See below for submissions to Wikimania, an important gathering to help the
Wikimedia community learn about how to collaborate with heritage
institutions to fill knowledge gaps!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:21 PM
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2018 Call for Submissions
To: "Wikimania general list (open subscription)" <
wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia Mailing List <
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Program committee list <wikimania-program(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Dear Wikimedia community,
We are pleased to announce that Wikimania 2018 is now accepting proposals
for workshops, discussions, presentations, or research posters to give
during the conference. To read the full instructions visit the event wiki
and click on the link provided there to make your proposal:
https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions
The deadline for submissions is 23:59 UTC on *Sunday March 18, 2018*.
This is approximately 6 weeks away. Whether you are a community member of
one of the Wikimedia projects, or a fellow open content creator or
consumer, we welcome your proposal for a session.
*Theme*
This year, the conference will be taking place in Cape Town, South Africa,
where the organisers are giving this Wikimania a unique flavor — an
explicit theme based in African philosophy:
“Bridging knowledge gaps, the *ubuntu* way forward.”
Read more about this theme, why it was chosen, and what it means for the
conference program at the Wikimedia blog:
*https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/02/05/wikimania-cape-town-ubuntu/
<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/02/05/wikimania-cape-town-ubuntu/>*
Throughout the conference program, this theme will be tightly held, but
loosely defined - in order to encourage a diverse range of responses to the
theme. It is our hope that this theme will give us the opportunity to
further our goal of creating the “sum of human knowledge”, by encouraging
greater diversity and inclusion in who participates and what we discuss at
Wikimania.
To learn more, and to make a proposal for the conference, please visit:
https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions
Please forward this announcement to other lists and groups across the
Wikimedia movement.
<https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions>
We look forward to reading your submissions. Sincerely,
*Program committee co-chairs Emna Mizouni, Felix Nartey, and Liam Wyatt.*
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
--
Alex Stinson
GLAM-Wiki Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
Twitter:@glamwiki/@sadads
Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other
Wikimedia projects partner with cultural heritage organizations:
http://glamwiki.org
Hello Wikimedia colleagues,
Some of you may remember the LearnWiki project [0]. Regrettably, the
project goals were not completed within the planned timeline and budget. If
you would like to read that grant's final report, you may find it here [1].
I continue to believe that there would be value in offering more online
training to Wikimedians through videos, and possibly interactive tutorials
and other resources, that could help Wikimedians with novice to
intermediate skill levels to improve their proficiency with navigating
Wikimedia online cultures, principles, referencing, VisualEditor, the 2017
New WikiText Editor (which I like to call "NEWT") [2], and other topics.
Currently, there is a variety of training throughout the Wikimedia
ecosystem. Training varies across projects (e.g. Wikipedia, Wikidata,
Commons), languages (e.g. English, Arabic, Japanese), settings (e.g. GLAM
workshops, university classes, online individual study), formats (e.g. in
person, remote, video, interactive tutorial, lecture), and themes (e.g.
Wiki Loves Monuments, Women in Red, WikiProject Military History).
I plan to create and distribute a survey during the next few months to ask
individual Wikimedians and Wikimedia affiliate organizations about the
training practices that you have used to train yourself or others, how
effective you think that those training practices are, and what types of
training you would like to have available in the future. This survey would
inform the development of training materials and methods.
Improving the quality and diversity of training is a long term goal of
mine. This campaign is currently not funded by the Wikimedia Foundation or
any Wikimedia affiliate, although I believe that the survey data will
provide valuable input for possible projects, and people may request
funding for some of those projects (whether or not they are collaborating
with me). I do not plan to request WMF funds for myself in the foreseeable
future, but I may request funding for other contractors or grantees for
some projects that are related to this campaign and who collaborate with
me. While I work on this initiative, I anticipate that numerous Wikimedia
affiliates and program leaders will continue to develop and refine a
variety of training materials, some of which will be funded by WMF,
affiliates, and/or other organizations. I hope to collaborate with others,
incrementally and over the course of years, to improve the quality and
diversity of training throughout the Wikimedia ecosystem.
I believe that WMF is planning to launch the 2018 Community Engagement
Insights survey in March, and to publish results in May. [3] The CEI survey
results from 2017 and 2018 are likely to influence plans for development of
training materials, although the survey that is focused on training will be
separate from the 2018 CEI survey. I plan to collaborate with WMF Community
Resources and WMF Learning and Evaluation *if* they have availability and
willingness to participate in the design and analysis of the training
survey. :)
Further updates about the training survey will be provided during the next
few months. In the meantime, you are welcome to contact me with questions
or comments through email, IRC, or on my Meta talk page, especially if you
would like to help with the design of the survey.
Regards,
Pine <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine>
[0] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Learnwiki
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Motivational_and_educational_vid…
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/2017_wikitext_editor
]3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights
Hi all,
As part of the Structured Data on Commons program, Jonathan Morgan and
Sandra Fauconnier were able to interview a number of GLAM project
participants or include them in a survey, to examine how Commons is used by
that community and how we could support them. In the research, they
highlight a number of both social and technological challenges faced by
that group, alongside the needs of the Commons community.
I highly recommend either reading the report, or watching the the video
documented at:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/01/29/glam-multimedia-metadata-commons/
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
--
Alex Stinson
GLAM-Wiki Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
Twitter:@glamwiki/@sadads
Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other
Wikimedia projects partner with cultural heritage organizations:
http://glamwiki.org
Calling all Program leaders!
You may have seen that we updated the case studies page on Outreach Wiki.
We got a few good submissions, and we greatly appreciate those who took the
time to submit their Case Studies during this initial campaign! [1]
We want to showcase and highlight the great work that is going on around
the world in GLAM, Education, and other programs. For that reason, we have
decided to extend the case studies collection period, and will be providing
additional opportunities to work on case studies together!
Additionally, at Wikimedia Conference, Wikimania and other regional
conferences, we will be holding clinics to help you draft your case study.
We will also hold several virtual clinics where Wikimedia Foundation
Programs staff can give you feedback and support on developing your own
case studies (keep your eye out for invitations for these workshops!).
If you thought you might want to submit a case study, but haven’t done so
yet: please let us know that you are interested by responding to this email!
We can support you in drafting or developing the case study using the case
study templates on outreach.[2] If you would like to share a case study you
have already drafted, you can still do so through the input boxes on the
same page.
Remember case studies can be submitted in English or local languages.
Thank you again for participating in this important initiative. We look
forward to seeing you at the upcoming case study clinics!
Sincerely,
The WMF Programs Team
[1] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Case_studies
[2] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Case_studies#write
--
Alex Stinson
GLAM-Wiki Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation
Twitter:@glamwiki/@sadads
Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other
Wikimedia projects partner with cultural heritage organizations:
http://glamwiki.org
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Asaf Bartov <abartov(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:59 PM
Subject: Let's map capacities! (Announcing the CCM)
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Dear Wikimedians,
*How many Wikimedia communities have embraced advanced Wikidata use? How
many have active social media accounts, and are there geographic or
cultural patterns to which groups have and have not? Which groups have a
written, current strategy? What are the most common gaps in capacity in
Latin America? or in Eastern Europe? What kind of investment in capacity
building would be likely to bring the most value?*
To answer these questions and more, we invite all of you to participate in
the new *Community Capacity Map (CCM)*: a *self-assessment exercise* for
communities, groups (whether formally recognized user groups or not),
thematic organizations, and chapters, to *map capacities* across the
movement, with a view to identifying *existing gaps* as well as *opportunities
for capacity-building*.
The CCM is here on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map
The context for this work, as well as "likely-asked questions, with
answers" ("LAQ"?), are explained here, including an answer to "*why should
I take the time to read all this?*" --
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/About
(and also pasted at the bottom of this e-mail, for your convenience.)
The self-assessment is to be done based on the detailed *Guidelines* provided
here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines
I am looking forward to learning more about your groups' and orgs'
capacities and gaps, and to do my best to play matchmaker between those
needs and our available resources and opportunities. While I encourage you
to begin contributing straightaway, *there is no deadline *-- this is
envisioned to be a long-term, ongoing, and tracked-over-time tool -- so
contribute if and when your group is able to make the time.
(don't forget to scroll down to the LAQ!)
Warmly,
Asaf Bartov
Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities
==========================================
Likely-asked questions, with answers
this exists with working links and [modest] formatting here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/About#Likely-asked_q…
Why do this at all? The Community Resources team is doing this to attempt
a more *comprehensive* view of capacities and gaps across the movement, to
enhance our existing, anecdotal and ad-hoc, impressions of only some of the
communities and affiliates. See the goal statement above. Why now? The CCM
experiment is an implementation of one of the recommendations made at the
conclusion of the Community Capacity Development pilot year
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development/Overall_pilo…>
. Why should I spend the time to read through it or go through the
self-assessment? There are a couple of reasons you may want to put in the
time: First, by self-assessing your group/organization's capacities and
gaps, you are giving WMF and other potential investors in community
capacity a chance to provide your group/org with resources and
opportunities to *build up* those capacities. Secondly, self-assessing
according to the Guidelines page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines> may be
in itself a worthwhile exercise and discussion-starter for your group/org,
pointing at potential areas for proactive work by *your org/group itself*,
for example in your next annual plan. Finally, self-assessing (at least
some) capacities today would enable you to review and re-assess in six
months, or two years, and see how your group/org has developed (or not) in
each of these aspects. So does WMF expect all groups and organizations to
do this? No. This is an opportunity and a tool. Like all other tools, you
are free to use it or not, and we certainly understand that it would take
time and that you may have more pressing priorities in your group/org. We
*hope* as many groups, organizations, and communities eventually take the
time to self-assess, at least on some capacities, but it is not mandatory,
and there would be no penalty for not participating. Would we have to
provide self-assessments for *all* of the capacities? No. Feel free to
self-assess on as many or as few capacities as you are able to, interested
in, or find relevant. You can also add assessments gradually, as your
group/org finds time to discuss and agree on assessments. Should I assess
capacities in the context of my wiki community, my user-group/chapter, or
what? It depends. It may make sense to do separate assessments, or just
one. For example, while the English community has plenty of bot builders
and technical experts, you may belong to a small community contributing in
English in a country with little or no bot-building expertise, such as
Wikimedians in Uganda. In this case, it would make sense to describe the
capacities of the Ugandan group you're part of, and not of the whole
English Wikipedia community. On the other hand, it is possible that there
is a very high degree of overlap between the Estonian community's
capacities and the Estonian chapter's capacities, and in that case, it may
be most useful to assess just once, for the Estonian community *or*
Wikimedia Estonia, or possibly once for the community for on-wiki
capacities, and separately for Wikimedia Estonia only for the
organizational and off-wiki capacities. See the Guidelines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines> page
for more details. Okay, and suppose we did put in the time and provided
some assessments. What can we expect next? You can expect, at the very
least, one program officer at Community Resources paying attention to your
contribution, and possibly, depending on each specific capacity and
assessment, that officer may have resources or opportunities to suggest to
your community/group/org. *The more groups provide assessments, the
better-informed WMF would be*, and the more likely it would be that *WMF
could allocate resources and create training opportunities* for your group.
Shared needs in a region would increase the likelihood of WMF acting even
further, as it would allow economizing on the investment by
training/supporting several groups/communities at once. Are you saying if X
number of communities demonstrate need Y, WMF is *guaranteed* to allocate
resources to fill that need? I'm afraid not. But it does make it *more
likely*, in that it demonstrates the need, making it easier to argue for it
in internal budgeting and allocation discussions, and to marshal internal
WMF resources (such as borrowing the time of subject experts at WMF to
conduct training or mentor groups). Okay, so how would WMF decide which
communities to offer resources to? There's no simple deterministic
algorithm, but WMF would prioritize emerging communities
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Comm…>
over other communities, larger groups serving larger populations over
smaller ones, and at least at first, would probably prioritize "low-hanging
fruit" -- lower-cost/lower-risk investments, as we learn and improve this
program's use of resources. Wouldn't the fact these are self-assessments
mean we'd be comparing apples to oranges, given some groups would
overestimate or underestimate their own capacities? No. We do understand
there are some cultural tendencies (some cultures are more self-critical
than others, or have rosier or more pessimistic views of future prospects
and current capabilities). However, we think the fairly coarse granularity
of the assessments (none/low/medium/high), coupled with *the Guidelines
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines>* for
self-assessing, would lead most groups to make reasonably comparable
assessments. Ultimately, these would remain subjective and unscientific
assessments; but they would certainly at least indicate a group/org's *own*
perception of their capacity. And before WMF (or others interested in
investing in capacity building) make a decision to tackle a particular
capacity with a particular community/group/org/region, we would be sure to
take into consideration *all the relevant context* we have, i.e. not just
the aggregate of the self-assessments in the CCM, but also all the
accumulated experience, context, and history we are aware of at WMF,
regarding that community/group/org/region. Okay, this may not be *the worst*
idea ever to come from WMF We're glad you think so. :) What if none of
this turns out the way you hope? Then we'll archive these pages and look
for other ways to do effective capacity building. The CCM is an experiment,
based on observed needs and an expectation that it would be useful. But we
are ready to learn that it may not, and to change course if necessary.
Let's give it a shot, though! What if I have another question? Use the
talk page! :)
Hello everyone,
In a partnership between Wiki Educação Brasil and the 3D Designer Cicero Moraes we started a new GLAM project last year, uploading to commons many 3d facial reconstruction projects developed by Cicero Moraes
Cicero was responsible to reconstruct the faces of Saint Mary Magdalene, Saint Valentine, St. Anthony and many others.
Project page on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Education_Brazil/Projects/GLAM_Cicero_…
Files uploaded to commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:GLAM_3D_reconstructions_by_Cice…
Currently we are negotiating with local museums new projects where Cicero will work with us generating 3D reconstructions to donate to our partners.
International projects and cooperation are welcome! If you have access to any important cranium in a local GLAM partner we can evaluate the possibility to reconstruct it through a cooperation project.
Regards from Brasil and happy new year!
Rodrigo Padula
Coordenador de Projetos
Wiki Educação Brasil
http://www.wikibrasil.org
21 99326-0558