I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in advance to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real life, edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much more convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this objectionable from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to seperate discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in the US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example European principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally obliged to.
Best,
Lodewijk
2010/7/16 Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
Hiya -
I asked Danese, who is currently buried under about 20 pounds of stuff after coming back from Wikimania, to further describe the stakeholder database. Her response is:
Sue has a vision for a single master database that tracks our interactions with movement participants. It is intended to help us better respond to requests from individuals by joining all the info we have from prior interactions with that person. This will be particularly important as we grow the staff, because current onboarding time requires long "buddy system" pairings with existing staff to teach how to best interact. So for instance, if you have had a Wikipedia account since 2005, have made enough edits to become, say, an Admin, have uploaded 100 images to Commons, have been a donor every year and have responded helpfully to many OTRS requests, there should be a quick way for a new staffer to learn those facts. All of this information is available to the staff now, just not in an aggregated place.
Danese
On Jul 15, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Excirial wrote:
I have gone trough the report, and immediately noted the extremely strong growth of the foundation in terms of personal (Nearly doubling the amount two years in a row). Generally i am not a fan of such fast growth as it often leads to bloating; but seeing the the rest of the plan looks fine i presume i am just viewing things to black and white.
One particular detail in the "Top Spending Increases, continued" section raised some question marks for me though. There is a 2.6 million dollar increase in the "Other tech staffing and stakeholder database" category. I can understand the 10 new tech position and the annualization of existing tech salaries paid by this increase, but what role will the stakeholder database have? The description, "development of a database to track relationships with all stakeholders including readers, editors, donors, other volunteers, etc." is rather vague and includes no real indication as to its purpose. What exactly will it track, and what will the information be used for? Since there are so many editors on-wiki i doubt that this will be used as a full-fledged CRM (customer relationship management) system used to track literally everything. All i can imagine is that it could track top level community issues such as flagged revisions or OTRS complains.
Anyone who has some more information on this system? I'm quite interested to be honest.
Kind regards, ~Excirial
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.comwrote:
Now if we only had some kind of mobile device which could be given to such institutions containing a copy! :P.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
Every national and regional library should have a local copy of
Wikimedia.
With a full history dump?
;-)
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, As far as I know the data involved is exempt from having to be registered with the registrar in the Netherlands. This is the type of data that is essential for the running of an organisation like ours. You may feel uncomfortable about this but that is tough. What is important is the way the data separate or combined is treated. To appreciate what you can expect there is a privacy policy.. recommended reading..
In my appreciation, the fact that the WMF has never received a monetary donation from me means that I am unlikely to be approached as a donor. If the WMF thinks any less of me, it is their problem not mine. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 July 2010 14:00, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in advance to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real life, edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much more convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this objectionable from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to seperate discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in the US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example European principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally obliged to.
Best,
Lodewijk
2010/7/16 Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.org
Hiya -
I asked Danese, who is currently buried under about 20 pounds of stuff after coming back from Wikimania, to further describe the stakeholder database. Her response is:
Sue has a vision for a single master database that tracks our interactions with movement participants. It is intended to help us better respond to requests from individuals by joining all the info we have from prior interactions with that person. This will be particularly important as we grow the staff, because current onboarding time requires long "buddy system" pairings with existing staff to teach how to best interact. So for instance, if you have had a Wikipedia account since 2005, have made enough edits to become, say, an Admin, have uploaded 100 images to Commons, have been a donor every year and have responded helpfully to many OTRS requests, there should be a quick way for a new staffer to learn those facts. All of this information is available to the staff now, just not in an aggregated place.
Danese
On Jul 15, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Excirial wrote:
I have gone trough the report, and immediately noted the extremely strong growth of the foundation in terms of personal (Nearly doubling the amount two years in a row). Generally i am not a fan of such fast growth as it often leads to bloating; but seeing the the rest of the plan looks fine i presume i am just viewing things to black and white.
One particular detail in the "Top Spending Increases, continued" section raised some question marks for me though. There is a 2.6 million dollar increase in the "Other tech staffing and stakeholder database" category. I can understand the 10 new tech position and the annualization of existing tech salaries paid by this increase, but what role will the stakeholder database have? The description, "development of a database to track relationships with all stakeholders including readers, editors, donors, other volunteers, etc." is rather vague and includes no real indication as to its purpose. What exactly will it track, and what will the information be used for? Since there are so many editors on-wiki i doubt that this will be used as a full-fledged CRM (customer relationship management) system used to track literally everything. All i can imagine is that it could track top level community issues such as flagged revisions or OTRS complains.
Anyone who has some more information on this system? I'm quite interested to be honest.
Kind regards, ~Excirial
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.comwrote:
Now if we only had some kind of mobile device which could be given to such institutions containing a copy! :P.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
Every national and regional library should have a local copy of
Wikimedia.
With a full history dump?
;-)
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16 July 2010 13:14, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, As far as I know the data involved is exempt from having to be registered with the registrar in the Netherlands. This is the type of data that is essential for the running of an organisation like ours. You may feel uncomfortable about this but that is tough.
I'd suggest letting the WMF answer questions like that.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in advance to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real life, edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much more convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this objectionable from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to seperate discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in the US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example European principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally obliged to.
Best,
Lodewijk
What I believe this is referring to, is that the Customer Relation Manager (CRM) [CiviCRM iirc] to be setup to allow for some details about the people to be stored such as their usernames/interests/etc compared to it just being a word of mouth system where staff members need to track down which staff know who.
So for example a staff member can look up a person and go "oh Jimmy Bloggs is interested in political photograph, X might interest him" compared to say "Jimmy Bloggs was entered by Sally Doors, I need to go talk to her," who redirects to someone else that knows more about the subject.
-Peachey
So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all and sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was never my intent.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in
advance
to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real
life,
edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much more convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this
objectionable
from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to seperate discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in
the
US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example European principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally
obliged
to.
Best,
Lodewijk
What I believe this is referring to, is that the Customer Relation Manager (CRM) [CiviCRM iirc] to be setup to allow for some details about the people to be stored such as their usernames/interests/etc compared to it just being a word of mouth system where staff members need to track down which staff know who.
So for example a staff member can look up a person and go "oh Jimmy Bloggs is interested in political photograph, X might interest him" compared to say "Jimmy Bloggs was entered by Sally Doors, I need to go talk to her," who redirects to someone else that knows more about the subject.
-Peachey
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all and sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was never my intent.*
I don't think the system is intended to work this way. The system seems to be akin to a CRM system, and i presume only relevant information will be tracked. For example, you might contact the foundation wishing to set up another local chapter, asking for an internship or merely to request information on policies, this previous request is logged. If you call again it is likely you will get someone else on the phone, which means you would have to explain the whole situation again. In the current situation the "buddy system" seems to take care of this, as people are likely to share such information over coffee so everyone knows what person XyZ called for. Due to the predicted explosive growth such a buddy system would overextend itself, thus necessitating some form of central storage.
Keep in mind that "Stakeholders" is a very wide term. Wikipedians are but one group - The foundation will also receive calls from companies asking why their page was removed, From universities to ask if they can integrate Wikipedia editing in their curriculum, from other institutions that give Wikipedia grants for development, from journalists, politicians... The possibilities are endless, as a stakeholder is merely someone interested in the foundation.
~Excirial
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.comwrote:
So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all and sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was never my intent.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in
advance
to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real
life,
edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much
more
convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this
objectionable
from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to
seperate
discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in
the
US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example
European
principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally
obliged
to.
Best,
Lodewijk
What I believe this is referring to, is that the Customer Relation Manager (CRM) [CiviCRM iirc] to be setup to allow for some details about the people to be stored such as their usernames/interests/etc compared to it just being a word of mouth system where staff members need to track down which staff know who.
So for example a staff member can look up a person and go "oh Jimmy Bloggs is interested in political photograph, X might interest him" compared to say "Jimmy Bloggs was entered by Sally Doors, I need to go talk to her," who redirects to someone else that knows more about the subject.
-Peachey
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope we all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment.
Lodewijk
2010/7/17 Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com
So the logic seems to be thus - if I tell employee X something about my life, interests, experience, C.V. that could possibly be of use or interest to the Foundation, it's fine to store it on a central database where all and sundry within the Foundation can get at it, despite the fact that this was never my intent.
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:01 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I am assuming that people will be warned and asked for permission in
advance
to combine these databases? I for one would definitely have strong objections against merging donation and edit data. Donations are real
life,
edits are wikipedia-universe. Although I do realize that it is much
more
convenient for staff to have this data combined, I find this
objectionable
from the privacy point of view. (putting this in a new thread to
seperate
discussions a bit) I am not sure of legal requirements in this field in
the
US - but I hope Wikipedia will always adhere to also for example
European
principles in this regard whether it is maybe or maybe not legally
obliged
to.
Best,
Lodewijk
What I believe this is referring to, is that the Customer Relation Manager (CRM) [CiviCRM iirc] to be setup to allow for some details about the people to be stored such as their usernames/interests/etc compared to it just being a word of mouth system where staff members need to track down which staff know who.
So for example a staff member can look up a person and go "oh Jimmy Bloggs is interested in political photograph, X might interest him" compared to say "Jimmy Bloggs was entered by Sally Doors, I need to go talk to her," who redirects to someone else that knows more about the subject.
-Peachey
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17 July 2010 13:53, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I'd rather not speculate about what happens or the intent before someone from the WMF who is responsible for this clarifies the statement. I hope we all can hold ourselves from guessing and seeking logic until that moment.
This is foundation-l... your hope is misplaced!
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org