Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:09:58AM +1100, Peter Halasz wrote:
> So lock those specific pages. Have you ever used Wikipedia? Do you
> think it would exist if they were worried only about representation?

I will try to respond to this debate, wearing my hat as Public Officer
of WMAU later, but for now let me just say that our official wiki is
not like wikipedia. It is much more like:

 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page

As an incorporated association we have legal obligations to the
community via CAV, not only to the membership. This means the issue of
access is not simple and it requires thought.  There is also a real
tension here, not only about access. For example, there is also a
tension between the project's love of anonymity for users, with the
legal requirements imposed by imcorporating.

Cheers, Brian.
 
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

-- 
Brian Salter-Duke bd...@wikimedia.org.au publicoffi...@wikimedia.org.au  
 Committee member and Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia Inc.
   Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.
[[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Liam Wyatt]

Peter (Halasz), um... your last post is probably not helpful. I happen to
agree with you that it is a good idea to make the chapter Wiki more open to
editing. However, this is a discussion about the
validity/importance/appropriateness of doing so and making inflammatory
statements risks you falling foul of 'godwins law' and, by corollary, losing
automatically. :-)

This discussion here has heard from people who are members, elected
committee and lapsed members, but I think we've yet to hear from anyone who
is not a member as to whether they would be more willing to be involved with
chapter activities. I would like to point to the UK chapter's "water
cooler"
as an example of the kind of active conversations that I think the Chapter
should be hosting on our "Billabong "
- which is where this whole discussion started from. I note with interest
that they recently had a discussion on that page about whether their wiki
should allow IP editing or not.

Could any non-members who are following this discussion please pipe up, as,
all current discussants are members and by definition are already allowed to
edit and therefore any change wouldn't affect them very much.

In any case, I have added to the agenda of the forthcoming committee meeting
an item about whether we should change editing rights.

-Liam [[witty lama]]


wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Angela  wrote:

> I'm not sure why there's an assumption that edits by members are
> trustworthy (and edits by others are not). Since anyone can become a
> member, it's not reasonable to expect none of them will ever do
> anything bad on the wiki. And you're going to have a problem blocking
> them from the wiki if editing that is supposed to be something that
> they've been promised in return for their membership fee - do you want
> to have to give back their money if you find you need to block them? A
> better option might be to protect important pages and be quick to
> block problem users.
>
> Angela
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Angela]

I'm not sure why there's an assumption that edits by members are
trustworthy (and edits by others are not). Since anyone can become a
member, it's not reasonable to expect none of them will ever do
anything bad on the wiki. And you're going to have a problem blocking
them from the wiki if editing that is supposed to be something that
they've been promised in return for their membership fee - do you want
to have to give back their money if you find you need to block them? A
better option might be to protect important pages and be quick to
block problem users.

Angela

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Peter Halasz]

Omg the terrorists are coming! They are armed with web browsers of
mass destruction and are going to change our constitution to say jimmy
wales is a poo!

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Peter Halasz]

You are charging volunteers to help you.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Peter Halasz]

So lock those specific pages. Have you ever used Wikipedia? Do you
think it would exist if they were worried only about representation?

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

That is called "framing the question". Of course *that* kind of
participation would be unproblematic. But let's not forget the minutes,
resolutions and official activities of the chapter are hosted there, along
with our Statement of Purpose and etc. Like I said, as a non-profit
organisation we have obligations both to the membership and to the registry
(CAV in our case), and those who visit our site should be able to trust what
they read as far as it pertains to our organisation and its activities.

2009/12/12 Peter Halasz 

> You think that by opening the wiki up to users with autoconfirmed
> email addresses, so that they might put themselves down as attending
> an event, we are at risk of being "misrepresented" and "discredited"?
>
> I'm sorry I'm not bothering to participate in this conversation any longer.
>
> Peter Halasz
> User:Pengo
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Andrew  wrote:
> > At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well
> > understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is
> the
> > official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a
> way
> > that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can
> edit
> > freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open
> > editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members
> > (and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a
> > meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see.
> >
> > As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest
> prospective
> > problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we
> will
> > be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build
> > partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture,
> edginess
> > seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our
> legal
> > and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large
> > organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their
> > attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something.
> > We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of
> > credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our
> > official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in
> > that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even
> > speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an
> > imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to
> > benefit from it, as against the costs?
> >
> > cheers
> > Andrew
> >
> > 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz 
> >>
> >> Sarah,
> >>
> >> The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
> >> non-members is because of fear of vandalism.
> >>
> >> Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism.
> >>
> >> Solutions?
> >>
> >> 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down.
> >> 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week
> >> 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be
> >> preserved.
> >> 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in
> >> 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing
> >> 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their
> >> membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no
> >> longer allowed to edit.
> >>
> >> C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism?
> >>
> >> Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we?
> >> And why with such tight control?
> >>
> >> Peter Halasz.
> >> User:Pengo
> >> (Lapsed member)
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> >> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> > Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
> >
> >
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Peter Halasz]

You think that by opening the wiki up to users with autoconfirmed
email addresses, so that they might put themselves down as attending
an event, we are at risk of being "misrepresented" and "discredited"?

I'm sorry I'm not bothering to participate in this conversation any longer.

Peter Halasz
User:Pengo

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Andrew  wrote:
> At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well
> understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is the
> official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a way
> that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can edit
> freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open
> editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members
> (and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a
> meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see.
>
> As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest prospective
> problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we will
> be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build
> partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture, edginess
> seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our legal
> and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large
> organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their
> attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something.
> We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of
> credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our
> official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in
> that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even
> speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an
> imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to
> benefit from it, as against the costs?
>
> cheers
> Andrew
>
> 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz 
>>
>> Sarah,
>>
>> The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
>> non-members is because of fear of vandalism.
>>
>> Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism.
>>
>> Solutions?
>>
>> 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down.
>> 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week
>> 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be
>> preserved.
>> 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in
>> 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing
>> 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their
>> membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no
>> longer allowed to edit.
>>
>> C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism?
>>
>> Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we?
>> And why with such tight control?
>>
>> Peter Halasz.
>> User:Pengo
>> (Lapsed member)
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Peter Halasz]

Here's my reasons for why ordinary people (i.e. non-members) just
might like to edit the site from the last time this discussion was
had:

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Lloyd Nguyen  wrote:

I think I have to ask, what kind of things could/would a non-member
edit on the site?

They might like to RSVP to an event. That's the main thing that comes to mind.

Also discussion pages (discuss a policy or concern), or fix a typo or
formatting.

And they might like to be able to contribute in the time leading up to
taking on membership.

And there will be unforeseen reasons too. I know this is a friendly
discussion, but it feels odd having to justify why a wiki should be
open here.

Lastly, it's a bit of a turn off having to email someone and waiting
for response to get access, and I'm sure there are people who simply
would see that requirement as being too much bother in comparison to
the edit they want to make, or even take the restriction as being less
than than welcoming.

If spam is the main reason to have accounts, would using a CAPTCHA for
non-confirmed accounts help? (is that a simple option in Mediawiki?)

Otherwise I'd recommend nothing more restrictive than "confirm email
address to edit"

Peter Halasz

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

(Note that my comments above are addressed to a hypothetical situation of
open editing, not the current situation which is manageable by any objective
standard.)

2009/12/12 Andrew 

> At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well
> understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is the
> official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a way
> that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can edit
> freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open
> editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members
> (and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a
> meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see.
>
> As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest prospective
> problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we will
> be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build
> partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture, edginess
> seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our legal
> and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large
> organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their
> attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something.
> We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of
> credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our
> official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in
> that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even
> speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an
> imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to
> benefit from it, as against the costs?
>
> cheers
> Andrew
>
> 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz 
>
> Sarah,
>>
>> The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
>> non-members is because of fear of vandalism.
>>
>> Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism.
>>
>> Solutions?
>>
>> 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down.
>> 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week
>> 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be
>> preserved.
>> 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in
>> 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing
>> 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their
>> membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no
>> longer allowed to edit.
>>
>> C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism?
>>
>> Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we?
>> And why with such tight control?
>>
>> Peter Halasz.
>> User:Pengo
>> (Lapsed member)
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well
understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is the
official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a way
that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can edit
freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open
editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members
(and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a
meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see.

As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest prospective
problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we will
be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build
partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture, edginess
seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our legal
and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large
organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their
attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something.
We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of
credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our
official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in
that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even
speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an
imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to
benefit from it, as against the costs?

cheers
Andrew

2009/12/12 Peter Halasz 

> Sarah,
>
> The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
> non-members is because of fear of vandalism.
>
> Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism.
>
> Solutions?
>
> 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down.
> 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week
> 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be
> preserved.
> 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in
> 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing
> 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their
> membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no
> longer allowed to edit.
>
> C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism?
>
> Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we?
> And why with such tight control?
>
> Peter Halasz.
> User:Pengo
> (Lapsed member)
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Peter Halasz]

Sarah,

The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
non-members is because of fear of vandalism.

Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism.

Solutions?

1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down.
2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week
3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be preserved.
4. Requiring wiki users to sign in
5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing
6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their
membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no
longer allowed to edit.

C'mon, seriously? You went with #6? To combat vandalism?

Although, as you say, we CAN keep the wiki locked up, why SHOULD we?
And why with such tight control?

Peter Halasz.
User:Pengo
(Lapsed member)

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[private musings]

re : 'I though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit,
surely promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise
for Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does
anyone think that the goals and ideals "which we hold dear" should not be
what we present in our public place.'
Yes yes yes! I'm another strong supporter of open access editing for the
wmau wiki - I think it's a really good idea, and is borderline embarassing
that it's currently restricted :-)
best,
Peter,
PM.
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sarah Ewart  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 
>>>
 One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of
 membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive.

>>>
>>> Seriously is this a benefit,
>>> whats the wiki for
>>> why would anyone join up just to edit the wiki
>>>
>>
>> No one will ever join the chapter to get editing rights. The connection of
>> editing rights granted to members and motivation for membership is a step
>> too far and illogical. I don't think anyone really believes that editing
>> rights is a motivation for joining, but it is a right granted to members.
>> Most, possibly all, people join the chapter because they want to support it
>> and that's it.
>>
>> However, I don't support opening editing for the reasons that were raised
>> by several people when this was last discussed a few months ago. We have in
>> the past granted editing rights to people for special reasons (as Andrew
>> referred to, we gave GLAM partners access for organising and working on
>> GLAM) but in general I support editing remaining as a membership right.
>>
>
> If no one will join in order to get the right to edit then its value as a
> right is relatively small. Maybe in the future it will indeed be a valuable
> right (like some professional associations have log-in websites too) but for
> the moment having it closed seem to be benefiting neither the members or the
> non-(potential)-members.
>
> The giving of the special access to people has happened, IIRC with two
> accounts. Both were War Memorial staff who were helping with the preparation
> of GLAM-WIKI and not as a thankyou or benefit of having been a partner in
> the event. On the other hand, the reason why the GLAM-WIKI 
> recommendationslive 
> at meta rather than at the chapter wiki (where they, ideally, should
> have resided) was to allow people to comment on them.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit, surely
>>> promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise for
>>> Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does anyone
>>> think that the goals and ideals "which we hold dear" should not be what we
>>> present in our public place.
>>>
>>
>> I think this is flawed logic too. The Wikimedia Foundation's own website
>> is invitation only, as is the internal wiki, the Chapter's wiki, the OTRS
>> wiki, the ArbCom wiki, etc. All for different reasons, but the idea that we
>> should open editing to anyone because Wikipedia is built on a philosphy of
>> open editing is a wonky rationale IMO. We aren't Wikipedia and we're not
>> obligated to run the chapter in the same way Wikipedia runs. The main reason
>> I don't support opening editing up is that we lack an online community to
>> deal with the problematic edits and vandalism etc that we'll inevitably have
>> to deal with. It's the public face of the chapter and the pages need to be
>> maintained accurately, the membership pages, minutes and resolutions need to
>> have integrity.
>>
>> The UK chapters' website restricts editability to the various pages that
> are of importance e.g. meeting minutes,
> donation , 
> constitution...
> but because it allows editing by default anyone can contribute to "
> volunteer " and "water 
> cooler".
> The integrity of the things that need to remain stable is maintained, but it
> still allows for people to engage. On the other hand, neither the 
> Frenchand
> German  chapter websites are wikis - they're
> "normal" read-only websites. I think both of these latter chapters are
> something that the Australia can aspire to in terms of capacity, activities,
> members and pretty-website-ness, but the UK chapter is probably a fairer
> comparison because our chapters are effectively the same age and have the
> same budgets (up till now).
>
>>
>>
>>> The chapter Wiki as a way of facilitating discussion within the
>>> Australian community is a good starting point, let it be a

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Liam Wyatt]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sarah Ewart  wrote:

>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>>
>> 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 
>>
>>> One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of
>>> membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive.
>>>
>>
>> Seriously is this a benefit,
>> whats the wiki for
>> why would anyone join up just to edit the wiki
>>
>
> No one will ever join the chapter to get editing rights. The connection of
> editing rights granted to members and motivation for membership is a step
> too far and illogical. I don't think anyone really believes that editing
> rights is a motivation for joining, but it is a right granted to members.
> Most, possibly all, people join the chapter because they want to support it
> and that's it.
>
> However, I don't support opening editing for the reasons that were raised
> by several people when this was last discussed a few months ago. We have in
> the past granted editing rights to people for special reasons (as Andrew
> referred to, we gave GLAM partners access for organising and working on
> GLAM) but in general I support editing remaining as a membership right.
>

If no one will join in order to get the right to edit then its value as a
right is relatively small. Maybe in the future it will indeed be a valuable
right (like some professional associations have log-in websites too) but for
the moment having it closed seem to be benefiting neither the members or the
non-(potential)-members.

The giving of the special access to people has happened, IIRC with two
accounts. Both were War Memorial staff who were helping with the preparation
of GLAM-WIKI and not as a thankyou or benefit of having been a partner in
the event. On the other hand, the reason why the GLAM-WIKI
recommendationslive
at meta rather than at the chapter wiki (where they, ideally, should
have resided) was to allow people to comment on them.

>
>
>>
>>  though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit, surely
>> promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise for
>> Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does anyone
>> think that the goals and ideals "which we hold dear" should not be what we
>> present in our public place.
>>
>
> I think this is flawed logic too. The Wikimedia Foundation's own website is
> invitation only, as is the internal wiki, the Chapter's wiki, the OTRS wiki,
> the ArbCom wiki, etc. All for different reasons, but the idea that we should
> open editing to anyone because Wikipedia is built on a philosphy of open
> editing is a wonky rationale IMO. We aren't Wikipedia and we're not
> obligated to run the chapter in the same way Wikipedia runs. The main reason
> I don't support opening editing up is that we lack an online community to
> deal with the problematic edits and vandalism etc that we'll inevitably have
> to deal with. It's the public face of the chapter and the pages need to be
> maintained accurately, the membership pages, minutes and resolutions need to
> have integrity.
>
> The UK chapters' website restricts editability to the various pages that
are of importance e.g. meeting minutes,
donation ,
constitution...
but because it allows editing by default anyone can contribute to
"volunteer"
and "water cooler ". The
integrity of the things that need to remain stable is maintained, but it
still allows for people to engage. On the other hand, neither the
Frenchand
German  chapter websites are wikis - they're
"normal" read-only websites. I think both of these latter chapters are
something that the Australia can aspire to in terms of capacity, activities,
members and pretty-website-ness, but the UK chapter is probably a fairer
comparison because our chapters are effectively the same age and have the
same budgets (up till now).

>
>
>> The chapter Wiki as a way of facilitating discussion within the Australian
>> community is a good starting point, let it be a host for members to write
>> about their wiki experiences, to seek help in opening doors to the GLAM
>> sector, let it be somewhere for non wiki people to seek assistance in
>> opening their doors and making what they have collected freely available to
>> all.
>>
>
> I also disagree with this. The chapter's wiki is a special purpose wiki,
> its official website and public face, it's not a free all-purpose hosting
> venue.
>

I don't think that being a place where people who are interested in
Australian Wikimedia activities can discuss things is considered
"all-purpose hosting". Sure, if people start spamming etc. we would have to
respond somehow (I would suggest requiring login - no IP editing) but if

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Sarah Ewart]

Just to clarify my previous email, when I said: "The Wikimedia Foundation's
own website is invitation only, as is the internal wiki, the Chapter's wiki,
the OTRS wiki, the ArbCom wiki, etc." The Chapters wiki I was referring to
was not our wiki but the Chapters wiki on the Wikimedia Switzerland domain
and used by the chapters to organise and discuss the two chapters seats on
the WMF board. http://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Main_Page Though I see our site
as closer to the Foundation's own wiki wikimediafoundation.org in that it
contains information like minutes, resolutions, reports, rules and such that
need to be maintained with integrity.



On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Sarah Ewart  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 
>>
>>> One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of
>>> membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive.
>>>
>>
>> Seriously is this a benefit,
>> whats the wiki for
>> why would anyone join up just to edit the wiki
>>
>
> No one will ever join the chapter to get editing rights. The connection of
> editing rights granted to members and motivation for membership is a step
> too far and illogical. I don't think anyone really believes that editing
> rights is a motivation for joining, but it is a right granted to members.
> Most, possibly all, people join the chapter because they want to support it
> and that's it.
>
> However, I don't support opening editing for the reasons that were raised
> by several people when this was last discussed a few months ago. We have in
> the past granted editing rights to people for special reasons (as Andrew
> referred to, we gave GLAM partners access for organising and working on
> GLAM) but in general I support editing remaining as a membership right.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit, surely
>> promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise for
>> Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does anyone
>> think that the goals and ideals "which we hold dear" should not be what we
>> present in our public place.
>>
>
> I think this is flawed logic too. The Wikimedia Foundation's own website is
> invitation only, as is the internal wiki, the Chapter's wiki, the OTRS wiki,
> the ArbCom wiki, etc. All for different reasons, but the idea that we should
> open editing to anyone because Wikipedia is built on a philosphy of open
> editing is a wonky rationale IMO. We aren't Wikipedia and we're not
> obligated to run the chapter in the same way Wikipedia runs. The main reason
> I don't support opening editing up is that we lack an online community to
> deal with the problematic edits and vandalism etc that we'll inevitably have
> to deal with. It's the public face of the chapter and the pages need to be
> maintained accurately, the membership pages, minutes and resolutions need to
> have integrity.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The chapter Wiki as a way of facilitating discussion within the Australian
>> community is a good starting point, let it be a host for members to write
>> about their wiki experiences, to seek help in opening doors to the GLAM
>> sector, let it be somewhere for non wiki people to seek assistance in
>> opening their doors and making what they have collected freely available to
>> all.
>>
>
> I also disagree with this. The chapter's wiki is a special purpose wiki,
> its official website and public face, it's not a free all-purpose hosting
> venue.
>
>
>
>>
>> By all means place restrictions on what non-members can do but remember
>> Wikimedia-au is judged by what its does and dont expect others to do what
>> Wikimedia-au isnt willing to do itself.
>>
>> Wikimedia-au long term future rests on whether it can grow its membership
>> over the next year, to do that its needs to be "of value" it needs to be
>> doing things to create that value, importantly it needs to be seen to be
>> doing them. People arent going to be productive in the group if there is
>> nothing for them to productive with, they arent going continue with a group
>> if they dont have a voice in that group,  and they definitely wont join a
>> group if they cant first experience the group and meet some of the people
>> already there.
>>
>>
>> Gnangarra
>> http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Sarah Ewart]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 2:01 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

>
>
> 2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 
>
>> One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of
>> membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive.
>>
>
> Seriously is this a benefit,
> whats the wiki for
> why would anyone join up just to edit the wiki
>

No one will ever join the chapter to get editing rights. The connection of
editing rights granted to members and motivation for membership is a step
too far and illogical. I don't think anyone really believes that editing
rights is a motivation for joining, but it is a right granted to members.
Most, possibly all, people join the chapter because they want to support it
and that's it.

However, I don't support opening editing for the reasons that were raised by
several people when this was last discussed a few months ago. We have in the
past granted editing rights to people for special reasons (as Andrew
referred to, we gave GLAM partners access for organising and working on
GLAM) but in general I support editing remaining as a membership right.


>
>
>
>  though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit, surely
> promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise for
> Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does anyone
> think that the goals and ideals "which we hold dear" should not be what we
> present in our public place.
>

I think this is flawed logic too. The Wikimedia Foundation's own website is
invitation only, as is the internal wiki, the Chapter's wiki, the OTRS wiki,
the ArbCom wiki, etc. All for different reasons, but the idea that we should
open editing to anyone because Wikipedia is built on a philosphy of open
editing is a wonky rationale IMO. We aren't Wikipedia and we're not
obligated to run the chapter in the same way Wikipedia runs. The main reason
I don't support opening editing up is that we lack an online community to
deal with the problematic edits and vandalism etc that we'll inevitably have
to deal with. It's the public face of the chapter and the pages need to be
maintained accurately, the membership pages, minutes and resolutions need to
have integrity.




>
> The chapter Wiki as a way of facilitating discussion within the Australian
> community is a good starting point, let it be a host for members to write
> about their wiki experiences, to seek help in opening doors to the GLAM
> sector, let it be somewhere for non wiki people to seek assistance in
> opening their doors and making what they have collected freely available to
> all.
>

I also disagree with this. The chapter's wiki is a special purpose wiki, its
official website and public face, it's not a free all-purpose hosting venue.



>
> By all means place restrictions on what non-members can do but remember
> Wikimedia-au is judged by what its does and dont expect others to do what
> Wikimedia-au isnt willing to do itself.
>
> Wikimedia-au long term future rests on whether it can grow its membership
> over the next year, to do that its needs to be "of value" it needs to be
> doing things to create that value, importantly it needs to be seen to be
> doing them. People arent going to be productive in the group if there is
> nothing for them to productive with, they arent going continue with a group
> if they dont have a voice in that group,  and they definitely wont join a
> group if they cant first experience the group and meet some of the people
> already there.
>
>
> Gnangarra
> http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Gnangarra]

2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 

> One disadvantage of this would be that one of the promoted benefits of
> membership (being able to edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive.
>

Seriously is this a benefit,
whats the wiki for
why would anyone join up just to edit the wiki




>
> From a personal point of view, I believe that increasing the editability of
> the chapter wiki will increase the number and range of things happening in
> Australia and therefore become a driver of membership and activity. But, I'd
> like to hear what the current non-members think.
>
> -Liam
> (yes, I'm a member)
>
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
>
>
I though that Wikimedia is built on a philopsy of anyone can edit, surely
promoting that philopsy is the aim of the chapter. Wouldnt it be wise for
Wikimedia-Australia to hold that as corner stone of its purpose. Does anyone
think that the goals and ideals "which we hold dear" should not be what we
present in our public place.

The chapter Wiki as a way of facilitating discussion within the Australian
community is a good starting point, let it be a host for members to write
about their wiki experiences, to seek help in opening doors to the GLAM
sector, let it be somewhere for non wiki people to seek assistance in
opening their doors and making what they have collected freely available to
all.

By all means place restrictions on what non-members can do but remember
Wikimedia-au is judged by what its does and dont expect others to do what
Wikimedia-au isnt willing to do itself.

Wikimedia-au long term future rests on whether it can grow its membership
over the next year, to do that its needs to be "of value" it needs to be
doing things to create that value, importantly it needs to be seen to be
doing them. People arent going to be productive in the group if there is
nothing for them to productive with, they arent going continue with a group
if they dont have a voice in that group,  and they definitely wont join a
group if they cant first experience the group and meet some of the people
already there.


Gnangarra
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

Re planning activities - there doesn't seem much evidence of the meetup
pages being used for planning of any kind at present. Most of the meetup
pages are deadzones, with only Sydney having any recent editing activity
whatsoever (Melbourne and Canberra both show their August meetups as being
"next" rather than "last").

The problem we have is that we're still very much in the outreach phase and
do not yet have critical mass, so discussing events (beyond planning them)
in areas where people are unlikely to find them is somewhat
counterproductive.

I'm not in favour of open editing simply because it is, and should be, a
membership benefit - it is after all our official wiki and announcement
area. I'm not opposed to individuals being granted access from outside when
it suits our purposes to do so - eg our partners in GLAM and elsewhere, or
any other official collaborations which explicitly pull in non-Wikimedians.

cheers
Andrew

2009/12/11 Liam Wyatt 

> I too would like to see the chapter wiki being used more, especially for
> planning IRL events.
> Perhaps the issue is not so much that the "Billabong" isn't the right place
> but that (as mentioned) it's not used by many people as yet - this is
> largely a factor of the relatively low number of people who are allowed to
> edit. Currently editing rights on the Australian chapter wiki are restricted
> to members. I note that the UK chapter's wiki
> allows IP editing (though not on
> the mainpage) whilst the other English language chapter (NYC) focuses their
> attention on the meta-wiki 
> page(which is also 
> open for IP editing).
>
> Given this discussion is happening on the wikimedia-au list, rather than
> the members'-only list, perhaps it is pertinent to ask: would the
> subscribers to this list be more willing to become involved with the
> Australian chapter's wiki, events, and eventually perhaps also join the
> chapter if the Wiki was open for at least logged-in editing from all people?
>
> One advantage of this would be that we could centralise discussion about
> planning activities in Australia on the Australian chapter's wiki rather
> than having to split it across Wikipedia's meetup pages. One disadvantage of
> this would be that one of the promoted benefits of membership (being able to
> edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive.
>
> From a personal point of view, I believe that increasing the editability of
> the chapter wiki will increase the number and range of things happening in
> Australia and therefore become a driver of membership and activity. But, I'd
> like to hear what the current non-members think.
>
> -Liam
> (yes, I'm a member)
>
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Sarah Ewart wrote:
>
>> I assume it's the same with our wiki though I haven't actually checked
>> myself, but usually editing the MediaWiki interface pages requires admin
>> rights. We really don't want people stuffing around at will with the main
>> interface. I also agree with Andrew about the Billabong page. It's meant to
>> be a page where people can make suggestions and ask for help or whatever and
>> we don't want to make it harder for people to find the central
>> discussion/help page if they need it. I don't see how it not being used much
>> makes a difference. There's only a small number of people who even have
>> accounts with edit rights and the website is still very young so you could
>> justify removing just about all the sidebar links by saying they're "not
>> currently used much". As Andrew said, we want to build the membership and as
>> the active members grow the central discussion page will become more useful
>> and important and in the interim it's there for anyone who needs it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Andrew  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it's a good idea to remove it - we want to get more member
>>> participation happening in 2010, and there simply wasn't the scope for that
>>> in 2009, hence why it wasn't utilised.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> 2009/12/11 K. Peachey 
>>>
>>> Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
 " To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
 [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
 ."

 ___
 Wikimediaau-l mailing list
 Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

>>>
>>> n
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Liam Wyatt]

I too would like to see the chapter wiki being used more, especially for
planning IRL events.
Perhaps the issue is not so much that the "Billabong" isn't the right place
but that (as mentioned) it's not used by many people as yet - this is
largely a factor of the relatively low number of people who are allowed to
edit. Currently editing rights on the Australian chapter wiki are restricted
to members. I note that the UK chapter's wiki
allows IP editing (though not on the
mainpage) whilst the other English language chapter (NYC) focuses their
attention on the meta-wiki
page(which is
also open for IP editing).

Given this discussion is happening on the wikimedia-au list, rather than the
members'-only list, perhaps it is pertinent to ask: would the subscribers to
this list be more willing to become involved with the Australian chapter's
wiki, events, and eventually perhaps also join the chapter if the Wiki was
open for at least logged-in editing from all people?

One advantage of this would be that we could centralise discussion about
planning activities in Australia on the Australian chapter's wiki rather
than having to split it across Wikipedia's meetup pages. One disadvantage of
this would be that one of the promoted benefits of membership (being able to
edit the wiki) is no longer exclusive.

>From a personal point of view, I believe that increasing the editability of
the chapter wiki will increase the number and range of things happening in
Australia and therefore become a driver of membership and activity. But, I'd
like to hear what the current non-members think.

-Liam
(yes, I'm a member)

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Sarah Ewart  wrote:

> I assume it's the same with our wiki though I haven't actually checked
> myself, but usually editing the MediaWiki interface pages requires admin
> rights. We really don't want people stuffing around at will with the main
> interface. I also agree with Andrew about the Billabong page. It's meant to
> be a page where people can make suggestions and ask for help or whatever and
> we don't want to make it harder for people to find the central
> discussion/help page if they need it. I don't see how it not being used much
> makes a difference. There's only a small number of people who even have
> accounts with edit rights and the website is still very young so you could
> justify removing just about all the sidebar links by saying they're "not
> currently used much". As Andrew said, we want to build the membership and as
> the active members grow the central discussion page will become more useful
> and important and in the interim it's there for anyone who needs it.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Andrew  wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's a good idea to remove it - we want to get more member
>> participation happening in 2010, and there simply wasn't the scope for that
>> in 2009, hence why it wasn't utilised.
>>
>> cheers
>> Andrew
>>
>> 2009/12/11 K. Peachey 
>>
>> Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
>>> " To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
>>> [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
>>> ."
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>>
>>
>> n
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Sarah Ewart]

I assume it's the same with our wiki though I haven't actually checked
myself, but usually editing the MediaWiki interface pages requires admin
rights. We really don't want people stuffing around at will with the main
interface. I also agree with Andrew about the Billabong page. It's meant to
be a page where people can make suggestions and ask for help or whatever and
we don't want to make it harder for people to find the central
discussion/help page if they need it. I don't see how it not being used much
makes a difference. There's only a small number of people who even have
accounts with edit rights and the website is still very young so you could
justify removing just about all the sidebar links by saying they're "not
currently used much". As Andrew said, we want to build the membership and as
the active members grow the central discussion page will become more useful
and important and in the interim it's there for anyone who needs it.



On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Andrew  wrote:

> I don't think it's a good idea to remove it - we want to get more member
> participation happening in 2010, and there simply wasn't the scope for that
> in 2009, hence why it wasn't utilised.
>
> cheers
> Andrew
>
> 2009/12/11 K. Peachey 
>
> Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
>> " To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
>> [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
>> ."
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>
> n
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

I don't think it's a good idea to remove it - we want to get more member
participation happening in 2010, and there simply wasn't the scope for that
in 2009, hence why it wasn't utilised.

cheers
Andrew

2009/12/11 K. Peachey 

> Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
> " To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
> [[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
> ."
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[K. Peachey]

Yes it is possible to edit it, for details:
" To edit the navigation menu on the left, edit
[[MediaWiki:Sidebar]] using its special syntax. For more details, see
."

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l