I think this would be more factually accurate: https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
As a general comment: please consider including an executive summary along with a review that is this long. It's very difficult to find the key learning points / statistics here.
Thanks, Mike
On 1 Jul 2014, at 21:49, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
See if this helps any:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
-- Rexx
On 1 July 2014 20:47, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote: On 1 July 2014 19:22, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 1 July 2014 18:45, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I agree that other projects should be considered, as useful background if nothing else
Quite.
but quibbling over details of the past isn't going to help the discussion move forward for the benefit of the *future* of these projects.
I do not believe that reiterating my objection to past good work, by me and others, being written out of the chapter's history is "quibbling", much less "over details".
Hmm, I recall an earlier thread on this list which was pretty much devoted to contention over how the history of Wikipedians in residence got written. This thread is intended to help a staff member do her job.
It would be a shame, certainly, if WiRs became one of those "don't bring that up again" topics.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk