respond to requests for info where they can, and of course I'll pick up on my return.

* I am on annual leave 26th May - 30th May inclusive and will be back answering emails and working on this following 2nd June. Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2014 (BST)

There is no issue with this decision, however are two lines of logic to this which may need the board to revisit trustee processes, so I'm separating them:

1. Out of meeting decision making - As I recall, a key reason that the board introduced votes of trustees outside of board meetings was to easily enable trustees to make decisions on policy changes in advance of a board meeting. This nicely reduces the workload for meetings and trustees can take a more relaxed approach to reviewing material and asking questions (because on-wiki votes can run for a month). In practice, Operations then consider the decision made, however the legal ratification has to still occur at the scheduled board meeting, for technical reasons more than common-sense ones. From what I have seen this year, I am unsure how well this is being practically applied by the board, or if it is particularly helpful if the board has become less proactive than in years past.
2. CEO authority - There is a division between operational procedures/detailed policy, and policies that require authorization by the board of trustees. Having delegated a scope of authority and responsibility to the CEO, practical decisions at the operational level should be up to the CEO, which may include changing practices to adopt a draft policy. He is then held to account for outcomes of whatever practical decisions he has made in-between board meetings. In the case of data policies, there may well be immediate need to make operational decisions against currently authorized policy, however this would be the difference between handling an incident and correctly communicating it, and legally agreeing how the articles are implemented by the charity.

In the second issue of CEO authority, I doubt that the way that authority has been delegated to the CEO makes the boundaries very clear, this is not necessarily a "non-success", as within a slowly maturing organization it is often better to let bureaucracy be changed by experience rather than dubious hypothesis. Certainly, wiki-lawyering it to death would be unhelpful. --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2014 (BST)

Page links

• Access control approval guidelines/Proposed revision June 2014
• Annual security audit checklist/Proposed revisions June 2014
• Data Breach Policy/Proposed revisions June 2014
• Remote Access Policy/Proposed revision June 2014
• Training Policy and Control List/Proposed revisions June 2014

International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance part two

Hello everyone. I wanted to bring this back on the agenda. For clarity, I initially proposed that Wikimedia UK gets involved with this somehow here last year. The reason I am bringing this up again is because the Wikimedia Foundation has announced that it has signed the principles. Essentially, the principles make a statement against mass surveillance of internet users. Again, I think that this is in scope and showing support for these principles is important. I hope that we can revisit this issue. You can read the principles here. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (BST)

I am surprised and disappointed that this is being lobbied for a second time. The text has not changed or improved since the previous discussion here. The document will be offensive to many, as LGBT minorities have been explicitly excluded from the "Legitimate Aim" section, despite "sexual orientation" being mentioned in the unenforceable preamble. Were the board of trustees to choose to support this document they would be going against the spirit of, and possibly be in breach of, "Wikimedia UK as Service Provider" in Diversity and Equalities Policy and value 5 of Vision, values and mission.

I am not aware of the WMF seeking any consultation with the community. I would be happy to be provided with some links if this has happened. I have posted the same request on the WMF blog post.

I have alerted the Wikimedia LGBT group here. --Fæ (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2014 (BST)

For those interested, Roshni Patel of the Wikimedia Foundation addresses Fae's concerns directly:

"Hi Fae,

Prior to signing on to the Necessary and Proportionate Principles, we consulted the advocacy advisors. You can find that here.

The list of prohibited discriminations under the “Legitimate Aim” principle is non-exclusive and includes “other status.” Given that sexual orientation was listed in the preamble, it would certainly be included under “other status”.

I am certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Patel has given a tangential reply rather than a direct response to the issues. I'm afraid Patel's assumption is unfounded, from this it can be seen that there has been no community consultation where interested groups, such as Wikimedia LGBT, might be allowed to have a voice before the WMF made this irrevocable action. It should be noted that Patel's post is not a statement for the WMF. Though she is being employed or sponsored by the WMF as a 'Fellow', her profile on the Foundation website is quick to ensure that nothing she publishes represents the WMF, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I will be responding, probably later today.

With regard to your being "certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles", you are welcome to hold those beliefs, however I am discussing the blog post and can only go by what is written there and the words of the document that the WMF has now committed itself to. Based on advice I have been given on the Advocacy Advisors email list, the WMF should follow their own consultation policy, and this appears to have explicitly not happened in this instance.

Wikimedia UK does not need to have an opinion on these principles, the charity can just say "good work" or similar. Again I am disappointed to see this being lobbied for so hard here, when the previous community discussion was, at best, controversial. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2014 (BST)

I have not been following the discussion which led to the WMF signing up to these principles and don't intend to go trawling over loads of discussions to find out who was consulted and who thought what. The WMF will no doubt have had good reasons for wanting to sign up. However I also feel that a set of principles which has a section on legitimate use of surveillance and specifically omits sexual orientation from a list of exclusions is very seriously defective. WMUK should consider whether it is in the best interests of the charity to sign up to a set of principles which, for example, the Ugandan government could comply with while undertaking surveillance for the purpose of targeting gay men for arrest and imprisonment. Since our signature is not needed on these principles I will take a lot of persuading that they are a good thing for us to do. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2014 (BST)

Trustee Expenses

Details posted on the engine room in response to a request at Engine room/2014#Attendees at the Wikimedia Conference 2014?

As the previous discussion has been manually archived here, I have created this second thread so that the costs which are due to be reported by 22 May (2 days time) can be linked and may be discussed by volunteers on this noticeboard. It should be noted that some of the expenses have been declared on Expenses 2013-2014, it cannot be presumed to be a complete declaration. --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (BST)

Hello Fae! I was going to create a new post, don't worry. I have posted the Q1 expenses at Expenses 2014-2015. The board are going to be discussing what level of expenses is appropriate - the policy as written needs more clarity. The general feeling is that expenses will be dealt with using a quarterly summary against named persons, split into appropriate groups of travel, accommodation, subsistence, per diems, etc. The board will be discussing this on 7 June but I don't want to pre-empt their decision. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2014 (BST)

I have changed the title back to be more accurate.

What was requested, and committed to, in the archived discussion was "When the total costs are published, could someone add a link here so that future volunteers can find it more easily?" The total costs as defined earlier in the same discussion were "the costs of sending 8 people to this conference", not just those that happen to have been trustees at the time. Again, this is not a request from me to any employee. If the WMUK treasurer wants to give a summary of these costs as a follow unpaid volunteer, that would be cool. --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2014 (BST)

I have changed the title back because the page covers more than the Wikimedia Conference (and using the same title as a previous thread it would have made the information more difficult to find once archived) and have added a link back to the Berlin discussion at the start of this section. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2014 (BST)

You may wish to think about an accurate title rather than simply reverting, the original point of this thread is not addressed by an update of Trustee Expenses, as that would only obscure what the actual total costs of sending attendees to the conference was, which would not be a benefit with regard to transparency and could not be considered a matter of privacy for any individual. It might be an idea to follow the BRD principle on the Engine room, it works well on the projects. --Fæ (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2014 (BST)

Perhaps it would be best to avoid using 3LAs in public conversations without at the very least a link explaining that BRD means Bold Revert Discuss. People more familiar with say the conventions and discourse of Wikimedia Commons than that of Wikipedia may find that such jargon is not immediately accessible. So perhaps we should try not to exclude people where a few extra key strokes would makes things clearer ;-) Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (BST)

Well, being the Engine room, I suspect that all likely readers of this will know it is 'bold' rather than 'block'. Being a supporter of plain English and mindful of international projects, I have designed wiki tools to help convert wiki acronyms to phrases, however the context matters with these things. --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2014 (BST)

Hi Fae. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous post and thought you were asking for trustee expenses. I'll see what I can pull up with regard to total cost of the conference and post it in a new section here. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2014 (BST)

Hello Fae: this is a quick reply to say that finding the total cost is proving more difficult than I first expected. I cannot easily distinguish spends from this event as I didn't plan to do so in advance, and as a result I would have to complete a line-by-line review of the purchase ledger for the month prior to and the month after the event to pull out the full costs. This would be several hours of work and it wouldn't be cost-effective. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2014 (BST)

Then an efficient way of replying to my request made five weeks ago, when there were commitments to report the total costs of (highly controversially amongst the international volunteer community) sending 8 people to the Wikimedia Conference 2014, would have been that "no, those costs are never going to be reported". It seems a great pity that so much volunteer and paid employee time was not saved by answering the original question with "no". --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2014 (BST)

Not wishing to put my hand too far into the hornets' nest, but perhaps it might be possible to come up with a rough estimate (presumably air fares and hotel bookings would be relatively easy to find, but I'm only guessing)? Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2014 (BST)

If I did, I could't guarantee any useful level of accuracy. Some people drove there, some flew, and not everyone flew from the same country IIRC - and some people took entirely different flight companies. Again, if I'm remembering it correctly, some of our staff were asked to stay an extra day to meet with the WMF and help work on metrics together, and the WMF reimbursed us for bits of that, but not all of it. It's very complex, and I don't want to give a figure that would be misleading. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure I understand why it's so complicated. Isn't it just a matter of getting the amounts from the 8 claim forms, plus any flights and hotels that were paid for directly? That should be possible to do accurately, even if it's not 100% complete... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2014 (BST)

Non-renewal of our fundraiser agreement

Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s fundraiser. Wikimedia UK has written an open letter to Sue regarding this decision, a copy of which can be found here. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2014 (BST)

For those wishing to copy parts of the text to use in discussion, I have created a wiki version of the letter. This can be found here. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2014 (BST)

I notice the questions contain the phrase "a year with a demanding target." Is there any reason to believe this year's target is more demanding than next year's? Or could the phrase be replaced by the simpler phrase "a year"? Yaris678 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2014 (BST)

As an open letter, it is not easily revised. If Jon had wished to consult members, this would have happened in advance of publishing it, I doubt there is much value in highlighting phrasing issues. --Fæ (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2014 (BST)

2014 Annual General Meeting

Ongoing preparations for this year's AGM can be found at 2014 Annual General Meeting and the linked pages for anyone who wants to follow or join in. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2014 (BST)

BBC article - Wikipedia and health

Article here and well judged comments from Stevie. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2014 (BST)

Thank you, Philafrenzy. For you, and others interested, the story also ran on the Mail, Telegraph and Independent. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2014 (BST)

But where do doctors get their information? That is the question. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/ Philafrenzy (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (BST)

An interesting parallel! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2014 (BST)

Makes you think about the responsibility we have taken on doesn't it? Not only are ordinary people using Wikipedia as their first source for medical information, but doctors are too (though they at least are able to evaluate its reliability). Good job most people don't know how the sausage is made. The idea that our activities carry no responsibility and no obligation and that nobody has to use Wikipedia, is clearly false. For many people there are no other sources of information. But I am giving a lecture now. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2014 (BST)

In many ways I agree with you. While as a chapter we don't control content of course, I'm really proud of some of the things we do that have a real and positive impact in terms of content improvement. John Byrne's residency with Cancer Research UK, for example, is a project that will help to improve the content on important articles relating to cancer and cancer treatment, with input from experts and access to the very latest research. Most people's lives are touched by cancer to some extent and those articles are important. I am looking forward to us developing high level and high profile partnerships that work in similar ways in future. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2014 (BST)

"Wikipedia, like any encyclopaedia, should not take the place of a qualified medical practitioner." (emphasis mine). Such a good line. That point is worth more than the research that the article is based on. 10 articles! Just 10 articles. And the analysis of each article seems scanty. No analysis of whether important information is missing. And a fact about best practice counted as incorrect, despite being in the NICE guidelines. Yaris678 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2014 (BST)