Hi all,
I'm currently working on fixing up some of the details for an event we
have running later in October with the International Dunhuang Project,
an international group working with a large collection of manuscripts
and artefacts from the eastern end of the Silk Road.
http://idp.bl.uk/ & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Dunhuang_Project
The aim is to work on content related to the broad context of Central
Asian/Silk Road history and archaeology, using the resources and
expertise of the group to develop articles on topics such as:
* major archaeological sites in the region
* history of the regions and periods covered
* key archaeologists, explorers, and scholars
* related ancient languages, art, and culture
A number of IDP staff in the BL are commited to working on this over
several days, and we're also making arrangements for some groups of
postgraduate students in related fields to get involved. It'll run
over four days at the British Library in London - 23rd to 26th October
- and Wikimedians who'd like to get involved are welcome to come on
any of the days. It will be inside the staff areas at the library, so
we *will* be able to have reference books available, which has often
been a problem in the past with these events!
If you're interested, please get in touch or sign up on the wiki -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/BL/IDP - and please do
forward this to anyone else who might be interested. IDP is a
multinational group, and we're keen to make sure some of this extends
beyond the English Wikipedia.
Hope to see some of you there!
--
- Andrew Gray
Wikipedian in Residence, British Library
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is
that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current
system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if
anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft
election rules for them.
However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have
to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use...
On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx <rexx(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The problem probably lies with the volume of business on each board
> meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much
> as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made
> on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the
> near future to organise an EGM.
>
> I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who would
> be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for discussion
> (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting possible
> timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our
> commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM.
>
> All contributions are welcome.
>
> --
> Doug
>
>
>
> On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start
>> making some progress on this.
>> On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no:
>>>> are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on
>>>> board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the
>>>> board is concerned)?
>>>
>>>
>>> There has been no progress. :-)
>>>
>>> Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use
>>> STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>
Hi,
The Wikimedia UK Conference Committee is currently considering location
for the 2013 WikiConference UK and AGM. So far we have quotes for the
following locations.
* Birmingham x 1
* Coventry x 1
* Edinburgh x 1
* Lincoln x 1-2
* Manchester x 3
* Oxford x 2-3
Do you consider that's enough to make a decision from, or do you believe
the committee should gather more quotes from possibly other cities first?
Please comment at
<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiConference_UK_2013#Location_decision>
regarding the above, including any specific comments on the location itself.
Thanks,
Katie
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
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)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
--
Andrew Turvey
--
07403 216 991
@AndrewTurvey <https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewTurvey>
http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turveyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRThttp://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/
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)