2012 Annual Report/Design

This page is for comments, edits and feedback on the designed PDF of the 2012 Wikimedia UK Annual Report. The PDF is below. Please add in your views under the relevant sub heading for each printed page. Corrections and suggestions will be sent to the report's designer on Monday 16 April so we can get a second iteration of the designed report. Many thanks - and apologies if the formatting on wiki isn't perfect! Please do use the discussion page. --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The latest version of the report has now been uploaded to the Wiki. From the list of amends below I've removed those that have already been made. Please review the report and note any amends. We're getting close to the point where the PDF needs to be with the printer now so if you'd like copy changes please note these in full if possible. I'm looking for changes to be noted by 10am, Monday 23 April. Thank you. --Stevie Benton (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page one (front cover)

Question: What's the image? It doesn't immediately say "Wikimedia" to me. The Land (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Monnow Bridge, Monmouth. Connection with Monmouthpedia. Mike Peel (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  - If I didn't see the connection with our work, is anyone else who picks up the Annual Report going to? The Land (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Page two (inside front cover)

List Jon together with other staff rather than separately. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

State that the screenshots of webpages on page 7 are used under the Fair Dealing copyright exception. Also check copyright of Wikipedia blackoug page with WMF. Mike Peel (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- - The blackout image is CC-BY-SA 3.0 on Commons so it's fine. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bottom of the page, specify 3.0 after CC-BY-SA. Same paragraph, change Wikimedia UMK to Wikimedia UK. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change the colour of "Contents" from green to blue.

Page three

Suggestion: Double-spacing after full stops would be useful. Mike Peel (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Some comments on the prose:
- Roger's section - the most important information about what Wikimedia UK has achieved as an organisation is the 2nd half of the first paragraph. We should probably open with more of this, and then talk about Roger's personal experiences later.

I think it works quite well in terms of setting the scene and telling a story. What do others think? --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Are we sure it should say "2012-2012 Chair"? -- KTC (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page four

Correction: change membership increase figure to 165. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: 'Double' or "x2" for membership increase Mike Peel (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Update: change September 2011 box - remove current content, replace with "GLAM events in Bristol, Coventry, Derby and London - --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page five

Correction: Second column, first paragraph: change sentence to "they are writers and editors just like us." --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can things be tweaked so there the second column starts with a new paragraph? Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, the text on this page currently doesn't distinguish well between WMUK and WMF fundraising efforts. E.g. the leafy green backgrounds was a WMF discovery, which WMUK replicated. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm still learning the distinction myself! Think we should leave in the line about the leafy background if poss, it's the kind of little colourful detail that people love! --Stevie Benton (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We need to talk somewhere about what the money is spent on. In particular we need to be clear that just over half of the money we raise is passed on to the Wikimedia Foundation and ensures Wikipedia keeps running, while the other half is spent supporting our programme work in the UK. I don't know whether we're including any summary accounts in this document? The Land (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't checked the figures, but I should do when I get a moment. The Land (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The plan is for this document to be an at-a-glance overview. The financial data will be properly covered in the SORP report to the Charity Commission. This one is for members, donors and the general public. --Stevie Benton (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Page six

The white text on a black background is rather difficult to read with this font (or perhaps I've been staring at this computer screen too much today...) Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- In general, white body text on a black background is very poor for readability. Maybe there is a way to get round this by putting the background on a gradient...? Stevie, I think this needs some thought. The Land (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I found it very readable, actually, and if anything it will look better on paper than on screen. I wouldn't want the whole report to be white-on-black, but having this page in separate colours marks it out in a striking way, which I like. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

While white on black isn't the best combination on screen, it's much, much better printed. I think the impact it has is worthwhile as well, contrasting as it does with the rest of the document. So, basically what Martin said. --Stevie Benton (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs to talk about WMUK's role here as distinct from Wikipedia - i.e. that the blackout was the Wikipedia community's decision, and that WMUK was just involved in communicating what was going on, and why, with the world rather than doing lobbying. Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The Land (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  - Any suggestions? --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest reducing the amount of the New Statesman article quoted, and try to find some more statistics on the scale and impact of the blackout? At the moment it's 3/4 of a page of text on the same subject, which is a lot. Could do with breaking up a bit more. 10:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

--Stevie Benton (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page seven

It's local media, but maybe worth a screenshot: [1] MartinPoulter (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Page eight

Suggestion: play up the fact that the very first 'editathon' ever was at the British Library in January 2011. We (<ego>me and Tango</ego>) came up with the concept, and it's now been replicated world-wide to great success. Mike Peel (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- I second this. :-) The Land (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy to do so if someone could give me a line. I don't really know about this. --Stevie Benton (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if we could include some figures about the number of museums, galleries, archives etc we are working with, and the total attendance at GLAM events over the last year. The number would be quite impressive. Also, this will be read by various GLAM institutions, might be a good idea to mention contact details to use if someone wants to get in touch regarding outreach opportunities! The Land (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we should reduce the amount of space we give Liam on this page. It's all good stuff, but Liam isn't familiar to most of our audience. The Land (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Re this and the point above - happy to trim Liam's content if there's some figures we can use. Happy to use figures, if anyone can supply some! --Stevie Benton (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I'd approach it is by looking at everything on the events page that's GLAM activity, most events have an attendance list, if they don't then one of us will probably know a ballpark figure. Not sure I'll have time to do that tonight, do you have a chance to? The Land (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Page nine

Speaking of JISC, can we mention that we're also working with them on Wikipedia's role as an Open Educational Resource for the centenary of World War I? The Land (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest against this as its quite a ways off (as I understand it). Not precious though, happy to mention. --Stevie Benton (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're working with them now, and the relationship was started in the FY the report is about...wouldn't go into much detail though! The Land (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As per the suggestion, please add in to "Part of the national landscape" section: We're also working with the JISC on a project marking the centenary of World War I. --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page ten

To feature infographic currently being designed. UPDATE: Infographic is not suitable for the report due to its epic size. I'll prepare some text and images on Monmouth and circulate ASAP. --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Given that Monmouth is more of a 2012-13 story (most of it is/has been taking place after February 2012), I would suggest taking content from the 2012 Activity Plan and putting that in here instead, giving an overview of the projects that are taking place over the year (where they haven't already been covered elsewhere). Mike Peel (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Page eleven (inside back cover)

Correction: First column, second para - professionally organised > professionally-organised. Rock drum (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Page twelve (Outside back cover)

Replace Nottingham address with Development House address as our registered address. --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- No point having the address in two places, so remove first mention of address. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This page should really use the Wikimedia logo without localisation if it's being used to link all of the Wikimedia sister projects together... Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Add @wikimediauk (twitter/identi.ca)? Mike Peel (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I found this page a bit uninspiring. I suggest shrinking the text and the graphic, and making room for a couple of sentences that persuade someone who picks up the document that they should open it and read the whole thing. How about "Over the past year, Wikimedia UK has been officially recognised as a charity, set up an office with four full-time staff, and a raised a million pounds in its record-breaking fundraiser. This report shows the variety of ways we are working towards the Wikimedia goal of free knowledge for everyone." Shrinking the text at the top would make for more whitespace around it, which would look more professional. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The logos are only really identifiable to insiders and may be off-putting to a general audience. We really need text labels to explain what all these projects are. Clockwise from the top: Wikimania, Wikibooks, Meta-Wiki, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, MediaWiki, Wikiversity, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia. In my experience, people who are fans of Wikipedia but don't know much more about us have their imagination fired up when they hear that there are projects called Wikiversity and Wikispecies. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

General notes

Correction: remove all full stops from pull quotes --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: Can we replace some of the yellow with out brand colours? --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks really, really good - great work! Mike Peel (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)