Hi everyone,
As a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.
We have now agreed to reflect on the programme's successes and challenges through a review. The WIR programme has been seen as one of the key ways we can engage with external organisations, extending our scale of activities and outreach. These residencies are often a considerable investment for WMUK (£2-8K) and need to deliver a meaningful impact.
We would like to see what the UK community thinks of the programme so far - you are now invited to take part in the surveyhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MKMJCVRthat will form the first part of the review. Your answers will be an important element of influencing the future of the programme.
If you are not based in the UK, you are still welcome to comment - we are very interested in what our community thinks of the programme.
The deadline for responding is *24 March. *
Thank you! Richard Nevell
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:30, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
As a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.
You've missed out a couple of years of history there - British Museum, Derby, ARKive...
Thanks, Mike
On 06/03/2014, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:30, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
...
As a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.
You've missed out a couple of years of history there - British Museum, Derby, ARKive...
It's worth noting that the British Library WIR programme was set up and negotiated by myself as a volunteer. It took no Chapter or WMF funding, hardly any staff support, and to date had the highest remuneration package all WIR projects that I am aware of, globally.
Fae
On 6 March 2014 17:29, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/03/2014, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:30, Richard Nevell <richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
...
As a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) programme
since
May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.
You've missed out a couple of years of history there - British Museum, Derby, ARKive...
It's worth noting that the British Library WIR programme was set up and negotiated by myself as a volunteer. It took no Chapter or WMF funding, hardly any staff support, and to date had the highest remuneration package all WIR projects that I am aware of, globally.
Good points. Also WMUK was not involved in the interview process; and the advance notice to the community didn't really tally with what they were looking for. (Plus you were supposed to type all your O-levels/GCSEs into their system. and bring the certificates to the interview. I did skip the latter, on a hunch.)
Charles
On 7 March 2014 10:40, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
...Plus you were supposed to type all your O-levels/GCSEs into their system. and bring the certificates to the interview. I did skip the latter, on a hunch.
Yes, the bog standard HR process was a bureaucratic pain the backside - you were not the only person to point it out. ;-)
Fae
On 7 March 2014 11:00, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 March 2014 10:40, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
...Plus you were supposed to type all your O-levels/GCSEs into their system. and bring the certificates to the interview. I did skip the latter, on a hunch.
Yes, the bog standard HR process was a bureaucratic pain the backside
- you were not the only person to point it out. ;-)
Yes, I knew that (but I didn't make an issue of it, not that anything
could be done). What I might add, because it does supply context for WMUK's involvement in this whole area, is that I sought feedback, as well as travel expenses.
To do the BL justice, the system there proved somewhat glitchy, but after chasing, I did get both. So what I said before about what they were looking for is not entirely inference from the interview. It is based also on their feedback (on the relationship between the questions and the shortlisting).
I haven't brought any of this up before, but it does appear somewhat on-topic now. I also had a chat with Andrew Gray about it all, though that really only addressed what they thought they were doing about COI. Which doesn't seem to have been major stuff in the BL's eyes.
Bottom line: without WMUK having their finger in the pie, process and aims of a WiR are entirely down to the institution.
Charles
On 7 March 2014 11:28, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Bottom line: without WMUK having their finger in the pie, process and aims of a WiR are entirely down to the institution.
That simply isn't true.
Each of the residences and similar work I've undertaken, independent of WMUK (and including the one that did involve WMUK, at ARKive), I've negotiated the role, making clear what I would /and would not/ be prepared to do, and that my edits would be made in the interests, and according to the standards, of Wikipedia.
On 8 March 2014 20:23, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 7 March 2014 11:28, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Bottom line: without WMUK having their finger in the pie, process and
aims
of a WiR are entirely down to the institution.
That simply isn't true.
Each of the residences and similar work I've undertaken, independent of WMUK (and including the one that did involve WMUK, at ARKive), I've negotiated the role, making clear what I would /and would not/ be prepared to do, and that my edits would be made in the interests, and according to the standards, of Wikipedia.
It is what any serious community member would indicate, whenever the point came up, relative to COI. It also, really, only speaks to implementation.
There is nothing at all to guarantee that the job spec that an institution comes up with will permit this approach. If the Terms of Use of Wikipedia are revised, as is quite likely, to treat "paid editing" more charily, the whole business might become more fraught, or much clearer, depending on the drafting.
I was going to bring up at some point the case of Benjamin Zephaniah and the poet-in-residence position at Trinity College, Cambridge. A friend of mine was involved enough to be able to say that Zephaniah was the most talented candidate; but he didn't get elected. Institutions always do have their own criteria, and they aren't necessarily what you'd think. It is a bit facile to argue otherwise.
Charles
On 14 March 2014 15:57, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Institutions always do have their own criteria, and they aren't necessarily what you'd think. It is a bit facile to argue otherwise.
Who did?
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:37, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:30, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
As a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.
You've missed out a couple of years of history there - British Museum, Derby, ARKive...
As promised to Richard offlist, I've just gone through the survey and filled it in. There were a number of questions that were rather odd in their phrasing or allowed answers though. For example:
Question 2: these were all very general questions (e.g. asking about the lengths of WiRs and their benefits to the community) that could only be answered 'Not at all', 'Moderately' and 'Completely'. I went for 'moderately' for all of these as there wasn't really anything to completely disagree or agree with here - e.g. length of residencies, it's not clear whether saying 'Completely' would indicate support of 3-month or 1-year residencies.
Questions 5 and 6: these are nearly impossible to answer as a 'select 3' question. Having a ranked answer here would be much more effective.
I was also expecting to see more questions on topics like 'what are the most important aspects and outcomes of a successful WiR project?', 'how would you like to be involved in future WiR projects?' and 'how can WiR projects better engage volunteers?'.
My main suggestion would be: please share drafts of surveys like this on-wiki and ask for feedback on them before starting to ask for answers to them! WMUK's membership survey is a really good example of how such surveys can be collaboratively designed and carried out.
Thanks, Mike
On 7 March 2014 20:47, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
My main suggestion would be: please share drafts of surveys like this on-wiki and ask for feedback on them before starting to ask for answers to them!
+1; but I would also suggest working in partnership with a university which has an academic understanding of such techniques, the ability to ask questions confidentially & undertake analysis independently. That's what MySociety are currently doing.
I agree with Mike, but I would add that it's good that the chapter is seeking input on this sort of thing. Perhaps there could be somewhere on the wiki where folks can add freeform comments about WiRs that don;t necessarily fit into the answers to the survey questions? Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Friday, 7 March 2014, 23:06, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:37, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:30, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
As a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) programme since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.
You've missed out a couple of years of history there - British Museum, Derby, ARKive...
As promised to Richard offlist, I've just gone through the survey and filled it in. There were a number of questions that were rather odd in their phrasing or allowed answers though. For example:
Question 2: these were all very general questions (e.g. asking about the lengths of WiRs and their benefits to the community) that could only be answered 'Not at all', 'Moderately' and 'Completely'. I went for 'moderately' for all of these as there wasn't really anything to completely disagree or agree with here - e.g. length of residencies, it's not clear whether saying 'Completely' would indicate support of 3-month or 1-year residencies.
Questions 5 and 6: these are nearly impossible to answer as a 'select 3' question. Having a ranked answer here would be much more effective.
I was also expecting to see more questions on topics like 'what are the most important aspects and outcomes of a successful WiR project?', 'how would you like to be involved in future WiR projects?' and 'how can WiR projects better engage volunteers?'.
My main suggestion would be: please share drafts of surveys like this on-wiki and ask for feedback on them before starting to ask for answers to them! WMUK's membership survey is a really good example of how such surveys can be collaboratively designed and carried out.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Good points here, many thanks!
I thought it would help to provide some explanations to the discussion here:
- Yes there were residencies that are not taken into considerations here. We wanted to consider the residencies that had institutions in significant cooperation with the chapter, the BL being in the grey area. It was felt it's an important case to consider though.
- Mike is offering good points for additional aspects that could be considered. If anyone has thoughts that go beyond the survey's questions, please do email me!
Otherwise, it would be great to have more people contributing to the survey.
Many thanks again, Daria
On 9 March 2014 10:19, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
I agree with Mike, but I would add that it's good that the chapter is seeking input on this sort of thing. Perhaps there could be somewhere on the wiki where folks can add freeform comments about WiRs that don;t necessarily fit into the answers to the survey questions?
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
On Friday, 7 March 2014, 23:06, Michael Peel < michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:37, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 6 Mar 2014, at 16:30, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
As a chapter we have run the Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) programme
since May 2012, when Andrew Gray started his residency at the British Library.
You've missed out a couple of years of history there - British Museum,
Derby, ARKive...
As promised to Richard offlist, I've just gone through the survey and filled it in. There were a number of questions that were rather odd in their phrasing or allowed answers though. For example:
Question 2: these were all very general questions (e.g. asking about the lengths of WiRs and their benefits to the community) that could only be answered 'Not at all', 'Moderately' and 'Completely'. I went for 'moderately' for all of these as there wasn't really anything to completely disagree or agree with here - e.g. length of residencies, it's not clear whether saying 'Completely' would indicate support of 3-month or 1-year residencies.
Questions 5 and 6: these are nearly impossible to answer as a 'select 3' question. Having a ranked answer here would be much more effective.
I was also expecting to see more questions on topics like 'what are the most important aspects and outcomes of a successful WiR project?', 'how would you like to be involved in future WiR projects?' and 'how can WiR projects better engage volunteers?'.
My main suggestion would be: please share drafts of surveys like this on-wiki and ask for feedback on them before starting to ask for answers to them! WMUK's membership survey is a really good example of how such surveys can be collaboratively designed and carried out.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ 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
On 14 March 2014 15:28, Daria Cybulska daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Yes there were residencies that are not taken into considerations here. We wanted to consider the residencies that had institutions in significant cooperation with the chapter
As did the ARKive residency. Why was it not included?
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org