Interested in Volunteer opportunities in Ghana? Then you've got to sign up
for this.
Best,
- Enock
twitter: @Enock4seth
enockseth.blogspot.com | [[User:Enock4seth]]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gerald Sowah <geraldsowah991(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:18 PM
Subject: [BarcampGhana] JOIN THE GHANA VOLUNTEER PROGRAM MAILING LIST
To: "volunteer(a)ghanathink.org" <volunteer(a)ghanathink.org>
Interested in participating in volunteer and service-based activities? If
so, join our mailing list
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PGfg9-PIvXoJBGXvKuXYXQ31cvcU_M1oC3km0aRrSC…>
for
regular updates on volunteer opportunities here in Ghana.
Volunteering is a fundamental act of good citizenship that is essential in
our society. Volunteers help improve the quality of life for others while
gaining valuable experiences and developing new skills.
Whether you're a volunteer looking to invest your time and talents in your
community or an organization in need of skilled and passionate volunteers,
the GhanaThink Foundation's Ghana Volunteer Program
<http://www.ghanathink.org/content/ghana-volunteer-program-profile> is
there to help.
By joining our mailing list, we would provide you with avenues where you
can give your time and skills to the causes and issues that matter to
you. Don't
be left out.
Kindly sign up HERE
<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PGfg9-PIvXoJBGXvKuXYXQ31cvcU_M1oC3km0aRrSC…>
For further enquiries contact volunteer(a)ghanathink.org
Engage with us on our Ghana Volunteer Program pages on Facebook
<http://facebook.com/GhanaVolunteerProgram>, Twitter
<https://twitter.com/volunteeringh> and Google+
<http://gplus.to/GhanaVolunteerProgram>
Many Thanks,
The Ghana Volunteer Program
#volunteeringh
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"barcampghana" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to barcampghana+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I remember in our last small meetup in Accra, we discussed about a come
together for members of wiki gh getting to the end of the year.
Is that plan still on board? Can that happen? Any arrangements needs to be
done? Where should it be held? Will you be interested to attend?
Can't wait to hear your thoughts.
--
+Rexford <http://google.com/+Nkansahrexford> | khophi.co
in case you do not plan to go, another way to participate :)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:09 PM
Subject: [Wikidata] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] Invitation to Wikimania 2016
Scholarship Committee
To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library"
<wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia textbook discussion
<textbook-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikidata list
<wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
<commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Still a couple days available to offer yourself as Wikimania
scholarships committee member, or as ambassador for your community.
-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Oggetto: [Wikimania-l] Invitation to Wikimania 2016 Scholarship Committee
Data: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 21:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
Dear Wikimaniacs,
we are now calling for a scholarship review committee.
This year, we additionally want a scholarship ambassador for each major
geography or language, including a representative from each entity which
pays for additional scholarships; the ambassadors will be committee
observers.
The scholarship review committee is an important and diverse group of
volunteers who help to run the scholarship program in accordance with
the pillars
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Pillars> of
this Wikimania. We encourage people from all Wikimedia wikis to apply
for this position so that the committee can handle applications in many
different languages.
The main duties of the committee members prior to Wikimania 2016 are:
* Participation in periodic online meetings with scholarships program
manager and other committee members.
* Review and edit communications material (e.g. Scholarship wiki,
application questions).
* Assistance in determination of scholarship applicant requirements.
* Assurance of due consideration and speedy response time to Wikimania
scholarship applications in multiple languages.
* Work with the local team.
For further information please visit m:Wikimania/Scholarships/Tasks
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Scholarships/Tasks> (the
committee will also be polishing this page).
We are looking for Wikimedians from all over the world, who are:
* fluent in written English and have good communication skills, or can
name local community member(s)/ambassadors who help them with
English translations.
* discreet and able to handle confidential applicant information, and
objectively assess candidates.
* willing to review scholarship applications in late 2015/early 2016.
* having either or both:
o previously attended Wikimania.
o strong knowledge of the cross-project Wikimedia community.
You will be working remotely. While we hope that scholarship review
committee members will enjoy Wikimania 2016 by giving significant input
to it, the local team cannot guarantee financial support for the
committee members' travel expenses since scholarship review committee
members may not apply for a scholarship themselves.
If you're interested in serving on the scholarship reviewing committee
and/or as scholarship ambassador, *please send us an email at
domande.wikimania(a)wikimedia.it*. If you have any questions, please don't
hesitate to contact us.
Deadline to apply is *Sunday, November 15, 2015*. The local team will
contact all candidates and publish the list of scholarship committee
members right afterwards. Please help with translations on
wm2016:Scholarship committee
<https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarship_committee>.
Proposed timeline
* Nov 1–Nov 15: Call for Scholarship Committee
* Nov 16–Dec 6: Preparations of the Scholarship Committee
* Dec 6–Jan 9: Submission time
Thanks,
Federico Leva
<https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nemo_bis> and Martin
Rulsch <https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:DerHexer>
Wikimania 2016 team, scholarships subteam
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
fyi
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Jonathan Morgan* <jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2015
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Analytics] Does StackExchange have more
monthly active users than Wikipedia?
To: "A mailing list for the Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has an
interest in Wikipedia and analytics." <analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Wiki Research-l <Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
+research
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing this, Nemo. And for setting those arrogant
Stackers straight ;)
For anyone else interested: Nemo was able to answer this question because
StackExchange has a Quarry <http://quarry.wmflabs.org/>-like public query
interface of their own. You should go play with it right now:
http://data.stackexchange.com/
Jonathan
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nemowiki(a)gmail.com');>> wrote:
> Some information at
> https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/269334/how-many-active-users-contr…
>
> TL;DR: not really, and definitely not StackOverflow alone (~14k). But
> perhaps the whole StackExchange has more than the English Wikipedia alone.
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Analytics mailing list
> Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org');>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
>
--
Jonathan T. Morgan
Senior Design Researcher
Wikimedia Foundation
User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
--
+Rexford <http://google.com/+Nkansahrexford> | khophi.co
A big thanks to Nyande Stephen, one of the former students of Koforidua
sectech now at Legon, and the current president of the NSBE, for spending
months in getting this arrangements in place.
After months of preparations, opportunity finally opened for Wikimedia
Ghana User Group to hopefully join the NSBE community at Legon this 7th
November for this meetup. All are invited.
Below is the invitation message from Nyande (tweaked a bit for brevity)
-----
Let's make a date with NSBE and Wikimedia Ghana User Group on the 7th of
November as we discuss the opportunities Wikimedia Foundation sites have to
offer and how we could improve Ghanaian and African related contents on
Wikipedia.
Date: Saturday 7th November
Rate: free
Venue: Seminar Room, School Of Engineering Sciences, University of Ghana,
Legon, Accra.
Time: 9am - 12pm GMT
NSBE, Power!
-----
I will be there myself (in my numbers). I know this is an impromptu
arrangement, but it'll be great if we all can join in our numbers. Maybe it
could be a mini meetup before our upcoming 'mega' meetup.
For further enquiries, please get in touch with Stephen, or simply respond
to this mail. Thanks.
7th November!
Rexford | khophi.co | sent from phone
These are really interesting insights!
Masssly
m: +233 (0) 207101435
Sent from Samsung Mobile.
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Nkansah Rexford <nkansahrexford(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Date:04/11/2015 00:17 (GMT+00:00) </div><div>To: Wikimedia-gh <Wikimedia-gh(a)lists.wikimedia.org> </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: [Wikimedia-GH] Fwd: [Wiki-research-l] New editor retention rates Visual Editor vs Wikitext </div><div>
</div>Some insights coming through
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] New editor retention rates Visual Editor vs Wikitext
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On the edit training session front, I can report on the sample size of 1 VE edit training session in mid August, where the two trainees both aged 60+ took to editing relatively quickly in under an hour, which compares favourably with the half day to a day it often takes to cover the same ground in the source editor due to the lack of comfort with markup. Both trainees did a few edits after the training session but neither appears to be currently active. I certainly intend to teach future sessions using the VE.
But the research question I would pose is “does edit training make any difference?” I’ve done loads of it but I haven’t noticed that it creates ongoing contributors. Most people come away from the session very positive but, when I’ve bothered to check, most don’t edit again. Having said that, after my own initial edits, I too became inactive for a year or so before doing some very sporadic edits over a number of years before getting active, so it may be that people do resurface months/years later (possibly creating a new username/password as they have forgotten their old one).
Now I have thought that maybe the difficulty remembering the markup weeks/months later might be a contributory factor to this apparent failure to create active editors and that maybe switching to the VE will make a difference. But deep down, I am not convinced that the problem of creating active editors is just about training. And I think Aaron’s study somewhat supports this. I think the problem with edit training is twofold.
1. People with a burning desire to edit don’t sit around waiting for an edit training opportunity. Edit training attracts the “just in case” learners, who think it might be useful to know how to edit Wikipedia. People with a burning desire to edit just click on “Edit” and hope they can make it work. Q. Is the VE enabled for anon editing? (I just logged out to test it and it does not appear to be – why not? Surely anon editors should be dumped into VE by default or offered both?)
2. The routine beating up of newbies. One of the joys of edit training is seeing just how unpleasant our community can be to newcomers. In most edit training sessions, trainees experience reverted contributions, quality tagging, etc, without any attempt to reach out and help them make their good faith contributions (anyone who comes to edit training is good faith, I have never seen any of them attempt to vandalise). The trainees find this somewhat upsetting. It is interesting to note that many assume other editors should know they are in a training session (they are probably mapping their real world experience that training sessions are “visible”). However, despite a couple of people telling me there is some template I can use to indicate an educational activity is taking place (not clear if it tags the user or the article) but I have yet to discover what it is. I have tried putting {{inuse}} onto the article but that’s been a failure (doesn’t deter these unfriendly folk and it’s often removed as well).
So, in summary, yes, teach the VE, it’s much easier for new users. But don’t think the problems of new users are completely solved with the VE.
Kerry
--
+Rexford | khophi.co
Some insights coming through
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Kerry Raymond* <kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] New editor retention rates Visual Editor vs
Wikitext
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On the edit training session front, I can report on the sample size of 1 VE
edit training session in mid August, where the two trainees both aged 60+
took to editing relatively quickly in under an hour, which compares
favourably with the half day to a day it often takes to cover the same
ground in the source editor due to the lack of comfort with markup. Both
trainees did a few edits after the training session but neither appears to
be currently active. I certainly intend to teach future sessions using the
VE.
But the research question I would pose is “does edit training make any
difference?” I’ve done loads of it but I haven’t noticed that it creates
ongoing contributors. Most people come away from the session very positive
but, when I’ve bothered to check, most don’t edit again. Having said that,
after my own initial edits, I too became inactive for a year or so before
doing some very sporadic edits over a number of years before getting
active, so it may be that people do resurface months/years later (possibly
creating a new username/password as they have forgotten their old one).
Now I have thought that maybe the difficulty remembering the markup
weeks/months later might be a contributory factor to this apparent failure
to create active editors and that maybe switching to the VE will make a
difference. But deep down, I am not convinced that the problem of creating
active editors is just about training. And I think Aaron’s study somewhat
supports this. I think the problem with edit training is twofold.
1. People with a burning desire to edit don’t sit around waiting for
an edit training opportunity. Edit training attracts the “just in case”
learners, who think it might be useful to know how to edit Wikipedia.
People with a burning desire to edit just click on “Edit” and hope they can
make it work. Q. Is the VE enabled for anon editing? (I just logged out to
test it and it does not appear to be – why not? Surely anon editors should
be dumped into VE by default or offered both?)
2. The routine beating up of newbies. One of the joys of edit
training is seeing just how unpleasant our community can be to newcomers.
In most edit training sessions, trainees experience reverted contributions,
quality tagging, etc, without any attempt to reach out and help them make
their good faith contributions (anyone who comes to edit training is good
faith, I have never seen any of them attempt to vandalise). The trainees
find this somewhat upsetting. It is interesting to note that many assume
other editors *should* know they are in a training session (they are
probably mapping their real world experience that training sessions are
“visible”). However, despite a couple of people telling me there is some
template I can use to indicate an educational activity is taking place (not
clear if it tags the user or the article) but I have yet to discover what
it is. I have tried putting {{inuse}} onto the article but that’s been a
failure (doesn’t deter these unfriendly folk and it’s often removed as
well).
So, in summary, yes, teach the VE, it’s much easier for new users. But
don’t think the problems of new users are completely solved with the VE.
Kerry
--
+Rexford <http://google.com/+Nkansahrexford> | khophi.co