[Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Dear all, At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director. This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus Best Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Great news - I propose a heading for the Signpost Board unanimously agreed to the Executive Director proposal that Wikimedia movement fends for itself. Victoria On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote: Dear all, At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director. This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus Best Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Thanks Bishakha, while I can understand the move of the WMF to do what they are best at, for me it is always a bit confusing when the Board (or Sue) is talking about the Foundation, and when about the movement. I hope I'm correct in my assumption that this narrowed focus is mostly a Foundation thing. The question I am missing in this analysis (but perhaps it was discussed orally) is 'which organization/group/individual is best placed to execute this' and then I definitely agree that many events etc are probably better executed at a chapter level than by the WMF. I do hope that freeing up these resources does mean that chapters and other groups will be supported more in taking over these tasks and where necessary, a transition process is considered. I do have one more specific question. In discussions previously on meta, there were some insinuations (maybe only my interpretation) that the organizational support (so not just money) for chapters and other affiliated groups would be reduced as a consequence of this narrowed focus. I sincerely hope the opposite will be true - and that more effort will be put in enabling these organizations to take over tasks where possible and take on new initiatives as much as possible. As long as the Chapters Association is not active (it seems to me it will be another year before it will be fully functional) I think it would be a waste to reduce this enabling capacity (for example the great networking function that is being provided by Asaf - but he could use some help!) while there is no other organization yet to take over those functions. Could you elaborate a bit on this? Best, Lodewijk 2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com Dear all, At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director. This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus Best Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
As a newly appointed secretary of FDC and just back from San Francisco after a four days deliberation session, where these thing has been in focus I can give you some facts from what I have understood. The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support. The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase. The narrowed focus in practice means that The WMF part funded through FDC is changed in composition, so less in direct activities by WMF personnel and more money in Grants to be allocated to chapters and individuals. The narrowed focus is only a issue for WMFs internal budget. The planned funds dissemination to chapters is not effected and the actual result of the the implementation of the Narrowed focus is that more money will be used by community/chapters via grant then was earlier planned Anders Wennersten Lodewijk skrev 2012-11-02 12:05: Thanks Bishakha, while I can understand the move of the WMF to do what they are best at, for me it is always a bit confusing when the Board (or Sue) is talking about the Foundation, and when about the movement. I hope I'm correct in my assumption that this narrowed focus is mostly a Foundation thing. The question I am missing in this analysis (but perhaps it was discussed orally) is 'which organization/group/individual is best placed to execute this' and then I definitely agree that many events etc are probably better executed at a chapter level than by the WMF. I do hope that freeing up these resources does mean that chapters and other groups will be supported more in taking over these tasks and where necessary, a transition process is considered. I do have one more specific question. In discussions previously on meta, there were some insinuations (maybe only my interpretation) that the organizational support (so not just money) for chapters and other affiliated groups would be reduced as a consequence of this narrowed focus. I sincerely hope the opposite will be true - and that more effort will be put in enabling these organizations to take over tasks where possible and take on new initiatives as much as possible. As long as the Chapters Association is not active (it seems to me it will be another year before it will be fully functional) I think it would be a waste to reduce this enabling capacity (for example the great networking function that is being provided by Asaf - but he could use some help!) while there is no other organization yet to take over those functions. Could you elaborate a bit on this? Best, Lodewijk 2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com Dear all, At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director. This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus Best Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Hi, as the newly appointed Chair of the FDC, but expressing my personal understanding, I support Anders' view. The narrowed focus means more activities done through the chapters, and the community at large. Of course the specifics will have to be established, but now WMF applies for their non-core activities like everybody else. Best, Dariusz 2 lis 2012 12:28, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se napisał(a): As a newly appointed secretary of FDC and just back from San Francisco after a four days deliberation session, where these thing has been in focus I can give you some facts from what I have understood. The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support. The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase. The narrowed focus in practice means that The WMF part funded through FDC is changed in composition, so less in direct activities by WMF personnel and more money in Grants to be allocated to chapters and individuals. The narrowed focus is only a issue for WMFs internal budget. The planned funds dissemination to chapters is not effected and the actual result of the the implementation of the Narrowed focus is that more money will be used by community/chapters via grant then was earlier planned Anders Wennersten Lodewijk skrev 2012-11-02 12:05: Thanks Bishakha, while I can understand the move of the WMF to do what they are best at, for me it is always a bit confusing when the Board (or Sue) is talking about the Foundation, and when about the movement. I hope I'm correct in my assumption that this narrowed focus is mostly a Foundation thing. The question I am missing in this analysis (but perhaps it was discussed orally) is 'which organization/group/individual is best placed to execute this' and then I definitely agree that many events etc are probably better executed at a chapter level than by the WMF. I do hope that freeing up these resources does mean that chapters and other groups will be supported more in taking over these tasks and where necessary, a transition process is considered. I do have one more specific question. In discussions previously on meta, there were some insinuations (maybe only my interpretation) that the organizational support (so not just money) for chapters and other affiliated groups would be reduced as a consequence of this narrowed focus. I sincerely hope the opposite will be true - and that more effort will be put in enabling these organizations to take over tasks where possible and take on new initiatives as much as possible. As long as the Chapters Association is not active (it seems to me it will be another year before it will be fully functional) I think it would be a waste to reduce this enabling capacity (for example the great networking function that is being provided by Asaf - but he could use some help!) while there is no other organization yet to take over those functions. Could you elaborate a bit on this? Best, Lodewijk 2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com Dear all, At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director. This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus Best Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Hi Dariusz and Anders, Thank you for your replies. It does however not answer my questions - although I may have worded them poorly. What I'm trying to figure out is what will happen to the organizational support to the other movement organizations and individuals. This support is already much lower than I'd like, but the suggestion on meta was that it might decrease further. Some examples: * PR support by WMF PR staff when writing press releases for an international audience * Networking support by Asaf (who to approach), specifically for global south countries and chapters to be. * Tech support for initiatives * Institutional support for the GLAM related activities in the US (until the US Federation is fully functional, if ever) * Layout/design support for education related activities While I agree on principle that several of these tasks belong at the WCA, US Federation or individual chapters, I do recognize it needs time to be transferred. Which tasks will the Foundation (continue to) execute, and which not? Which will it explicitely transfer? Or will it just drop it - and then it is up to others to catch them or not? Best, Lodewijk 2012/11/2 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl Hi, as the newly appointed Chair of the FDC, but expressing my personal understanding, I support Anders' view. The narrowed focus means more activities done through the chapters, and the community at large. Of course the specifics will have to be established, but now WMF applies for their non-core activities like everybody else. Best, Dariusz 2 lis 2012 12:28, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se napisał(a): As a newly appointed secretary of FDC and just back from San Francisco after a four days deliberation session, where these thing has been in focus I can give you some facts from what I have understood. The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support. The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase. The narrowed focus in practice means that The WMF part funded through FDC is changed in composition, so less in direct activities by WMF personnel and more money in Grants to be allocated to chapters and individuals. The narrowed focus is only a issue for WMFs internal budget. The planned funds dissemination to chapters is not effected and the actual result of the the implementation of the Narrowed focus is that more money will be used by community/chapters via grant then was earlier planned Anders Wennersten Lodewijk skrev 2012-11-02 12:05: Thanks Bishakha, while I can understand the move of the WMF to do what they are best at, for me it is always a bit confusing when the Board (or Sue) is talking about the Foundation, and when about the movement. I hope I'm correct in my assumption that this narrowed focus is mostly a Foundation thing. The question I am missing in this analysis (but perhaps it was discussed orally) is 'which organization/group/individual is best placed to execute this' and then I definitely agree that many events etc are probably better executed at a chapter level than by the WMF. I do hope that freeing up these resources does mean that chapters and other groups will be supported more in taking over these tasks and where necessary, a transition process is considered. I do have one more specific question. In discussions previously on meta, there were some insinuations (maybe only my interpretation) that the organizational support (so not just money) for chapters and other affiliated groups would be reduced as a consequence of this narrowed focus. I sincerely hope the opposite will be true - and that more effort will be put in enabling these organizations to take over tasks where possible and take on new initiatives as much as possible. As long as the Chapters Association is not active (it seems to me it will be another year before it will be fully functional) I think it would be a waste to reduce this enabling capacity (for example the great networking function that is being provided by Asaf - but he could use some help!) while there is no other organization yet to take over those functions. Could you elaborate a bit on this? Best, Lodewijk 2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com Dear all, At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director. This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus Best Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Hello Lodewijk, These are good questions. I expect effort will be required in the short term to delegate effectively and help move to a narrower focus. A few clarifying questions for you in return: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: * PR support by WMF PR staff when writing press releases for an international audience Do you have an example in mind of a recent press release that took advantage of this support? How useful to you find ComCom, as a list and network, compared to direct personal facilitation by WMF staff? * Networking support by Asaf (who to approach), specifically for global south countries and chapters to be. Do you think the WMF should be the arbiter of who to approach to connect with chapters-to-be? It seems to me that this level of support and connection could be provided well and in a variety of languages by a support network (or a community body such as AffCom or the WCA), even today. * Tech support for initiatives * Layout/design support for education related activities How do you feel the above worked for WLM this year, as an example? What tech and design support was needed, and where did it come from? * Institutional support for the GLAM related activities in the US (until the US Federation is fully functional, if ever) I agree there is room for a global GLAM support for regions that don't have local [chapter] organization. Why do you feel this is a special problem for the US, compared to other archive-rich parts of the world - given the two regional chapters and numerous present and past Wikipedians in residence? Sam. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Thanks Bishakha, while I can understand the move of the WMF to do what they are best at, for me it is always a bit confusing when the Board (or Sue) is talking about the Foundation, and when about the movement. I hope I'm correct in my assumption that this narrowed focus is mostly a Foundation thing. Yes, this narrowed focus relates to Foundation programs. I do hope that freeing up these resources does mean that chapters and other groups will be supported more in taking over these tasks and where necessary, a transition process is considered. As I see it, the intention of re-allocating or re-prioritizing resources (rather than freeing it up) is to make it easier for the Foundation to focus on two key priorities: engineering and grantmaking, and to move towards more impactful execution of each. I don't think the re-prioritization can be seen either as supporting or not supporting other groups to take over these tasks; many of these decisions are upto other groups themselves. For instance, there is scope for chapters to fund fellowships, but that is a decision that each chapter needs to make for itself. A narrower focus by the Foundation does leave room for other community entities to step up, but whether they do so or not is also dependent on each entity's annual plans, its vision, and how it sees its own role in the movement now and going forward in the future. As slides 13 and 16 say, there is scope to support the growth and build the eco-system of entities via the grants process. Best Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Samuel Klein, 02/11/2012 16:01: * Institutional support for the GLAM related activities in the US (until the US Federation is fully functional, if ever) I agree there is room for a global GLAM support for regions that don't have local [chapter] organization. Why do you feel this is a special problem for the US, compared to other archive-rich parts of the world - given the two regional chapters and numerous present and past Wikipedians in residence? The problem is always the same, i.e. that the WMF acts as WM-USA while a chapter is missing, rather than being truly global. Random (unfair?) recent example: WLM-USA uses the allegedly global Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/**2012/10/31/wiki-loves-** monuments-us-top-ten-photos-**announced/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/10/31/wiki-loves-monuments-us-top-ten-photos-announced/ unlike all the other national editions. But perhaps Lodewijk meant something else. I'm a bit confused about precisely what damage that blog post has done in your opinion. As noted on http://wikilovesmonuments.us/ , the US WLM finalists were also announced on Commons, and on the other hand the blog features a lot of posts from volunteers and chapters (see e.g the subsequent post https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/10/31/the-expansion-of-wikimedia-sverige/ , draft blog posts can be submitted on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog ). BTW, a lot of the organizing work for Wiki Loves Monuments in the US was done by three volunteer Wikimedians who also happen to be WMF employees (Kaldari, Sarah and Matthew), but did this in their spare time. -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
BTW, a lot of the organizing work for Wiki Loves Monuments in the US was done by three volunteer Wikimedians who also happen to be WMF employees (Kaldari, Sarah and Matthew), but did this in their spare time. Not trying to underestimate their contribution, I am afraid this is better worded as some fair share of the organizing work... . For example, User:Thundersnow spent, as I can see, all of their free time in September (essentially, all of their time except for sleep) working here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Unused_images He was complimented on the NRHP project, but, as I could see, nowhere else. There were more users like Thundersnow. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: BTW, a lot of the organizing work for Wiki Loves Monuments in the US was done by three volunteer Wikimedians who also happen to be WMF employees (Kaldari, Sarah and Matthew), but did this in their spare time. Not trying to underestimate their contribution, I am afraid this is better worded as some fair share of the organizing work... . For example, User:Thundersnow spent, as I can see, all of their free time in September (essentially, all of their time except for sleep) working here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Unused_images He was complimented on the NRHP project, but, as I could see, nowhere else. There were more users like Thundersnow. Or User:Smallbones, for example. I said a lot of the, not all of the ;) Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot. This must be a misunderstanding. There is now just two weeks until the FDC recommendation for the 12 proposals for round 1 2012 will be official where you can judge yourself Anders W Ilario Valdelli skrev 2012-11-02 17:14: In general I agree with the narrowing focus, but what seems really strange to me is that the strategies and in generale the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot. Basically there is a weak evaluation costs/benefits. An organization spending 30 millions of USD should produce benefits for 30 millions of USD and should be evaluated as an organization spending 30 millions of USD. Big budget - stronger evaluation and stronger measures. An organization (for instance a small chapter) spending 500K USD should be evaluated as an organization spending 500K USD and this organization should produce benefits for 500K USD. Small budget - weak evaluation and flexible measures. Basically if a small chapter, spending 500K USD, is evaluated using the same parameters of WMF, it should spent an additional amount of 500K USD to create an organization and a paid staff in order to be able to be evaluated at the same level of WMF and to receive the 500K USD for their projects (total = 1 million of USD). The criteria to evaluate chapters/organizations using the same parameters of WMF basically imposes to all applicants a model and this would be a good model, but it means that they should hire more people and should spent more money. Basically the idea to use the grantmaking or the idea to setup a FDC are not bad ideas, but these ideas are not supported by a flexible system of evaluation. The request would impose the same standards of WMF to all Wikimedia's organizations, but WMF is spending 30 MUSD plus a percentage of the 11,4 MUSD, at the back there is WM DE spending 1,8 MUSD (5% compared with the budget of WMF) and WM UK and WM FR (2% compared with the budget of WMF), but they are evaluated using the same parameters of WMF. My concern is linked to this point. The grantmaking (I include also the FDC) may bar the access to the funds for smaller entities. This may be a benefit because the control is perfect, but it may be also a big damage for the movement because the control may be stifling. There is not a proportionate control. I remember that we discussed a lot during the meetings with WMF about how people should manage the changes. The better solution to manage the changes is to have a differentiation because the changes may block a lot some kinds of organizations and may promote a lot some others. The changes make a selection and if all of them are clones, the changes may kill all clones. To impose a single model or to impose stronger rules would reduce a lot the possibility to have a differentiation and would produce a group of organizations which seems to be stronger and better, but essentially it will lose the capacity to react to the changes. I am not speaking about anarchy, in general I defend a lot the systems of control, but a system of control and a system of evaluation should be flexible. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support. The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Hi SJ, On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Lodewijk, These are good questions. I expect effort will be required in the short term to delegate effectively and help move to a narrower focus. A few clarifying questions for you in return: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: * PR support by WMF PR staff when writing press releases for an international audience Do you have an example in mind of a recent press release that took advantage of this support? How useful to you find ComCom, as a list and network, compared to direct personal facilitation by WMF staff? While not recent or international; I have taken advantage of both personal WMF staff support and ComCom in the past, in slightly different circumstances. For planning a communications strategy, the direct input, coaching and concentrated involvement of a Comms manager of WMF was instrumental; while ComCom in my experience has been useful in providing advice on how to react to a situation, which required less time of any given participant. In the former case the help might have been an unmandated task, and the person providing the help did not need to be WMF staffer (after all, Wikimedia Deutschland also had similar levels of communications expertise at the time, though still no mandate to be available to the global community). One important result of this interaction (and also other similar interactions in other fields of expertise, as well as that of the WMF-funded organizational development pilot) was the transfer of skills, ways of thinking that has been useful beyond the one project in question, and has perhaps resulted in not requiring to contact WMF again. Sue's recommendations include crisis support as something to maintain, but I hope this will not be seen as exclusively crisis support, i.e. interactions between the WMF and the community will not be intentionally narrowed to the times of crisis. Grants are a good tool for problems that can be solved by money, but it is an imprecise and slow tool, e.g. to solve the above problem that one could rely on the help of WMF, would require writing a grant to engage a communications consultant (the grant would need a month to be reviewed and a week or so more for the bank transfer; the consultant would need to be found, the consultant needs to be educated about our values, an evaluation report needs to be written etc.). In the long run, when a certain region or entity is big enough it will make sense to hire a local comm person through grants, but until then the grants-only approach, without attendant focus on capacity development has the potential, I fear, to lead to lost opportunities and waste. Over time, other entities in the movement will adapt to serve the needs of the international community, but if WMF is not careful, it stands to lose a big chunk of interactions with the wider community, the resulting good relationships and more sadly the transfer of skills and experience in non-technical areas between the WMF and the volunteers might cease, leading to a less empowered and skillful volunteer base. I sincerely hope that this is not the intention or the result. * Networking support by Asaf (who to approach), specifically for global south countries and chapters to be. Do you think the WMF should be the arbiter of who to approach to connect with chapters-to-be? It seems to me that this level of support and connection could be provided well and in a variety of languages by a support network (or a community body such as AffCom or the WCA), even today. Perhaps what was meant here is that Asaf told people which WMF staffer to approach with certain requests or simply questions (e.g. for trademarks, comms help, merchandise, the WMF blog, accounting etc.). WCA and AffCom, etc. will certainly be able to provide similar assistance, but the big question is whether people at the WMF will be allowed to receive such contact (or which functions will not be), and then figuring out who can act as a substitute. (As a number of functions are available at multiple places in the movement, it is not a movement-wide tragedy if certain functions become unavailable at the WMF, but the WMF is seen as the cornerstone of the movement, if it closes off, it will lead to a readjustment of that picture. It is not necessarily all bad, it might lead to non-WMF orgs seen as more equal and responsible parts of the movement, but it might lead to certain volunteers being unserved without a default fallback to the WMF.) -- I really hope the way the WMF understands grantmaking will include a strong emphasis on proactively building the capacities of the potential grantees and not only in a pull matter, but also in a push matter where opportunities (even if technically called grants) are actively offered to the other entities. Best regards, Bence ___ Wikimedia-l mailing
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Yes, there is a misunderstandings. I am not speaking about how the FDC committee is judging, but about the overall process which is the same for an organization asking 30 MUSD and an organization asking 100K USD. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.sewrote: the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot. This must be a misunderstanding. There is now just two weeks until the FDC recommendation for the 12 proposals for round 1 2012 will be official where you can judge yourself Anders W Ilario Valdelli skrev 2012-11-02 17:14: In general I agree with the narrowing focus, but what seems really strange to me is that the strategies and in generale the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot. Basically there is a weak evaluation costs/benefits. An organization spending 30 millions of USD should produce benefits for 30 millions of USD and should be evaluated as an organization spending 30 millions of USD. Big budget - stronger evaluation and stronger measures. An organization (for instance a small chapter) spending 500K USD should be evaluated as an organization spending 500K USD and this organization should produce benefits for 500K USD. Small budget - weak evaluation and flexible measures. Basically if a small chapter, spending 500K USD, is evaluated using the same parameters of WMF, it should spent an additional amount of 500K USD to create an organization and a paid staff in order to be able to be evaluated at the same level of WMF and to receive the 500K USD for their projects (total = 1 million of USD). The criteria to evaluate chapters/organizations using the same parameters of WMF basically imposes to all applicants a model and this would be a good model, but it means that they should hire more people and should spent more money. Basically the idea to use the grantmaking or the idea to setup a FDC are not bad ideas, but these ideas are not supported by a flexible system of evaluation. The request would impose the same standards of WMF to all Wikimedia's organizations, but WMF is spending 30 MUSD plus a percentage of the 11,4 MUSD, at the back there is WM DE spending 1,8 MUSD (5% compared with the budget of WMF) and WM UK and WM FR (2% compared with the budget of WMF), but they are evaluated using the same parameters of WMF. My concern is linked to this point. The grantmaking (I include also the FDC) may bar the access to the funds for smaller entities. This may be a benefit because the control is perfect, but it may be also a big damage for the movement because the control may be stifling. There is not a proportionate control. I remember that we discussed a lot during the meetings with WMF about how people should manage the changes. The better solution to manage the changes is to have a differentiation because the changes may block a lot some kinds of organizations and may promote a lot some others. The changes make a selection and if all of them are clones, the changes may kill all clones. To impose a single model or to impose stronger rules would reduce a lot the possibility to have a differentiation and would produce a group of organizations which seems to be stronger and better, but essentially it will lose the capacity to react to the changes. I am not speaking about anarchy, in general I defend a lot the systems of control, but a system of control and a system of evaluation should be flexible. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support. The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase. __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: It would be nice if someone could export the linked presentation from Google Docs and upload it to wikimediafoundation.org (or Wikimedia Commons) as a PDF or ODP (or both). I don't think we should rely on external resources in the context of historical Board archives unless absolutely necessary. Taken your feedback and done the needful, Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have an example in mind of a recent press release that took advantage of this support? How useful to you find ComCom, as a list and network, compared to direct personal facilitation by WMF staff? I spent a fair amount of time supporting Lodewijk and the international team with press work around Wiki Loves Monuments, drafting press releases, communications strategy, etc. When I couldn't continue to spend time in a staff capacity given the many other demands for time, I did other work as a volunteer, much as I did for other elements of organizing the U.S. version of the contest. It was a great deal of fun and I look forward to helping again next year, in both capacities. While not recent or international; I have taken advantage of both personal WMF staff support and ComCom in the past, in slightly different circumstances. For planning a communications strategy, the direct input, coaching and concentrated involvement of a Comms manager of WMF was instrumental; while ComCom in my experience has been useful in providing advice on how to react to a situation, which required less time of any given participant. In the former case the help might have been an unmandated task, and the person providing the help did not need to be WMF staffer (after all, Wikimedia Deutschland also had similar levels of communications expertise at the time, though still no mandate to be available to the global community). One important result of this interaction (and also other similar interactions in other fields of expertise, as well as that of the WMF-funded organizational development pilot) was the transfer of skills, ways of thinking that has been useful beyond the one project in question, and has perhaps resulted in not requiring to contact WMF again. In addition to working with folks on ComCom around reactive situations, or PR training/planning, we continue to seek out material for the communications channels that we manage, including the Wikimedia Foundation blog http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Blog and several large social media channels http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_Media. Several chapters and many individual Wikipedians have taken advantage to contribute material to blog.wikimedia.org. We're working on a process to re-design that blog so that we can better incorporate more voices beyond the Foundation and in many more languages (think more of a news magazine format and not just a chronological blogroll). We've been expanding the number of multi-lingual posts http://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/multilingual-post/ and utilizing the great translate extension as much as possible. We'd welcome many more posts about movement activities from chapters or other event and activity organizers. The best way to do that is to contact me or anyone else listed under the guidelines section of the Meta page for the blog here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog We can get you help with editing the posts and put them on the calendar. We're also happy to help share/re-tweet/further spread the word on social media channels where applicable. So hopefully the changes you see coming from the WMF communications team include more support for the work you do, a more robust infrastructure to make it easier to publicize your work, and much better multi-lingual communications across the many channels available to us. Please feel free to reach out to me directly or anyone at communications at wikimedia dot org for any reason. Matthew -- Matthew Roth Global Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: The question I am missing in this analysis (but perhaps it was discussed orally) is 'which organization/group/individual is best placed to execute this' and then I definitely agree that many events etc are probably better executed at a chapter level than by the WMF. \o/ I really like this part of the strategy. I'd love to see more small hackathons around the world organized by chapters and attended by smaller groups of WMF staff along with volunteers and chapters staff. I do have one more specific question. In discussions previously on meta, there were some insinuations (maybe only my interpretation) that the organizational support (so not just money) for chapters and other affiliated groups would be reduced as a consequence of this narrowed focus. I can speak mostly for the tech side, where our general approach is to try to ensure that we've got scalable review/integration processes that advance as much trust and autonomy to other individuals and organizations as reasonably possible. For example I think WMF needs to make sure that Labs runs smoothly, and can be used to build tools from start to the finish line. We may then still have to help pushing it over the last few inches, but most of the work should not require our help. Similarly we're continually expanding the circle of trust for folks who can review and merge code. We're a bit more conservative with the final deployment button push, but we're pretty close to letting anyone with the right talents and inclinations push code into production. Where WMF really is the only older of certain expertise, we try to provided it when needed, but we should also make a continuing effort to reduce expertise bottlenecks. The changes in this regard over the last 2 years have been huge -- more of our infrastructure than ever is now versioned as code and testable in Labs. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Hi all, I have a comment inline below. Humor me on my rampage about the US and our desperate need for a more organized GLAM movement in this giant country. On 11/2/12 8:01 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: * Institutional support for the GLAM related activities in the US (until the US Federation is fully functional, if ever) I agree there is room for a global GLAM support for regions that don't have local [chapter] organization. Why do you feel this is a special problem for the US, compared to other archive-rich parts of the world - given the two regional chapters and numerous present and past Wikipedians in residence? The United States is a legendary place when it comes to this discussion. Numerous fellow-US-Wikipedians and myself have spent countless nights mulling over this. If you live outside of Washington, D.C. and New York City vicinities, the Wikipedia world in the US is a VERY lonely place. Perhaps not for everyone, but for many more than you'd think. I meet Wikipedians in the US who have no clue there is a grant program. Like some countries in global south - I know Wikipedians in Chicago who attend meet-up's with 2 people on a regular basis. I mean Chicago? Really? Yup. I live in San Francisco. I'm lucky: I'm wrapping up a year long fellowship, I'm a social butterfly, but it took me almost one year of doing GLAM projects on my own budget before I realized that I could apply for a grant to go to a conference. I thought there was no way I'd get a grant to attend a museum conference. Lori Phillips has done a lot of work in her one year coordinator position. She has tried her best to bring together US Wikipedians - and for many of us, that's like herding cats. She's redone our website, she's created a blog, and she's got 100 GLAMs breathing down her neck who want Wikipedians in Residence - all this while GLAMs are undergoing hiring freezes and are lucky if they can send one staff member to a conference where Lori, myself, and/or Dominic speak about the subject. The development of the US GLAM Consortium[1] was a concept Lori hoped could make up for a few things: the lack of chapters in the US (the US is like Russia - it's freaking huge, and having two small chapters on one side of the country doesn't necessarily help those of us in Oklahoma, Indiana, New Mexico, or Oregon, per se), the lack of GLAM organization around the subject, etc. We've got a great group of advisors from some of the biggest GLAMs in the US - however, the Consortium has no money. GLAMs don't have the free cash to throw at organizing it, and the Foundation won't support it unless a GLAM steps up to throw money in - if they do the Foundation will match them. And we've had little to no luck thus far at getting outside funding. But, most of these GLAMs have hiring freezes, can't even afford to pay a Wikipedian in Residence a small stipend, and all of the staff members on the US Consortium project are doing it as volunteers. One of the most important things we need to do is have a Consortium meeting - in person, not online - and we can't financially fund it because of this matching. I don't blame anyone we're working with - Asaf is great and he works his ass off and cares a lot for what we're all doing. But, in the US - we can't financially do a lot of things because we're limited by distance, lack of chapters, and situations like this matching thing. I get we can't rely on the Foundation for everything, but in the US, outside of one area, it's the only thing we have. And trust me - having numerous present and past Wikipedians in residence doesn't make up for having financial and chapter support. While it's great that museums want to fly us around the country to talk about our projects - they can't afford it. I was asked to speak at one of the finest museums in the United States - the Met of the West, so to say, and they had to cease planning the talk because they can't afford to bring me down from San Francisco to LA, and I surely can't afford to do that myself. And a ticket to fly to LA generally costs about $150 - not expensive. And there is only so much that me, Dominic and Lori can do. (And that's having families, jobs and school) I could go on and on and on about this, but, a few of us in the GLAM US movement have learned that we can ask the Foundation for grants when needed, and we are grateful, but, other than that, you're on your own - and many of us also know that if we had a US GLAM Consortium - who needs to meet in order to get the ball rolling - then we'd probably have a chance to bring in outside funding and so forth. I'm continuously grateful for the support participation grants have given me, but this isn't about me, I'll be okay - it's about the large scale impact in the US which we still need to make. Things have started to move a bit though - organizations like the Open Knowledge Foundation have taken notice that we need better organization
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On 11/2/12 8:15 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Samuel Klein, 02/11/2012 16:01: * Institutional support for the GLAM related activities in the US (until the US Federation is fully functional, if ever) I agree there is room for a global GLAM support for regions that don't have local [chapter] organization. Why do you feel this is a special problem for the US, compared to other archive-rich parts of the world - given the two regional chapters and numerous present and past Wikipedians in residence? The problem is always the same, i.e. that the WMF acts as WM-USA while a chapter is missing, rather than being truly global. Random (unfair?) recent example: WLM-USA uses the allegedly global Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/10/31/wiki-loves-monuments-us-top-ten-photos-announced/ unlike all the other national editions. There is a US blog: http://www.wikilovesmonuments.us/ I'm not sure why it was posted on the WMF blog. I'm sure if other countries submitted their top ten's they'd be posted to the WMF blog. Remember: anyone in the movement - around the world - can write a blog for the WMF blog, in any language they want. So do it! -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/* Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: On 11/2/12 8:15 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Samuel Klein, 02/11/2012 16:01: * Institutional support for the GLAM related activities in the US (until the US Federation is fully functional, if ever) I agree there is room for a global GLAM support for regions that don't have local [chapter] organization. Why do you feel this is a special problem for the US, compared to other archive-rich parts of the world - given the two regional chapters and numerous present and past Wikipedians in residence? The problem is always the same, i.e. that the WMF acts as WM-USA while a chapter is missing, rather than being truly global. Random (unfair?) recent example: WLM-USA uses the allegedly global Wikimedia blog https://blog.wikimedia.org/**2012/10/31/wiki-loves-** monuments-us-top-ten-photos-**announced/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/10/31/wiki-loves-monuments-us-top-ten-photos-announced/ unlike all the other national editions. There is a US blog: http://www.wikilovesmonuments.**us/http://www.wikilovesmonuments.us/ I'm not sure why it was posted on the WMF blog. Mostly because I wrote the blog post on Tuesday night after work :) I'm happy to publicize more of the other country winners as well. I'll check on Elke's and Lodewijk's posts at http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org/and coordinate with them and anyone else who would like to publicize them. We'll also be doing PR around the final announcement of the overall winners in December, as discussed with Lodewijk. thanks, Matthew -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/* Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Matthew Roth Global Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *https://donate.wikimedia.org* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Could I ask about what information the Board had in addition to these slides? The slides provide little in the way of hard numbers for financial and ROI information, such as expected improvements to editor retention or the Visual Editor's progress that should occur with the changes to funding and FTE assignments. Thanks, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Hi Sam, some people have excellently answered as well - I especially agree with what Bence and Matthew wrote. I will answer some things myself as well though. 2012/11/2 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com Hello Lodewijk, These are good questions. I expect effort will be required in the short term to delegate effectively and help move to a narrower focus. A few clarifying questions for you in return: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: * PR support by WMF PR staff when writing press releases for an international audience Do you have an example in mind of a recent press release that took advantage of this support? How useful to you find ComCom, as a list and network, compared to direct personal facilitation by WMF staff? I have two very specific occasions which I recall - but please forgive me if I forgot several. In 2011 I had quite some interaction with Moka, who advised me on how to run an international press release. This was the first time we were running Wiki Loves Monuments in multiple countries, and none of the chapters participating had any experience in international press releases. The results of this were very thin - mostly because of language issues (national releases work better, that was a valuable lesson) but the help was great and helpful. This year I had quite some interaction with Matthew who did a lot of help on drafting a good template release that could be used by multiple countries and attractive blog posts. I honestly don't know where his job stopped and his free time started - but what counts to me most is that his skills were very valuable. To some extent ComCom is helpful - but to be honest comcom has degraded into not much more than a mailing list and a helpful place to shout for help. It is not a great place to transfer skills or get help in confidential stuff (such as the Guinness World Record press release). Maybe this specific set of facilitation could move to the WCA - but at the short term this is unlikely to happen. * Networking support by Asaf (who to approach), specifically for global south countries and chapters to be. Do you think the WMF should be the arbiter of who to approach to connect with chapters-to-be? It seems to me that this level of support and connection could be provided well and in a variety of languages by a support network (or a community body such as AffCom or the WCA), even today. No, in an ideal world I would prefer the WMF not to be necessary for this. However, unfortunately this ideal world doesn't exist. Again the WCA could become helpful - but that is midlong term thinking. Dropping these functions /right now/ would hurt the movement - I prefer a transition process. * Tech support for initiatives * Layout/design support for education related activities How do you feel the above worked for WLM this year, as an example? What tech and design support was needed, and where did it come from? I think the tech support for Wiki Loves Monuments was very helpful (both the upload wizard in 2011 (Jeroen!) and 2012 as the mobile app). I think the current setup of the Toolserver and Labs is quite open for improvement though - especially when it comes to access and reliability. i'm not a very technical person though, so I suggest you ask some other people if you want details. Thing is, sometimes volunteers need some last minute flexible support to make a project work. To make their efforts effective. Design work I mostly remember from the education program - I haven't been much directly involved, so probably others can speak better for it. * Institutional support for the GLAM related activities in the US (until the US Federation is fully functional, if ever) I agree there is room for a global GLAM support for regions that don't have local [chapter] organization. Why do you feel this is a special problem for the US, compared to other archive-rich parts of the world - given the two regional chapters and numerous present and past Wikipedians in residence? I think Sarah answered this very well in the mean time. The US is a big country, and currently mostly not covered by any kind of chapter. If the WMF doesn't support it at this point, there will not be any organizational support. Grant making is not enough - skill transfer and some basic backbone support is simply necessary to make volunteers do what they are best at. This is also why GLAM seems to be most successful in countries with chapters. I do feel that the WMF isn't best placed in the longer term to support this. I think that the US federation idea that is currently being considered might be a good step in the direction of organizational support - and a US chapter might even be better. The GLAM-Wiki consortium might be a great step. But again: a transition process is imho necessary and invaluable. If you drop it now, there is a risk of loosing important momentum. Give other organizations
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
Bishakha Datta wrote: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: It would be nice if someone could export the linked presentation from Google Docs and upload it to wikimediafoundation.org (or Wikimedia Commons) as a PDF or ODP (or both). I don't think we should rely on external resources in the context of historical Board archives unless absolutely necessary. Taken your feedback and done the needful, You're wonderful. Thank you very much. :-) MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Basically there is a weak evaluation costs/benefits. An organization spending 30 millions of USD should produce benefits for 30 millions of USD and should be evaluated as an organization spending 30 millions of USD. Big budget - stronger evaluation and stronger measures. An organization (for instance a small chapter) spending 500K USD should be evaluated as an organization spending 500K USD and this organization should produce benefits for 500K USD. Small budget - weak evaluation and flexible measures. Basically if a small chapter, spending 500K USD, is evaluated using the same parameters of WMF, it should spent an additional amount of 500K USD to create an organization and a paid staff in order to be able to be evaluated at the same level of WMF and to receive the 500K USD for their projects (total = 1 million of USD). This would only make sense to me if the organization spending $500k is spending its own money. In this case, it's spending money donated to the WMF; that means it is subject to the level of scrutiny applied to the WMF, even if that money is spent on its behalf instead of by it. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus
On 11/2/12 6:43 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote: If you live outside of Washington, D.C. and New York City vicinities, the Wikipedia world in the US is a VERY lonely place. Perhaps not for everyone, but for many more than you'd think. I meet Wikipedians in the US who have no clue there is a grant program. Like some countries in global south - I know Wikipedians in Chicago who attend meet-up's with 2 people on a regular basis. I mean Chicago? Really? Yup. True to some extent, but I think a lot of U.S. Wikipedians are active, just in a more decentralized, movement-lite manner where they stick to editing and ignore the meta-stuff. Heck, I've been editing en.wiki for ~10 years, and have made 40,000 edits, so am active in a sense, but I didn't know there was a grant program either. And I've been to maybe 3 meetups ever! I'm even more meta-active than most Wikipedians I know, having gone to *any* meetups, and being subscribed to a mailing list. The other Wikipedia-editing folks I know tend to just see themselves as people who edit Wikipedia in an area they're interested in (mostly math, cs, or history), but don't want the commitment of joining a Movement or organization or social scene. It's sort of a different approach to being a Wikipedian I guess: a lightweight commitment where it's just a thing you can do, if you have some spare time on a weekend and find an interesting subject to improve. Now as for whether that's more prevalent in the U.S. than elsewhere, and/or why that'd be, I have no idea. -Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
