Re: [Wikimediaau-l] [wmau:members] RE: Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Gnangarra]

hmm many of those will need to be redone/duplicated with the changes to
visual editor

On 21 July 2013 14:14, Kerry Kilner  wrote:

>  Thanks for this reference, Leigh!
>
> Kerry Kilner
>
>
> On 21/07/2013, at 3:59 PM, Leigh Blackall  wrote:
>
>   There are a few on the Wikiversity page I maintain for workshops: 
> 
> http://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikipedia_editing_workshops
>
> If need be I'll forward a YouTube playlist
> On 21/07/2013 3:03 PM, "Kerry Raymond" < 
> kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>>
>> Leigh, feel free to point me at these instructional videos (there’s stuff
>> I would love to learn personally as well as making those links more
>> available to others). I did go looking once and found some on a Wikipedia
>> site (probably on outreach, can’t remember) but they seemed to be all
>> broken links.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Certainly we would not be proposing to reinvent the wheel if there was
>> perfectly good material already there. There might be some minor
>> “Australian” content we could add but it would be very minor (mainly about
>> referencing key Austrlian resources)
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> ** **
>>  --
>>
>> *From:* Leigh Blackall [mailto: 
>> leighblack...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
>> *To:*  kerry.raym...@gmail.com
>> *Cc:*  
>> wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org; WMAu members
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos
>> and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Is this suggestion because we are dissatisfied with the dozens if not
>> hundreds and thousands of instructional videos already available? Maybe the
>> suggestion is for Australian accent and language versions? A series in an
>> Indigenous language would be remarkable! Or perhaps the suggestion is to
>> create videos about Australia related projects and interest
>> groups? In which case its a good suggestion. I for one would benefit from a
>> video overview of the things going on. I have a few videos on my channel
>> outlining Wikiversity work. And know of others looking at Wikinews.
>>
>> On 21/07/2013 8:44 AM, "Kerry Raymond" < 
>> kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In 
>>
>>  
>>
>> 
>> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training
>> and/or to replace it. He asks is “is it too ambitious”? Because of the
>> WMF’s enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards
>> “low-hanging fruit” projects. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Edit training workshops are a good example of this “low hanging” fruit
>> problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
>> know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
>> attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
>> (based on feedback forms) – so that’s a nice measurable success for a nice
>> project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
>> instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially
>> reach a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200
>> people we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be
>> absolutely zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is
>> much higher (we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit
>> training.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian
>> WP community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like
>> to run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people’s work lives).
>> Would we find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional
>> videos which they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don’t
>> know. What are the relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel
>> costs, but we’d probably need to spend some money on professional tools for
>> making instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and
>> perhaps some training on how to use them effectively.
>>
>>  
>>
>> So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or
>> higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of
>> infinite resources we can do both, but we don’t live in that world
>> (“everything costs something” as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).*
>> ***
>>
>>  
>>
>> Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical
>> problem in relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality
>> of the visual editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop
>> materials (slides and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of
>> videos. But my question here is more philosophical about t

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Leigh Blackall]

There are a few on the Wikiversity page I maintain for workshops:
http://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikipedia_editing_workshops

If need be I'll forward a YouTube playlist
On 21/07/2013 3:03 PM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:

> ** **
>
> Leigh, feel free to point me at these instructional videos (there’s stuff
> I would love to learn personally as well as making those links more
> available to others). I did go looking once and found some on a Wikipedia
> site (probably on outreach, can’t remember) but they seemed to be all
> broken links.
>
> ** **
>
> Certainly we would not be proposing to reinvent the wheel if there was
> perfectly good material already there. There might be some minor
> “Australian” content we could add but it would be very minor (mainly about
> referencing key Austrlian resources)
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry
>
> ** **
>  --
>
> *From:* Leigh Blackall [mailto:leighblack...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
> *To:* kerry.raym...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org; WMAu members
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and
> the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG
>
> ** **
>
> Is this suggestion because we are dissatisfied with the dozens if not
> hundreds and thousands of instructional videos already available? Maybe the
> suggestion is for Australian accent and language versions? A series in an
> Indigenous language would be remarkable! Or perhaps the suggestion is to
> create videos about Australia related projects and interest
> groups? In which case its a good suggestion. I for one would benefit from a
> video overview of the things going on. I have a few videos on my channel
> outlining Wikiversity work. And know of others looking at Wikinews.
>
> On 21/07/2013 8:44 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:***
> *
>
> In 
>
>  
>
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
> 
>
>  
>
> Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or
> to replace it. He asks is “is it too ambitious”? Because of the WMF’s
> enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards “low-hanging
> fruit” projects. 
>
>  
>
> Edit training workshops are a good example of this “low hanging” fruit
> problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
> know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
> attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
> (based on feedback forms) – so that’s a nice measurable success for a nice
> project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
> instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially
> reach a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200
> people we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be
> absolutely zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is
> much higher (we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit
> training.
>
>  
>
> Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian
> WP community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like
> to run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people’s work lives).
> Would we find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional
> videos which they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don’t
> know. What are the relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel
> costs, but we’d probably need to spend some money on professional tools for
> making instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and
> perhaps some training on how to use them effectively.
>
>  
>
> So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or
> higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of
> infinite resources we can do both, but we don’t live in that world
> (“everything costs something” as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).**
> **
>
>  
>
> Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical problem
> in relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality of the
> visual editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop
> materials (slides and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of
> videos. But my question here is more philosophical about the risk/return
> model of what we do.
>
>  
>
> Kerry
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> ___
> 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] [wmau:members] Re: Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Gnangarra]

The production people I work with at ABC Open maybe persuaded to do the
videos for us, they already have the reach we'd need...

On 21 July 2013 13:18, Tony Souter  wrote:

> Someone mentioned the social aspect of face-to-face edit training vs
> professionally produced training videos. Face-to-face can be an important
> aspect, but will always be limited in scope and relatively expensive (as
> Craig has pointed out, especially for a country like Australia).
>
> There are two limitations in scope for face-to-face training, I think: the
> sheer volume of skills, dimensions to WP editing, that we'd like to get
> across – when there's only so much you can fit into a single session, or
> even multiple sessions; and (2) the fact that WMF sites need numbers ... *
> lots* of new editors, more than we can pump out in occasional room-based
> events. And looking at Australian-related articles, we need *lots* of new
> Australian editors. And it would be nice to reach out to people in
> Australian regions, and the Asia-Pacific (in English), whom we just
> couldn't possibly involve in face-to-face training.
>
> The trainer in me is also aware that conveying skills and knowledge in
> more than one mode is often very reinforcing for recipients – face-to-face
> *and* online vid *and* even online/skype mentoring? BTW, WMAU
> face-to-face sessions in a number of cities are going to be funded by the
> Australian Research Council as part of the Linkage project on disability in
> sport (John Vandenberg is organising, I believe).
>
> As for specifically Australian content/angles, they're not essential: just
> showing the way generically for the rest of the WM movement would be a good
> thing to do.
>
> T
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21/07/2013, at 3:03 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
>
> ** **
>
> Leigh, feel free to point me at these instructional videos (there’s stuff
> I would love to learn personally as well as making those links more
> available to others). I did go looking once and found some on a Wikipedia
> site (probably on outreach, can’t remember) but they seemed to be all
> broken links.
>
> ** **
>
> Certainly we would not be proposing to reinvent the wheel if there was
> perfectly good material already there. There might be some minor
> “Australian” content we could add but it would be very minor (mainly about
> referencing key Austrlian resources)
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry
>
> ** **
>  --
>
> *From:* Leigh Blackall [mailto:leighblack...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
> *To:* kerry.raym...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org; WMAu members
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and
> the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG
>
> ** **
>
> Is this suggestion because we are dissatisfied with the dozens if not
> hundreds and thousands of instructional videos already available? Maybe the
> suggestion is for Australian accent and language versions? A series in an
> Indigenous language would be remarkable! Or perhaps the suggestion is to
> create videos about Australia related projects and interest
> groups? In which case its a good suggestion. I for one would benefit from a
> video overview of the things going on. I have a few videos on my channel
> outlining Wikiversity work. And know of others looking at Wikinews.
>
> On 21/07/2013 8:44 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:***
> *
>
> In 
>
>  
>
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
> 
>
>  
>
> Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or
> to replace it. He asks is “is it too ambitious”? Because of the WMF’s
> enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards “low-hanging
> fruit” projects. 
>
>  
>
> Edit training workshops are a good example of this “low hanging” fruit
> problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
> know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
> attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
> (based on feedback forms) – so that’s a nice measurable success for a nice
> project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
> instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially
> reach a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200
> people we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be
> absolutely zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is
> much higher (we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit
> training.
>
>  
>
> Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian
> WP community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like
> to run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people’s work lives).
> Would we find it more-or-less easy to get pe

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Tony Souter]

Someone mentioned the social aspect of face-to-face edit training vs 
professionally produced training videos. Face-to-face can be an important 
aspect, but will always be limited in scope and relatively expensive (as Craig 
has pointed out, especially for a country like Australia).

There are two limitations in scope for face-to-face training, I think: the 
sheer volume of skills, dimensions to WP editing, that we'd like to get across 
– when there's only so much you can fit into a single session, or even multiple 
sessions; and (2) the fact that WMF sites need numbers ... lots of new editors, 
more than we can pump out in occasional room-based events. And looking at 
Australian-related articles, we need lots of new Australian editors. And it 
would be nice to reach out to people in Australian regions, and the 
Asia-Pacific (in English), whom we just couldn't possibly involve in 
face-to-face training.

The trainer in me is also aware that conveying skills and knowledge in more 
than one mode is often very reinforcing for recipients – face-to-face and 
online vid and even online/skype mentoring? BTW, WMAU face-to-face sessions in 
a number of cities are going to be funded by the Australian Research Council as 
part of the Linkage project on disability in sport (John Vandenberg is 
organising, I believe).

As for specifically Australian content/angles, they're not essential: just 
showing the way generically for the rest of the WM movement would be a good 
thing to do.

T





On 21/07/2013, at 3:03 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

> Leigh, feel free to point me at these instructional videos (there’s stuff I 
> would love to learn personally as well as making those links more available 
> to others). I did go looking once and found some on a Wikipedia site 
> (probably on outreach, can’t remember) but they seemed to be all broken links.
>  
> Certainly we would not be proposing to reinvent the wheel if there was 
> perfectly good material already there. There might be some minor “Australian” 
> content we could add but it would be very minor (mainly about referencing key 
> Austrlian resources)
>  
> Kerry
>  
> From: Leigh Blackall [mailto:leighblack...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
> To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
> Cc: wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org; WMAu members
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the 
> larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG
>  
> Is this suggestion because we are dissatisfied with the dozens if not 
> hundreds and thousands of instructional videos already available? Maybe the 
> suggestion is for Australian accent and language versions? A series in an 
> Indigenous language would be remarkable! Or perhaps the suggestion is to 
> create videos about Australia related projects and interest groups? In which 
> case its a good suggestion. I for one would benefit from a video overview of 
> the things going on. I have a few videos on my channel outlining Wikiversity 
> work. And know of others looking at Wikinews.
> 
> On 21/07/2013 8:44 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:
> In
>  
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
>  
> Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or to 
> replace it. He asks is “is it too ambitious”? Because of the WMF’s enthusiasm 
> for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards “low-hanging fruit” projects.
>  
> Edit training workshops are a good example of this “low hanging” fruit 
> problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we 
> know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain 
> attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training 
> (based on feedback forms) – so that’s a nice measurable success for a nice 
> project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into 
> instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially reach 
> a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200 people 
> we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be absolutely 
> zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is much higher (we 
> can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit training.
>  
> Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian WP 
> community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like to run 
> these events on weekdays (incompatible with people’s work lives). Would we 
> find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional videos which 
> they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don’t know. What are the 
> relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel costs, but we’d 
> probably need to spend some money on professional tools for making 
> instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and perhaps 
> some training on how to use them effectively.
>  
> So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit tra

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Kerry Raymond]

Leigh, feel free to point me at these instructional videos (there's stuff I
would love to learn personally as well as making those links more available
to others). I did go looking once and found some on a Wikipedia site
(probably on outreach, can't remember) but they seemed to be all broken
links.

 

Certainly we would not be proposing to reinvent the wheel if there was
perfectly good material already there. There might be some minor
"Australian" content we could add but it would be very minor (mainly about
referencing key Austrlian resources)

 

Kerry

 

  _  

From: Leigh Blackall [mailto:leighblack...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, 21 July 2013 8:57 AM
To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
Cc: wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org; WMAu members
Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the
larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

 

Is this suggestion because we are dissatisfied with the dozens if not
hundreds and thousands of instructional videos already available? Maybe the
suggestion is for Australian accent and language versions? A series in an
Indigenous language would be remarkable! Or perhaps the suggestion is to
create videos about Australia related projects and interest groups? In which
case its a good suggestion. I for one would benefit from a video overview of
the things going on. I have a few videos on my channel outlining Wikiversity
work. And know of others looking at Wikinews.

On 21/07/2013 8:44 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:

In 

 

http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
 

 

Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or
to replace it. He asks is "is it too ambitious"? Because of the WMF's
enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards "low-hanging
fruit" projects. 

 

Edit training workshops are a good example of this "low hanging" fruit
problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
(based on feedback forms) - so that's a nice measurable success for a nice
project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially reach
a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200 people
we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be absolutely
zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is much higher
(we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit training.

 

Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian WP
community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like to
run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people's work lives). Would
we find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional videos
which they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don't know. What
are the relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel costs, but
we'd probably need to spend some money on professional tools for making
instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and perhaps
some training on how to use them effectively.

 

So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or
higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of
infinite resources we can do both, but we don't live in that world
("everything costs something" as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).

 

Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical problem
in relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality of the
visual editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop materials
(slides and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of videos. But my
question here is more philosophical about the risk/return model of what we
do.

 

Kerry

 

 

 

 

 


___
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] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Leigh Blackall]

Another idea for the list. .. sorry if this is already in there.

Australian Response to WMF campaigns.  Riding on the shoulder of relative
giants, when WMF run something like Wikimedia Loves Monuments, WmAu somehow
knows in advance and runs WmAu Loves Monuments. Same for the video series
Impact of Wikipedia, and so on.
On 21/07/2013 2:53 PM, "Tony Souter"  wrote:

> "we’d probably need to spend some money on professional tools for making
> instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and
> perhaps some training on how to use them effectively"
>
> I was assuming WMAU would hire a contractor for the tech side. There are
> skilled individuals who have the right equipment/software at home and are
> prepared to produce an excellent product. Nothing less than professional
> will do nowadays, and it could be really slick, which sends a good message
> about WMF sites. WMAU's input would be in designing and writing the vid,
> probably in consultation with the contractor. And in the first place
> deciding on what aspects of editing are the targets – and whether they'd be
> Australian-specific.
>
> All I know is that I've not yet seen a really good, attractive vid about
> editing WP. If someone has, please link me to it.
>
> Gillian White probably has a good knowledge of what is available already,
> and might be able to identify ways in which we could fill an important
> niche.
>
> T
>
>
>
> On 21/07/2013, at 8:43 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
>
> In
> ** **
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
> 
> ** **
> Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or
> to replace it. He asks is “is it too ambitious”? Because of the WMF’s
> enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards “low-hanging
> fruit” projects.
> ** **
> Edit training workshops are a good example of this “low hanging” fruit
> problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
> know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
> attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
> (based on feedback forms) – so that’s a nice measurable success for a nice
> project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
> instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially
> reach a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200
> people we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be
> absolutely zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is
> much higher (we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit
> training.
> ** **
> Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian
> WP community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like
> to run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people’s work lives).
> Would we find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional
> videos which they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don’t
> know. What are the relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel
> costs, but we’d probably need to spend some money on professional tools for
> making instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and
> perhaps some training on how to use them effectively.
> ** **
> So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or
> higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of
> infinite resources we can do both, but we don’t live in that world
> (“everything costs something” as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).**
> **
> ** **
> Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical problem
> in relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality of the
> visual editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop
> materials (slides and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of
> videos. But my question here is more philosophical about the risk/return
> model of what we do.
> ** **
> Kerry
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
> *___*
> *Tony Souter*
> **Fixed-line phone: +612 42633401
> *Mobile: 0450 717627 (+61450 717627), but usually not switched on
> *Skype: tonysouter
> *Street address: 1/29 Tarrant Ave, Kiama Downs 2533, Australia*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Tony Souter]

"we’d probably need to spend some money on professional tools for making 
instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and perhaps 
some training on how to use them effectively"

I was assuming WMAU would hire a contractor for the tech side. There are 
skilled individuals who have the right equipment/software at home and are 
prepared to produce an excellent product. Nothing less than professional will 
do nowadays, and it could be really slick, which sends a good message about WMF 
sites. WMAU's input would be in designing and writing the vid, probably in 
consultation with the contractor. And in the first place deciding on what 
aspects of editing are the targets – and whether they'd be Australian-specific.

All I know is that I've not yet seen a really good, attractive vid about 
editing WP. If someone has, please link me to it.

Gillian White probably has a good knowledge of what is available already, and 
might be able to identify ways in which we could fill an important niche.

T



On 21/07/2013, at 8:43 AM, Kerry Raymond wrote:

> In
>  
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
>  
> Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or to 
> replace it. He asks is “is it too ambitious”? Because of the WMF’s enthusiasm 
> for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards “low-hanging fruit” projects.
>  
> Edit training workshops are a good example of this “low hanging” fruit 
> problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we 
> know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain 
> attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training 
> (based on feedback forms) – so that’s a nice measurable success for a nice 
> project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into 
> instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially reach 
> a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200 people 
> we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be absolutely 
> zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is much higher (we 
> can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit training.
>  
> Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian WP 
> community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like to run 
> these events on weekdays (incompatible with people’s work lives). Would we 
> find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional videos which 
> they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don’t know. What are the 
> relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel costs, but we’d 
> probably need to spend some money on professional tools for making 
> instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and perhaps 
> some training on how to use them effectively.
>  
> So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or 
> higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of 
> infinite resources we can do both, but we don’t live in that world 
> (“everything costs something” as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).
>  
> Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical problem in 
> relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality of the visual 
> editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop materials (slides 
> and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of videos. But my question 
> here is more philosophical about the risk/return model of what we do.
>  
> Kerry
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

___
Tony Souter
*Fixed-line phone: +612 42633401
*Mobile: 0450 717627 (+61450 717627), but usually not switched on
*Skype: tonysouter
*Street address: 1/29 Tarrant Ave, Kiama Downs 2533, Australia









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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] [wmau:members] Re: 2014 Annual Plan: international events ...

[Gnangarra]

One of our(WMAU) issues is that we work in isolation for most editors that
isolation isnt a big issue but our best results come form when we break
that isolation and bring people together. WMAU biggest achievement came
when we were able to bring a group together in Canberra in 2009, we changed
the way the whole movement worked with GLAMs. Since then we have run
successful projects in QLD, NSW WA but they have been locally driven,
locally supported. IMHO something that has been tossed around a number of
times yet never developed is local groups, local representation within
WMAU. I think while looking outside to bring others together is a good idea
and will help we need to bring our community together as well. The townhall
project suggest last years was one way of doing that, as are other event
based happenings Craig attending the launch of Freopedia in doing so it did
alot to advance WMAU programs in WA. Doing once off little gestures isnt
enough everything needs the followup, at the moment all our planning is
around the single song and dance routines we need to look more at planning
multiple repeats. Funding a single Wikiminia is nice but the reality is we
need to commit to funding such events over an extend time period, we dont
have those resources nor are we likely to get them in the short term.



On 21 July 2013 10:44, Craig Franklin  wrote:

> I do like the "Wikiminia" title!
>
> But on conferences and meetups generally, I think we need to look
> realistically at the value for money when we set up these events.  The bare
> fact of the matter is that setting up an event in Australia is expensive.
>  Accommodation, venues, and most importantly travel costs are very high by
> international standards.  So before we start thinking about having more
> symposiums, conferences, and other get-togethers, we really need to ask
> ourselves if that is the most cost effective way to achieve whatever it is
> that we're looking to do.  Are the higher costs justified by the benefit of
> having face-to-face communication?
>
> The answer of course may be "yes", but that needs to be quantified before
> we go and start inviting people.  And to my mind the best way to approach
> it is not to decide to have a "real life" event, and then fill it with
> various programmes, but to decide what it is we want to achieve as an
> organisation, and then hold an event if that is the most sensible way to
> achieve those goals.
>
> Regards,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 21 July 2013 08:43, Leigh Blackall  wrote:
>
>> Agreed.  Also,  at least one of the International events: Wikimania,
>> offers support for travel already. But targeting funds for the purposes you
>> outline seems a good idea.
>>
>> Speaking of Wikimania... and linking to the WAJER idea, but ignoring the
>> "chinwagging" perspective,  how about ab annual event called Wikiminia?
>> Bringing together datahackers, local real work community groups, and
>> wikiheads, mostly to celebrate, issue awards, dream big, eat and chinwag,
>> but on a local outreach scale. Hosting such a thing is taking another
>> financial incentive open to academics too.. They are recognised andpossibly
>> rewarded for four publishing in WAJER and presenting at Wikiminia. I
>> volunteer to help organise.
>> On 21/07/2013 8:00 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:
>>
>>>  Tony1 has made some comments about the 2014 Annual Plan:
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> and I hope we will be hearing more from others!
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> In regard to his comment about WMAU being represented at international
>>> events, it’s probably worth a broader discussion of some of the issues here.
>>> 
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> In 2013, we didn't budget any money for participation in international
>>> community events, precisely because we (the committee) were doubtful about
>>> the benefits from “chinwagging” relative to the costs. However, that has
>>> been interpreted by others as not engaging with the broader community, etc.
>>> In particular we had a certain amount of criticism for not being
>>> represented at the Chapters Conference.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> The other issue here is that, despite all the electronic means of
>>> communication, people still seem to need face-to-face meetings (and, in
>>> particular, the act of eating together) to build trust and goodwill; this
>>> is something that I have seen so many times in my years in international
>>> standards development (even though almost all the people I worked with were
>>> IT people and hence those who one might think most able to work effectively
>>> electronically). And trust/goodwill is important when it comes to getting
>>> money, so it may be that an international airfare for some carefully-chosen
>>> event (meaning "who" will be there) might be an excellent investment. So
>>> that's why it's on the list of possibilities for discussion.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>>

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] [wmau:members] Re: 2014 Annual Plan: international events ...

[Leigh Blackall]

Yes, agreed. Though I think there are ways such an event can take place
cheaply, and even ways for it to make money (Rego fees but free for
members).

For example, we're pulling together a little one day conference for a
couple of hundred dollars and a heap of in kind:
http://tinyurl.com/aaaopenconf and the Sydney Uni Wikimedia in Ed symposium
was an excellent event for consolidating and extending education and
research practice, it just needed better promotion and documentation -
yearly consistency would bring that.

If the objective is to build and strengthen community, then I think a
"National" Wikiminia, hosted in a University or Glam with a heap of inkind
support, would do that. The conference format coupled with the journal
(WAJER) is inviting to academics.. If that is a target group. The Sydney
Uni symposium was the first Wikiminia in my mind.
On 21/07/2013 12:44 PM, "Craig Franklin"  wrote:

> I do like the "Wikiminia" title!
>
> But on conferences and meetups generally, I think we need to look
> realistically at the value for money when we set up these events.  The bare
> fact of the matter is that setting up an event in Australia is expensive.
>  Accommodation, venues, and most importantly travel costs are very high by
> international standards.  So before we start thinking about having more
> symposiums, conferences, and other get-togethers, we really need to ask
> ourselves if that is the most cost effective way to achieve whatever it is
> that we're looking to do.  Are the higher costs justified by the benefit of
> having face-to-face communication?
>
> The answer of course may be "yes", but that needs to be quantified before
> we go and start inviting people.  And to my mind the best way to approach
> it is not to decide to have a "real life" event, and then fill it with
> various programmes, but to decide what it is we want to achieve as an
> organisation, and then hold an event if that is the most sensible way to
> achieve those goals.
>
> Regards,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 21 July 2013 08:43, Leigh Blackall  wrote:
>
>> Agreed.  Also,  at least one of the International events: Wikimania,
>> offers support for travel already. But targeting funds for the purposes you
>> outline seems a good idea.
>>
>> Speaking of Wikimania... and linking to the WAJER idea, but ignoring the
>> "chinwagging" perspective,  how about ab annual event called Wikiminia?
>> Bringing together datahackers, local real work community groups, and
>> wikiheads, mostly to celebrate, issue awards, dream big, eat and chinwag,
>> but on a local outreach scale. Hosting such a thing is taking another
>> financial incentive open to academics too.. They are recognised andpossibly
>> rewarded for four publishing in WAJER and presenting at Wikiminia. I
>> volunteer to help organise.
>> On 21/07/2013 8:00 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:
>>
>>>  Tony1 has made some comments about the 2014 Annual Plan:
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> and I hope we will be hearing more from others!
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> In regard to his comment about WMAU being represented at international
>>> events, it’s probably worth a broader discussion of some of the issues here.
>>> 
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> In 2013, we didn't budget any money for participation in international
>>> community events, precisely because we (the committee) were doubtful about
>>> the benefits from “chinwagging” relative to the costs. However, that has
>>> been interpreted by others as not engaging with the broader community, etc.
>>> In particular we had a certain amount of criticism for not being
>>> represented at the Chapters Conference.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> The other issue here is that, despite all the electronic means of
>>> communication, people still seem to need face-to-face meetings (and, in
>>> particular, the act of eating together) to build trust and goodwill; this
>>> is something that I have seen so many times in my years in international
>>> standards development (even though almost all the people I worked with were
>>> IT people and hence those who one might think most able to work effectively
>>> electronically). And trust/goodwill is important when it comes to getting
>>> money, so it may be that an international airfare for some carefully-chosen
>>> event (meaning "who" will be there) might be an excellent investment. So
>>> that's why it's on the list of possibilities for discussion.
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] [wmau:members] Re: 2014 Annual Plan: international events ...

[Craig Franklin]

I do like the "Wikiminia" title!

But on conferences and meetups generally, I think we need to look
realistically at the value for money when we set up these events.  The bare
fact of the matter is that setting up an event in Australia is expensive.
 Accommodation, venues, and most importantly travel costs are very high by
international standards.  So before we start thinking about having more
symposiums, conferences, and other get-togethers, we really need to ask
ourselves if that is the most cost effective way to achieve whatever it is
that we're looking to do.  Are the higher costs justified by the benefit of
having face-to-face communication?

The answer of course may be "yes", but that needs to be quantified before
we go and start inviting people.  And to my mind the best way to approach
it is not to decide to have a "real life" event, and then fill it with
various programmes, but to decide what it is we want to achieve as an
organisation, and then hold an event if that is the most sensible way to
achieve those goals.

Regards,
Craig Franklin


On 21 July 2013 08:43, Leigh Blackall  wrote:

> Agreed.  Also,  at least one of the International events: Wikimania,
> offers support for travel already. But targeting funds for the purposes you
> outline seems a good idea.
>
> Speaking of Wikimania... and linking to the WAJER idea, but ignoring the
> "chinwagging" perspective,  how about ab annual event called Wikiminia?
> Bringing together datahackers, local real work community groups, and
> wikiheads, mostly to celebrate, issue awards, dream big, eat and chinwag,
> but on a local outreach scale. Hosting such a thing is taking another
> financial incentive open to academics too.. They are recognised andpossibly
> rewarded for four publishing in WAJER and presenting at Wikiminia. I
> volunteer to help organise.
> On 21/07/2013 8:00 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:
>
>>  Tony1 has made some comments about the 2014 Annual Plan:
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> and I hope we will be hearing more from others!
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> In regard to his comment about WMAU being represented at international
>> events, it’s probably worth a broader discussion of some of the issues here.
>> 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> In 2013, we didn't budget any money for participation in international
>> community events, precisely because we (the committee) were doubtful about
>> the benefits from “chinwagging” relative to the costs. However, that has
>> been interpreted by others as not engaging with the broader community, etc.
>> In particular we had a certain amount of criticism for not being
>> represented at the Chapters Conference.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The other issue here is that, despite all the electronic means of
>> communication, people still seem to need face-to-face meetings (and, in
>> particular, the act of eating together) to build trust and goodwill; this
>> is something that I have seen so many times in my years in international
>> standards development (even though almost all the people I worked with were
>> IT people and hence those who one might think most able to work effectively
>> electronically). And trust/goodwill is important when it comes to getting
>> money, so it may be that an international airfare for some carefully-chosen
>> event (meaning "who" will be there) might be an excellent investment. So
>> that's why it's on the list of possibilities for discussion.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Richard Ames]

More videos are not needed.  More hands on mentoring probably is.

On 21/07/13 08:43, Kerry Raymond wrote:

In






Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the
Australian WP community for our edit training workshops as our library
partners like to run these events on weekdays (incompatible with
people’s work lives).


This does not ring true to me   I am a volunteer and could support 
more sessions. I don't think there is the call for them


Richard.

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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Leigh Blackall]

Is this suggestion because we are dissatisfied with the dozens if not
hundreds and thousands of instructional videos already available? Maybe the
suggestion is for Australian accent and language versions? A series in an
Indigenous language would be remarkable! Or perhaps the suggestion is to
create videos about Australia related projects and interest groups? In
which case its a good suggestion. I for one would benefit from a video
overview of the things going on. I have a few videos on my channel
outlining Wikiversity work. And know of others looking at Wikinews.
On 21/07/2013 8:44 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:

>  In 
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
> 
>
> ** **
>
> Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or
> to replace it. He asks is “is it too ambitious”? Because of the WMF’s
> enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards “low-hanging
> fruit” projects. 
>
> ** **
>
> Edit training workshops are a good example of this “low hanging” fruit
> problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
> know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
> attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
> (based on feedback forms) – so that’s a nice measurable success for a nice
> project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
> instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially
> reach a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200
> people we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be
> absolutely zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is
> much higher (we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit
> training.
>
> ** **
>
> Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian
> WP community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like
> to run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people’s work lives).
> Would we find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional
> videos which they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don’t
> know. What are the relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel
> costs, but we’d probably need to spend some money on professional tools for
> making instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and
> perhaps some training on how to use them effectively.
>
> ** **
>
> So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or
> higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of
> infinite resources we can do both, but we don’t live in that world
> (“everything costs something” as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical problem
> in relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality of the
> visual editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop
> materials (slides and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of
> videos. But my question here is more philosophical about the risk/return
> model of what we do.
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ___
> 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] Annual Plan 2014: instructional videos and the larger question of SMART-vs-BHAG

[Kerry Raymond]

In 

 

http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan#Proposal
 

 

Tony1 also suggests instructional videos to reinforce edit training and/or
to replace it. He asks is "is it too ambitious"? Because of the WMF's
enthusiasm for metrics, it does drive our thinking towards "low-hanging
fruit" projects. 

 

Edit training workshops are a good example of this "low hanging" fruit
problem. We know we can run a certain number of edit training sessions, we
know that with the help of our GLAM partners, we can probably get a certain
attendance, we know that attendees seem to enjoy their day of edit training
(based on feedback forms) - so that's a nice measurable success for a nice
project that we should keep doing. Could we put the effort instead into
instructional videos? Obviously instructional videos could potentially reach
a massive international audience, far greater than maybe the 100-200 people
we can train each year through workshops, but maybe they would be absolutely
zero downloads/views. So the risk/return profile of videos is much higher
(we can both succeed and fail more spectacularly) than for edit training.

 

Also we struggle to find volunteers among WMAU members and the Australian WP
community for our edit training workshops as our library partners like to
run these events on weekdays (incompatible with people's work lives). Would
we find it more-or-less easy to get people to prepare instructional videos
which they could at 3am in their pyjamas if they wanted? I don't know. What
are the relative costs? Well, edit training generally has travel costs, but
we'd probably need to spend some money on professional tools for making
instructional videos (screen-capture and video-editing software) and perhaps
some training on how to use them effectively.

 

So what do we do? Low-risk/return edit training workshop or
higher-risk/return edit training videos? Of course in the ideal world of
infinite resources we can do both, but we don't live in that world
("everything costs something" as my former Vice-Chancellor used to say).

 

Aside. In regard to edit training in any form, we have a practical problem
in relation to the progressive rollout of increasing functionality of the
visual editor. This impacts on our existing edit training workshop materials
(slides and manuals) and would impact on the preparation of videos. But my
question here is more philosophical about the risk/return model of what we
do.

 

Kerry

 

 

 

 

 

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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] 2014 Annual Plan: international events ...

[Leigh Blackall]

Agreed.  Also,  at least one of the International events: Wikimania, offers
support for travel already. But targeting funds for the purposes you
outline seems a good idea.

Speaking of Wikimania... and linking to the WAJER idea, but ignoring the
"chinwagging" perspective,  how about ab annual event called Wikiminia?
Bringing together datahackers, local real work community groups, and
wikiheads, mostly to celebrate, issue awards, dream big, eat and chinwag,
but on a local outreach scale. Hosting such a thing is taking another
financial incentive open to academics too.. They are recognised andpossibly
rewarded for four publishing in WAJER and presenting at Wikiminia. I
volunteer to help organise.
On 21/07/2013 8:00 AM, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:

>  Tony1 has made some comments about the 2014 Annual Plan:
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan
>
> ** **
>
> and I hope we will be hearing more from others!
>
> ** **
>
> In regard to his comment about WMAU being represented at international
> events, it’s probably worth a broader discussion of some of the issues here.
> 
>
> ** **
>
> In 2013, we didn't budget any money for participation in international
> community events, precisely because we (the committee) were doubtful about
> the benefits from “chinwagging” relative to the costs. However, that has
> been interpreted by others as not engaging with the broader community, etc.
> In particular we had a certain amount of criticism for not being
> represented at the Chapters Conference.
>
> ** **
>
> The other issue here is that, despite all the electronic means of
> communication, people still seem to need face-to-face meetings (and, in
> particular, the act of eating together) to build trust and goodwill; this
> is something that I have seen so many times in my years in international
> standards development (even though almost all the people I worked with were
> IT people and hence those who one might think most able to work effectively
> electronically). And trust/goodwill is important when it comes to getting
> money, so it may be that an international airfare for some carefully-chosen
> event (meaning "who" will be there) might be an excellent investment. So
> that's why it's on the list of possibilities for discussion.
>
> ** **
>
> Kerry
>
> ** **
>
> ___
> 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] 2014 Annual Plan: international events ...

[Kerry Raymond]

Tony1 has made some comments about the 2014 Annual Plan:

 

http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Proposal_talk:2014_Annual_Plan

 

and I hope we will be hearing more from others!

 

In regard to his comment about WMAU being represented at international
events, it's probably worth a broader discussion of some of the issues here.

 

In 2013, we didn't budget any money for participation in international
community events, precisely because we (the committee) were doubtful about
the benefits from "chinwagging" relative to the costs. However, that has
been interpreted by others as not engaging with the broader community, etc.
In particular we had a certain amount of criticism for not being represented
at the Chapters Conference.

 

The other issue here is that, despite all the electronic means of
communication, people still seem to need face-to-face meetings (and, in
particular, the act of eating together) to build trust and goodwill; this is
something that I have seen so many times in my years in international
standards development (even though almost all the people I worked with were
IT people and hence those who one might think most able to work effectively
electronically). And trust/goodwill is important when it comes to getting
money, so it may be that an international airfare for some carefully-chosen
event (meaning "who" will be there) might be an excellent investment. So
that's why it's on the list of possibilities for discussion.

 

Kerry

 

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

[Wikimediaau-l] another 2014 proposal for the West Australia Wheatbelt

[Kerry Raymond]

See here for the full proposal:

 

http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/User:SatuSuro/Wheatbelt_Project
 

 

See here for the 2014 list of possible activities:

 

http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Proposal:2014_Annual_Plan
 

 

Kerry

 

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