Dear all,
Many thanks for bringing the discussion on New Models of Affiliations this
far.
Building on earlier Movement Roles discussions from last year and on the
New Models working group's discussions earlier this month [1], here are a
set of draft principles and parameters for the four categories of models:
-Chapters or National/Sub-national Organizations
-Partner Organizations or Focused Organizations
-Associations or Wiki Groups
-Affiliates or Official Partners of the Wikimedia Movement
They can all be accessed from the Wikimedia affiliation models summary page
[2].
Apart from comments, questions and thoughts that will help us to clarify
and strengthen these draft principles and parameters, we would very much
like your feedback on the proposed nomenclature.
In the working group, we agreed that the names "chapters, partners,
associations and affiliates" are often misleading, somewhat
interchangeable, can mean different things in different contexts, and may
get lost in translation.
Proposals to change the names are on the talk page [3]. Please do leave any
additional comments there.
Cheers,
Bishakha
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Summary
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Summary
Some academics need conferences to be sponsored by / associated with an
academic institution to receive time off and funding to attend conferences.
Is this something that Wikimania has ever attempted? Ie. having Wikimania
hosted by the local chapter plus a local University?
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Spotted this because it one of the demonstrated uses was with wikimarkup. How
useful it actually is or is not is a different question.
"Writing documents using markup languages isn't always easy. Take Wikipedia, for
example: one often needs time to relocate the current focus when they switch
between previewing and editing mode. Now with Gliimpse, one can watch the markup
code gradually turn into the rendered result. The demonstration on Youtube simply
looks amazing, and shows that the software supports many markup languages,
including LaTex Mathematics."
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/03/25/1322252/animating-from-markup-code-…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG3ELslkHDY&feature=youtu.behttp://www.aviz.fr/gliimpse/
They have a working demo written in java, by the look opf things.
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:05:18 +0200
From: MF-Warburg <mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd:
Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
Message-ID:
<CAJKMOMWeN+4W3cpyKwqiEWxNqhQzUNfXMcVbxhoHAaOZEjL9-Q(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
2012/3/25 En Pine <deyntestiss(a)hotmail.com>
> Also, Steven, could you send the link to the place where we can look at
> your ?not-so-secret effort to make the current user talk template system
> more human?? I?m not clear on which page is the main one,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_A/B_testing or
> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Template_testing. Is
> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Template_testing the main
> page and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_A/B_testing the list of
> past tests? There?s also
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Editor_Engagement which looks like
> it?s a coordinating page for multiple projects but some of the information
> is a bit outdated. I think it would be helpful for all three of these pages
> to articulate their relationships with each other more clearly and be
> updated to reflect current information, including clearly stating which
> staff members are the appropriate contacts for each page.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
I can answer this question easily: The first sentences of the pages in
question say it: The meta page is "a interwiki hub for previous and
on-going A/B testing experiments with Wikipedia templates", and the page on
Incubator "is a page for coordinating A/B testing of user talk templates
here on the Incubator. This project is also going on at several others
wikis, and for a full list and summarized results, see Meta."
Regards,
MF-Warburg
-
MF-Warburg, at the risk of making myself sound unusually dense in front
of everyone on foundation-l, I'm not yet an expert on cross-wiki Wikipedia
research so I need some clarification. My understanding is that Incubator
is only for entire new wikis and not experiments for current wikis, but I
thought that the A/B testing is intended for implementation on the
current English Wikipedia. Would I be correct in restating those sentences
as "a hub for A/B testing experiments with Wikipedia templates on all
wikis" and "a page for coordinating A/B testing of user talk templates
ONLY here on the Incubator for new language Wikipedias"?
Thanks,
Pine
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 23:18:04 +0100
> From: Ziko van Dijk <vandijk(a)wmnederland.nl>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] What 'movement role' for Esperanto?
> Message-ID:
> <CAGC3U7hJJEHqE3FuZEH+LNQ6eW+EhAEmwRGfKv4T+3KDj=sygA(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>
> == What movement role for Esperanto? ==
>
> So what can the new kinds of Wikimedia organizations, discussed about
> under the expression ?movement roles?, mean for Esperanto? Actually
> the Esperantists could become an affiliated in all of the three new
> kinds:
>
> * A thematic organization: E@I, or a newly founded organization, could
> become a thematic organization of Wikimedia with similar rights and
> duties as the territorial chapters.
>
> * A Wikimedia group: E@I or even just a number of Esperantists listed
> on Esperanto Wikipedia could form a Wikimedia group. It could get the
> right to use the logo without especially asking WMF for permission,
> and ask some money from WMF for a flyer or similar expenses.
>
> * An Official Partner of Wikimedia: E@I or the World Esperanto
> Association could become a partner.
>
> I have talked to some Esperanto Wikipedians, some are enthusiast about
> a thematic organization, others not. One important question is how
> much (extra) work being a Wikimedia affiliate would cost.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
I think the best way to proceed is to consider first what they want a do.
Then see what tool best fit for the job. All these models are to work
offline. For example assumes that they are considering:
* Contact networks and organizations around the esperanto and organize
workshops on editing Wikipedia.
* Contact schools and universities where they teach Esperanto and organize
educational activities based on the translation of Wikipedia articles
between Esperanto and other languages.
* Contact autohors of Esperanto teaching materials. Ask them to release the
material they have under free licences and help them to create textbooks in
wikibooks in different languages.
* Contact foundations and charities that support the esperanto asking them
funding to do the activities above.
The first step is to see if there is a group of people with time and
inclination to do this job. If there is they could start working as a
Wikimedia group. To the extent that they grow and get meaningful results
then thinking about going for a Thematic Organization can be the next step.
My answer about the (extra) work is that if the activities are wel done
then the only job is for the program of activities. No (extra) work should
apear by being an affiliate because the requested requirements should arise
naturally from the activities wel done and well finished: Reports of
activities, if handled money transparent information ...
Having a recognition more than doing (extra) work should be a recognition
of doing (god) work aligned with the mission vision a and values of the
movement and granting them tools to facilitate this work.
For those who are interested in quantitative studies on the subject of editor motivation, I suggest looking at the list of academic papers at http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Motivations. I learned about that list from a recent post to research-l. I assume that Steven Walling and the other WMF staff are aware of this list but it might be new and interesting to other contributors.
That list doesn’t include http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Editors_Survey_2011 and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011/S… which are likely more familiar to the readers of foundation-l.
I think that some of the concerns that have been expressed in this thread are well founded while others are overblown.
An effort to improve the retention of editors who take their time to register seems unlikely to produce a wave of vandals because vandalizing Wikipedia is easy already and doesn’t require registration.
It’s true that we don’t want experiments to unleash significant technical problems or massive amounts of copyvio content into Wikipedia. I believe that the official failure analysis of the IEP was, if anything, too kind in its conclusions. It is my understanding from Steven Walling’s posts that the possible projects for editor retention will be much smaller in scale and that the community will be notified in advance about the specifics of these experiments.
I doubt that we need to worry about the possibility of attracting more PR manipulators and POV pushers who abuse editing privileges because those people seem to be strongly motivated already, and anyone who doesn’t know how to do it themselves can hire someone to do it or recruit volunteers to do it for them. My understanding is that the focus of these outreach efforts will be to retain editors whose motivation to edit is sufficiently marginal that they’re likely to leave if the status quo continues.
Steven, is there a place on Meta or Outreach where editors can go to propose ideas for editor retention? Maybe a link was already posted but I don’t recall seeing one.
Also, Steven, could you send the link to the place where we can look at your “not-so-secret effort to make the current user talk template system more human”? I’m not clear on which page is the main one, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_A/B_testing or https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Template_testing. Is https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Incubator:Template_testing the main page and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_A/B_testing the list of past tests? There’s also https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Editor_Engagement which looks like it’s a coordinating page for multiple projects but some of the information is a bit outdated. I think it would be helpful for all three of these pages to articulate their relationships with each other more clearly and be updated to reflect current information, including clearly stating which staff members are the appropriate contacts for each page.
Thanks,
Pine
Just to note that I¹ve been bold have added a timeline for the Observers.
It¹s under a collapsible heading and could get some tweaking.
Etienne Beaule
Ebe123
cross posting
_____
*Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
On 24 March 2012 14:28, Siska Doviana <siska.doviana(a)wikimedia.or.id> wrote:
> Apology for cross posting.
>
> Hello all,
> On behalf of the organizer, please be advised that WikiWomenCamp is up
> and rolling.
>
> Although participation page for those interested to come and would
> like to receive scholarship funding closed last Friday for
> "international women" (for Germany will be close next week, and
> Austrian participant is much more flexible) if you know any other
> participants willing to go (and doesn't need a scholarship) please be
> advised to fill out participation form in here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGU5MTNTY0VuWFhJZG1Oc3…
>
> Up to date we have roughly 25 participants from all over the world.
> Exciting!
>
> For complete info please refer to this link in meta:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp
>
> Thank you,
> --
> Siska Doviana | Ketua Umum (Chair) 2011-2012
> Wikimedia Indonesia
> Cell. +62 816 484 5052
> ~~~~
> Dukung upaya kami membebaskan pengetahuan:
> http://wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Wikimedia_Indonesia:Donasi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-l mailing list
> Internal-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
>
