Dear All,
There is a series of opportunities/events coming up where we would love to
have your help. Please see below for details, or get in touch with me with
any questions. Many thanks - I hope many of you will be able to attend and
help.
- *Imperial College Wikipedia Society* is having their first social on
Tuesday 16 October at 6:30pm at the Union pub (near the Imperial), London.
Feel free to pop in if you want to say hello.
- *Black History
Month*<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Black_History_Month,_2012>
Wikipedia
training day Friday 26 October, London
To coincide with Black History Month, Wikimedia UK in conjunction with The
Equiano Centre <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/equianocentre/>, UCL is organising an
event on 26 October in London. The event will explore some of Black Culture
histories and work on adding the information to Wikipedia (including
biographies on some of the figures of African and Asian heritage living,
travelling or working in Britain at this time). Please sign up on the page
if you are able to help with Wikipedia *training* on the day (
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Black_History_Month,_2012). Some participants
will be members of various Black Culture organisations so it will be a
great networking opportunity as well.
- *Train the Trainer*<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_the_Trainers/October_event>weekend
27-28 October, London
There are a couple of spaces available at our free training event for *anyone
helping at Wikipedia training workshops, or even only just thinking of
getting involved in that*.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_the_Trainers/October_event
- *Association of Medical Research Charities* conference Tuesday 30
October, London
As a part of AMRC's public engagement event there will be a talk on
Wikipedia at 11am-12:30pm. A person leading it has attended a Wikipedia
workshop a couple of months back that our volunteers have run and would
like to take the relationship forward. They are tailoring the content to
their audience, so they would like to lead the workshop, but having one
volunteer to help out with *facilitating* (especially if familiar with the
WikiProject Medicine) would be great. Let me know if you are available by
15 October.
- *Ethical Properties Wikipedia
workshop<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Properties_Wikipedia_Workshop/November…>
* Thursday 1 November, 11am-4pm, London
We are having another relaxed training session for some volunteers and
staff from the charities based in the Wikimedia UK's building. If you are
able to attend as a *trainer* to help with this relaxed 1-1 Wikipedia
introduction day, please do sign up on the page (
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Properties_Wikipedia_Workshop/November…)
or let me know.
- *Girl Geeks<https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Girl_Geek_Dinner/Manchester_Novembe…>
* editing day Sunday 25 November, whole day, Manchester
As a followup from the event we have run last year, we are putting up a
friendly meeting with the Manchester Girl Geeks. The details are being
confirmed but we will focus on teaching the attendees how to edit, and with
time permitting do the editing with the topics that the participants will
be interested in. A couple of *trainers* joining us would be great - if you
are interested please sign up here (
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Girl_Geek_Dinner/Manchester_Novembe…
)
- Don't forget the London <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/62>,
Coventry <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Coventry/4> and
Cambridge<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Cambridge/16> Meetups
in October as well!
Looking forward to hearing back from you.
All the best,
Daria
--
Daria Cybulska - Events Organiser, Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0994
+44 7803 505 170
--
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.*
FYI,
http://bit.ly/londonosm7http://lanyrd.com/2012/osmlondon-oct11/
Another OpenStreetMap mapping party and pub meet. These guys seem to
have the ability to choose a different pub each time, and most of them
seem to be able to find the pub too!
*******>>>>>>
We'll meet at the pub at 7:00p.m. but some of us will aim to get to the
area earlier, to get in bit of mapping time. This is not compulsory.
Feel free to just go to the pub.
<<<<**********
Gordo
Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current
discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concept of collective
responsibility[1].
This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the
heart of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins the
Wikimedia movement, and upon which Wikimedia UK was founded on. Even the
WMF Board now list individual trustees' votes on a resolution[2]. This
is nothing more than a half-assed attempt to hide division within the
heart of the current board of trustees that only serve to reduce
accountability of individual trustee and damages the chapter.
Whoever proposed this, shame on you!
KTC
[1]:
<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler#Trustees_and_.22cabinet_voting.22>
[2]:
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Tra…>
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
The accounts are agreed & the audit partner, who was away most of last
week, should have received them signed by WMUK. I'm hoping he will sign
them on Monday. So long as no other Trustees resign before then! We
are well aware of the deadline and the need to file thank you; the late
filing in 2010 is still thrown at us in a highly distorted way by WMF.
John Byrne
Although this blog is run from one institution and for social
sciences, it seems to be quite influential nationally and in other
sciences. I've used my guest post to promote expert outreach and
Wikipedia education assignments:
"Writing for Wikipedia has forced me into good scholarly habits and
accessible writing"
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/10/04/poulter-writing-wi…
It's getting a very healthy number of Twitter and Facebook shares.
I've sent them a reminder of the terms of the CC licence attached to
Mike's image.
Thanks to Daria and Stevie for helping to set this up as part of
EduWiki publicity, and to Andy Mabbett for giving it some Twitter
publicity. Cheers,
--
Dr Martin L Poulter
Wikipedia contributor http://enwp.org/User:MartinPoulter
Associate, Wikimedia UK http://uk.wikimedia.org/
Musician http://myspace.com/comapilot
Person http://infobomb.org/
(starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original thread,
hope that is OK)
I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't
> really work and people need more support than just an email address
> they can send things to and get back a lecture on Wikipedia policy and
> procedure,
Well, respectfully I disagree - at least in part.
OTRS very often works. It is because of the work of OTRS volunteers there
aren't *more* news articles featuring prominent people who have had little
or no success with Wikipedia!
> and judging by the number of attempts we see at setting up
> for-profit consultancy services for this, it would appear there is a
> market. (I think there is probably a market of companies and
> individuals that would be happier paying even if they could get the
> same thing done for free, just because they feel more confident in a
> paid service.)
>
The problem with this approach is that if you enter into a monetary
contract with someone they have more expectation of a result. I'm not
shouting down the idea outright - but it is much harder to turn around to
someone and say "I'm sorry, but this content can't be changed" when they
are paying you to do that... :D
Even if sold merely as an advisory service with no guarantee there would
still be an expectation. (and there are also moral issues tied up in there;
dangling the resolution of an issue in front of an individual, who is upset
and vulnerable, for a fee..).
Selling advisory services on an one-to-one basis is too much of a minefield!
It would be better for a social enterprise of Wikimedians to be
> providing that paid consultancy than some of the other people trying
> to offer such services.
We do have to be a little careful here what with the current grumblings
about COI etc.
> I did try and draw up a rough business plan
> for such a consultancy, and I think it could turn a profit. The big
> unknowns were how much we could charge (I used some PR consultancy
> chargeout rates I found online as a rough estimate) and how much
> non-chargable work would be required in order to attract business (if
> we get people just knocking on the door without any reals sales work
> required, then it would easily be profitable).
Is this something you would be willing to share with us?
My thoughts are that you have the germ of the idea, but are taking it in a
direction that runs into numerous problems farther down the line.
OTRS kinda works; I will admit I have seen some replies from Wikipedians
that make me cringe at their bluntness. However this is not an unassailable
problem.
I would tackle this idea in three ways:
* Invest in OTRS agents; run training sessions (we have already done that
once I think...), write training materials etc.
* Invest in the OTRS software; it's not entirely fit for our purposes. The
concept is not complex, and I feel it would be possible to contribute
either to the OTRS software-base, tweak the existing code or even begin
from scratch with a custom-built solution.
The third strand would be based on your thoughts about paid support. Rather
than offer one-to-one support, I'd suggest training days and support groups
(think; Wikipedia Anonymous :)). Based loosely on the format of a morning
crash course in Wikipedia and an afternoon QA session, with editors around
to help with individual issues.
Just thinking aloud.
Tom
Heads up this post will be advertised shortly.
We need someone who will support the chapter's work and be able to support
everyone at everything!
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_support_post
Please pass it round to anyone in the community.
Thanks
Jon
The closing date is 5pm BST on 24th October 2012. Applications cannot be
accepted after that date. Interviews are planned for 31st October 2012 at
our offices in London.
*For an application form, please email jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk*
Applications can be made in Open Document Format (via Open Office or Libre
Office), .doc format (via Microsoft Word) or Portable Document Format.
If you would like to ask any questions about this position, then please
call Jon Davies on 0207 065 0990.
--
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies
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).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
Hi all,
Please see my previous e-mail where I suggest that the Wikipedia model
does not work on sister sites - such as Wikiversity. Yes, maybe it is not
appropriate for Wikipedia, but maybe it could actually help turn
Wikiversity into something much more dynamic.
Also perhaps it could have a positive impact on Wikisource. These are
structures which have a different social dynamic than WP. What matters is
how it works in these different communities.
I feel that having a range of Open Educational Resources on Wikiversity
would help not only WV but also WP. If these good few administrators want
to get involved with WV, well, of course they would be welcome. But it is
a different environment . . .
all the best
Fabian
(User:Leutah)
> It would be... tricky to get the idea past the community on Wikipedia,
> though, would it not? I know a good few administrators who delete any paid
> articles on sight.
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 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.*
Hi,
There are a variety of ways this can be organised. I have been involved in
one initiative in the area of Law Centres.
You can have simple subsidiaries, or the one we set up in Tower Hamlets is
a co-operative, combining aspects of a consumer co-op and a workers co-op.
We would need to discuss how we wanted to handle the various relationships
- between WMUK, the Social Enterprise, clients, consultants, trainers all
in the context of the wider Wikimedia communities.
This might seem a a daunting task, but it's our own fault for making WP so
successful!
I am particularly interested in developing a service to deliver training
in use of Mediawiki technology with reference to specific platforms -
i.e.Wikipedia and its sister sites, but also other projects such as
Wikivet:
http://en.wikivet.net/Veterinary_Education_Online
We could develop accredited training which fits in with the National
Qualifications Framework. We could also have less formal training
available.
I think we should be aware that the release of a new user-friendly WSYIWYG
interface could make Mediawiki more attractive amongst businesses.
My personal preference is the co-operative model - which I feel fits the
ethos of Wikipedia very well. There are ways in which this could be set up
as a Community Interest Company, giving operational control to those
developing the service, while at the same time ensuring an income stream
to the charity. We could also include providing trading gratis where the
circumstances make this most appropriate.
Essentially this would require the Board making a decision that it was
interested in looking into the idea and setting up a steering committee to
take the matter forward. This could be done with a limited amount of
officer time. In fact there may well be sources of funding we could access
to help develop clearly defined options which could be presented for
general discussion in the community (which might well mean listening to
people based outside the UK).
all the best
Fabian
(user:Leutha)
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:41:04 +0100
>From: Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>
>To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] social enterprise
>Message-ID:
> <CADvxJeGC1sA5AchfZ_UfJFZEuKHWdfhWQngrx=qwuzKuEVGZ=g(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Fabian,
>
>Thanks for this very interesting idea. I've also thought that there are a
>number of opportunities in this space derived from the wikimedia projects
>that aren't entirely suited to a registered charity.
>
>A number of UK charities manage to combine an enterprise through a "trading
>subsidiary". Would this idea work through such a vehicle?
>
>Regards,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:24 PM, <fabian(a)unpopular.org.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to thank Thomas Morton for his well thought explanation
> addressed to Roger (Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:51:10 +0100). It covered a number
> of points I felt need addressing and Tom put them in a useful and tactful
> way - much better than I could have hoped to do.
>
> However, I would like to address some ramifications of this.
>
> >This is one reason why charities are often run by older, retired, types
> who
> >do not need to go out and earn a living.
>
> Quite so. However, one of the consequences of the phenomenal success of WP
> is that the potential development of where we are now has created space
> for activity beyond that which WMUK as a charity is best placed to carry
> out.
>
> a) Wikiversity has a great potential, however the development of such a
> repository of Open Educational Resources (OERs) will be very slow without
> people being paid - not so much for editing but for delivering teaching
> which uses WV as a platform, creating OERs free for other people to use.
> The dynamic for this is quite different from WP and Wikicommons.
>
> I have not been involved in all the sister projects, but suspect that they
> will each have their own dynamic, which needs to be addressed in its own
> terms.
>
> b) Linked to a) is the delivery of training in how to use WP. It seems to
> me very straight forward to see WV as an ideal platform for this. There is
> also much to be learnt from WikiEducator, which uses a Mediawiki in
> conjunction wit the moodle software.
>
> c) Another aspect of this is that I have noticed that some of the people
> who attend WMUK training sessions are people who are employed by learned
> societies as Social Media Officers. While I find volunteering to train
> other volunteers quite attractive, when it comes to giving time freely in
> order help in the training for paid workers of organisations I am
> confident that i am not the only person who finds this a bit awkward.
> Likewise as we welcome academics who stipulate that their students achieve
> certain goals in order to pass a course, this to me creates a market for
> delivering training outside a volunteer - to -volunteer framework.
>
> Aside from the problems which have arisen from Roger being a trustee, I
> think the work he has done is amazing and really innovative. I would like
> to see it continue. However what I feel would really facilitate this is
> the creation of a not-for-profit social enterprise which would provide a
> structured way in which innovations like QRpedia could be placed in
> relation to both WMUK, WMF and the broader community.
>
> I feel that our community has an amazing range of diverse talents, and
> that if the possibilities provoked by WPs success are to be realised, then
> we need to develop a way in which the ethos of unpaid editing of WP itself
> can be balanced with other roles which are emerging which are peripheral
> to editing but which can greatly enhance WP and its sister projects.
>
> I hope that the recent experiences at WMUK will stimulate a discussion
> about how such a social enterprise might be set up, how the ethos of
> collaborative working and sharing of resources might be taken forward, how
> this can be done in a way which does not disrupt the very success which WP
> has enjoyed, and how such a social enterprise can contribute towards
> fundraising for WMUK to deliver its charitable goals.
>
> If such a discussion is got going now, there is some prospect that we
> could have a concrete proposal which has been mulled over by the community
> in time for the next AGM.
>
> As Tom said:
>
> >Bottom line; you (as a board), we even, fucked up. Not maliciously, but
> >very badly. You lost sight of the wider objective.
>
> >But it's not something to beat each other up over. Learn from it, make
> >improvements, move on.
>
> I am proposing this as a way of moving on in a way which keeps people like
> Roger with their brilliant ideas involved but not as trustees.
>
> all the best
>
> Fabian
> (User:Leutha)