May I give you some news on the wiki encyclopedias for children:
I have let you know nearly one year ago about the launching of Vikidia
in English[1]:
Vikidia in English now has 1,445 articles and 32 active users. the
advantage in English is that we can pick up, choose, adapt and select
some existing material, especially from Simple English Wikipedia, and
from Wikijunior. Some of the first users on en.vikidia.org also come
from other Vikidia language and it even gather some Dutch teenager from
Wikikids.nl.
Vikidia was first launched in French and there is a similarly developed
counterpart in Dutch : http://wikikids.nl/ . these wikis are 8 and 9
years old now.
Vikidia in French has now more than one million unique visitors a month,
with a yearly growth of audience of nearly 40 %.
It's not a Wikimedia project, yet it is supported by Wikimédia France
that now funds our hosting costs.
Another wiki encyclopedia for children was recently launched in German,
and is supported by Wikimedia Germany. See some English explanation on
it here: [2].
There is some quite significant differences between the way each wiki's
aims, rules and functioning are designed, which we had the opportunity
to discuss between one and another teams/founders.
The guestbook on fr.vikidia show that this resource is really
appreciated by children (and even older peoples), and that there is a
need for such a wiki beside Wikipedia ([3] [4]).
Yet nothing can be done but with a significant community, that's why
your support (as individual people so as an organisation) really matter !
klexikon.de, which claim to be a content - rather than an educational -
wiki for children, directs a great part of its efforts (this is most of
the Wikimedia Germany support) on organizing meeting and workshop for
wannabe editors (teachers or other - mainly - adults). What about
Wikimedia UK supporting something similar? Yet it would demand some
peoples to undertake it... One can also begin with one (or some) blog
post about this project ?
[1]
http://blog.wikimedia.fr/vikidia-in-english-opens-today-lets-build-a-childr…
[2]
https://zikoblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/a-new-wiki-klexikon-the-free-ency…
[3] https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Vikidia:Livre_d%27or
[4] see also
http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=wikibooks%2C%20wikiversity%2C%20viki…
--
Mathias Damour
49 rue Carnot
F-74000 Annecy
00 (33) 4 57 09 10 56
00 (33) 6 27 13 65 51
https://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays
mathias.damour(a)laposte.net
I have agreed to do a workshop on behalf of Wikimedia UK on 15th July and
would appreciate some advice about the best ways to deal with topics around
Conflict of Interest, Biographies of Living Persons and possibly Paid
editing.
This will be at the University of Exeter and the expected participants are
web people and possibly other comms people from universities in the south
west of England. Their objective is to improve the wp articles on academics
from their institutions (eg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academics_of_the_University_of_Exeter
)
This was originally discussed with Daria in 2013 and then was going to be
held in 2014 (Chris McKenna, HJ Mitchell, Martin Poulter etc were copied
into the planning). I emailed various experts in March and added it to an
email to Richard - but have not had any response from any of them
I have looked at:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
and feel reasonably comfortable with the content, but would appreciate any
advice on the best way to get these across to this target group, as beyond
basic editing I think these will be the most useful areas for the
participants to engage with.
Rod
SOAS just got a multimillion pound donation for a language preservation
project. Sounds like something that should have a Wikipedian in Residence.
I saw something about it in the Evening Standard last night, I think this
is it:
*http://www.hrelp.org/aboutus/ <http://www.hrelp.org/aboutus/>*
*Edward Saperia*
email <edsaperia(a)gmail.com> • facebook <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> •
twitter <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
I have supported many editathons and advised many academics on COI.
Most academics are keen to edit openly, using their real identity,
some have expressed the view that this is how to behave ethically on
the internet. If they are likely to be a long term contributor, I
strongly advise them to be pragmatic and use an anonymous account. If
they make early blunders, or have a long break from editing, they can
even throw away the account and have a clean start. This leaves them
free to be frankly judged for NPOV as any other editor, without
colouring their contributions by a preemptive COI statement.
Academics are always going to want to edit in their field of research
and contribute to articles about their projects, past projects and
colleagues. Though we want expert editors[1] there is always a risk
that they will be pestered by a wiki-gnome for adding a reference to a
work they were part of editing, or contributed a paper to. I have seen
articles languish as drafts for months because an expert in this
situation was worried about being publicly challenged by COI claims,
and so asked for others independently to review and make the go-live
decision.
A well run workshop will emphasize what COI is, and how difficult it
is to write neutrally. Given that, I have almost always been impressed
by how academics wanting to "tart up" their topic on Wikipedia are
able to perfectly well stick to sources and write in a neutral style
(I cannot say the same for undergrads!).
* Key tip: Wikipedia is not academia.net or similar, so
university/college profiles are almost never suitable to be "cut &
paste" as stub biography articles. It is worth walking through
creating a stub BLP as an early example in any academic editathon.
Links
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors
P.S. the date this email is posted to wikimediauk-l may be several
days after being sent.
On 16 April 2015 at 09:58, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> As has been implied, the COI guideline is nuanced, and so the best advice is
> to keep on the safe side. The terms of use of the site in respect of paid
> editing are, on the other hand, clear cut. The former relates to intention,
> the latter to factual matters that are easier to discuss.
>
> I would approach the topic from the direction of paid editing, making the
> point however that COI need not arise from a financial interest.
>
> Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Hi all,
If you are one of those people who like to stay up on election night
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015>as all
the results come in, you might like to consider joining us in the General
Election 2015 Editathon.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/General_Election_2015_Ed…>
So far we have started off booking the basement at Development House, where
Wikimedia is based, but it would be great to hear of other initiatives by
Wikimedians getting together to help update hundreds of pages, and indeed
we there will also be new pages to create.
Of course others might like to participate from the comfort of their own
homes.
With 650 constituencies producing results, new MPs elected and a need for
new infographic images there is a large amount of work to do. Wouldn't it
be great if we could make sure that when people google about the results on
the morning of 8th May, they get up-to-date verified information.
If we are to get anywhere near this goal, a certain amount of preparation
is needed, identifying pages likely to need updating, and working out how
to avoid edit conflicts etc.
Look at the 2010 election map
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010UKElectionMap.svg> and how it
changed during the night!
Anyway, nominations closed at the end of last week, so now is the best time
to start co-ordinating how we can cover this election.
Please add comments to the talk page here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Meetups/UK/General_Election_20…>
.
all the best
Fabian Tompsett,
Volunteer Support Organiser,
Wikimedia UK,
Address: 56-64 Leonard St,
Shoreditch,
London EC2A 4LT
Phone:020 7065 0990
*Mobile: *07840 455 746
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).
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
Dear All,
We have an invitation for you from the National Maritime Museum in
Greenwich. They are hosting an editathon on Wednesday the 15th April
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/National_Maritime_Museum…>
and would like to have some experienced Wikipedians join them.
The main focus of the editathon will be the board of Longitude - the
eighteenth century scientific endeavour to find accurate ways to navigate
the world.
Our hosts are supplying lunch and experts.
We do hope a number of you can join us.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums) Organiser
Wikimedia UK
020 7065 0921
(I'm normally in the office Tuesday's, Wednesdays and Fridays - Emails on
Mondays and Thursdays wont usually be seen till the next day)
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.
*Draft annual accounts for the 2014-15 financial year
*Today we are releasing our draft annual accounts for the 2014-15
financial year, ending 31^st January 2015 [1]. The contents of these
accounts have been a matter of significant concern for the Board, and we
are making this statement to provide some context and to set out the
steps we have taken.
In December 2013 the board approved a budget for 2014-15 based on
expected income of £623,000. Net income over the period was in line with
expectations but expenditure on Wikimania and other projects was not
well controlled during the latter part of last year, and we are facing a
projected deficit of £192,000 as against our original budgeted deficit
of £32,000.
While Wikimania 2014 was an international success, for which volunteers,
the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK can all take some credit, the
experience was challenging for us as the local chapter. Although we were
not running the conference, we were providing significant staff and
logistical support, and we did so too enthusiastically given that not
all of our expenses were recoverable. Overall, and after allowing for a
one-off Foundation grant of £65,000 to cover our international support,
we overspent by around £45,000.
Our Wikimedians in Residence programme gained real traction over the
year with demand significantly outstripping available funds, resulting
in an overspend of £49,000. Much of this arose from agreements made with
several high-profile organisations late last year which could not have
been deferred without significant reputational damage to the charity.
The board had hoped that these costs could have been delayed until
February, when they would have fallen into the 2015-16 financial year,
but have been advised that that is not possible.
There were smaller overspends on a variety of other project areas as well.
Finally, we had an off-budget net expense of £57,000 during the year,
representing the Chief Executive transition.
These disappointing overspends in 2014-15 have left us with reserves of
only £165,000, which is below the £200,000 level that the board
considers to be the acceptable minimum for a charity of our size.
*Action to restore stability*
Immediately that the charity's overspends became clear, shortly before
the December 2014 board meeting, the interim CEO, supported by the
board, introduced a moratorium on further non-essential expenditure
until a 2015-16 budget could be prepared. In order to allow time for the
interim CEO to review activity the second volunteer strategy day as well
as a number of other projected programme activities were postponed.
*Draft budget and plans for 2015-16*
We are also today releasing our draft budget for 2015-16 [2]. This is
subject to amendment, particularly on staff costs.
The funds we have available to spend on charitable programmes will be
significantly lower than in 2014-15. There are three main factors:
*
To ensure charity stability it is crucial that we increase our
reserves to the minimum level of around £200,000. The board has set
a core budget for this year which is break-even or better.
*
Our grant from the Wikimedia Foundation has been reduced from
£353,000 to £314,000.
*
For the moment at least the board does not consider it prudent to
set a budget that assumes in advance that the charity will be able
to obtain significant project-based or corporate funding, nor that
direct debit income can be rapidly increased.
The combined effect of these factors is that the board has to take
decisive and fairly radical action to ensure that we can work
effectively within our smaller core budget of £570,000 (a full £242,000
below the amount indicated as WMUK's projected budget in the FDC bid of
October 2014).
To ensure greater clarity and transparency for the future, as well as
better alignment with our strategic goals, our 2015-16 budget will
besplit into a variety of categories, of which the first three
('contracted', 'necessary' and 'should')cover limited core activities
that can be supported within the resources (funds, staff, volunteers
etc) we are almost certain to have available. The remaining two
categories ('like to' and 'icing')cover activities that we can support
only to the extent we can expand our resource base, either by specific
project-based or general fundraising, or by building active volunteer
engagement.
Our aim with this project-based approach is to encourage community
involvement with decisions on what we should do and not do, based on an
assessment of which potential projects are best aligned with our
strategic goals. A large part of the assessment must be to decide which
projects are capable of generating sufficient active volunteer support
(and fundability if funds are needed), and then selecting based on those
givingthe greatest charitable impactfor the resources required.
We will need some new community mechanisms to embed volunteer inputs
into all of this, and we will be discussing widely, including further
discussions at the rescheduled second volunteer strategy day on Saturday
25^th July.
*WMUK organisational structure*
In their comments ofNovember lastyear theFunds Dissemination Committee
(FDC)said:
"/While the FDC understands that reducing Wikimedia UK's funding might
be a strain on the organization, the FDC hopes it will lead to a
productive re-evaluation of priorities and direction. The ED transition
should be seen as an opportunity to rethink and restructure. The
governance reshuffle and adaptation has been managed well,
recommendations brought about by the governance review have been
implemented, and board diversity has been achieved, which will provide a
strong foundation for the coming transition. At the same time, the FDC
notes that it seems difficult to identify a sustainable and clear staff
structure beneath the executive level."/
It is clear to the board that many of theassumptions and plans on which
the current organisational structure was originallybuilt are no longer
fit for purpose. As previously announced, we are already engaged in a
review of our staff structure. Thisis currently in a period of
consultation with the staff concerned and it would be inappropriate to
discuss in detail. However, the Board's intention is to have a more
streamlined organisation,better focused on our strategic goals, better
able to engage with and involve volunteers of all kinds, and more
appropriate to the level of resource we have.
The committee further noted:
"/The FDC urges Wikimedia UK to carefully consider its plans to hire
additional fundraising staff, and to articulate a clear strategy for how
that position will benefit the organization and the movement. The FDC
acknowledges that there may be many untapped resources in Wikimedia UK's
context, but resources will need to be clearly identified in order to be
targeted effectively."/
The board believes that the charity'sexisting capacity and model for
fundraising is not adequate, and we cannot at present recommend a core
budget that assumes significant project-based or general contributions
fromtrusts, foundations and corporates. The board isseekingapermanent
Chief Executive with significant expertise in this area, and who is
capable of taking a stronger personal lead within a restructured staff team.
____________
Michael Maggs
Chair, Wikimedia UK
on behalf of the board
[1]:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Draft_statutory_accounts_2014-15_as_at_M…
[2]:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Draft_2015-16_budget_for_board_meeting_o…
