[Wikimedia-l] Proposal to use the internal wiki more

[Samuel Klein]

Mike - fine points.

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Michael Peel
<michael.peel at wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> There is information within the Wikimedia movement that can't be shared publicly.
> # Agreements, particularly those with global impact, and/or where they affect more than one Wikimedia organisation.
Should be public where possible; some may need to be private for a time.

> There's also a lot of experience now with existing agreements that could be reused when new agreements are being
> written, e.g. for Wikimedians in Residences. Sadly, not all of these can be made publicly available (or at least, they haven't
> been to date).
I think many can, actually.  It just hasn't happened yet; requires
asking the right people for each agreement.

> # Press releases, prior to release
Yes.

> # Domain names. There is a list of these on internal already
Yes.

> # Contact information for the various organisations.
Can be public.  Some personal #s can be privat.e

> # Notices of sensitive activities. E.g. if there's an upcoming risk of law suits, infrastructure difficulties within organisations,
Yes.

If we carefully scope what's there, and review for material that
doesn't need (or no longer needs) that secrecy,  it can be useful.  I
think muc hof the material that is posted on smaller-group wikis
(committees, individual chapters, &c) could be shared among all
chapters and movement entities on the internal wiki.  If everyone
finds private things they currently work on which could benefit from
being shared on internal, it will find life and purpose.

Worth a discussion among people who use other private wikis.  I know I
would like to use *fewer* private wikis, not more.  [and right now I
only use the Board wiki.  But some of that material would be ok on
internal, and some of it - including the drafting of many of our
resolutions - would be fine to do in public on meta]


Florence writes:
>> has it ever been considered to set up something dedicated to actually host contact information ?
A wiki table works, and is simple, for small groups.   A more
structured solution could work for our entire larger social network...
we already use CiviCRM heavily in other ways.

Sam.