On 14 November 2012 17:44, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com wrote:
More OTRS agents would certainly help
My offer to be an OTRS operator has been accepted; thank you Harry,
and Fae, who reach supported it.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
If they hire a lawyer it goes to legal@,which can be even slower and
usually ends up with a recommendation back to OTRS.
Your reply here is what I call the insider fallacy. Because we are
wikipedians we consider Wikipedia and the mission the most important
thing.
An article subject justifiably
Hi stevie. Long emial, sorry.
Simplest answer; Improve the OTRS software.
That would be big step, but my recent attempt to do so didn't get anywhere.
Barring that, OTRS recruitment isn't the best solution. Agents get burnt
out and, as delicately as I can, some of us are terrible at customer
On 16 November 2012 08:08, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
If they hire a lawyer it goes to legal@,which can be even slower and
usually ends up with a recommendation back to OTRS.
Your reply here is what I call the insider fallacy. Because we are
wikipedians we consider
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 16 November 2012 08:08, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
If they hire a lawyer it goes to legal@,which can be even slower and
usually ends up with a recommendation back to OTRS.
On 16 November 2012 09:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles, I really am a bit mystified here. First of all, I would echo Tom's
point about the insider fallacy. In quality management terms, the people
Wikipedia writes about are customers, just as readers are. That's quality
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 16 November 2012 09:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles, I really am a bit mystified here. First of all, I would echo
Tom's
point about the insider fallacy. In quality management
On 16 November 2012 13:11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
The supreme irony here is that Wikipedia set out to be open, in contrast to
the ivory tower of academe. Yet over the space of a decade, Wikipedia has
become so involved, and its policy so impenetrable and contradictory, that
I was involved in the CIPR guidelines and I pushed very had for the
guidelines to say PR people reading the guidelines should not edit the COI
pages. There are circumstances where a PR pro can edit a page but they need
a bit of experience editing WP first.
The CIPR guidelines are not aimed at
On 16 November 2012 21:11, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote:
The CIPR guidelines are not aimed at those people. They are aimed at the PR
pro but WP noob who has been told by his boss to fix something on WP. The
CIPR guidelines give him something from the CIPR that he can show his
On 16 November 2012 22:13, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 November 2012 21:11, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote:
The CIPR guidelines are not aimed at those people. They are aimed at the PR
pro but WP noob who has been told by his boss to fix something on WP. The
CIPR
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Doug Weller dougwel...@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't a terribly rewarding role and burnout is common.
Triage won't solve the problem as there are so many complaints that aren't
simple to deal with satisfactorily, and we already have a system in place
for it which
On 15 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at the CIPR draft best practice guidelines (which are not of
course Wikipedia policy at the moment, but are quite similar to Jimbo's
bright line rule)
We have two customers, and one employee role, I think. And it should go
something like (in order of importance):
Reader (Customer)
Subject (Customer)
Editor (Employee)
Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the
article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they
Tom , I think that's a fair comment - but we have the problem that we can't
actually employ anyone to provide that service. An an OTRS volunteer
yourself, do you have any suggestions on how we can bring more people into
the fold? It doesn't seem to be something we can reasonably incentivise,
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Stevie Benton
stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Tom , I think that's a fair comment - but we have the problem that we
can't actually employ anyone to provide that service. An an OTRS volunteer
yourself, do you have any suggestions on how we can bring more
On 15 November 2012 14:10, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
We have two customers, and one employee role, I think. And it should go
something like (in order of importance):
Reader (Customer)
Subject (Customer)
Editor (Employee)
Or in other words; because the PR company
Dear Andreas, We need to remember that this is a volunteer driven process,
and the commodity in short supply is volunteer time not PR professionals
time. Encouraging PR people to forum shop by raising the same thing in
multiple venues is disrespectful of the community, it also risks damaging
On 14 November 2012 00:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
And there is. Oliver's revamp of the Contact Us pages has made a huge
difference, because previously, PR professionals would pass three
invitations to fix the article themselves before they would come to the OTRS
e-mail
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 00:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
And there is. Oliver's revamp of the Contact Us pages has made a huge
difference, because previously, PR professionals would pass
On 14 November 2012 12:42, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 00:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
And there is. Oliver's revamp of the Contact Us pages has made a
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:42, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 00:00, Andreas Kolbe
On 14 November 2012 12:58, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The actual solutions are (1) to grow the community (and I mean
growing it with responsible, well-trained editors). I personally have
On 14 November 2012 13:06, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Let's get back down to earth. Cumbersome in the title of the thread
implies we are dealing with people who are not the type to read
instructions patiently, and follow them. These people may be normal
by many
For what it's worth, my opinion (as some who has had access to a fair few
OTRS queues for a fair number of years) is that we need more OTRS
volunteers. Lots more. At the moment, Wikimedia UK has about a dozen
semi-active volunteers for its queue, and we have reasonable response times
(48 hours
David; I think Charles and Andreas have gotten beyond the original issue
and are talking about the real problems that exist.
cumbersome doesn't strike me as a hugely unfair way of putting it...
@Richard; I've always been disappointed in WMF support of OTRS, it being a
key point of contact. I
Richard: a slight correction, the processes for obtaining OTRS access have
changed - I think in 2009/2010.
Instead of the full 'identification' to the WMF (where you send in a copy of
your ID to prove you're 18), OTRS access only requires you to send an email
with your full real name and age
Oh, that's much better - but the process still needs an overhaul :-(
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House,
On 14 November 2012 14:43, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
David; I think Charles and Andreas have gotten beyond the original issue and
are talking about the real problems that exist.
cumbersome doesn't strike me as a hugely unfair way of putting it...
Well-judged spin, in
@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012, 15:48
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas
Kolbe)
Oh, that's much better - but the process still needs an overhaul :-(
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited
On 14 November 2012 17:44, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com wrote:
We get all sorts of general enquires, feedback, and other things that
probably should go elsehwhere. It adds up to thousands of tickets a week.
Try finding the urgent BLP complaints amongst that lot, bearing in mind that
OTRS
On 14 November 2012 17:52, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
On 14 November 2012 17:44, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com wrote:
We get all sorts of general enquires, feedback, and other things that
probably should go elsehwhere. It adds up to thousands of tickets a
It isn't a terribly rewarding role and burnout is common.
Triage won't solve the problem as there are so many complaints that aren't
simple to deal with satisfactorily, and we already have a system in place
for it which may creak but works better than nothing.
Recruitment isn't easy because it
Dear Andreas
Francis Ingham is DG of the PRCA. Its fee-paying members include RLM
Finsbury (among other WPP companies), so, ultimately, it contributes to his
salary. Possible COI?
Paul
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Paul Wilkinson paul.wilkin...@pwcom.co.uk
wrote:
Dear Andreas
Francis Ingham is DG of the PRCA. Its fee-paying members include RLM
Finsbury (among other WPP companies), so, ultimately, it contributes to his
salary. Possible COI?
Paul
Come on, you are a
35 matches
Mail list logo
