Water cooler

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Volunteer equipment

The charity has a budget of £2,000 to purchase equipment to be used by volunteers. There are some suggestions already, and people are invited to take a look and make their own suggestions. The page is at 2013 Activity Plan/Volunteer equipment. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned that we can demonstrate good value for any capital spend. In the example of the 3 (or is it more?) volunteer laptops, how much use have these had over the last four weeks and how many different volunteers have benefited from their purchase? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to review the return on investment on those laptops, you need to consider a longer timescale. There could be months where they have minimal use, and months where they are actively used. Just considering the last four weeks where Wikimedia UK have been relatively quiet in terms of outreach events for example wouldn't necessarily be fair. KTC (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, okay, any number of months then, at the moment I have no numbers at all. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae, we supplied numbers at your request in this report (on office wiki) on 17 November last year. We recorded their use over ten weeks, and estimated that an individual laptop is, on average, used for 23 days out of every 50. To break down the cost, the laptops have a three year life expectancy, which equates to a cost of £9.49/month. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I am unsure what the benefit is of keeping these numbers on the office wiki when they are of use to our members in justifying other purchases. I asked about the last four weeks as I thought that staff could recall roughly how many times volunteers had been in and taken the laptops on loan off the top of their heads without spending ages doing an expensive and complex analysis. Presumably there is also a register so we know who booked them out, in line with how most organizations would meet their insurance requirements, so that would be an easy way of checking whether the 50% usage rate from last autumn has been sustained. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid that I can't recall off the top of my head how many times they have been used recently. I'm happy to make the numbers public, but as you can see they are part of a much longer five-page response which I have not broken down. Will you trust me (as the office manager) when I say that the laptops were a good use of our funds? I am not so sure about the cameras - we really need input from volunteer photographers for that, which is why Richard was asking for suggestions. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Asking questions as a trustee is a duty I have, you don't really have to ask about trust when I do so. Though my notorious gay intuition is perfectly happy to leave these matters to your best judgement, particularly as an employee that I took personal responsibility for recruiting, there has to be a point where outcomes and value for the charity is measurable in a consistent and simple way, even if there is an additional cost of measurement and reporting, that I can point to if we get scrutinized for our governance at a later date. --Fæ (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, I would just like to note that suggestion on this are still very much welcome. Whether it's equipment that you would find useful yourself, or just ideas on equipment that you think other people would find useful, we would love to hear it! Thanks -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Human readable summary of the STV variant to be chosen

Can someone respond to my post at User talk:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules#Details of the system. I think it is essential to have a human-readable summary of the rules of the STV varient that we will be using. This summary should be available well before EGM 2013 so that people can analyse it at at their leisure. Ideally we would give people time to develop any alternatives they may think up. Yaris678 (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked this very question. I was told we would adopt the Electoral Reform Society system. On their website there is a good explanation of how it works in practice. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you got a link to a good explanation of the specific version of STV that we are going to use? The best I could find is this, but it needs summarising. I'm looking for something similar to my bullet points at User talk:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules#Details of the system, except written by people who know what they are talking about.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to summarise the ERS97 voting method, although http://www.crosenstiel.webspace.virginmedia.com/stvrules/details.htm#Section5 is slightly better laid out with hyperlinks for anyone needing to see how exactly it works. If people want to get an idea of what's involved, you could give a rough outline of an example like this:

• An election for 4 places has 50 valid votes cast. Voters have listed as many candidates as they wish in order of preference: 1, 2, 3, ...
• The quota is 50/(4+1) = 10. So each of 4 candidates needs 10 preference votes to be elected.
• The number of first preferences are counted for each candidate. Anyone receiving 10 votes or more is elected.
• If candidates receive more votes than the 10 needed to be elected, the surplus is redistributed proportionately to the candidates who were second preference (so candidates will receive fractions of a vote).
• Anyone who now has received 10 votes or more after the redistribution is elected. The redistribution of surpluses continues until 4 candidates are elected or no candidate is elected at that stage.
• If the redistribution of surplus does not result in another candidate being elected at that stage, then the candidate with the lowest vote is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the next preferences. This continues until another candidate is elected, then the redistribution of surpluses continues, and so on.

So the system requires voters to give candidates an order of preference; and the counting is designed to minimise the number of wasted votes. There are special modifications to the detailed procedures (for example to resolve ties), but they don't change the broad principles. Variants of the system exist and are described at w:en:Single transferable vote; the w:en:Hagenbach-Bischoff quota is the quota described by ERS97. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS. This is very helpful. Not a million miles from what I put at User talk:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules#Details of the system... but its good to confirm my understanding.

N.B. This could be moot unless the draft resolution is changed. See Talk:EGM 2013/Draft Resolutions#The precise terms of the election shall be determined by the Board.

Yaris678 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

High quality photographs for Wikimedia UK

Hi All,

So, by now you'll have seen the first couple of members newsletters, a soon to be published donors e-newsletter, and ongoing publications coming up including Annual Review, handouts for conferences, other leaflets and forms.

Its becoming increasingly difficult to find high quality 'marketing-materials' type images to use - not necessarily because of a lack of images in some cases, but because when we document WMUK events we're not necessarily approaching it like we do a 'Wiki Takes...' event. This is a real shame, as I know week-in, week-out exciting events are happening around the UK but we simply don't have enough new images representing us. I think we're all keen to see the numbers of volunteers, members and donors creep up and show increasing diversity and engagement, and high quality publications with exciting images that really encapsulate who we are and what we do are vital.

To that end I've created a page called Photographs as an acorn from which I hope great oaks can grow. I know there are experienced and talented photographers among you, and many of us who go to events but perhaps don't think to document them in this way and for this purpose as a matter of course. I'm open to all suggestions about how we can grow and improve the flow of photos covering our work, as I'm really keen to avoid having to use paid-for photographers to plug the gap.

Let me know what you think here, and please go mash-up the page so we're getting something useful put together Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:First steps/Quality and description is a useful basic guide to point to for those less familiar with uploading photos. Any volunteer with more experience, can always benefit by asking for some feedback on their uploads at Commons:Commons:Photography critiques. I believe that avoiding the use of paid photographers is quite easy, the chapter has never done this and has no plan to start, though expenses have been paid for volunteers supporting events with video and audio recording or webcasting. We may want to experiment more with techniques such as the British Museum time-lapse video taken in 2010, which demonstrated how an edit-a-thon works. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I've added them to the page(as external links, the interwiki linking doesn't seem to work for me in your links?) Please feel to add any other useful resources you know there directly?

I really don't want to use paid photographers, because its not been budgeted for and because we should be supporting volunteers to do this kind of thing. However, we're not getting sufficient images either a) with the frequency we need e.g. last meetup photos on commons under that category were November last year or b) Of the variety we need - we need to be representing the diverse nature of our community, and the things it does. We seem to have a lot of pictures of Wikimedians in windowless basements lit only by the glare of laptop screen as they edit. Where this isn't the case, the pictures are of events quite some time ago. I would love to better reflect our social side in an up to date way - and not always in pub meets. Some people aren't that fussed for the pub :D Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just fixed the links, I had missed out the extra 'Commons'. We should recognize the fact that most of what we do is primarily to support people on their own, editing from their home computers or having meetings in shady basements and pubs, however we should find some rather photogenic things coming up soon, for example the Natural History Museum will be great for photos (it is incredibly noisy with over-excited screaming children) and some of their collections are outdoors. I'm glad you are determined not to pay photographers, neither am I, and would be against any such proposal should it come to the board, as I believe using the charity's funds this way fails sufficiently to meet our Volunteer Policy or our values. However I would support a significant budget to pay expenses for volunteers to be encouraged to do more, and would consider the merits of equipment hire or purchase to support a well proposed plan of volunteer activities to create better representative media as well as more experimental media and virtual presence innovation. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I will bear all this in mind when talking to Katy about this as a part of volunteer development work. I agree NHM a good opportunity, screaming kids aside... I think for now I will work on getting a photography permissions system a bit more firmly in place on events pages and trying to alert volunteers to events we would like photos of. A worked out policy on these specific expenses and a budget like is a good idea. Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Virtual presence

Virtual presence innovation? Wossat then? —Tom Morris (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked Tom. :-) One of the fundamental components of the chapter's mission is to support Access to open knowledge. It is therefore bizarre that when I think through our history of events over the last 3 years, we appear to be going backwards in terms of the proportion of events with effective access for "e-volunteers" who would like to join us live, but cannot, or prefer not to, join us in the physical world. WMCH has been doing good work with experimenting with the open source Big Blue Button virtual conferencing system, which makes a great free practical alternative for the closed systems of Skype or Google Hangout, but sadly in these access stakes WMUK has been failing to take a lead. In fact, we are in the process of reducing the access to our board meetings, by locking away draft minutes and the trustees even discussing whether we should block any future attempt to video or webcast our "open" meetings for fear of negative press should anyone ever make a misstatement during a meeting. In practice we do not need a policy to go into lock-down; if you check through our track record of making video available after our meetings over the last six months, you can see this has effectively already happened; I believe the answer is zero.

Hence my recommendation that the charity firmly encourages volunteers to make suggestions for how we can innovate live virtual access to events, as well as finding better, faster, cheaper ways to capture the event as a passive record through photography, video and audio. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree we need to do a lot, LOT more virtual and online. When I was based in t'north it was very frustrating as a volunteer that events in london were expensive and rarely webcast. We need to get better at this. We've been asked to cover the open day on the 23rd March by Skype by one volunteer; we can take lessons for this and start to look at how to build this into other events. Big Blue Button is an interesting development too - I understand there is an idea we could trial that on the 23rd instead of Skype? Meanwhile, I'll put 'Supporting Virtual Presence' on the next agenda for the Tech Committee. Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be looking into the Big Blue Button in an effort to learn more about how it compares to the alternatives. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Fæ. Finding ways to work with e-volunteers on projects would be worthwhile. I participated remotely with one of the editathons in the US, for instance, but that was just IRC. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Come to next Tech Committee and discuss? PLEASE! :-) Good cross over with potential VLE usage as well, which is also on the agenda...Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Big Blue Button

Any update on the office experimenting with this? I would hope we can show it off at the EGM. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So far we haven't yet taken the Big Blue Button for a test run. We have, however, been in touch with the WMF to learn from their experience of streaming videos which they do so regularly (eg: metrics meetings). Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lua and Pizza

We are thinking of having Learn to Lua event in the office for people wanting to get to grips with the template creating language. There has been some positive reaction on the UK lists, especially when Pizza was mentioned. Anyone interested? Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been arranged for Sunday 19 May. For those interested, please sign up on Lua on Wikimedia. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about mailing lists and the Water Cooler (split from "Lua and Pizza")

Which UK lists was this notified on? I would like to avoid repeating material already discussed by chapter volunteers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

wikimediauk-l. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If wikimediauk-l is the official and only way that chapter staff are choosing to first communicate with volunteers and members (in preference to a chapter members list or this public wiki, for example), then this should raised as a risk at the next board meeting. The chapter office appears to have forgotten that the chapter has no control over the list management and cannot recommend its use to members of the charity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

wikimediauk-l is not the "official and only way" that chapter staff are communicating with volunteers and members. Honestly I'm not sure how anyone could arrive at that view. We do also use this wiki. We use other mailing lists where appropriate, such as the cultural partners list. We use our blog. We use Twitter and Facebook. We have monthly reports (on this wiki, shared via as many channels as we can). We have a monthly IRC chat (tomorrow is the next one, hope to see plenty of people there!). We have newsletters to members and donors. We attend and host events. Staff try to visit meetups to speak with community members in person. Sometimes the wikimediauk-l is a convenient way to reach many members of our community. As far as I am aware we have never said that we own, or control, the mailing list. Of course, we always welcome any further channels that might be viewed as useful although I think we actually have enough channels already. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stevie, I was specifically referring to how we choose to communicate with volunteers and members in the context of planning future events; as per the title of this thread. In this case I believe none of the alternative channels in your list was used or considered. I would be happy to be corrected if you can point to any emails on lists such as cultural-partners, on posts to the blog, twitter or facebook with regard to this proposed event that pre-date Jon's note. You may want to apply these alternative channels now if they have not been used, and formulate a better guide for staff in terms of how to make best use of our communications channels if you think that improvement is desirable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the list is one of our most active outlets for collaboration. A lot of volunteer collaboration occurs on there, so it would be illogical for WMUK not to utilise that :) All the other venues you list would have been sub-optimal for the discussion that happened. --ErrantX (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So best not to try then? Communicating with volunteers and members of the charity using this list alone certainly excludes me, and I am not the only member of the charity who is uninterested in received emails from wikimediauk-l in the light of how some people have been treated there as a permanent public record. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It bears repeating that the wikimediauk-l is not the only channel we use to communicate. It's interesting that this point was raised on another channel that was also used to try and determine whether there is interest within the community for an event like this. Of course, once the event is set and a date is fixed, then it will of course be shared once again via wikimediauk-l, linking to an event page on this wiki, shared also via Twitter, Facebook, our blog... we really aren't short of communications channels. I am certainly confident that we utilise enough different media to be as inclusive as possible. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I much prefer discussions taking place on this wiki, wikimediauk-l is *the* mailing list to use for email discussions about things like this. It's where some of our key members are, and we should continue to recommend to WMUK members that they subscribe to that list. It's far better for openness and transparency than closed lists such as cultural-partners and the WMUK office mailing list. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mike, by all means raise this matter at the next board meeting, again. The Wikimedia UK charity has never recommended that members of the charity join the wikimediauk-l list, it is not owned, nor controlled by the charity, nor do the administrators of the email list appear to wish it to ever be so. It is independent of the charity and is not governed in a way that can be assessed against the mission or values of the charity. If the UK charity wishes to communicate with volunteers for the charity or with its members, then this list is not a reliable mechanism to achieve that goal.

I remind you that my objection is not that this list exists, just that it should not become the first and only way that charity staff work with volunteers to create events or disseminate information about the charity. It evidently is being used in this way at the moment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No huge deal here - let's use both. Remember Stevie's recommendations in his comms paper? In any case we now have Katie on board who will be making completely sure we communicate with all our volunteers. The best thing is that there are a groups of really enthusiastic volunteers who want to be locked away in a room with pizza to discuss and develop templates - let a thousand flowers bloom! 85.159.94.23 09:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the primary way of communicating with the UK community (with a small number of exceptions). I think the distinct lack of response to Jon's posting here, compared to the active response on the mailing list, examples why it is the most important communication channel. If what you're proposing is the replace the WMF-hosted mailing list with a UK-wide (i.e. members and non-members) list hosted by Wikimedia UK, then that is an interesting idea. However, at this time the wikimediauk-l list is the most active forum for discussion in the UK. And for the charity to ignore this primary avenue for collaboration would be cutting off its nose to spite it's face. Only a small number of people object to the list, and as a trustee I'd expect you to rise above your personal objections and examine what is in the best interests of the charity (i.e. from the perspective of collaborating with the broadest user base). In this case the list was used to informally float an idea for feedback, and once interest had been firmed up posts were made at other venues. Had Jon popped something here I doubt it would have gotten as far by this stage... --ErrantX (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fae, I'm really not sure where this idea comes from that the list is the "first and only way" that charity staff work with volunteers. It is not "evidently being used in this way" at the moment. Is it the most popular method? Yes. It is certainly not, and visibly not, the only way. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stevie, rather than an "idea", it is literal and visibly based on the evidence. This was the first way that staff chose to discuss a possible event (Mar 14) and until Jon raised it here after 4 days of discussion and much of the possible content, dates and location had been agreed, it was the only way. As our communications specialist, you may wish to formulate a better guide for staff in terms of how to make best use of our communications channels, if you think that improvement is desirable. Hopefully future communications will be more accessible to volunteers such as myself, and I will be happy to help by using this page to point out where this fails to be the case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It was the only way until another way was used... rather tautologous... I don't see the harm in using one forum to get a rough idea of whether there is any interest in something and then announcing it more widely after that. Your paranoia over the mailing list confuses me - it's just a mailing list. It takes emails from one person and distributes them to lots of other people. It really doesn't matter whose server it is running on... --Tango (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As I'm being accused of paranoia by the process of asking fact based questions as an interested volunteer, obviously this conversation should be considered at an end until this happens again, and in good conscience I have to raise it all over again. Tom, if you believe I am unfit to be on the board due to a mental illness, please do produce some evidence, as that would actually be a valid reason for me to be required to leave, this time. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

While paranoia is a symptom of certain mental illnesses, it is not in itself a mental illness. It is simply a form of irrationality. I never said anything about trying to get you off the board. Please don't jump to such ridiculous conclusions. I always say exactly what I mean, so there is really no need to try and read between the lines. --Tango (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) For the record, nothing's been agreed other the that it's a good idea as a possible event. Possible dates have been suggested (by me) when I was speaking to one of our volunteer and potential runner of the workshop to see if it sounds like a good idea, and that didn't even take place on wikimediauk-l. Location was always likely to be at Development House, if only for familiarity and cost reason. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at hand, yes, the mailing list was the first place that the idea was mentioned. In my view this was the best choice, too. I see no need to formulate a "better guide" for staff and am perfectly happy that the wikimediauk-l mailing list is used, as long as it isn't used in isolation (and it isn't). In the specific example you raised it was very quickly evident that there was enough interest to make an event feasible so there was no need to pursue this speculative line of enquiry anywhere else as the question had been answered. Of course, when details are firmed up the event will be promoted elsewhere. This is standard, as already outlined above. I continue to disagree with your assertion that the mailing list is the first and only place we communicate because this is palpably not the case. As the communications specialist I am happy that our communications are accessible and I am happy with the way they are functioning. I believe most people would agree. That's not to say there isn't always room for improvement. Of course, as a member of the community I encourage you - and anyone else - to continue to raise concerns where you feel communications fail to meet your expectations and I will always be happy to address them. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Chronology version seven.

This is version seven of the chronology relating to the governance review.

It differs from version six in that John Cummings, who had not been interviewed for the study, felt it was inaccurate in one place. After being interviewed the chronology was amended at the end of February. Apologies for the delay in getting this version up. Thanks to Stevie and David Gerrard for overcoming some technical hurdles. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the link correct? It says "v6" rather than "v7". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you save us all some time and post a diff? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I have spotted that the document titled "v6" does in fact contain the document which has "v7" in the footers of internal pages of the document, though the index page calls it "Chronology" and other internal pages use the term "Descriptive chronology".

Unfortunately the licence on this wiki does not contain the attribution required on the second un-numbered page of the document (the first two pages have no identifying numbers, with numbering starting from "page 1" on page 3). Please ensure the attributions are correct on all the versions of this report, including any that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

I note that the report is dated "February 2013" with no note, nor indication that this was later revised, my understanding is that this had agreed changes that should be dated as some time in March 2013, and should now supersede all previous versions of the report. Was this an error? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that the report has already been published and widely distributed, it might be easier to just issue an errata rather than amending it. --Tango (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. To clarify my slightly confusing paragraph above, it is the attribution on-wiki that should be changed to match the agreed licence in the report. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To pick up on a minor point here, the reason the file remains named "v6" is simply because there are existing links in other places to that file URL. By updating the file, while keeping the same filename, we are able to ensure that existing links to the descriptive chronology remain functional and that they point to the correct document. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

We can move the file to an appropriate new name, and create a redirect from the old name to the new name? -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you also correct the required copyright attribution at the same time? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A URI with a version number in it should always link to that version of a file. Add a notice to the file description saying there is a later version. Don't break links. --Tango (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it now (during lunch, I hasten to add!). I've renamed the files on Commons. Richard Symonds (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Richard! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The links appear to be Commons:File:Wikimedia UK Governance Review Descriptive Chronology.pdf and Commons:File:Wikimedia UK Governance Review Descriptive Chronology.djvu.

As highlighted previously, the copyright attribution remains incorrect. If the intention is for this to persist on Wikimedia Commons, the copyright licence needs to right. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As Tom requested towards the beginning of this thread, is there a diff available, or can someone point out where the corrections are supposed to be? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The changes are on pages 24 and 25 and relate to John Cummings at Wikimania. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, but do I really have to bring up two versions of the document side-by-side and play a game of spot-the-difference? --Tango (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's not actually "our" report, so I believe the charity has only been copied the pdf. As a trustee, this is first time that I have seen this changed document, so I have not been presented with the differences and have yet to work out what they are. If someone can highlight the changed text, that would be great. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please correct the copyright statement on all versions of this report that have been made public

The referenced Wikimedia Commons file page for the djvu document above, includes the statement "described by uploader Richard Nevell of WMUK as CC-by-SA", however the required attribution statement remains incorrect. Can someone please put this right? The Chapter should set a good example on correct copyright releases, particularly when it is Chapter staff choosing to release material on Wikimedia Commons. For those that are unaware, CC-BY-SA includes moral rights under UK and US law, these are enforceable under the law, not optional. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fae, I'm having trouble parsing the sentence above. You're the most active Commonist we have, whereas the staff are relative newbies - we don't edit Commons very often! Are you saying that we need to update the 'author' field on Commons to read 'Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK'? If this isn't correct, please let us know in simple terms what needs changing, and we'll change it. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae, I should probably be the one to sort this out as I've been involved in the uploads. I confess though that I'm not following what's wrong. The PDF report states "The content contained in this report is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licence v3.0 ... by the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK unless otherwise stated. The trademarks and logos of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikmedia UK, Compass Partnership, and any other organizations are not included under the terms of this Creative Commons licence"

As you are focussing on the dvu file I assume your issue is with the self template, although your explanation wasn't exactly clear. Does this clear things up? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, thanks for having a go. The issues I have identified with copyright are as follows:

1. In the chronology document (File:Wikimedia UK Governance Review Descriptive Chronology.pdf) there is an unambiguous statement of copyright that under the BY conditions of the CC licence must be part of any licence, as the SA component is invoked on the original, then only the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence can apply on any reuse. On Commons this can be done by using the template {{cc-by-sa-3.0|1=<the required text>}}. Currently, there is no attribution text on that file. I would expect the full paragraph from the report to apply, to avoid any ambiguity or misinterpretation.
2. In the djvu version (File:Wikimedia UK Governance Review Descriptive Chronology.djvu) the attribution text has been partly quoted in the general description, but has not been added to the licence as a required attribution of that licence. Again the SA component means that the licence should be identical to the original, and the attribution should be quoted in full (currently there is an ellipsis where the text has been trimmed).
3. The main report Commons:File:Wikimedia UK gov review rpt v5.djvu contains no licence for free reuse that I can see. It may be that the contract with Compass makes a free reuse licence a requirement, but it is not within the Chapter's or the WMF's authority to release this report without unambiguous permission for this specific report. I recommend it is deleted until the licence is unambiguous. The licence used in the Chronology report cannot be retrospectively applied to the main report as the main report contains the Compass logo, which is specifically not included in the Chronology licence. If this was an error, then this needs an agreed amendment with Compass.

Lastly, if any other versions or variations of Compass reports have been uploaded, I would appreciate direct links here so that we can keep track. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this edit and this should sort out the licensing on the chronologies, using full wording of the text in the document and the |1= field in the cc-by-sa template as you suggested. Is that part sorted?

As for the full report, I will have to get back to you on that. The release of the file under CC-BY-SA is probably buried in an email thread somewhere. That is the only version of the full report on Commons, the pdf version is on the UK wiki. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just dug the relevant correspondence out of my email inbox and forwarded it to Richard and Fae. WMF and WMUK own the copyright to the report and agreed to release it under CC-BY-SA. The Land (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As per email, the chronology looks good copyright-wise, the main report we might have to think about how to make a more robust release for. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Error on Recent Changes

There is an error on Recent Changes. The red link to Mary Buckland should presumably be Mary Buckland. Yaris678 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. KTC (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Katie. Yaris678 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both! :) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer and Trustee Security checklist

Hey all,

I'm starting to work on a brief set of guidelines and checklist around data protection and IT security that we can show to new volunteers and Trustees. It's here and I'd appreciate input, including making it as plain english as possible. Please feel free to reshape as you like - though I would like to keep a basic check list in their somewhere, as its often very useful for busy people.

I should add that most of this stuff is common sense, but that in my experience we all email unencrypted files to each other, or keep stuff saved that we no longer need. I'll work on this over the next few weeks, and will start the call now for all volunteers who have any personal data stored on personal devices in relation to their roles, past or present, with the charity that they no longer use or require, to please securely delete it - there will be further reminders in newsletters and on the mailing list over time :) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if this were marked as a draft at the top, to avoid any confusion with board approved policies. I see it has been added to Category:Policies, we may want to use a category for draft or proposed documents instead, and reserve that category for approved documents only. Unfortunately there is no standard process for the chapter to refer to approval and review records from a published policy or process, that would probably be a sensible general improvement if we could agree a system. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, yes, makes sense to indicate it's draft. I don't think it really is a 'policy' either because its not prescriptive, so perhaps a new category needed. I really hope GovCom can work out some of these processes and issue staff with guidance as to best practice, as I have no problem complying with procedures when I know what they are :) Honest! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

23rd event - come in from the cold

Looking forward to seeing about 42 people tomorrow at the offices to discuss the next five years of Wikimedia UK. The heating comes on at about 10 but vests might be in order!

Am pretty certain that transport will be running and there will be a warm welcome and hot drinks for everyone.

We have a busy day so will be starting promptly at 10 please.

Thanks for giving up the time to come.

Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone interested in running bots?

There's several maintenance tasks on this wiki that would probably be best-suited to an automated bot rather than manual work - for example, fixing bad interwiki links, and tagging uncategorised pages and files with unclear copyright. Would anyone be interested in running a bot to do this sort of work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This should be pretty straight-forward. Can you spec the tasks? Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Governance: What are the member's expectations for openness and transparency from the Board of Trustees?

Back in October last year, I raised the issue of how much of the UK Board's votes and discussion was conducted in-camera, on closed email lists and closed wikis. Since that time, I believe the Board's behaviour has been to become yet more closed than ever. Though there was agreement in principle, there has yet to be a single example of a vote of the board held outside of the board meetings, being made public, with public discussion. The most recent in-camera vote, was the necessary vote of the board supporting EGM 2013/Resolutions, already a public document, with the resulting 5 days of discussion, changes of vote and explanations of votes, being unavailable to our members apart from the outcome which was made public at Agenda 26Mar13 as it will be confirmed at the next board meeting. This way of working has become a convention for the Board.

In the same month as my raising openness on the Water cooler, Mike created an in-camera vote to ensure that the Board would decide which in-camera decisions should be made available to members. 19 significant decisions were part of that vote. 5 months later it remains open, with only myself and John Byrne (now no longer a trustee) having voted on it.

When there have been strategic or operational issues of interest to the Trustees, they are invariably discussed in-camera, even though many of our members have interests and expertise that might offer better or faster solutions.

In 2011, as a trustee I could see and browse the financial records of the charity, I could easily answer questions from volunteers, I knew at the time if an email had been formally been sent to the WMF, the Charity Commission, or a significant meeting or an agreement was made a supplier or partner. In 2013, this does not happen. Spot-checks are impossible without resorting to a vote, and debate, to make it happen through others. In some instances that might be a good thing, however transparency and openness has been reduced.

So, why an I raising this here and now? —
We are approaching an AGM, and this will be a chance to influence the values that our members and wider community expect of the new board. I encourage our members to share your expectations for openness, whether it remains a top priority or not, and to draw the line as to when you think it is necessary or appropriate for the board to operate behind closed doors, so that we establish an understanding in the minds of prospective new trustees as to whether this is a value that we can gradually put aside, and fall more in line with the conventions of other UK charities, or whether our community wishes this to stay central in our values, expressed through visible and measurable actions by the Board of Trustees, and differentiates us from the way most other charities choose to function.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fae, in the good old days when we were colleagues on the Board, you talked a lot about the coming transition of the Board's role to strategic oversight, similar to the trustees of other charities. You complained informally that far too much board time was spent on minutiae. You put a lot of effort, successfully I think, into getting good-quality staff and processes in place to run the charity. You'll recall that I was an enthusiastic supporter of that Fae and wanted him to have a very central role. That Fae would have seen this: "I knew at the time if an email had been formally been sent to the WMF, the Charity Commission, or a significant meeting or an agreement was made a supplier or partner. In 2013, this does not happen." as progress.

I can't comment on whether the number of in-camera decisions is excessive because of course I don't know what they are. I know that there are good reasons as well as bad ones for keeping some decisions in-camera. I expect that as the chapter is professionalised, incidences of the good reasons (e.g. legal negotiations, duty of care to individuals, staff issues, sensitive issues concerning relations with other parts of the Wikimedia movement) will increase. I think it's reasonable to expect from the board some indication of the kind of categories of reason for deliberations to be private. Describing it as "operat[ing] behind closed doors" just sounds like hyperbole.

Personally, I think the coming priority for the members and enthusiasts who want to see Wikimedia grow and succeed ought to be to deal with the counterproductive and unnecessary hostile tone that characterises far too many of our internal communications. I don't think we can afford the assault on volunteer (and staff?) morale. Nor can we afford to have valid criticisms passed up because they're embedded in trivia and point-scoring, or because the combative tone discourages other people from engaging. I expect the Trustees to show leadership in this, and this means we should hold you to a high standard. So the sort of "visible actions" I want to see are adoption of a consensual style of working rather than an individual trustee pursuing a seemingly wrong-headed conception of their role in the organisation. I want each trustee to accept that they are not going to get their own way all the time, and that the best decisions have emerged, and will emerge, from a collegial approach. For the most part, the board are and have been good at this. That's the kind of positive change I'd like to see you focus on, and you might find that people hunker down less as a side-effect. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be surprised to find I am still the same person Martin, I know you are sore about it taking several months of me repeatedly raising concerns over the management of the Midas contract and the associated declaration of interest to reach a conclusion, but this thread is about the more general views of the members and the values we would like to see for the future board. If any member wants to know more of what is going on behind closed doors, they need to ask, I know of nothing so sensitive that the fact that the trustees have discussed it, or are currently discussing it must not be mentioned or appropriately summarized.

By the way, I estimate that only a minority of what is actually discussed behind closed doors would fit your example categories above. Most of the correspondence could easily be shared on-wiki or via a members email list, without any complications, particularly if a delay were introduced - for example discussion of significant blog posts for the charity that are public a day later. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, Fae, you keep asking these kind of leading questions of members. As I think I've said before, we don't appreciate being treated as pawns in your political point-scoring. Your concerns are valid, but you really don't help your case by playing these games. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tango, this is not the first time you have made these unsupported allegations of me using the members as pawns in some sort of weird unexplained political scheme. Considering I am not standing for election until 2014, and there is no political process I am involved with, could you explain exactly how me raising the question of how much of priority our value of openness is for the members, is supposed to benefit me politically and personally? From the comments here, if I were a politician, being the only trustee asking these questions looks like political suicide. Obviously if the leading members of our charity don't really care when one of the six trustees on the board of the charity is raising this question, then I'll just go along with keeping the business of the board in-camera. I can assure you, that without the scrutiny of members like yourself, there is far less for the board to worry about, though we should probably drop it from our list of Values if that is our new way of working. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Trying to keep to our values of openness and transparency is a laudable aim, and I should admit that I was the trustee who voted against the initial draft of the resolutions and later changed my vote after several days of discussion. I had spotted a drafting error, but found it beyond my powers to explain in simple terms the problem that it would cause. For that I apologise to my fellow trustees and to the membership. I also wanted to raise my concerns that a side-effect of the balancing provisions (Articles 16.3/16.4) which we were amending would be to decrease the stability of the Board at times when turnover was highest. I would prefer to see some three-year terms used to restore a 4-3 pattern of Elected Trustees in alternate years, rather than the one-year terms that are currently proposed at EGM 2013/Resolutions #Article 16 - particularly in the light of the Hudson Report's recommendation that trustee terms should be 2-3 years as is the norm in the charity sector. This debate took time, but was worthwhile. It could have taken place in public (and a very similar one did at Talk:EGM 2013/Resolutions), but having a little privacy can allow trustees to be rather more blunt with each other than would be seemly in public. In this case, there was no need, but we didn't know that when we started the discussions. Personally, I'm not too worried about having some debates in camera and later releasing them into public whenever we can. You have my assurance that in my remaining time on the Board, I shall continue to support those values of openness and transparency to the best of my abilities. --RexxS (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Expanding the descriptions of events

I'm faintly embarrassed that the text about the presentation and workshop I'm doing are taking up several lines on the front page, while the links to things like GLAM-Wiki and the EGM are very compact. The solution is not to cut down the descriptions of my stuff, which are correct and just long enough to say what the event is, but to improve the usability of links to the more important events.

• Does someone who is not part of our community, and just checking out this site to see what they can do to help Wikimedia, know that GLAM-Wiki is a very important conference, or even that it's a conference?
• Does someone who is active online but not experienced with companies and charities know what EGM stands for? Will they recognise that it's important from the initials?
• A lot of us regulars know what IRC is, but there are some very technical, internet-savvy people out there who have not heard of it. Will they know what an "IRC office hour" is? Maybe "virtual office hour (in online chat)" or something similar would get it across to them more clearly?
• I could make piecemeal changes myself, but we need a change in communication style from what we've long being doing, in order to appeal to more than just each other. If staff or more involved volunteers implement this change in style, the rest of us need to empower them to do it, and avoid being too conservative. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right Martin, the current descriptions are of less use if you're not up to speed with the charity and its activities. Even Wikipedians might not know what GLAM-Wiki is. Expanding the descriptions sounds like a good idea. Changing IRC office hour to something along the lines your suggest is something I'll be implementing and I'll see about coming up with something for the rest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Some really useful points here Martin and Richard, thank you. These are definitely the kind of things that we need to take into account when restructuring the wiki. As a broader point, something we lack as a wiki (as opposed to a conventional website) is a solid information architecture so hopefully when Richard and I work on this we can find some way, working with the community, to come up with something that's a bit easier to use and find a way around - especially for newcomers. Some user accessibility / user experience testing would be good too, especially if it's independent. Plenty to think about but one thing is for certain - we have to make things easier for everyone, especially new and potential volunteers and editors. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a consistent style would be good - either short notices of about four-six words, or a couple of lines for everything (other than, eg, meetups) to give details. (I tend to prefer the former - easier to have a month at a glance). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The next five - years, tell us what you want.

Towards a five year plan

Hello all - There is now a page on the wiki where you can start fleshing out what you want to see us doing over the next five years.

Plunge in, or take a while to have a look at the feedback from the event on Saturday and the situational review; there are links at the bottom of the page and very interesting they are too.

The timetable is quite tight if we are to have something substantial to discuss at the AGM so don't hesitate to get going.

Have a good Easter,

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Spreadsheets on-wiki

A lot of the business of the chapter relies on spreadsheets or complex tables that rapidly become unrealistic to maintain on-wiki. Can anyone recommend solutions? At the moment most key spreadsheets (such as the monthly financial reports) are sent around as Google spreadsheets, which means that any comments or changes are buried in emails and there is no systematic tracability. I note that Extension:Googledocviewer might be an option if we really are stuck with a Google solution and nothing better is possible at this time, this would at least make it possible to view spreadsheet reports on this wiki without jumping to another application. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This extension would be very helpful. I'll ask the tech team to enable it. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Richard asked me to take a look at this from a technical perspective. The extension looks fine technically, however I discovered that to get documents to display staff would have to select "publish to web" - this bypasses privacy controls and means anyone knowing the URL could access a read only copy of the document. That's above my pay grade to figure out if it is acceptable or not :D Certainly it seems OK for public documents. Oh, from a technical perspective we couldn't install it on *this* wiki because we don't yet have control of it. But following a migration it would certainly be possible. --ErrantX (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Digital Impacts: Crowdsourcing in the Arts and Humanities

I've just come across this event taking place on Tuesday 9 April at the Oxford Internet Institute. I wonder if there are any volunteers who might be interested in going and representing the Wikimedia movement? Do let me know if you're interested and we can make some arrangements. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of the humanities and crowdsourcing the Roman limes project led by WMDE might be an interesting topic of conversation at the event. And very topic given the Pompeii and Herculaneum exhibition at the BM which opened last week. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Request: Staff hierarchy

Could someone update the staff hierarchy at Staff? It does not explain how the current team of 11 staff and contractors are organized. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I will work on this and upload the new version when it is ready. I don't have a timescale for completion at this point as I have other pieces of work that have a higher priority. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a volunteer produced this before, I made the request on the Water cooler so that a volunteer could jump in again and help out so I was not particularly expecting this to be another staff job, especially as everyone is busy. In the meantime, for general information and to help a volunteer update the chart, is there a document that explains who is reporting to who at the moment? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation of how many laptops are currently available for events, 3 or 6?

Hi, I am a bit confused by a minor detail at Lua on Wikimedia. This says that the Office has 3 laptops available for loan. However as this is the only event on that day, I think there should be 6 laptops available at this event, considering that 3 additional cheap laptops were specifically purchased for volunteer use this year, and there were 3 previous to that. Could someone confirm the status of these and that the Fixed Asset Register is correct? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae. Both the Fixed Asset Register and the event page are correct. The other three laptops will not be at the event unless we really need them. One is in use by a volunteer, and the other two are unsuitable (being a Mac and a Chromebook) unless there is a huge demand for laptops. Thanks for bringing this up. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, perhaps the event page ought to say something along those lines and that a maximum of 5 are available. Certainly if an event is popular and more than 3 volunteers need laptops, then I would guess they are really needed, especially as there is no particular expectation that all our volunteers require a Windows operating system, particularly as I understand that the Office all use Macs. By the way, the event is more than six weeks away. I would be concerned if a volunteer were "borrowing" a laptop from the charity for months at a time, perhaps whoever this is, should put in a proposal of some sort so that the board of trustees are aware of why this is to the benefit of the charity. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, the office staff do not all use Macs. I believe three staff do, the remainder use Windows machines. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that, presumably that means there is no issue with loaning both the Windows and Mac laptops at events, with the single Chromebook as a backup. After experiencing one of the Lenovo Thinkpads being unable to cope with simply running Skype (plus my normal OS being Mac so Windows would slow me down as I would take ages to work out how to switch on the Dvorak keyboard layout), as a volunteer I would much rather be offered the much nicer Macbook Pro at future events. As it cost £1,100 I would like to see the charity get lots of use out of it.

Is there anything the chapter can say about long term loaner laptops for volunteers? If these are available, it would be sensible to make this a policy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As it has been 11 days now since I asked my question, I would guess there will be no answer forthcoming.

Just to be really clear, can someone please confirm that one of our laptops has not now been broken, lost or stolen, and that the volunteer that currently has one (as above) in their possession for an undefined period, for some reason, is known to the board of trustees? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As we're discussing a specific volunteer, even if that volunteer is unnamed, I'll drop you an email about it rather than reply here. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the other parts of my previous question can be answered for the benefit of members without revealing the name of the volunteer? For example what policy are long term loans of laptops covered under as I'm sure there are other members that might be helped in their volunteer activities if they can take such a loan? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it's more appropriate to do it by email rather than potentially upset a volunteer. I've sent it now though. The idea of cementing long-term loans is an interesting one, and potentially very useful, but I don't think it needs a board level policy - something for Katie to sort out instead. I'll drop her a note about it. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I find the charity is doing 80% of its business these days by emails and closed wikis not shared with the members. A pity compared to the 80% open of only 2 years ago. As a trustee, I am ultimately responsible for the management of the assets of the charity, so I find this approach of secrecy odd, we certainly have never accepted a non-transparent scholarship or microgrant request in the past, even if we may have accepted a pseudonym, so I don't understand why this is different for any reason. This is more "secret" than I would expect us to be, as in this case the trustees still apparently know absolutely nothing about it, and this is not covered by any agreed process that I was previously aware of, or that has been quoted here. I have separately raised the issue for consideration by the board and potentially the A&R Committee. If we need a policy to allow this sort of thing, then we should approve one, rather than leave this ad-hoc and uncontrolled, which in practice leaves the staff who appear to be making these decisions about long term loans of the charity's assets at some risk should things go wrong, as there are no delegated powers for them to do so and basic requirements for appropriate protection, such as insurance, do not seem to have been considered. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to comment on the MacBook Pro; during the security review I noticed that you (Fæ) and Jon had logged into it using personal accounts. My recommendation was that for the moment it be limited to Staff/Trustee or carefully supervised use until it could be properly cleaned & confirmed free of any possible personal details etc. --ErrantX (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Inspiration and imagination needed for the five year plan...

Please get your thoughts on the next five years down!

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Towards_a_five_year_plan_2013-18

There is an abundance of supporting material and ideas on the main page but what is mostly needed is your imagination and energy.

Jon

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments

It's that time of the year when planning for Wiki Loves Monuments picks up for those countries interested in taking part. In both 2011 & 2012, there were discussions about the UK taking part, but for various reasons it never ends up happening. I would really like to see it happen this year, and to that end have started the associated page on Wikimedia Commons.

For those who don't know, Wiki Loves Monuments is an annual photography competition running in September around cultural heritage monuments, which in the UK has in the past taken to mean listed buildings. Participants upload their photos to Wikimedia Commons, identifying it the subject of the photo to be one of the qualifying monuments with the best photos nationally and internationally winning prizes.

If you are interested in joining a working group to help with the organization, even just a little bit when you have time, please sign up on commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom. I would plan to have a phone conference in the near future to discuss what needs to be done, when it needs to be done by, who might be interested in doing it etc. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Katie, thanks for setting up the poll to find a time to talk. As this page is probably not very often looked at, maybe you could advertise on Commons as well? I see that there was a volunteer Wiki Loves Monuments brainstorm in 2012 about this, and the subpages have some useful information that could be picked up on now. Maybe a follow-up meeting would be helpful this year, especially as the community now has you working away in the background ;) Looking at the suggested timeline on this page, it seems we are already a month or so behind schedule. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've had to remove and revdel'd the link to the poll as it was leading to one or more spammer removing existing responses and adding response/comment that are racially or sexually inappropriate. Anyone reading this who want to join into the upcoming phone conference can contact me for a link to the poll. Thanks! -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Privacy policy - comment and edit

Hi All,

I've just published a new version of a Privacy Policy - we need to get this drafted to our satisfaction so the Trustees can approve a version which will apply to how the chapter manages all its sites, including QRpedia, facilitating the process of transferring the domain.

Because it's important we get this right, we'll get the final version checked by a lawyer - so feel free to edit and query as usual, but it may be that a final tweak beyond these changes to ensure the policy is compliant needs to happen.

I need to come back to out legal counsel by next Friday 19th April, so comments and changes before then would be wonderful :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit protected for Template:BoardApprovedHistory

I think that the first line of Template:BoardApprovedHistory needs to be changed from

[[{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}]] - {{{3}}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title=&oldid={{{4}}} approved revision]</span>{{#if:{{{lastid|}}}|, <span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title=&diff={{{lastid}}}&oldid={{{4}}} changes]</span>}})<br /><noinclude>

to

[[{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}]] - {{{3}}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title=&oldid={{{4}}} approved revision]</span>{{#if:{{{lastid|}}}|, <span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}}/index.php?title=&diff={{{4}}}&oldid={{{lastid}}} changes]</span>}})<br /><noinclude>

i.e. the two inputs for the diff are currently the wrong way around.

Thanks,

Yaris678 (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice some trouble with trying to get the template to work. See my comments at Template talk:BoardApprovedHistory. Yaris678 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright law support for UK GLAMs ?

Not sure if this is the best place to post, but here goes ...

One thing I found interesting at GLAM-WIKI 2013 was the extent to which GLAMs seemed to be very fearful of the complexities of copyright law, getting things wrong, and possibly being sued. This seems to be quite a large problem, to the extent that some GLAMs feel paralyzed and unable to do anything without seeking professional legal advice (which, to be honest, they don't want to get involved in, and which is anyway usually much too expensive). The GLAM-WIKI conference may arguably have not encouraged GLAMs who want to do the right thing but who are just scared of all the legal stuff. Indeed, several speakers mentioned that it is a 'difficult' area which they were not going to touch on. I'd like to think that WMUK could provide some more specialist help in this field.

Ideally, I'd like to see WMUK commit within the 5 year plan to putting some easy-to-understand copyright law resources in place for UK GLAMs, including on-line pages of information on the legal background (UK copyright specifically, but touching on US to the extent to which Commons needs to comply with that), as well as flyers and other resources focused on particular types of GLAM holding (old and new photographs, paintings, sculptures etc). Also, it would be good to have a UK Copyright law question and answer forum where GLAMs could seek informal advice, either on a specific point or on general issues affecting the opening up of their collections.

Hope that makes sense. If this would be of interest to the community, I would be happy to put some effort into it. As a newly-retired UK patent and trademark attorney (until March I was a partner in one of the top London firms) I do have a reasonable knowledge of UK law. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes very much sense. You may wish to start with Commons:Freedom of panorama and works that are of USA origin. You have two from w:List of Academy Award trophies on public display. The FOP page doesn't mention country of origin for 3D works on permanent display in the UK. Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter doesn't mention country of origin either in the 3D sculptures section. We may have to ask WMF legal weigh in on this one. Can you upload an FOP image from the UK of a 3D work with the country of origin being the USA where FOP is not allowed for statues?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A 3D US work on permanent display in the UK would fall under UK FoP copyright.

I would be happy to support a UK working group of some sort to help improve guidelines and policies related to GLAMs and copyright, perhaps with an emphasis on avoiding mistaken 'copyfraud'. In terms of location, doing this as a project on Commons would make the most sense to me, as any guidelines would have the most impact there; plus we could really do with attracting more contributors to related RFC and key deletion review discussions that are right at the cutting edge of this stuff. By the way, we have a lot of wikilawyers who will put forward what they think the law says, but few who will put in the spadework of researching and digging out legal cases to support an on-Commons case book; we have even fewer who can see the bigger picture and understand the difference between significant doubt and insignificant doubt that might be raised by fine hypothetical interpretation of the words of the law... Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant thought Michael and very practical - could also support non glammers. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

@Fæ, you may wish to clarify on Commons:Freedom of panorama as well as Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. Neither of those pages state anything about the country of origin. One editor at en:wp thinks we can't host images of Oscar taken in the UK because the statue is copyright in the USA where the servers are.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

At the conference in Milan, the WCA council rep from Armenia got a round of applause as they are the first country in their region to gain FoP. As a copyright concept it is critically important for open knowledge, I really don't like to see folks pointlessly whittling away at the fringes of it. Country of origin for a permanent work on public display is of course, irrelevant. Where the servers are can be relevant if the release relied on something like expired copyright; not the case for this scenario. It would be great if you could add your example and suggestion for clarification to the commons policy talk page; don't wait for me to get around to it. :-) --Fæ (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am worried about US copyright law for images hosted on commons. If we have a museum take a picture in the UK of the Oscar then will the Academy lawyer up when they see it on posters in the US? Does the US copyright law cover imported images of 3D works that are under copyright in the US?--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, that would be very useful, but my take on this is that it isn't always knowledge of copyright law that complicates this subject.

• Many institutions have objects and images that are on loan or otherwise subject to restrictions from the donor.
• Some institutions have objects and images that are considered culturally sensitive or may involve personality rights, especially in ethnographic collections.
• Sometimes the subject can be of such an apparent age that reasonable people would disagree as to whether they were adult.
• Sometimes the applicable law may itself be uncertain and the prevailing standards for seeking subject consent may have changed radically since the photo was taken. For example a 1930s photo showing a topless teenage woman in what was then the colony of a European power.....

Pre-screening image releases for the above may also be a non-trivial task.Checking the IP of this may be a non-trivial task for the institution, especially if this raises questions that may not have been considered when the loan was made.

Then there is the big tension between the role of ourselves and many GLAMs in making information available to all, and the marketing departments of many GLAMs who see digital images simply as a commercial opportunity (even if the copyright has expired). Some GLAMs seem to take the view that possession is >90% of the law, and they try to restrict the use and commercialise stuff even when they should know it is out of copyright.

Among GLAMs that are looking at this from a commercial angle there seems to be a divide as to whether their most lucrative route is to release High definition imagery under an open License thereby maximising use but not necessarily revenue; or whether it is more lucrative for them to release low to medium resolution imagery and get a larger proportion of users buying high res, but a smaller amount of use. Of course the equation changes as more high res imagery being available means that low and medium resolution imagery will tend to be used less, and while this has a big impact on potential image releases it isn't our place to advise GLAMs on commercial impact of releasing images.

Otherwise the institutions have three main approaches on this, One can almost envisage this as a triangle with the points marked "open", "cautious" and "commercial" and every organisation, and indeed GLAM worker seems to fit somewhere on that triangle. I'm beginning to think that there are enough GLAMs into making the material in their collections available to everyone that we should concentrate on them. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I entirely agree. There is no single thing that's needed, but more of a combintion of individual things. Most important of all, perhaps, is to get more volunteers. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

More volunteers would help, but also guidance in the form of case studies, copyright advice and maybe even Government guidance. Other aspects of this are international - I learned at the GLAM wiki conference about one government that is requesting digital copies of information from a UK GLAM. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

education-committee-l

The Education Committee is now communicating via the education-committee-l mailing list rather than private emails. This will ensure even more transparency and openness, as well as provide an easily accessible archive via the list information page. --Toni Sant (WMUK) (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Working with non-English language Wikipedias / language policy

Hello everyone. During a recent discussion about the Wikimedian in Residence role at the National Library of Scotland a valid point was raised about notifying Wikipedians who spoke Gaelic to the role. I think everyone is aware that there are opportunities for Wikimedia UK to do some excellent outreach work to speakers of non-English languages and Wikipedians who work on non-English language projects. These are not limited to what might be called indigenous UK languages such as Kernowac or Gaelic, but could also include languages that are pretty widely spoken such as Bengali, Polish and Hindi. If anyone has any suggestions on how we might successfully do this please do share them here. It was also noted that we may have a need for a language policy, particularly to cover any Wikimedian in Residence roles (and, potentially any eventual Wikimedia UK recruitment) in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again, comments and suggestions are very welcome. Thanks in advance for any input on this important topic! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The inspiration for such a Policy came from a discussion on Scotland, and therefore this thread should really only involve the WMUK's involvement in Scotland rather than an overarching linguistic policy on the situation of minority languages (such as Bengali) in England. Our Policy on Scotland must begin with the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 and Bòrd na Gàidhlig who are responsible for Gaelic on behalf of the Scottish Government. Wales has similar, yet stronger, legislation (including the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Act 2012) which gave the Welsh language official status in Wales - and I suggest that we also include Wales in our Policy, under a separate heading. In Wales the Welsh Language Commissioner ensures that "In Wales, the Welsh language should be treated no less favourably than the English language" and "Persons in Wales should be able to live their lives through the medium of the Welsh language if they choose to do so." There are common elements to both countries, which should be acknowledged as should over-riding international law, including European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (1996) and to some extent the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. -- Llywelyn2000 (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly counsel against taking a leaf from the UK's public sector rules on this; they are overly-heavyweight and proscriptive, and don't actually apply to Wikimedia or WMUK. Instead, the focus should be on engagement with and support for non-English language groups (be that Welsh/Gaelic/BSL/Polish/Bengali/Arabic/etc.) - the question really is "are there people with such interests in our communities?" - if yes, where are they and what do they want?; if no, are there things we're doing wrongly that we could correct, and/or are there appropriate groups with whom we can reach out to encourage such participation. Jdforrester (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Jdforrester - the employer here is The National Library, not WMUK, they are not only in the public sector but are bound by the laws (not "rules") of Scotland, and their own in-house language Policy. No, they don't apply to Wikimeda UK, but they certainly do to the employer. I've outlined my reasons above why the Policy should mention specifically the different countries (Scotland and Wales) and imho the title should reflect this; I suggest "WMUK's Language Policy for Wales and Scotland". A separate document could be written for other languages which have lesser legal status. In answer to the second half of you comment may I refer you to the Gaelic speaking community here where we have a very live Gaelic speaking wiki. Your most important comment are there things we're doing wrongly that we could correct is very honest and needs addressing. If we have ignored wiki-gd thus far, we need to embrace that community, support and encourage them to be part of our dream; more importantly: can we be part of their dream, their vision? A Language Policy to guide us would be a good start. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The most obvious thing is to ask the National Library of Scotland, as they deal with outreach to non-English minorities all the time for recruitment and the WIR is going to be their employee. It may be time for WMUK to run an open discussion about how best to engage with minority groups, this is more likely to reach meaningful conclusions if supported with advice from minority group organizations and using channels and forums where their members hangout. --Fæ (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Also as regards Irish, see Coláiste Feirste, a secondary Irish Medium School in Belfast.86.157.228.106 09:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Is there legislation for the Irish language in Northern Ireland? Do you have any other links, relevant to writing a language Policy? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Of course there are laws that we and our partners and potential partners need to follow, but we also need to remember that we are part of a global movement with a global mission. We have a huge amount of the world's heritage in the possession of UK GLAMs, and in many cases as with Tipu's Tiger and the British library's Canada collection we can be the facilitator to get global access to cultural information that is in the UK. Helping UK institutions reach out to non-English speakers here, as tourists or on the web could be at the heart of what the Wikimedia movement associates Wikimedia UK with. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree it would be great for WMUK to be known for the internationalism of our work with cultural heritage; and as you highlight we already are. Over the weekend we met with WMIN representatives to take this particular relationship forward due to obvious shared heritage with key assets in the British Library and other institutions that are of immense value for Indian culture and history. Similarly the initiatives you mention that I took part in sponsoring are great examples of simple international partnerships working within our movement.

We are a highly successful global movement, however we do not lead the field with expertise in multi-lingual outreach or accessibility, in fact, at times we are naff at it compared to other global organizations of volunteers. We had a successful global conference in Milan, however the conference materials and presentations were almost entirely in English and the conference venue and social venues failed to assure wheelchair access, even though we knew that one participant was restricted to a wheelchair (I'm aware of the issues that came up as I took some time out for a quiet and interesting chat about access with the person affected). As an example of our maturity along these lines, I think this is fairly normal for us, and even though we can probably think of counter-examples where it has worked much better, this has not yet transferred into policy and standard practice. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

From my experience of Wikipedia I thought that creating policies was something that comes naturally! But seriously though, I’d suggest that WMUK has some sort of guide at the very least if not a policy. Formally informing the Gaelic and Scots wikis of this post at the same time as the English one would have just been common courtesy. I don’t for one minute think there was an intention to insult, but its little oversights like this that tends go get people's back up and rightly or wrongly add to the perception that WMUK is more focussed on one langue wiki over others. IF it is agreed that a language/languages guide or policy is a good idea, then the Estyn Llaw project in Wales has a wealth of advice and guidance, some of which can be taken on board and adapted. Here are some suggestions (of mine) on how to draw up a guide:

Theme	Level (easy, tricky, wishful thinking!)	Example	Advantage	Risks	Obstacles	Solutions
Attracting staff with bilingual skills	tricky	Attracting Gaelic speakers to apply for WIR post	*Make good use of Gaelic material at NSL *Increase content on Gaelic wiki			Post notice on Gaelic wiki (!)
Organising events	easy	If arranging a series of events in Wales, arrange a proportion of them through the medium of Welsh	*Attract new editors in that language *Increase content on Welsh wiki		WMUK staff does not speak the language	*Ask local volunteers to help *If a GLAM type event, ask if partner organisation has Welsh speaking staff
Organising events	easy	If one event in Wales, make Welsh visable, e.g. have publicity/posters/webpage bilingually, greet guests in both languages	*Attract new editors in that language *Increase content on Welsh wiki		WMUK staff do not speak the language	Ask local volunteers to help *If a GLAM type event, ask if partner organisation has Welsh speaking staff
Publicity	easy (ish)	If promoting event/story related to Wales , send out press release in English and Welsh	Increase likelihood of story in Welsh language media	*Translation could mean delay *Translation could mean cost	WMUK staff do not speak the language	(cost) Ask local volunteers to help (time) Give volunteers plenty of notice

Anyway, just some thoughts/ ideas I wanted to share!--Rhyswynne (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• As a general rule I think we should work starting with existing Wikipedian communities, rather than trying to build from scratch. This is what we have successfully done in Wales, & pretty much failed to do with the "non-native" language communities in the UK. As far as I can see the level of activity on the Gaelic WP is really very low, & most editors are probably based in the relatively Gaelic-speaking areas. We don't AFAIK have an inside contact, equivalent to Robin, which is an essential first step; then we'd be able to announce things to the Gaelic WP in Gaelic, which of course we should do with things like this. By all means add it as a desirable thing for the Edinburgh post, but I don't see we need a policy. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course, it depends what we mean by policy. We don't want to break anybody's balls over this and we don't want a load of legalistic verbiage. But some kind of direction would be useful. I think Rhyswynne's table is an excellent start for that and I also agree with Johnbod that working with existing Wikimedian communities will help in a lot of respects. Yaris678 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• FYI elsewhere in Wikimedia, these languages don't even have dedicated Wikisources yet. I mention this as the original conversation brought up "Gaelic manuscripts and books" and "Scots classics" at the National Library of Scotland. Multilingual Wikisource covers them, however. Gàidhlig currently has a glorious one text (and, even then, has no source for it), while Kernewek has twenty texts and Gaeilge has many. Scots is actually part of English Wikisource, with 22 texts. This doesn't even need material from NLS to rectify, the Internet Archive has at least a few works available (Example). It just needs people. (NB: All appear to have Wiktionaries but Gàidhlig Wiktionary looks to be in bad shape.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  Further to this: NLS have a section on the Internet Archive but all their texts appear it have CC-BY-NC licences (even the clearly PD-old Victorian works). The copyfraud is easily ignorable but it would help if they didn't do that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created a DRAFT Welsh Language Policy here based on the Language Commisioner's recommended template: Help Llaw. To keep everything together I suggest that any comments be kept here at the Water Cooler! I also suggest a new second policy to follow, should we agree on this one, based of the Scottish Gaelic. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from any specific issues that I may have with your draft, I would say that this is not the sort of policy we want. It is a statement of something that looks like a good idea, rather than an analysis of problems, opportunities or options. I much prefer Rhyswynne's table because it is a good start at an analysis of what our options are. Yaris678 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WMUK should have both. Strategic policy and an operational action plan are different things; albeit things that should work together. The draft has a lot that Rhyswynne's table misses (and probably couldn't include) such as communication in Welsh. That does, however, bring up a potential problem: WMUK is not a large organisation and does not, to my knowledge, currently employ anyone fluent in Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Cornish etc. A commitment to answering communications in Welsh and without a delay is probably a bit too much (even with Google Translate available), especially if extended to the other native languages of the UK. Defining it as an aspiration but acknowledging the potential for a delay might be more realistic. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Another thought: Putting something on the Main Page about language coverage would be useful. Just a footer box, along the line of the sister links on most wiki projects, would be enough. It would be a natural assumption to read WMUK as WMEngland; something pointing out the wider remit could offset that. When/if other-language pages are made for this wiki (eg. Main Page/cy) they could be linked from here. In the meantime it could just be a simple selection of relevant languages (or possibly links to the the assorted projects within those langagues, as long as no suggestion of possession or authority is made). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that putting something on the main page about language would be useful.

A commitment to answering communications in Welsh and without a delay is clearly impractical at the moment... but maybe it would be a good target to aim for... or maybe we should spend our energies on something else. It's difficult to know when no analysis is included. If we did make it a target then knowing why it was a target would probably be a lot more useful than knowing that it was a target. And, of course, setting out some actions to meet the target is also essential, 1. so it isn't just wishful thinking and 2. so we can look at those actions to assess how much effort it will take. Maybe we want to commit to it if it is straight forward but not if it is really complicated. And that is just that bit of the policy. Maybe other bits of it are equally open to question... but it's difficult to know because we don't know why they are in there. Do you see my point? Yaris678 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My table was only just a sample of what could be included. The draft contains parts that could be implemented right away (e.g. the 'Planning' bit) while some parts may never be adopted. I'm not sur ehow WMUK goes about drawung up policies/guidleines, but how about breaking the draft down to a similar table with a column for people to accept/oppose each 'theme' and cite reasons. --This comment was added by Rhyswynne at 08:40, 25 April 2013‎

Syniad da Rhys. Dw i'n awgrymu fod hynny'n digwydd rwan, efallai ar dudalen ar wahan i hwn fel bod pawb yn medru ei ddeall. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This table is a great start. I suggest that Rhys uploads it onto his namespace so that we can all amend and discuss it there. I also like the suggestion that we replicate and translate WMUK's home page into Welsh asap, with a link to two or three fluent Welsh speakers who could discuss with members, potential members and users in Welsh, if that is their preferred language. In fact a number of WMUK's staff and Board members have suggested this over the last year. A bilingual article was actually published in our Report Section.

The question of why we need to do this (asked by User:Yaris678) can be answered in many ways: Dafydd Iwan's poetry mentions that only a fool asks "why is snow white"? Another answer would be because it is there, but crucially: to respect the wishes of members or users who prefer speaking in their own language or because there is legislation in Wales endorses it, and will in the next couple of years demand it, as they do with the main institutions and local government. Another reason of course is that WMUK in Wales can seem to be, to many people, a very foreign creature, and that may be the reason why the Scots Gaelic and the Welsh language (apart from a handful of us) do not bother joining let alone participate. But my personal reason why we need to do this is that we need to reach out with our vision and enthusiasm to people who are much happier speaking Welsh and I we must respect that choice or alienate them. It's part of a worldwide movement which strives for the conservation of the rich diversity of culture on this planet; the opposite is a Big Brother, totalitarian, monotone-grey, state.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, my suggested action plan involves the only two languages which are indigenous to the countries of Britain and which are protected by legislation: Scottish (and Irish?) Gaelic and Welsh. Once this is in place we can look at other languages. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You've given some reasons to do a lot more in the area of non-English languages but not necessarily reasons that lead us to what that should be. I think everyone agrees that we want to improve things in the area of non-English languages. We are just trying to work out what to do. Your reference to a totalitarian state is dangerously close to Reductio ad Hitlerum. Yaris678 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the first and easiest tasks would be to create a few core pages in each language on this wiki. The main pages are obvious and it will probably help if a few other important pages are done too (perhaps Membership, Events, Contact us and Board). I would signify language with a subpage (eg. Main Page/cy, Main Page/sco, Membership/cy, Membership/sco etc.) but if anyone has a better idea please say so. There appear to be enough Welsh speakers here to handle that set. Perhaps others could be found on the appropriate projects; the Scottish ones could come out of the NLS WIR. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AdamBMorgan, I've now translated around five of these suggested pages, as testspace; please feel free to amend the links etc.

AdamBMorgan said: A commitment to answering communications in Welsh and without a delay is probably a bit too much (even with Google Translate available)... One possible answer to the fact that staff at HQ do not speak fluent Welsh is to pass on any such communication to any one of the 120 fluent Welsh speakers who edit the Wici Cymraeg regulary; I certainly would be willing to answer any phonecalls, emails or other correspondance passed on to me and I know that other would also do this. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Table of language scope

English	(English)	en	Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Wiktionary
Cymraeg	(Welsh)	cy	Wicipedia, Wiciddyfynnu, Wicidestun, Wicidaith,[1] Wiciadur
Scots	(Scots)	sco	Wikipædia, Wikisource,[3] Wiktionar[1]
Gaeilge	(Irish)	ga	Vicipéid, Vicíshliocht,[1] Vicífhoinse,[2] Vicífhoclóir
Gàidhlig	(Scottish Gaelic)	gd	Uicipeid, Uicitobar,[2] Wiktionary
Kernowek	(Cornish)	kw	Wikipedya, Wikisource,[2] Wiktionary
Gaelg	(Manx)	gv	Wikipedia, Wikiockleyr
Englissh	(Middle English)	enm	Wikipædia,[1] Wikisource,[3] Wiktionary[4]
Ænglisc	(Old English)	ang	Ƿicibēc, Ƿikipǣdie, ǷicicǷide,[1] Ƿicifruma,[3] Ƿikiƿordbōc
Multilingual		mul	Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, Wikispecies
[1] This project is on the Incubator - [2] This project is part of Multilingual Wikisource - [3] This is part of English Wikisource - [4] This is part of English Wiktionary

Spinning off from my comment above, I've started this table of UK languages and associated wikiprojects: {{Projectslang}}. This table just lists native languages at the moment, not the significant non-native languages like Polish, Punjabi or Urdu. It also doesn't list the currently unsupported native languages like Angloromani and Shelta. Two extinct languages are included because there are Wikimedia projects in those languages. The bold names link to potential main pages and there is some minor language switching in the bracketed language names (assuming the subpage name is the language code). The, currently unlinked, footnotes will need to be lang-switched too (and the method of doing so can stand to be upgraded too).

As for why bother with this, this can be placed on an appropriate languages page (or pages, as there really should be one of those for each language) or, if suitably amended, on the main page. It shows what languages Wikimedia UK could/should support and what projects could be supported as a result. It also at least acknowledges that these languages and projects exist, compared to the very English-Wikipedia-only appearance of WMUK at the moment (of course, the demographics are likely to always push in that direction).

Feel free to amend or ignore as desired. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A great spinoff! I'll amend it a little on the Wicipedia Cymraeg; really useful. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thanks for putting this together. I would be cautious and spell out that this is not intended to limit Wikimedia UK if this table, or similar, is used in relation to the projects of the charity. The charity's scope is not limited to current or past "native languages" and there may be value in finding figures for all non-English languages in the UK as a basis for judging how much impact new project proposals might have for the beneficiaries of the charity (not restricted to people in the UK). As has been mentioned previously, statistically Polish is one of the highest used languages in the UK today, so encouraging Polish readers and writers to take part in our projects is probably an easy win. I doubt there is any need to make a choice between approaches, as it makes sense for us to aim to be as inclusive and diverse as possible. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fæ, I can appreciate that table might give the impression of limiting the scope of the chapter if it were used in the wrong way. But so long as we are mindful of that risk it should be manageable.

I think some of the recent ideas generated by Adam and Llywelyn have been excellent and fit well into WMUK being a volunteer-led organisation. I really like the idea of mobilising volunteers to represent WMUK in non-English languages.

Adam, Llywelyn, what do you think of the idea of doing a specific media training session in Wales for Welsh speakers who would like to represent WMUK to Welsh-language Media? This is just an idea I have now, but if we speak to the right people I think we should be able to persuade them.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, I'd support that. It would be cool to have snippets of the odd event/workshop in Welsh on video too. :-) --Fæ (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Press coverage page

Is there any reason we don't have a page on-wiki for Press coverage? So that community members can add coverage of WMUK-related stuff in newspapers and other similar sources. Because, you know, BBC News coverage of the NLS job. Shall I be bold and make a page where we can dump all that stuff in one place, rather than having it scattered in monthly reports and so on? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Great idea - there is an old one and we put them in the monthly report but this is sensible - Can we leave him to comment on this for although he sleeps with the Westcoasters he will awake later today.

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tom, this is a good idea. We do record press coverage in our monthly reports but a separate page may be useful. Please, do go ahead and be bold! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wellcome Collection and CRUK meetings

I have arranged meetings next week with Wellcome Collection and Cancer Research UK (these are not linked, however both on 3rd May, London), and looking for a member of community that may be interested in attending.

Wellcome Collection meeting will look at options of future cooperation between the institutions.

Cancer Research UK will look at their recent external funding bid for a Wikimedian in Residence and see how we can improve it. Someone involved in the WikiProject Medicine may find this useful - at the same time this is an initial meeting focused on looking at paperwork and may not be of interest.

Any suggestions of volunteers that may benefit the meetings would be helpful. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point about WikiProject Medicine. I have been bold and posted there. Yaris678 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

2013-18 Five Year Plan, first draft.

The first draft based on the 23rd of March event, comments received so far and our previous version is now up for discussion on the wiki.

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Towards_a_five_year_plan_2013-18

I look forward to your comments. This version will be brought to the board for their comments in May. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Botswana

Can anyone help Wikimedia Botswana with drafting their docs? (sorry for not linking it correctly)

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Botswana

Philafrenzy (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)