Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-22/News and notes

Discuss this story

The National Library of Scotland story has spread beyond the BBC - as of this morning, it was in the Times, Scotsman, Daily Record and Scottish Daily Mail (no web version, I think). JISC in the UK is also looking for a "Wikimedia Ambassador" to run a training program for researchers.

I've pulled together a list of everyone currently looking for a WiR - seven in total that I know about, in the UK, US, Germany and Switzerland - and posted it here, if it's of interest. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew, I've added the latter link to the article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I had worried it was too late to get in this time around :-). Andrew Gray (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take a pretty fluid approach to adding minor things after our nominal publication time—this is a wiki, after all. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

« Chair of WMF Trustees will resign: » I believe Kat Walsh is the chair of Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. She succeeded Ting Chen in July 2012. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for spotting so soon, Jean-Fred. Fixed. Tony (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ack, that was a silly error by me. Thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main story on the Milan Conference seems to be very critical. I guess this is the old question of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It does seem that they could have been more organized and accomplished more. On the other hand, IMHO we do need to have people interacting face-to-face in an effort to grow the movement. Comparing the face-to-face interaction that we have now to, say, that of 3 years ago, we have made great strides forward.

I'd like to bring up a related question that seems to be ignored in the general conversation. Probably 98% of Wikipedia editors never attend a face-to-face meeting, probably the majority of editors fit the stereotype of guys typing alone at their computers (at night, in their underwear) who are perfectly happy interacting only online. In fact, the easy and mostly impersonal access by internet has to be viewed as a main strength of Wikipedia. I'll recommend that these folks check out some of the various types of meetings that go on - they can be fun and informative. But if folks don't want to meet, that's ok too.

Probably the biggest potential disagreement along these lines will be the money involved. Did I notice some implied complaints in the story about $200,000+ being spent? Budgeting always needs to be carried out carefully - sloppiness in this regards will just invite problems - but with the WMF's resources being in the multiple $10s of millions, we can afford a conference like this if it is done well. The guys typing in their underwear at night don't need to have this type of money spent on them, except for pure technical support. So while the face-to-face organizers and conference attenders need to understand that they are in a distinct minority around here, the "lone typers" should also understand that it does make some sense to support these meetings. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of those lone typers, and I'd revel in the chance to attend conferences like this. Sadly, nobody's offering to send me to them, and I sure can't afford to pay my own way. (In all fairness, I have been brought in for two much tinier Wikimedia events here in my own country at Foundation expense, which undoubtedly puts me ahead of many Wiki eds.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the story is overly critical. Giving flattering or purely positive coverage is of little use; true, critical, and comprehensive feedback, which we strive to provide each week, should always be welcomed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints about Tony's reporting - as usual. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike, I'm trying not to imagine you dressed in underpants! Smallbones, I'm unsure about the characterisation of online participation as "impersonal". This second conference in the yearly calendar does raise the issue of value for money. I'm not passing judgement here, but who disagrees that the movement needs to keep tally of value of money in an endeavour that will always be essentially online? In reporting on the conference, I didn't find it easy to encapsulate just where the areas of progress were, but admittedly that's never easy after a big and complex meetup. And to be mercenary in this age of turbo-capitalism, the $120,000 plus $78,000 in direct funding didn't include the cost of flying in and out, and incidentals, for nine Board members, 13 WMF staff and the contractor, and the cost of foregoing their normal work input; and the chapter and individual funding of transportation for another 80 or so participants, and where applicable their work leave. All up, from all sources, $350,000? Could we at least have guidelines on best-practice organisation and online documentation both before and after the event? Just sayin'. Tony (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 Chapters Meeting (aka Wikimedia Conference) was actually not in Berlin, but in Nijmegen, in the Netherlands. effeietsanders 15:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're quite right. I would wager that Tony was thrown off by meta:Wikimedia Conference, which up until a few minutes ago did not list the 2008 conference or its location. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was perplexing that the link Ed points to was unhelpful, and that from the template at the bottom of each dedicated conference home page, the link to the 2008 meeting alone requires some high-level log-in. Why? Tony (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Historical reasons mostly. It was the first meeting, and when you agree during a meeting to have it confidentially under certain conditions, that isn't something you can change afterwards. Thanks for the correction. effeietsanders 13:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notes of the Wiki Loves Monuments workshop on Thursday are by the way available as well, on http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/WLM-Milan . (not as well organized though). Help to transform it to a wikipage is of course always welcome. 17 people have attended. effeietsanders 15:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try to find them, several times, Effeietsanders. :-) Tony (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not doubt your good intentions, but the current statement is incorrect - hence the comment. I hope you will correct both the number and the notes remark? :) effeietsanders 13:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added numbers, link. Tony (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my comment is misconstrued. I believe I said that the FDC does NOT expect the corporate standards to be met from the entities, and not that they are desired. Also, my understanding of Schiste's remark was different: I remember that he was making an unusual point that the feedback from FDC is sometimes not violent enough, and not that it is overly violent :) Pundit|utter 15:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Corrected: I misread, it refers to the survey, and not to the discussion. Pundit|utter 15:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, given that the documentation was a little unclear. Tony (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please correct the last point from the Board Q&A? There was a question about the search for the appointed Board member (not the ED). And my user-name is Lyzzy, or just use Alice. Thanks.Lyzzy (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mh, confused. I asked for correction, not for deletion. Lyzzy (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Tony (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than 100 people attended the event. Many aspects can be criticized and actually some were (I hope Wikimedia Italia will sooner or later publish the facilitator's notes on conference feedback). But voicing that one person who thought transportation was "crappy" is completely unfair, unless it is coming from the person on the wheelchair (I don't remember his name or nickname, sorry). --Elitre (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understood "connectivity" not as referring to transportation (which was OK) but to the WiFi, which was problematic indeed, especially in conjunction with the small number of available power outlets. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, I thought I read connections (between venue, hotels and so on). Connectivity was not crappy. It didn't exist at all for at least 2 days (my POV here). --Elitre (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I did not have any problem at all with the wifi (although it was slow sometimes). I really think however it would be better to not include comments of this type as "an attendee said" because it is very easy to always find an attendee here that says A, and another that says the opposite. If you want to include information about crappy wifi, probably best to wait for the survey results. effeietsanders 22:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  There was sufficient evidence to report that the internet connections were poor—and we felt that this was an important issue for an international meeting of one of the world's top internet organisations. Tony (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

I've boldly corrected the statements that had the Milan conference co-funded by the GAC to correctly state the funding was provided by the Wikimedia Grants Program, which is advised by the GAC. Ijon (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would like to remind The Signpost that despite people's tendency to abuse the trademark by prematurely referring to proto-chapter groups as Wikimedia XX, there is no such entity as Wikimedia Nepal just yet, and The Signpost would do well to not propagate this informal usage in writing aiming to be factual. Ijon (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than blame the messengers, please take a look at the official program schedule, which specifies Wikimedia Nepal – State of Chapter, and its slides, where the group is publicly described at the beginning as Wikimedia Nepal Chapter. Not to denigrate the group: although it looks like an almost entirely male affair (like education and literacy generally in Nepal), they've started a Wiki-Women Initiative Nepal that would do some of the funded chapters proud. And they have a big, complex linguistic and cultural challenge.

If the Foundation cares a penny about its trademark, why does it not liaise with the organisers of international WM meetings to ensure that the trademark is not "abused". Why does it target this small developing-country group while turning a blind eye to the widespread use of Wikimedia Chapters Association in the conference documentation, orally at the meetings, and in the etherpad minutes? How are third parties, like us, meant to tell the difference? Tony (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]