Dear all,
WMDE's 2012 annual report was recently published in German. Today, I posted
an English translation on Meta, too[1]. Like last year's annual report the
2012 edition comes as a PDF. Unlike last year we additionally converted
both the German and English reports into wiki versions. This is to take a
step forward regarding readability. At the same time, feedback on Meta can
be gathered more directly. (A preview to the PDF layout and the designed
report is embedded, though.)
The annual reports are one of several puzzle pieces when it comes to WMDE
reporting. Our monthly reports have been coming bilingual for quite a while
now[2], so as to serve German-speaking communities and the international
movement alike. With the evolving quarterly FDC reporting routine we aim to
keep that up. Even more importantly, we seek to create a genuine quarterly
report[3] for our specific language communities. Therefore, information for
the FDC Q1 report form was gathered with an additional perspective
(German-language readers) in mind.
This is a first step. We're looking forward to exploiting a growing pool of
quarterly reviews in a number of ways. We'll be able to add another layer
of information for communities, while learning from documented experience
and embracing opportunities to review and adapt WMDE's project work.
Please find our reports online!
Best,
Michael
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/2012_annual_report
[2] chapter reports https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports; new table with
both EN/DE
[3] WMDE Q1/2013 (in German!)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Q1_2013
--
Michael Jahn
Public relations
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstraße 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260
http://wikimedia.de <http://www.wikimedia.de>
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
*Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition:*
http://wikipedia.de/wke/Main_Page?setlang=de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
As you may remember, in 2010 the Wikipedia puzzle logo was updated:
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0>
The localisation and update of logos has always been a volunteer-driven
effort, organised mostly by Casey at the time. Building on his work,[1]
in the last 6 months over 100 Wikipedias had their logo updated,[2] with
the last batch yesterday.
Like the 55 Wiktionaries in December,[3] many of those wikis have never
had a localised before; the others were still using the v1 logo or had
some other breach of the visual guidelines.
Many thanks to all the translators and users checking the new logos, and
to the tireless Odder who drew some 66 of those logos and uploaded even
more in the process of doing so. Again, you can still help by adding
translations and reporting errors on the coordination page.[1]
Nemo
[1] <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cbrown1023/Logos>
[2] 108 if I'm counting correctly.
<https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=40285,44974,46589,48397>
[3]
<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2012-December/002193.html>
Hello everyone,
Wikimedia Hungary has recieved an interesting "sales pitch" today if we can
call a two liner that.
One of the largest Hungarian travelling agency's department (or
subsidiary?) for conference tourism have expressed interest in organizing a
Wikimania in Budapest, Hungary in 2015 in cooperation with WMHU. (My
understanding is that WMHU would be a content advisor or similar in it)
They've expressed interest in individual workshops as well (of course).
They've emailed us the bidding page for Wikimania 2015 [1] and the blog
entry about the Program Evaluation Workshop that will be held in June in
Budapest [2] (I guess) to underline their interest (and inadvertently
highlight they're actively monitioring these events)
I believe you already have the questions in your mind about this; here are
my ones:
1) What if a third party applies to create an event? (like a workshop or
Wikimania)
It is not prohibited for a for profit company to create a bid, nor they
have the necessity to consult or cooperate with any of the chapters (though
it is almost certain that they'll get some wikip/medians to help with the
content). There are many workshops and meetups where Wikipedia is being
discussed or being the topic without having any wikim/pedians speaking or
attending, but something like a workshop, or Wikimania would be an
"internal event" (even if maximum possible outreach is the ultimate goal in
the latter)
1/b) What if their bid is the best overall? Would they be allowed to
execute it (a.k.a. being announced winners)?
note these bids would not be coming from the local communities as they are
coming now, but from outside.
1/c) What if such a bid comes from a country where is no chapter formed yet
(or a non active or too small /or etc./ exists)?
Given the fact that Wikimania is so far the best local outreach tool of the
movement, creating one in a country with small, or struggling (for whatever
reasons) communities/chapters could result in a huge boost of that
community/chapter. (it would be nice to know btw the aftereffects of the
previous Wikimanias on the organizing chapters if it was ever measured)
2) Could it be an option for future bidders to outsource some or (almost)
all parts of the organization/catering/other tasks to a third party
(outside of the movement) keeping only the content management to themselves
?
The (future?) Wikimania Committee is in broader terms an officially not
registered - internal - project company to help creating future Wikimanias
in general.
Feel free to add your questions, while answering mines and others' :)
Cheers,
Balázs
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015_bids
[2]
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/09/program-evaluation-workshop-budapest/
I think this is very true, and we could perhaps improve our procedures and
documentation in many ways. However, I do think it is important to realize
that you're comparing apples with oranges here. The meeting in Brussels for
example was on the topic of influencing legislative processes - a topic by
definition long term and hard to measure. The goals there would be better
(copyright) legislation than without these initiatives - and rather
strategic. The bootcamp in DC was intended as a boost for volunteers, where
they would get a lot of information and experience in a short time:
capacity building. This is also long term, but much better to measure. And
finally there's the hackathon, which is much more short-term focused (at
least partially), and will have very concrete results (but probably zero
measured in new articles created).
What I think is most important, is that for every meeting we have, we
identify desired outcomes. These outcomes can be very tangible, or
intangible - but they should always be defined, and the agenda should be
built around it.
Based on these desired outcomes, you can estimate up front if the meeting
is likely to be 'worth it'. If not, you can reduce the costs, increase the
outcomes (different setup) or cancel all together.
Finally, after the meeting a report (private or public - there should
always be a report or documentation) should be produced and if possible
published. In that report you should always return to these desired
outcomes, and see if they were met - and how/why not.
But even then on the strategy side of things meetings are always hard to
estimate.
Of course you're totally right that there are expectations towards
participants of meetings. Not only because of the money invested, but also
because of the attention of the other participants. I definitely have been
in meetings where people literally fell asleep or played games during the
meeting - and that is simply insulting to the other people in the room. So
yeah, if that is your mindset, perhaps it is better not to go at all. But
then I am assuming good faith, and think that everyone will be going to
meetings with the best of intentions, and not simply to play tourist.
Lodewijk
2013/5/14 Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu>
> 40k for a single meetup can be justified if the results worth that much
> money. (I've already argued about this regarding Milan chapters meetup
> btw). Providing a "more than basic" travel and accomodation can be a way of
> appreciation as well for their work, what they do as volunteers, that
> should be calculated into the costs.
>
> Ain't these intrenational events' (not just this meetup's, but all events')
> "success ratio" being measured by some way already?
>
> The cost/benefit ratio [1] is a pretty basic (and extreme important) thing
> we like to calculate with here in Hungary about all of our activities. For
> example the number of articles created divided with the total costs of the
> article writing contest they've been created within gives a number we can
> work a lot with to improve cost-effectiveness. Seemingly very few chapters
> doing anything similar (or not in a visible way)
>
> AffCom already measures itself in some ways in their reports, but regarding
> other meetups, I've barely seen at least a basic followup or aftercare and
> especially not a detailed overall (measurement) report what is usually /at
> least in those commercial events I was involved with/ being published after
> about six month of the last day of the event, and gives a detailed summary
> of its pros and cons, dos and don'ts, successes and fails, overall impact
> (upon proactively collected feedbacks), etc.
>
> There were plenty of international events already this year (Brussels
> meeting about EU policies, Milan, London glam, Amsterdam hackathon that are
> coming in my mind right now from 2013, and this is just the first 4 month
> (only 1/3rd of the year) and not the full list!) most of them with no or
> very low visible results yet (ok they need some time to evolve, but
> regarding events in 2012, I barely read anything to remember nor any
> followups or summares, reports). Compared to the "GLAM camp" in the US
> recently, it seems definitely true. The latter looks like a very good
> example of a beneficial meetup, having a lot of potential and it seems
> there is a chance that it will be followed up by WMDC and other
> participating parties well after the event. Why to have a long term
> followup? To give a definite answer wheter those potentials actually
> resulted in anything at all (was there any "real benefit") or it was just a
> very good mooded, fun and positive, but totally fruitless event (wasted
> money from the movement's POV)
>
> I see compared to 2012 costs going up without any visible rise in
> effectiveness or more worse, a decline in it. This is solely based upon
> what I can (or can not) read about them on meta and other places, like the
> comments here. Wikimania 2014 was the first event ever where this thing was
> taken seriously, but rather on the cost cutting side, than on the
> effectiveness improving side
>
> It would be great to see detailed measurements of these events, like how
> many new projects or international cooperations (or whatever it aims) were
> boosted/inspired by the given thematic meetup up until the next similar
> meetup. If that number is X, while the costs were Y, and X/Y does not look
> good, than you can start thinking how can you improve X without expanding
> Y (or even lowering it) to get a much friendly ratio, thus creating an even
> more fruitful (better quality) event next time. The best would be a
> detailed breakdown, like main goals, side goals, unexpected or "extra"
> things that that meeting had inspired/boosted/hosted/etc.
>
> Note, there ain't no such thing as free lunch [2]
>
> Cheers,
> Balázs
>
> PS: WMHU has 68k budget for 2013.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit%E2%80%93cost_ratio
> [2]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
>
>
>
> 2013/5/14 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
>
> > I don't think it is trivial either, and having a discussion is fine.
> > However, the bigger discussion is perhaps more relevant - because AffCom
> is
> > simply following WMF policy here, which is in place for many employees,
> > board members (and others? not sure).
> >
> > So I think there are two relevant discussions to be had: First of all,
> > whether there should be an AffCom meeting at all. Fair question of
> course.
> > (analogous you could wonder if certain chapters should really send a
> > representative to Wikimania from their budget, whether certain employees
> > really should be there and whether all chapters should be present at the
> > Chapters meeting - all fair discussions to be had in their time, too).
> The
> > second relevant question is, in my opinion, whether the WMF travel policy
> > is good, proportional etc. This policy has mostly received criticism from
> > two sides - some think it is too elaborate, and WMF should get 'less
> > luxury' (again fair discussion, but we should then focus on the whole
> > question) - another criticism is that it should be equalized for all
> > Wikimedia-sponsored trips, including individual engagement grants, trips
> to
> > the chapters meeting etc. When this question was brought up last time, I
> > believe it was Sue who mentioned that this would simply result in much
> less
> > travel and participation. Again, a fair question.
> >
> > Personally, I feel that WMF Committee (and board) members should not be
> > treated to a lower standard than staff members, simply because they are
> not
> > being paid for their work. But maybe I'm the only one in thát opinion
> > though...
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/14 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
> >
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't really think this is a triviality.
> > > Cents and single dollars of chapters are weighted and analyzed,
> > > FDC and GACs nitpicks and their goal is to assure that donor moneys is
> > not
> > > wasted.
> > > We all know that there are issues on that and a lot of chapters had to
> > work
> > > hard to be able to draw their budget, and receive their money.
> > >
> > > 40'000 $ for Wikimania travels are a lot, especially compared to the
> > travel
> > > budget of chapters. Period.
> > > I would assume that WMF and the Board budgets should be reasonably
> > > proportional to chapters ones.
> > > Maybe I'm the only one, though.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
As Achal pointed out, we will put resources into researching this issue in
depth and hopefully finding a solution that may work. It will probably
take a month or two to ensure we are looking at all possibilities to see if
this is possible. If you have any great ideas, please feel free to send
them to me, and I will ensure our team will consider them fully.
This will be an interesting project, and I greatly appreciate everyone's
interest in finding a lawful solution that ensures the distribution of all
materials in the public domain.
Geoff
Hi everyone,
I am happy to announce we started WCA/Journal this week:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Journal
WCA/Journal is one big piece in the mosaic of tools and communication
spaces we provide in order to start and grow the exchange of ideas,
solutions and projects. It's purpose is to make organisations aware of
each other's work, give them some entry points for collaboration, make
their success stories visible and share their experiences.
The Journal is written collaboratively. Anyone can contribute. In order
to have some rhythm, the page will be archived on a monthly basis. The
focus of this page will be on anything related the work of Wikimedia
organisations, such as chapters, thematic organisations and user groups.
For details, please refer the the About page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Journal/About>.
I hope WCA/Journal will be a space to make the value of our work
visible! Put your news here! The best way we can learn from each other
is to share our experiences, issues, knowledge and ideas!
Best,
Markus
--
Markus Glaser
WCA Council Member (WMDE)
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Hello,
A strange thing about the conversation that was going on before it escalated isn't addressed at all. Something is happening on Meta. The community takes action and then a few months later everything is passed and the user is unblocked and working happily again. But then *BOOM* a Wikimedia Foundation Staff member decided that he should be removed. The discussion if he is informed or not can't be proofed, its a fact that other users say the same was happening to them. Why did you wait three months to take action? While if you believed that there was a danger you should have removed the rights before that. Or where there any edits that made you believe that Huib / Abigor was doing the wrong things? Otherwise the story is different but the subject is the same. Staff removes volunteer without the real need.
I do strongly believe that Tilman Bayer with his responds provoked Huib to say the things he said. And no its not good that Huib did. But there where enough discussions on this lists or on the Wiki where the conclusion is that users with a mental problem can have problems on the Wiki because we don't understand them. Or we don't want to understand them. When we look at the first e-mail send by Tilman you see he is pointing that at the moment that the rights where removed he was blocked on multiple Wiki's. I did take a quick look and in November it was going the right way with Abigor.
If there is a case of Autism with Abigor it is possible that it provoked him to give a personal attack. So lets continu without pointing fingers who did what wrong. Cause if Abigor thinks different than us it possible that Tilman provoked him. And the pointing to that was not needed to make his case.
Ed
Greetings to everyone,
I would like to share with you two important events that will soon
occurin our Israeli
Chapter:
== Hackathon Tel Aviv ==
WMIL's first developers' meeting, at Google campus in Tel Aviv. Wikimedia
Israel has already held a number of national and international conferences
on various topics, but this is the first conference dedicated solely to
technology.
May 23rd ,10:00-22:00. Participation is free and if you are in the area,
you're welcome to join :)
http://www.wikimedia.org.il/events/hackathon-tlv-2013/
Facebook event:
http://www.facebook.com/events/548667148502734/
Amir E. Aharoni is leading this event.
== Wikipedia Academy Israel ==
On June 2nd we will conduct our fifth Wikipedia Academy conference. For the
second time, the conference will be held in the Interdisciplinary Center
(IDC) Herzliya. The main theme for the conference will be women's
participation in editing Wikipedia. It will mostly focus on the causes,
effects and consequences of the low percentage of women among the authors
of Wikipedia. Bishakha Datta will be our keynote speaker and we are
expecting about 150 participates.
June 2nd ,09:30-18:00. Participation is free.
http://www.wikimedia.org.il/events/conf13/
Facebook event:
http://www.facebook.com/events/502016313190755/
Deror Lin is leading this event.
All the best
Dorit Shafir Dyamant
Executive director WM-IL
dorit(a)wikimedia.org.il
972+058-4445590
*http://www.wikimedia.org.il* <http://www.wikimedia.org.il>
*תארו לעצמכם* עולם שבו לכל אדם יש גישה חופשית למכלול הידע האנושי. זוהי
המחויבות שלנו.
*
Hi Theo,
Thank you for your email. I'm truly sorry that you feel this way. I have
been thinking for some time about the issue of finding alternative
solutions to Golan-type issues, and frankly I have not been too optimistic
in the past. I think it is an important issue to our mission, however, and
I would like to take a closer look to make sure there is not a better
solution out there. Achal did contact me about it. Although I have
tremendous respect for Achal, his contact was not the reason for my desire
to look into this further with the community. As General Counsel, I tend
to exercise my own independent judgment. I have received a number of
inquiries and I am aware of the past discussions, and, to be honest, the
issue has been bugging me for some time: I’m not at all sure there is a
solution but I would like to look more closely, especially given the
ongoing community concern and available resources the coming month. If you
- or any other community member - had contacted me directly, that, in
addition to the community discussions, would have been important to me as
well. If the community feels this is a bad use of my resources, I am more
than willing to reconsider, but I don’t believe that is what people are
saying.
It is true that I do not post substantive statements on wikimedia-l
anymore. I focus on my team leaving more detailed and comprehensive
responses on wikilegal [1], our legal blogs [2], or on the wikis [3]. From
my point of view, these venues allow for a more comprehensive development
of sometimes difficult legal issues, serve as a more permanent source for
future reference and cross-links, and allow for greater community
participation on the issue at hand. I do try to announce and cross-link to
important legal postings via announce-l and wikimedia-l.
I was surprised to hear that individuals and committees are waiting weeks
for responses from Legal. We try to be as responsive as possible.
Sometimes people ask tough questions, and it takes time for us to figure
out the issue with the individual or committee at issue. But we stay in
close contact with those people, often sharing our thinking or drafts and
incorporating their feedback. With AffCom, for example, we have been quite
interactive as we try to figure out the naming issue and other legal
issues. Sometimes the discussion takes longer than we all would like, but
our practice, I believe, is to stay responsive and interactive as we work
out the solutions with our community members.
If you want to discuss with me offline or on the telephone, I will be more
than happy to do so (as I would with anybody in our community).
Take care,
Geoff
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal
[2] http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/legal/
[3] See, e.g.,
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations#Though…
*
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Wikimedia
Servers and Copyright Issues (David Cuenca)
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Geoff Brigham <gbrigham(a)wikimedia.org
>wrote:
> As Achal pointed out, we will put resources into researching this issue in
> depth and hopefully finding a solution that may work. It will probably
> take a month or two to ensure we are looking at all possibilities to see
if
> this is possible. If you have any great ideas, please feel free to send
> them to me, and I will ensure our team will consider them fully.
>
> This will be an interesting project, and I greatly appreciate everyone's
> interest in finding a lawful solution that ensures the distribution of all
> materials in the public domain.
Well, this was interesting to note. In stark contrast to the other thread,
this email was disappointing for the wrong reasons, maybe it's for me
alone. It took about 70 emails and 3 threads, and 2 days of waiting to get
a reply from the concerned staff members, but I believe Achal forwarded
this to Wikimedia-l less than 12 hours before you responded on a Sunday and
agreed to devote a month's resources to it. I don't think more than 2-3
people responded to the issue either on this list or the Indian one. I
guess that's the sole difference of the position he occupies, speaking of
which, the advisory board appointments seem indefinite, and the list
doesn't seem to have been updated - for the past 2 years I have only seen
Achal identify himself as that. As far as I know Mr. Prabhala has not even
logged in to an existing wikisource project, or uploaded anything on
commons beyond anything relevant to the last grant.
I ask because this issue was brought up a couple of years ago on the same
list[1] and received a lot more attention locally than this time.
Completely regardless of the issue itself, I know of several individuals,
and committees waiting for answers from the legal department, and actually
expect to wait weeks. I barely see you respond directly on a list these
days, and you are agreeing to devote a month's resources at his behest
alone so quickly.
Glad to be reminded how somethings change and somethings stay the same. And
speaking for me alone, it's disappointing to note the difference in tone
above vs. the one being employed on the other thread.
-Theo
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-August/004080.ht…
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6750
gbrigham(a)wikimedia.org
*California Registered In-House Counsel*
*This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in
it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let
us know about the mistake. For legal reasons, I may only serve as an
attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal
advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff
members in their personal capacity.*