Hi folks,
to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
Board [1]:
- Visual Editor
- Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
- Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
- Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity
I'm proposing the following initial schedule:
January:
- Editor Engagement Experiments
February:
- Visual Editor
- Mobile (Contribs + Zero)
March:
- Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
- Funds Dissemination Committee
We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.
My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
which we can use to discuss the concept further:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_r…
The internal review will, at minimum, include:
Sue Gardner
myself
Howie Fung
Team members and relevant director(s)
Designated minute-taker
So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.
I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:
- Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
compared with goals
- Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
- Review of challenges, blockers and successes
- Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
action items
- Buffer time, debriefing
Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.
In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
engineering.
As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
help inform and support reviews across the organization.
Feedback and questions are appreciated.
All best,
Erik
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Hi folks,
While watching the current changes to Wikimedia France microgrants program
implemented, I was curious to know which Wikimedia entities had similar
funding programs for individuals - how they worked, how we could learn form
each other.
Since apparently there was no Meta page for that(tm) (yet!) I went ahead and
drafted <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jean-Frédéric/Funding_programs
>
I dug my information out of my email archives and FDC proposal forms, so I
could totally have missed some programs - please add the ones you know
about!
Of course, it would be more useful to have more detailed information on
every program.
Together with Caroline & Pierre-Selim we threw some ideas on what we
thought was interesting to know about the programs, but that's still very
alpha - please add more ideas!
Looking forward to your thoughts about this!
Cheers,
--
Jean-Frédéric
Wikimédia France
Hello community,
this is to inform you that in response to the trademarking of the
Wikimedia community logo[1], created in 2006 by Artur “WarX”
Fijałkowski, which was discussed on this mailing list[2] as well as on
Meta[3] back in March, a small group of community members—Artur, myself,
Federico Leva (Nemo) and John Vandenberg—have initiated a formal process
of opposition against the registration of the trademark by the
Foundation in order to *reclaim the logo* for unrestricted use by the
community.
We appreciate the Foundation’s protection of the other trademarks they
have registered so far, including the logos of Wikipedia, Wikisource and
some other sister projects. In the case of the community logo, however,
it is our belief that the Foundation’s actions are exactly opposite to
what the community logo stands for and contradict the purpose behind its
very existence.
We would like to make it clear that it is not our intention to damage
anyone; our actions are a challenge against what we perceive as
unilateral declaration of ownership of an asset that has always belonged
to the wider community, and not to one or another organisation that is
part of the movement. By formally opposing the registration of the
trademark we hope to ensure the history of this logo is not disregarded,
and we wish to protect the community against unnecessary bureaucracy
and, to use another quote, let “groups who do not purport to represent
the WMF”[4] to continue to be able to freely associate with a logo that
has been part of their identity for so long.
We also want to note that this is in no way a legal action against the
Foundation, but a simple notice of opposition against the registration
of the logo in the European Union. If we assume good faith, we can only
be confident that the WMF, having now a formal occasion, will withdraw
its registration of the logo rather than continue using movement
resources to force the community into lengthy, expensive proceedings.
We invite all community members interested in this issue to express
their opinions at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Reclaim_the_Logo
If any of you would like to help us in any way (covering the costs of
the opposition, promoting the discussion, etc.), please feel free to
contact us off–list.
Artur Fijalkowski (WarX)
Tomasz Kozlowski (odder)
Federico Leva (Nemo)
John Vandenberg (jayvdb)
== References ==
* [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
* [2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124715.html
* [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo
* [4]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124730.html
Hi all,
for those of you who do not watch the RecentChanges on the Foundation
wiki <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges>, I
think it might be somehow surprising to see that in a top-level
decision, almost all volunteer administrators of the wiki have been
stripped off their adminship yesterday evening (UTC time).
As far as I know, community members have been helping out maintaining
this wiki for as long as 2006, spending countless hours of their free
time on categorising existing pages, importing translations from Meta,
and recently, deleting unnecessary and broken pages left over by WMF staff.
Apparently, this is something that not only isn't appreciated, but
unwelcome. Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help
out with running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost
since the very start of the wiki.
Some questions come to my mind right now:
1) Who made the decision to remove adminship from all community members?
(I'm assuming it was Gayle, but it could've be someone from the
Communications department for all we know.)
2) Why did you make this decision now? What changed?
3) Why did you decide to desysop people straight away instead of
discussing things with them first?
These are questions directed at the WMF—for you regular folks, I have a
riddle (I'll give a WikiLove barnstar to the first person to submit a
correct answer). There is /at least/ one community member who does not
hold any official position within the WMF, and who has not been
desysopped in yesterday's purge—do you know who this person is?
-- Tomasz
Hi. :)
I wanted to let you know that James Forrester is holding a second set of
office hours to discuss VisualEditor. These are scheduled for 1700 UTC on 2
November and 0000 UTC on 3 November. For local time conversions, see
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_hours and click on the starting time
As always, logs will be posted on Meta (same page) after each hour
completes.
Thanks!
Maggie
--
Maggie Dennis
Senior Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Dear all,
In our new education program with youngs in scholar difficulties, we have the problem that only half of the new accounts have the visual editor activated, it's quite annoying to have two teach two way of editing.
Is there a trick to force the activation of Visual Editor for a specific user?
Thanks
Charles
___________________________________________________________
Charles ANDRES, Chief Science Officer
"Wikimedia CH" – Association for the advancement of free knowledge –
www.wikimedia.ch
Skype: charles.andres.wmch
IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch
Dear all,
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday,
November 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM UTC (11 AM PST). The IRC channel is
#wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as
a live YouTube stream.
The current structure of the meeting is:
* Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
specialized reports and analytics
* Review of financials
* Welcoming recent hires
* Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority
initiatives
* Update and Q&A with the Executive Director, if available
Please review
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further
information about how to participate.
We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
Thank you,
Praveena
--
Praveena Maharaj
Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering and Product Development
+1 (415) 839 6885 ext. 6689
www.wikimedia.org
Dear fellow Wikipedia and Wikimedia contributors and users,
The issue at hand that has forced me to compose this address are the
pressing circumstances surrounding the Croatian language branch of
Wikipedia, which has become notoriously well known in the broader Wikipedia
community in recent months.
For some years now, a part of the administrators at Croatian language
Wikipedia have been operating as a cabal of sorts; the exact number of
members, the shape of this community and the extent of their doings
difficult to discern. For the last couple of months on Wikipedia there has
been an on-going prolonged dispute underway about abuse of administrator
privileges and breach of Wikipedia rules.
Three days ago, on 26 October 2013 and as a result of this dispute, one of
the contributors (Frano Milić[1]), who can safely be figured among those
who had avoided previous conflicts, called for a desysopping vote for the
three admins that seem to be have been the most involved with the current
issues regarding the project.
[2] Immediately after this, SpeedyGonsales, one of the admins whose
privileges were about to be put to vote and who had already been reported
for promotion of fascism, breach of rules and abuse of administrative
tools, now being in a conflict of interests, brought to a halt the voting
process on his own initiative on the pretext of "lack of evidence" [3].
After the part of the admins who were not members of the cabal expressed
their support for the mechanics allowing the community to express their
opinions in a process of vote, a revert war broke out on the vote page and
sitenotice.
[4] SpeedyGonsales, the administrator whose work was under scrutiny and
privileges put to the vote, now with other admins who we believe are
members of the cabal, initiated the process of "admin poll request" (a
process somewhat unique to Croatian Wikipedia, which is aimed at gathering
opinions and decisions of the college of admins). It was an attempt to use
orchestrated voting to silence those admins who supported the continuation
of the desysopping vote. The presumed purpose was to attempt to win enough
votes to either block those opposing him or desysop them in order to
disable the continuation of the desysopping vote against him and the two of
his colleagues.
The overall sentiment of the community was evidently strongly inclined to
vote which became clear when the voting recommenced as soon as the lock on
the vote page had been lifted. However, under the current circumstances the
process has been severely disturbed and it is not certain that the wish of
the community would be respected.
For the picture to be complete, one piece of information is crucial. The
administrators who have expressed their resistance against the spirit of
the cabal and the dictatorship are under a lot of pressure as they are
harassed by e-mails and texting. The messages vary in content but as a
general rule they contain little niceties.
If the issue we are dealing with is not resolved very soon, if not
immediately, a large number of contributors will simply leave the project.
As we are all aware, the admins are hobbyists and not activists and their
capacity for conflict and unpleasantries are limited. They are unable to
resolve the problems without your assistance.
And the problems they face have been in the making for many years, but it
has taken a while for the community to unite and gather strength to deal
with these issues. Now we are witnessing an almost unique situation on
Wikipedia - that the community has made a decision and gained the required
strength to get rid of all internal cabals. Stopping the process now would
spell a disaster for the entire project - it would send a message of
encouragement to anyone willing to usurp sysop privileges in the future.
Additionally, the admins who have expressed dissent over the accumulated
problems at Croatian Wikipedia have managed to accurately pinpoint the
administrators responsible for the ridiculously low quality of certain
articles, and the public and the media have recognized the overall
soundness of the Wiki project and that the work lacking in quality is to be
attributed to the minority of administrators-usurpers. However, we fear
that the positive momentum might be lost now, if the process is stopped,
and the critical public and media eye might see the current situation as
reflective of the entire Wiki project’s quality.
Please, lend aid any way you can
Dalibor Bosits
[1] https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posebno:Doprinosi/Frano_Mili%C4%87
[2]
https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedija:Administratori/Prijed…
[3]
https://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedija:Administratori/Prijed…
has initiated full protection of the page, trying to stop
the voting)
[4]
https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedija:Zahtjev_za_mi%C5%A1ljenje_administ…
Hi Tilman,
Unfortunately it seems that many users experience the FDC as most away from their bed and saw the notice in English what triggered the users to write their annoyance down. The current load of feedback is indeed on that page, and I tried to reply as damage control to limit the number of annoyance as that often comes as result of having little or no information / explanation. Also I tried to resolve some misconceptions. I personally do understand why WMF wants to show this banner and tried in general to explain it.
In the past 2 months there have been shown 7 different banners in the Netherlands and also one Sitenotice. Wiki Loves Monuments started on nl-wiki, has been communicated well about and users understand that a banner is shown for it. In November a conference (WCN) is organized, many users attend it and people understand why a banner is shown. Two days a banner was shown for an edit-a-thon, as edit-a-thons are documented and users see a direct result in Wikipedia they understand and accept that. These three campaigns are community driven banners. Yes I created those, but my role is to support the local community and try to connect between the local community and developers/tech/WMF/Wikimedia Netherlands/Wikimedia Belgium/etc. Also the Sitenotice was community driven: it was for a writing contest on Wikipedia.
4 other banners have been set up: for the fundraiser (most experienced users do already donate their time, and do not want to donate money too, but in general users understand why it is needed and accept that), for the Privacy Policy (not much nl users commented), there was earlier a banner for the FDC, and now there is a banner for FDC. FDC is for most users far away, and this time it was also in English. The community seems to experience the subject of FDC something that should not be in a banner on every page for every logged in user. Then the annoyance is bigger than the understanding and complaints come up.
> I'm not opposed to the use of CentralNotice to promote a nationwide annual conference.
The community that comes to the annual conference is spread over several projects.
> it's probably worth asking the question if a single editathon in one
> city needs to be advertised with "high" priority countrywide banners
> to anonymous users.
It seems that the local community has not a problem with this banner, however I personally do consider that we should not create a banner for a subject like this after having this evaluated. But the local community requested it and seems not having a problem with this banner.
> The English Wikipedia tends to use geotargeted watchlist notices
> for that kind of announcement instead
The English Wikipedia has been edited by many users around the world and there it sounds handy. The Dutch community is spread over several wiki's, that is why is why a Sitenotice is less used.
> That's indeed something to be concerned about, and it's one reason for
> adding upcoming banner campaigns to the public planning page at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Calendar , to facilitate
> coordination and discussion.
This did not prevented that the Privacy Policy was set up at the same time as the banner for Wiki Loves Monuments, and there we noticed that the two banners competed with each other. We tested how much and when each banner was shown and we noticed that it appeared that the Privacy Policy banner was shown much more on the first page someone visited and actually repressed the WLM banner. Two banners at the same time causes a higher degree of banner blindness.
Compared with the 8 months January - August, the past two months where overloaded while the first 8 months were almost empty.
> but at least for major languages like Dutch, the intention
> is indeed to get them translated before they go live. As you said
> yourself on the De Kroeg, this banner was available in Dutch when it
> came live yesterday.
Another user on the Dutch Wikipedia who has his languages set in Dutch got the banner for FDC in English. I personally got it later in Dutch.
The reason why I wrote is not to blame anyone, but to promote thinking of other ways to communicate to the local communities. More notices aren't a good idea as this will result in more users fully blocking the CentralNotice or even whole wikis who block it. On the other hand since 2008 I try to promote more communication from both the chapters and WMF towards local communities, as I notice that many users - certainly on nl-wiki - aren't informed about many things of what it would be good to be informed about. This causes a lot of not understanding why things happen resulting in annoyance. I try to follow what is going on in the Wikimedia movement and take up the role as ambassador, both in tech as with other Wikimedia subjects, towards the community to create a better understanding. My attempts are appreciated by many users and are successful to lower the annoyance level. I also try to connect and give feedback towards chapters, tech/developers, others
to create mutual a better environment. (I certainly can recommend to have a local Wikipedian in every community who has this role.)
As I wrote on the Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list, I see currently two existing ways of receiving information by communities on their wikis:
1. CentralNotice: too many notices will result in banner blindness and blocking notices as they are very disturbing often on every page.
2. Posting in central discussion/notifications page on a wiki: a lot of users will see that notice but also many users do not see them.
To me there is a gap between CentralNotice messages on one side and on the other hand the postings in central discussion/notifications page. I think we should get a way to notify every user targeted just as with the CentralNotice: if needed geo specific, translated, etc but isn't shown as big banner on every page.
In September I supported the implementation of the Notifications system (Echo) by announcing and explaining to the local community what was going to change and how it works, and even while that system has minor issues it is considered very much as a success by the community of nl-wiki.
I think a nice way to tackle the problem is by having the Notifications tool expanded with the ability to receive there notices like with the FDC.
Romaine
(tech ambassador for nl Wikipedia)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:35:06 -0700
From: Tilman Bayer <tbayer(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Coordination of technology deployments across
languages/projects
<wikitech-ambassadors(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Overloaded with CentralNotices
Message-ID:
<CAPDdKA7f0Nmps9euOCAyVZt_FdYN5_V1-D8nFeDD0xXP_GmDmg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Romaine,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Romaine Wiki <romaine_wiki(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On the Dutch Wikipedia users have indicated that they
perceive the number of Global Notices too much and the more
that happens the more users will start to add code to their
preferences to fully block every notice as they are so tired
of them.
>
> The current load of negative feedback about the banners
is currently coming up after the especially the FDC banners
I assume that by "current load of negative feedback", you
mean the
comments by Grashoofd and Saschaporsche in this discussion?
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Wikimedia_Spam
Thank you for resolving some misconceptions there (e.g. the
assumption
that these banners were shown to all Dutch Wikipedia
readers - they
are set to be displayed to logged-in users only); I also
responded to
some other points in that thread.
About the FDC banners in general:
The FDC - itself consisting of volunteer community members -
considers
it really important that the editing community gets to have
a say in
the process of how donation money is allocated to various
Wikimedia
organizations in the FDC process. See e.g. their recent blog
post at
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/25/call-for-community-input-funding-prop…
(as mentioned there, this time the decisions are
particularly
difficult, as the amount requested in this round is already
close to
what's available for the whole year including next round's
requests,
$6 million). Without the work of the editing community, this
money
would not be available. Even if admittedly many editors are
either not
interested in participating in discussions on how to spend
it, or do
not have the time, I think it's still important to widely
inform the
community of this possibility.
CentralNotice banners are currently the most effective way
of making
community members aware of this opportunity to influence the
process,
which happens twice a year (once a year if you only consider
a
particular organization/country), and is closing soon for
this round.
The country-specific FDC banners invite editors to comment
specifically on the funding request from an organization in
that
country (Wikimedia Nederland in this case), which is assumed
to be
particularly relevant for them, as the majority of the
planned
spending in each proposal tends to be for activities
supporting
precisely this local editing community.
>
> Every week a new notice is considered too much.
I assume that "every week" is a rhetorical expression.
However, it's
true that this month there have been three campaigns
specific to the
Dutch Wikipedia/the Netherlands. Curiously, you are
omitting the fact
that it was yourself who ran two of them:
"WMNL-register-WCN-2013" (inviting registration for the
Wikiconferentie) - run on "high" priority for both logged-in
and
anonymous users, for 17 days in two countries
"WMNL-edit-a-thon-DenHaag" (inviting participation in
an edit-a-thon)
- run on "high" priority for both logged-in and anonymous
users, for
two days in one country
In comparison, the above mentioned FDC community review
invitations
run on "normal" priority and only for logged-in users, i.e.
get vastly
less exposure than these two event invitations. And I would
argue that
the number of users who are able to follow the invitation
to
participate in an online activity (like commenting on a wiki
page in
case of the FDC, or uploading images in case of WLM) is much
higher
than the number of users who are able to travel and spend
the time to
attend a physical event in a particular location. I'm not
opposed to
the use of CentralNotice to promote a nationwide annual
conference.
However, if one is concerned about banner blindness and
worried that
users are "overloaded with CentralNotices", it's probably
worth asking
the question if a single editathon in one city needs to be
advertised
with "high" priority countrywide banners to anonymous users.
The
English Wikipedia tends to use geotargeted watchlist notices
for that
kind of announcement instead
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geonotice ).
>
> I already noticed earlier that there is also some kind
of banner blindness for many users: they get a banner on
pages but do not look at them any more just as it are adds.
>
That's indeed something to be concerned about, and it's one
reason for
adding upcoming banner campaigns to the public planning page
at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Calendar
, to facilitate
coordination and discussion. It seems that this wasn't done
for the
above mentioned editathon banners. The current FDC banners
have been
announced there since October 1, and while I am taking the
criticism
that you are mentioning serious, I would also like to note
that it is
the first such criticism about them that is coming to my
attention.
> This time several users got a notice in English what
was perceived disturbing.
>
All the FDC banners contain a link inviting to add missing
translations (the global banner has been translated into
>70
languages), but at least for major languages like Dutch, the
intention
is indeed to get them translated before they go live. As you
said
yourself on the De Kroeg, this banner was available in Dutch
when it
came live yesterday.
> Also they experience getting banners as not interesting
for Wikipedia.
>
> As bonus I personally and other users have experienced
that clicking away a banner made the banner appear again
within the hour visiting other pages. I had that at least
four times on a project, on several projects. Re-appeasring
after being clicked away is useless and disturbing.
Yes, that should not happen. The banners rely on a cookie to
store
this user choice. A possible reason could be that the cookie
got lost
e.g. when the browser was restarted, or it might be a bug.
>
> Also it is annoying that I need to click the same
banners away on each project I visit, many users visit
Wikipedia, but also work on Commons, Wikidata, etc.
>
I agree, that's something worth looking into - I assume it
would need
additional technical work.
>
> I think the the CentralNotice should be redesigned or
the CentralNotice will loose it effectiveness. Something is
really going wrong.
>
>
> Romaine
>
> (tech ambassador for nl Wikipedia)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Forwarding this announcement from the Wikimedia blog:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/31/wikimedia-foundation-chief-communicat…
Announcing the search for the Wikimedia Foundation’s Chief Communications
Officer
A few weeks ago, Jay Walsh stepped down as head of Communications for the
Wikimedia Foundation. I was sad to see Jay leave — for nearly six years
he’s guided WMF communications activities with unerring judgement and
poise. He’s been a trusted colleague and a good friend to the movement.
Today, we’re announcing an international search for his replacement: a
Chief Communications Officer (CCO) to lead the WMF’s small communications
team.
It’s a unique job. Wikipedia is super-famous and the press and general
public are highly interested in us. We’re likelier to turn down press
opportunities than to seek them out. Unusually for an organization
representing a famous brand, we tend to speak freely, rather than aiming to
restrict access to information about us, and we do it in collaboration with
a decentralized global network of volunteer spokespeople. We don’t try to
significantly control or shape people’s perceptions of Wikipedia because we
believe brand perception emerges organically out of users’ day-to-day
experiences with a product. People love Wikipedia, and so do we: that means
we’ve got no reason to be overly controlling about our public image.
We want a CCO who believes in the WMF vision and shares our values. He or
she will manage communications at the WMF and across the projects we
operate, ensuring a fast and easy flow of information in multiple
languages, both internally within the Wikimedia movement and externally
with the press, readers, donors and general public. The full CCO job
description, including required qualifications, can be found here.
To help in the recruitment process, we’ve engaged Chaloner Associates, an
executive search firm specializing in communications roles. If you’re
interested in the role, or want to suggest potential candidates, you can
write to Amy Segelin (amy(a)chaloner.com) or Kassie Wilner (
kassie(a)chaloner.com) at Chaloner. You can also apply online here. If you’re
a Wikimedia community member, please say that in your application since
it’s a plus for us. Also please note we don’t discriminate on the basis of
ethnic origin, nationality, religion, political perspective, sex, age,
disability, gender identity or sexual orientation, and we particularly
value international experience and fluency in languages in addition to
English.
We expect to begin interviewing candidates in December, and hope to have a
new CCO in place in January.
Please join me in thanking Jay for his many years of service to the
Wikimedia movement, and please share this post with your networks.
Thanks,
Sue Gardner
--
Matthew Roth
Global Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
+1.415.839.6885 ext 6635
www.wikimediafoundation.orghttps://blog.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
