As very often in recent years, I got a notification of my post sent an hour or so ago, with completely blank text. Yet Katie has clearly seen it, as she quotes me. Have others also got blanks? Can the rather cryptic instructions for replies be clarified, or is there some bug? I get the digest version. It doesn't exactly encourage people to contribute, and may be a factor in the much lower activity on this list in recent years. It never used to happen.

No Katie, I don't think this has much to do with it, though you are right to imply that the chapter is over-sensitive to criticism...

John/Johnbod

On 10 April 2018 at 18:37 wikimediauk-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

Send Wikimediauk-l mailing list submissions to
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimediauk-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimediauk-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimediauk-l digest..."

Today's Topics:
1. Re: UK chapter membership numbers (Charles Matthews) 2. UK chapter membership numbers (John Byrne) 3. Re: UK chapter membership numbers (Katie Chan) 4. Re: UK chapter membership numbers (Richard Nevell)

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:25:51 +0100 (BST)
From: Charles Matthews
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers
Message-ID: <1623281894.198396.1523366751569@mail2.virginmedia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 10 April 2018 at 11:41 Fæ wrote:

It appears that the jump in numbers was a one-off event, there has
been no continued growth since whatever happened.

I don't know what happened. I did correspond with the office about a prompt to renew. One could simulate such a "one-off event" by simply asking people whose membership had lapsed to renew. I was doing this sort of thing for WMUK some seven years ago, so as an explanation it is not far-fetched.

Charles

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:31:33 +0100 (BST)
From: John Byrne
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers
Message-ID: <522111329.168305.1523377893491@email.1and1.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:31:14 +0100
From: Katie Chan
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers
Message-ID: <7mbf1d6v6k6decqn08p662nx.1523381474669@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Oh I don't know, maybe this "yawning gap" wouldn't be so wide if the chapter don't get criticised for both not increasing its membership numbers and having increased its membership numbers.
Just a wide guess....
KTC

Sent from my Samsung device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:37:12 +0000
From: Richard Nevell
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Fae,

My memory could be failing me, but I thought it was explained at the AGM
that the increase was a result of asking donors to become members.

It sounds like you are more interested in the 'how' of the process and the
'who' as you seem dissatisfied with the answer to *why* there was an
increase. To make sure we're on the same page is that what you meant?

Regards,
Richard Nevell

PS. Have you had a chance to look into the issue on Commons with the
conflicting licence for some images from the Portable Antiquities Scheme?
My question was archived before a reply.

On 10 April 2018 at 11:41, Fæ wrote:
Yes, at the AGM the tripling of membership numbers was explained as
being due to an increase in members joining. No meaningful facts were
presented to the members, but the impression given by the Chair and
the CEO was that there would be more information publicly available.

My question was "why". Sharing information about any discussion the
trustees have had on improving protection against entryism, would be
healthy for transparency, as would sharing exactly what happened that
caused this massive, overnight, leap in membership totals. Currently,
there is zero information on the nature of who joined, which may have
been down to how they joined. As an example, if 351 people joined at
an academic conference in London, then the people joining would be
academics who go to events in London and if the 351 new members were
found due to appeals by the CEO on Facebook, then the new members
would be limited to people who follow or network with the CEO on
Facebook.

It appears that the jump in numbers was a one-off event, there has
been no continued growth since whatever happened. Should the chapter
start maintaining the published membership report again, then it will
be possible for people apart from chapter employees to have access to
the latest facts.

Thanks,
Fae

On 9 April 2018 at 22:01, Richard Nevell
wrote:
Dear Fae,

As was explained at the AGM the increase in the number of members was the
result of a successful membership drive.

Regards,
Richard Nevell

On 9 Apr 2018 21:34, "Fæ" wrote:

During the last UK Chapter AGM, it was asked why the membership
numbers had radically changed, there was no specific answer to the
question. Was any analysis done on this afterwards? When reviewing
membership it seems likely that the charity's trustees would have been
concerned at these figures so shortly before the AGM, due to the
potential risk of entryism.

Membership jumped from a total of 147 (a five year low) in May 2017,
to the all time record high the following month of 498, i.e. new
sign-ups that month more than *tripled* the total membership.

A second question - the report of membership numbers has been updated
every month for the past five years.[1] It has not been updated since
October 2017. Could anyone confirm what the most recent membership
numbers are so the report can be updated?

P.S. the links in the FAQ about the register of members are out of
date, the companylawclub link is a 404 error and the companieshouse
link advises to go to their new website.

Links:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Membership/Numbers

2.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Volunteers_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Why_do_you_keep_a_register_of_members.3F
>
Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Wikimediauk-l mailing list
Wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

End of Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 153, Issue 5
*********************************************