Hi all
Thanks for your comments and suggestions about the chapter's Wiki, and related technical issues. There have been a few conversations around this at board and senior management level recently and we are aware that there is a need to improve our approach to technology both at an operational level (with some work currently happening on this front) and at a programmatic/strategic level (ditto). There is much more to be done however - and we're aware that we also need to work more closely with the volunteer community on both the challenges and opportunities we're facing regarding technology - so please bear with us while we seek to address some of the issues highlighted (and others that haven't been!)
Thanks and best Lucy
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 14:02, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 13:31, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Trust me nobody is more frustrated about it all than me.
The whole "three wise monkeys" approach by WMUK to its wiki has been
going on for years, and is quite unacceptable.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list
Now would be a good time for the WMUK board to review whether having its own wiki is worth the on-going investment in scarce volunteer time or employee time. Running a blog does not need a wiki, and many other chapters happily use meta to publish reports and documents which can be discussed by anyone there, with zero budget or consultancy needed.
When we created the charity's own wiki, there was a vibrant and highly active UK charity volunteer community of hundreds. A significant proportion of the most active volunteers used our entirely volunteer driven wiki to coordinate the projects and policies of the evolving charity. Those reasons no longer exist. Projects can, and probably should, be coordinated on WMF supported sites, such as project pages on Meta, Wikipedia and Commons, with the obvious benefits that volunteers globally can easily link to it, find it (via standard search), and participate, rather than being directed to a peculiar chapter wiki that they will have no special incentive to use for discussion and is increasingly subject to outage and maintenance headaches.
For QRpedia, current and potential usage is far wider than the UK. Discussing its maintenance and long term future should be widely promoted and can easily justify a specific WMF funding case.
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