It's been a bit since I last emailed this list (or any list, for that
matter!)... you may remember me, I worked at the Foundation last year in
the Community Department, working with Philippe on any number of issues,
as well as with the OTRS team. I've come back to work on a short term
project with the Foundation, and I have to say it's great to be back!
(and a great break from my Master's thesis!)
We're getting ready to run the next version of the Editor Survey, for
August 2012. This will be the third incarnation we've run since 2011.
As with the prior incarnations of the survey, we'll be looking at a
variety of topics, this time with the goal of not only understanding
your needs and pressing issues while interacting with fellow editors,
but also focusing on editors' satisfaction with the work of the Foundation.
The last time we ran an editor survey, it was completed by over 6,000
respondents. When you break that down, it means that each minute of
time demanded by the survey corresponds to 100 hours of Wikipedians'
time. We want to make sure that this time is spent wisely, ensuring
that the questions we have are worded clearly, don't cause confusion,
and will generate meaningful answers. So we'd like to ask you to take a
look at the survey, and give us feedback on the questions. You can find
... and please leave your feedback on the talk page there so we can keep
the discussion in one place :)
You can find out more information about the survey here:
Also, we are planning an IRC Office Hour on the survey, this **Tuesday,
July 31 at 1700 UTC.** (See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hoursfor general information
about IRC Office hours)
I know there has been some discussion about offering Office Hours in a
broader range of times, and I know this time may not be the greatest for
some... but this was the best time we could find currently.
Please find below Wikimedia UK's report for September 2012. The text of the
whole report is posted in the email due to numerous requests for this. You
can also view the report on the WMUK wiki at
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports/2012/September - and this wiki
version includes all hyperlinks and images (which aren't included below).
If you have any comments or questions please do let me know.
Thanks and regards,
Below is the Wikimedia UK monthly report for the period 1 to 31 September
2012. If you want to keep up with the chapter's activities as they happen,
please subscribe to our blog, join our mailing list, and/or follow us on
Twitter. If you have any questions or comments, please drop us a line on
this report's talk page.
Wikipedia reaches a turning point: it's losing administrators faster than
it can appoint them, Telegraph Blogs, 5 September
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales attacks government's 'snooper's charter',
Guardian, 5 September
Jimmy Wales: Wikipedia will use encryption to beat snooper's charter,
Telegraph, 6 September
Also see WMUK's Submission on Communications Data Bill on the UK wiki.
Philip Roth 'not a credible source to edit his own novel's Wikipedia page',
Telegraph, 7 September
How Philip Roth Outfoxed Wikipedia’s Idiotic Rules, Gizmodo, 8 September
Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit, BBC News, 8 September
Boot up: Bezos on profit, Pirates' German problems, Windows Phone's lost
SDK and more (includes Roth on Wikipedia), Guardian blog, 10 September
Philip Roth's complaint to Wikipedia, Guardian, 11 September
Philip Roth knows his own book but let's not judge Wikipedia harshly,
Independent, 12 September
Grant Shapps 'edited Wikipedia page to remove school records', Telegraph, 9
Top Tory 'airbrushed his Wikipedia page', new chairman 'deleted political
gaffes and altered exam details', Daily Mail, 9 September
Tory MPs fiddling with their Wikipedia entries: Grant Shapps is just the
tip of the iceberg, Telegraph blogs, 10 September
Grant Shapps's Wikipedia page was edited to remove byelection gaffe,
Guardian, 11 September
Wikipedia editors' gender visualised, Guardian, 11 September
Wikitravel versus Wikimedia: something is going badly wrong with the free
content movement, Telegraph, 11 September
See also the This Month in GLAM UK report for this month.
*Wikipedia Takes Coventry*
Wikipedia Takes Coventry was the first Wikipedia Takes... event in the UK
Interview with Erin Hollis and Harry Mitchell on Wikipedia Takes Coventry
BBC Coventry and Warwickshire (1 September 2012)
Clock is ticking for scavengers to capture Coventry Leamington Courier (1
Also: Kenilworth Weekly and Warwick Courier
Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon at the library of the Royal Society, BoingBoung, 5
Delete the Wiki worries and get close to the edit Times Higher Education,
*Microgrants approved this month include ...*
An extension to the Operation Barras and Operation Flavius microgrant for
source material for getting w:en:Operation Flavius and w:en:Operation
Barras to featured article status. Operation Barras is now going through
A-class review, and is expected to reach FA status without too many
problems. Our thanks go to HJ Mitchell for his valuable work putting time
into these articles!
*UK press coverage (and coverage of UK projects & activities)*
There has been a substantial amount of media coverage during over the last
couple of months. The online coverage has been aggregated into a PDF file
that includes links to the articles. Topics include Ada Lovelace Day,
Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, Mentions of Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia
Zero, Jimmy Wales, GLAM Camp London, EduWiki, our relationship with the PR
industry and a collaboration with Know How Non-Profit. You can see the full
list on the UK wiki.
We also published the following blog posts in September:
Three months as a Wikipedian in Residence, by Andrew Gray
EduWiki kicks off amid great anticipation by Stevie Benton
Board update (notification that Joscelyn Upendran had stood down from the
Wikipedia Takes Coventry - the winners! by User:Rock drum
EduWiki 2012 - a review by Martin Poulter
Wikimedia UK appoints Saad Choudri to its Board by Chris Keating
Board update (notification that Roger Bamkin had stood down from the Board)
Gibraltarpedia: WMUK press release (with clarifications about the project)
First ever Wikimedia UK intern waves goodbye by Isabelle Yates
Joint statement from Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK (announcing the
independent review into WMUK governance)
*Activities in October*
01 - Wikipedia and images workshop/October 2012
01 - Board meeting (TBC) - call
01 - Conference Committee meeting (postponed from 24 September)
02 - Imperial College Wikipedia Society Freshers' Fair
02 - 03 - Cambridge University Wikipedia Society launch at the Freshers'
04 - Robin Owain meeting Dr. Ted Jones, Digitisation on Demand from the
National Library of Wales about work with Wikimedia UK
08 - Wikipedia talk and training workshop at the University of Oxford
08 - JISC Digital Infrastructure Team workshop, London
11 - Parkinson's UK Wikipedia training
12 - AHRC Wikipedia training workshop at the British Library
13 - 14 - Fæ and Andy Mabbett separately addressing the Central and Eastern
Europe Wikimedia conference.
14 - London meetup
15 - Roger Bamkin speaking at the Oxford Internet Institute
16 - Roger Bamkin speaking at De Montfort University
19 - Ada Lovelace Day event
21 - Coventry meetup
23-26 - Dunhuang Project editathon, British Library
26 - Black History Month event
26 - Women in Science editathon, Oxford
27 - 28 - Train the trainer workshop, October 2012
28 - Cambridge meetup
For events in November and onwards, please see Events.
The current state of each of our budgets is outlined in a Google
This details spend to date, and a rough estimate of future spending. This
spreadsheet is too complex to be placed directly on a wiki. Our yearly
spend is heavily 'end-loaded', partially due to the rapid growth of
Although we may underspend in one or two budgets, the next few weeks will
see a refocussed effort, led by a committee of editors, to work out how
they would best like to spend this underspend.
We also expect to be moving money between some budgets in the not too
*News from the Chief Exec*
For information on Jon's activities this month, see News from the Office.
The updates about the Wikimedia UK Interns can be found there too, together
There were some notable communications successes this month. Both the
EduWiki conference and our work around Ada Lovelace Day attracted a good
deal of positive media attention. You can see the full breakdown of press
coverage in the report linked to in the UK press coverage section above. In
other ways this has been a challenging month in terms of communications and
it was unfortunate timing that our Communications Organiser was on annual
leave for the second half of the month. There have been appointments and
departures on our Board of Trustees and the announcement of an independent
review into Wikimedia UK's governance. There has been much conflation and
presumption at the heart of much of the media coverage, both in terms of
Roger's resignation and the announcement of the review, that it has been
difficult to be clear and factual about what has actually taken place. In
many ways September was something of a gift to our critics because of the
perception of events - regardless of what those events actually were.
Moving forward, we need to be more secure in making our own voice heard in
amongst the media hubbub.
*Fundraising and Membership*
This month, we received £1,258.35 in one-off donations, with 68 individual
donations. The average donation amount was £18.50 - 63% of these donors
have had Gift Aid Declarations made and matched with their records. If
anyone would like a full (but anonymised) csv file with more information,
please get in touch with katherine.bavagewikimedia.org.uk and let her know
As for direct debit donations, there were 6026 successful direct debits
this month, bringing in a total of £24,765.
Up to 30th September 2012:
214 new (membership commenced in preceding three months) and current members
41 'grace' members (membership within six months after date membership
should be renewed)
This adds up to 255 members who are eligible to vote
152 Expired members
Katherine is developing HTML templates for welcome emails for new and
renewing members to sign-post them to resources and information and will be
scheduling a regular job to email members who have renewed (monthly) and
newly approved (post-board meetings).
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
Apparently I am moderated on wikimedia-sf.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Subject: Fwd: [altmetrics:21] SF hackathon
To: San Francisco Wikimedians <wikimedia-sf(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jason Priem <jp(a)jasonpriem.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Subject: [altmetrics:21] SF hackathon
If you're in the Bay Area November 3rd, check out the altmetrics
hackathon at PLOS. lots of good folks already scheduled to be there.
Would love to have some more!
UNC Royster Scholar
School of Information and Library Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
We've had an email from a gentleman at an educational institution in
Jamaica, who'd like to run an editathon. He's contacted Wikimedia UK as a
starting point, presumably because of the shared history: but we can't do a
great deal more than send him some booklets, etc, by post. He's simply too
far away! Are there any individuals or chapters (or the WMF) based nearby
who could help?
All the best,
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
If the question is indiscreet/offtopic forgive me and ignore it/more it
another list, but: what are Romney's views on copyright?
I read on today's Financial Times Europe (p. 4) that he has a couple
millions dollars invested on Hollywood funds, so is it pessimistic to
say that he must hold horrible positions on copyright?
At this point, as his term will finish in December and this is his
last meeting as a member of the board, I would like to thank Matt
Halprin for all of his work with the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Over
the past three years, Matt has contributed greatly to our
organization, bringing with him a level of professionalism and
experience which helped us tremendously while he chaired the Board
Though this is goodbye from his formal position within the Foundation,
his commitment to our mission and values has made him a great
colleague, and I hope we will continue to see him within the Wikimedia
movement. Thank you, Matt.
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: kat(a)wikimedia.org, kat(a)mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage
Note the suggestion: set aside $1m of tech resources for community-chosen work.
Heck, projects other than Wikipedia might get the slightest attention.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
Date: 26 October 2012 09:25
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Improving dialogue between editors and "tech people"
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Firstly move Bugzilla to Meta. Currently it is a different user experience
to the rest of our wikis, and it isn't even part of the Single User Login.
Secondly try to shift from a developer led Software program to more of a
community led one. Yes of course there are going to be things going on
which have to happen anyway for valid technical reasons, from what I've
seen the WMF has a significant budget to invest on programming changes. But
there isn't a way for the community to prioritise development projects. So
part of the clash is the dissonance between the community empowerment ethos
which is the norm for most community activities, and the disempowerment
that characterises community involvement in IT development. If a million
dollars of the annual IT budget was set aside for projects that the
community could suggest and prioritise via a page on meta, then the
relationship between IT and the community would be transformed, as would be
On 25 October 2012 14:07, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> [Posting this from my personal address because I'm not subscribed to
> the list with my work account.]
> I've started a discussion on the technical Village pump on how to
> establish a better dialogue between editors and "tech people"
> (developers, Wikimedia engineers, etc.):
> I'd love to get more comments and suggestions, so that the outcome
> isn't only representative of the subset of the community who reads
> You can participate there or here on the list, I'll follow both. Also,
> feel free to advertise this discussions to fellow editors,
> particularly those whom you know to be interested in these issues.
> Below is the text I've posted on VP/T:
> Hi. I'm posting this as part of my job for the WMF, where I currently
> work on technical communications.
> As you'll probably agree, communication between Wikipedia contributors
> and "tech people" (primarily MediaWiki developers, but also designers
> and other engineers) hasn't always been ideal. In recent years,
> Wikimedia employees have made efforts to become more transparent, for
> example by writing monthly activity reports, by providing hubs listing
> current activities, and by maintaining "activity pages" for each
> significant activity. Furthermore, the yearly engineering goals for
> the WMF were developed publicly, and the more granular Roadmap is
> updated weekly.
> Now, that's all well and such, but what I'd rather like to discuss is
> how we can better engage in true collaboration and 2-way discussion,
> not just reports and announcements. It's easy to post a link to a new
> feature that's already been implemented, and tell users "Please
> provide feedback!". It's much more difficult to truly collaborate
> every step of the way, from the early planning to deployment.
> Some "big" tech projects are lucky enough to have Oliver Keyes who can
> spend a lot of time discussing with local wiki communities, basically
> incarnating this 2-way communication channel between users and
> developers. The $1 million question is: how do we scale up the Oliver?
> We want to be able to do this for dozens of engineering projects with
> hundreds of wikis, in many languages, and truly collaborate to build
> new features together.
> There are probably things in the way we do tech stuff (e.g. new
> software features and deployments) that drive you insane. You probably
> have lots of ideas about what the ideal situation should be, and how
> to get there: What can the developer community (staff and volunteers)
> do to get there? (in the short term, medium term, long term?) What can
> users do to get there?
> I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, and I can't do a
> proper job to improve things without your help. So please help me help
> make your lives easier, and speak up.
> This is intended to be a very open discussion. Unapologetic
> complaining is fine; suggestions are also welcome. Stock of ponies is
> Guillaume Paumier
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
I owe a number of good people an apology. I have worked for several
self-protecting bureaucracies myself, and it
is possible, though not easy, , for individuals to do good work there.
I never intended to imply that everyone there is incompetent, though
it is certainly my opinion that some of the people assigned to some of
the programs I have been involved in have been. I admit that my anger
is an inappropriate reflection of my frustration at my inability to
work with those in one particular program.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:54 PM, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> One obvious possibility for support is the chapters and the thematic
> organizations; even if the WMF continues these fellowships as it
> should, the other bodies in the movement should supplement them--it is
> good to have more than one source of funds and more than one body
> deciding on requests. But whether their work can be actually
> implemented at those levels is another matter.
> The proposal at meta says "the Wikimedia Foundation was never able to
> resource the fellowships to the point where they could achieve
> significant impact: " I don't think the resource at issue is primarily
> money, considering that in all recent years we have had not only
> surpluses, but greater than expected surpluses. The resource which is
> lacking is sufficient qualified people at the Foundation to work with
> the fellows and help implement their projects. Rather than get such
> people--which admittedly would require a change in WMF culture--the
> WMF staff finds the easiest thing is to not even attempt to make the
> improvements; it is too troublesome to deal with the good ideas of the
> community, so the reaction is what one expects of self-protecting
> incompetent bureaucracies: diminish the flow of good ideas.
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Steven Zhang <cro0016(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> In my opinion, the value of fellowships in my opinion is huge, and I feel that ceasing to support projects like the Teahouse would be a real shame. That said, I do feel there are other ways that individual editors could get the support they need to work on critical projects. As long as this remains in some capacity, then I think that could work too.
>> Steve Zhang
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 22/10/2012, at 10:25 AM, Jacob Orlowitz <wikiocaasi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> A letter in support of the Community Fellowship program from past,
>>> current, and prospective Fellows,
>>> The WMF has expanded profoundly over the past decade, and especially
>>> in the last few years. Recently initiatives to streamline and focus
>>> the WMF have been undertaken; while these efforts are worthy in spirit
>>> and necessary at some level, one useful if not vital program has been
>>> caught in that process: The Community Fellowship program. We would
>>> like to express our strong support of this valuable and important
>>> The Fellowship program is first and foremost a community-based
>>> program. It selects editors to work on projects -- those which are
>>> novel and have yet to be tried, those that have been tried but have
>>> not been rigorously developed or tested, and those otherwise that need
>>> financial, technical and institutional backing to succeed. It
>>> represents a direct line of support from the WMF to
>>> community-organized, community-driven, and community-maintained
>>> We strongly believe that the Fellowship program is a great way to jump
>>> start many projects cheaply, efficiently, and with low-risk. Most
>>> importantly, because Fellowship projects are community-organized,
>>> there is high potential for their broad community support.
>>> We recognize that the Wikimedia Foundation’s allocation of funding
>>> must reflect the priorities of the Foundation’s annual and strategic
>>> plans, and we understand that the future of the Fellowship program is
>>> at risk under the justification that it does not fit within those
>>> The Fellowship program of course has a cost, but it is one we believe
>>> is well justified by its impact. The following reasons explain why we
>>> think the program is a worthwhile asset to the WMF and one that will
>>> ultimately help it succeed in its strategic goals:
>>> 1) The program has a track record of producing successful projects,
>>> with promising upcoming efforts that would be interrupted by a loss of
>>> funding. Most recently a new-editor community called the Teahouse was
>>> developed directly through the Fellowship program. The Teahouse, as
>>> well as other projects have targeted goals which often match up with
>>> those identified by the Foundation as urgent, such as new editor
>>> engagement and editor retention. Other projects besides the Teahouse
>>> have worked on improving our dispute resolution processes, our small
>>> language wiki development, improving the usability of help
>>> documentation, and facilitating cross-wiki translation efforts.
>>> GLAM/Wikipedian-in-Residence positions were pioneered under the
>>> Fellowship program as were studies in long term editor trends through
>>> Wikimedia Summer of Research. (See the full list of past projects).
>>> These projects are of great value and exist in areas that the
>>> community had or has not made sufficient advances in on its own.
>>> In the works are projects to create a sense of community around the
>>> sorely lacking female demographic, to build a game which would ease
>>> new editors through the maze of skills needed to be effective, a
>>> Wikipedia Library initiative which would outfit our most experienced
>>> editors with access to high quality resources through a single sign-on
>>> portal, and a Badges experiment to employ a proven approach to
>>> recognizing, motivating, and rewarding the efforts of our users.
>>> Without the Community Fellowship program, those efforts may stall or
>>> 2) The Fellowship program's core strength is as a laboratory of agile,
>>> community-driven creativity and innovation. The program has nurtured
>>> projects that require more investment and organization than the
>>> community alone can support, but that innovate in areas of importance
>>> to both the community and the Foundation. The Fellowship program has
>>> the asset of targeted flexibility and cost-effective implementation.
>>> Fellowship projects require few if any development resources,
>>> substantially reducing their burden on the Foundation. Through its
>>> varied portfolio of projects the Fellowship program can address any
>>> number of key goals, and do so in a lightweight but meaningful way.
>>> 3) The Fellowship program is committed to demonstrating results and
>>> making data-driven recommendations that help meet Foundation targets.
>>> Fellowship research projects have set and maintained a high standard
>>> for reporting results and making actionable recommendations. The
>>> Teahouse pilot reports and metrics reports, the dispute resolution
>>> survey results, and the template A/B testing projects are excellent
>>> examples of this commitment to transparency and accountability. The
>>> Foundation has benefitted from these data: results from fellowship
>>> projects have been featured at Wikimania. Deputy Director Eric
>>> Moeller’s presentation on supporting Wikiprojects drew extensively on
>>> Fellowship project findings, and E3’s template testing presentation
>>> was based substantially on Fellowship research. Fellowship research
>>> has been a frequent feature on the Wikimedia blog, and has generated
>>> good press for the Foundation.
>>> 4) The Fellowship program been instrumental to our understanding of
>>> the editor decline, and how to stop it. Fellowship projects have
>>> yielded many valuable & actionable insights into the editor decline:
>>> such as the negative impact of the gradual increase in newcomer
>>> warnings and newcomer reverts, and the recent decline in participation
>>> in community processes by newer groups of editors. Fellowship
>>> research has also refuted several prominent decline theories, such as
>>> the theory that the quality of new editors has decreased over time, or
>>> that the workload of vandal fighters has increased. In short,
>>> Fellowship research allows Wikimedia to prioritize promising work and
>>> make decisions about which decline theories to address based on actual
>>> data, rather than anecdotes, accepted wisdom, or intuition.
>>> 5) The Fellowship program builds good will between the WMF and the
>>> community by spotlighting and bootstrapping community-driven
>>> initiatives. Fellowships are devised by community members, endorsed
>>> by community members, implemented with community involvement--and the
>>> community reaps the benefits of those initiatives. The Foundation
>>> gets to play the vital role of supporting projects that otherwise may
>>> have floundered, sat idle, or been ignored completely. The community
>>> appreciates this and recognizes the Foundation’s pivotal part in
>>> making these projects happen. Also, not continuing the program would
>>> mean not just removing funding from the recipients of Fellowships and
>>> their projects, but also losing the community infrastructure and
>>> networks that have been developed as a result. The Foundation is the
>>> keystone to continuing this progress.
>>> 6) The Fellowship program gives the Wikimedia Foundation one of the
>>> only channels to directly fund individual editors. And not just any
>>> editors but some of the most active, engaged, driven, and enthusiastic
>>> editors Wikipedia has. Funding those editors directly enables them to
>>> devote a degree of focus and commitment to Wikipedia that they might
>>> not otherwise be able to balance while meeting other constraints in
>>> their lives. The Foundation has become a recipient of a great amount
>>> of donations, but much of that financial support is unavailable to
>>> individual editors. There is not yet a grant-making process which
>>> doesn't run through Chapters. The Fellowship program is one lifeline
>>> to those editors, and it is a good one.
>>> 7) The Fellowship program provides a pipeline of trusted and
>>> knowledgeable editors to contribute to the Foundation's efforts. Many
>>> of those editors would be ideal candidates for positions within the
>>> Foundation, and the Fellowship program is a great way to identify,
>>> enlist, and onboard those individuals. Maryana Pinchuck and Steven
>>> Walling were Fellows, as were Liam Wyatt, Lennart Guldbrandsson,
>>> Stuart Geiger, Diederik van Liere, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Melanie
>>> Kill, Aaron Halfaker, Achal Prabhala, Jonathan Morgan, and James
>>> Alexander. While being a training ground for future Foundation
>>> staffers, advisors, or researchers is not the stated purpose of the
>>> Fellowship program, it is nonetheless a positive side-effect.
>>> 8) The Fellowship program partners with and complements other WMF
>>> initiatives. The fellowship program enhances programs such as Editor
>>> Engagement Experiments by experimenting with community features rather
>>> than just interface features. Creating new spaces for new editors to
>>> find help and build community, identifying pain-points in existing
>>> community processes by surveying editors, and organizing cross-wiki
>>> translation efforts are excellent ways of improving the editor
>>> experience on Wikipedia. Fellowship projects have also benefitted
>>> existing WMF initiatives by providing necessary services: for
>>> instance, the Teahouse has served the needs of students enrolled in
>>> Global Education programs that do not have access to Classroom
>>> Ambassadors. The impact of the Fellowship program scales and exceeds
>>> the scope of the individual projects to numerous other forums and
>>> facets of the community.
>>> For these reasons, we urge the Wikimedia Foundation to reevaluate the
>>> worth of the Community Fellowship program and to continue it in its
>>> original or a similar capacity. The Fellowship program is an
>>> impactful, flexible laboratory of creativity which connects the
>>> Foundation and the community's best and most passionate editors.
>>> Having it has been a huge gain, and losing it would be a significant
>>> * Anya Shyrokova User:Anyashy, prospective Fellow
>>> * Jake Orlowitz User:Ocaasi, prospective Fellow
>>> * Jon Harald Søby User:Jon Harald Søby, former Community Fellow
>>> * Jonathan Morgan User:Jtmorgan, former Research Fellow
>>> * Liam Wyatt User:Wittylama, former Cultural Partnerships Fellow
>>> * R. Stuart Geiger User:Staeiou, former Wikimedia Research Fellow
>>> * Peter Coombe User:The wub, Community Fellow
>>> * Steven Zhang User:Steven Zhang, Community Fellow
>>> * Tanvir Rahman User:Tanvir Rahman, Community Fellow
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> David Goodman
> DGG at the enWP
DGG at the enWP