Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Monthly Google hangout?
I'm all for trying out ways of improving communications and this sounds like it might be useful. I'd be be happy to take part in whatever capacity would be helpful. -- Rexx On 04 August 2015 at 11:28 Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello everyone, At the volunteer strategy day one of the things that was emphasised was a better flow of information between volunteers, staff and the board. I've been thinking about some of the ways in which we can improve this. One idea I had was to host a monthly Google Hangout at a regular time and date at which anyone can drop in and share ideas, ask questions, float suggestions and so on. This would regularly be attended by at least a couple of members of staff and a couple of trustees, perhaps on a rotational basis. We tried a similar thing with IRC a while back and it wasn't particularly successful, in part because the tool isn't especially engaging for many people. I think we are ready to try something different. Any thoughts? Stevie ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair
That would make an interesting project, Tom. I don't know how big the UK community is (or how we'd define it), but I do try to encourage meetups around the country as much as I can. We ought to have a recruitment drive to convert interested editors into members and try to engage them in a broader range of activities. Ideas for action and volunteers to help are always appreciated. -- Doug On 27 July 2012 17:35, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 July 2012 16:35, e-mail freezetag freeze...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Of course another way of looking at the tedious numbers discussion is that less than 0.5% of the active users on the English Wikipedia bothered to vote in the ArbCom elections. Having something like 1 in 200 of the eligible electorate turning out to vote is an interesting comparison with the WMUK elections where about 1 out of every 6 eligible voters made the effort to cast votes. I actually think that's quite healthy. YMMV. Yes, but what proportion of the UK community has joined WMUK? Not a particularly large proportion. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair
On a couple of points of fact: The motion to ban Fae was not presented by ArbCom until Monday 16 July and came as a complete surprise to those of us who had been following the case. Prior to that Fae had voluntarily resigned his sysop and declared that he would not seen another RfA for at least 12 months. Fae was elected Chair of WCA on Wednesday 11 July (if I recall correctly). Here's the diff to the PD page at the end of that day: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decisionoldid=501787685 Nobody reading that could conclude that Fae was getting any more than a slap on the wrist. Yet the motion to ban came without any further presentation of evidence, or discussion at the workshop. It's easy to criticise with 20/20 hindsight, but it is very unfair to suggest that Fae was concealing anything significant when he stood for election at WCA. Besides all that, he's made a good job of it. Secondly, enwp is not the centre of the world for many editors - and Fae is one of them. He has three times as many edits to Commons as he has to enwp. There is still plenty of work for him to do within the other Wikimedia projects, not least of which is the excellent work he continues to do in the GLAM field. -- Doug On 26 July 2012 17:39, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.comwrote: On 26 July 2012 17:33, Martin Peeks martin...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Deryck Chan, who was at the relevant meeting (I believe), expressed a rather different view earlier in this thread. In brief, enWP is not the centre of the WMF universe. To those outside the movement, and probably most of those within, it is, isn't it? The English Wikipedia is indeed the flagship, still. I believe the Spanish Wikipedia gets the second-largest number of readers. But the figure for editors given at Wikimania was 80,000 across all projects, and the proportion of those active on the English Wikipedia in a significant way would be about 5%, I think. So in terms of the movement as a whole, enWP drama is not actually more than a cable channel? Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] An interesting article
Nice article - I've added a comment. -- Doug On 23 July 2012 09:54, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: From Nick Poole at the Collections Trust. 'We have just published a new article with Nick Stanhope from Historypin, talking about participatory culture, which mentions Wikimedia UK - see: ** ** http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/discover/new-perspectives/1402-the-participatory-museum ** ** ** ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
