Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 14/11/12 05:51, Doug Weller wrote: The OTRS Quality queue is again over 200, which is pretty worrying. Partially my fault as I haven't been doing much if any OTRS work recently. Doug This is volunteer effort, so, from time to time volunteering effort can slide (I speak from my own personal experience). On the other hand, PR Industry. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Operation Cowboy: OpenStreetMap editathon in London
Sadly I'm not in London that weekend :( However, as I said on Sunday Tom, I'm a n00b with OSM stuff but I'd like to be able to log in for an hour or two and do my part remotely. Is this really feasible i..e to 'learn how to map' if you're not there? If not, no worries, I don't doubt this will be a success and I'd be keen to help/join another event in future! Kat On 12 November 2012 15:30, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: Over the last day or so, I've been working on putting together a new event in London, Operation Cowboy. The plan is for it to be the weekend after next, which is very soon, I know. http://lanyrd.com/2012/cowboy-london/ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_OPC2012 Operation Cowboy is a plan for an all-night OpenStreetMap editathon (mapathon!) focussed around improving OpenStreetMap for the United States, an area OpenStreetMap is known to be not quite so good (compare San Francisco with London: on OpenStreetMap, damn near every pub, bar and shop in central London is on the map, in San Francisco, it's not nearly as good). Though the best mapping we can do generally involves getting a GPS out and walking or cycling the streets yourself, there's plenty of work that can be done to improve OSM from your armchair. You can read more about Operation Cowboy at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Operation_Cowboy Part of the point of the Operation Cowboy event is to be a place where Wikimedians and others who haven't played around with OpenStreetMap and want to learn can come along, learn how to set up an account and start editing. Though we'll use the US as the focus of the event, the skills people learn improving the US map will be applicable to improving the map for their local area in the UK. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0949 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media training available for volunteers
Roger, I'm afraid Mr John Cummings bagged the last spot while he was in the office yesterday. I will add you the list as first reserve so if someone can't attend for whatever reason, the spot is yours. Thanks, Stevie On 13 November 2012 17:33, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.com wrote: Sgn me up Stevie! On 13 November 2012 09:53, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Hello everyone, I have one space remaining for this. If you'd like to take part please do let me know soon. Thank you, Stevie On 31 October 2012 17:17, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Thank you for the clarification. There are no plans to introduce a group known as accredited spokespeople or anything like that. As I say, not attending won't mean we'll ask you not to speak with the media - I'm not looking to restrict anyone's voluntary activities, but support them. That said, I do think it is useful for anyone who speaks with the media who isn't trained to seriously consider taking advantage of this opportunity if they can. From my point of view, it's obviously better and more effective for those dealing with the media to be trained - but it isn't a requirement. Thanks, Stevie On 31 October 2012 17:11, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote: AIUI, only accredited trainers will be eligible to undertake certain Wikimedia-UK training projects I wanted to be clear (as I suspect is sensibly the case) that no similar restriction for accredited spokespeople would operate. Cheers, A. On 31 October 2012 16:57, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hi Andy, Thank you for your email. I'm glad you like the look of the course. I designed it with the training provider to meet the needs of volunteers who may speak with the media from time to time because of their programming work. I'm not sure what you mean regarding accreditation for trainers I'm afraid - could you clarify please? Not attending won't prevent a volunteer from speaking with the media. It's about empowerment, not restriction. Attending will enhance the skills and confidence of volunteers in dealing with the media, and make them more effective in their use of the media and promotion of their work. Of course, the office is here to support volunteers in that as well! I do hope this helps but am happy to answer any other questions people may have. Do please remember that places are limited. Thanks and regards, Stevie On 31 October 2012 16:50, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 31 October 2012 16:40, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I just wanted to remind you of the availability of media training for our volunteers who may come into contact with members of the press. Please do take a look and, if you;re interested, please do let me know. The course outlined looks like a very good one. I'm already comfortable with speaking to the media; I've had similar training in my past professional life, and a fair amount of experience (for Wikimedia and elsewhere), so I wouldn't want to take up a p\ace that would surely be of more benefit to others, Please can you confirm that not attending won't prejudice a community member from being put forward to speak to the media (c/f accreditation for trainers)? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media training available for volunteers
Don't worry Steve, I understand John is quite a nice chap. I ddn't want to see a good place go vacant. Cheers On 14 November 2012 11:04, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Roger, I'm afraid Mr John Cummings bagged the last spot while he was in the office yesterday. I will add you the list as first reserve so if someone can't attend for whatever reason, the spot is yours. Thanks, Stevie On 13 November 2012 17:33, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.com wrote: Sgn me up Stevie! On 13 November 2012 09:53, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Hello everyone, I have one space remaining for this. If you'd like to take part please do let me know soon. Thank you, Stevie On 31 October 2012 17:17, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Thank you for the clarification. There are no plans to introduce a group known as accredited spokespeople or anything like that. As I say, not attending won't mean we'll ask you not to speak with the media - I'm not looking to restrict anyone's voluntary activities, but support them. That said, I do think it is useful for anyone who speaks with the media who isn't trained to seriously consider taking advantage of this opportunity if they can. From my point of view, it's obviously better and more effective for those dealing with the media to be trained - but it isn't a requirement. Thanks, Stevie On 31 October 2012 17:11, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote: AIUI, only accredited trainers will be eligible to undertake certain Wikimedia-UK training projects I wanted to be clear (as I suspect is sensibly the case) that no similar restriction for accredited spokespeople would operate. Cheers, A. On 31 October 2012 16:57, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hi Andy, Thank you for your email. I'm glad you like the look of the course. I designed it with the training provider to meet the needs of volunteers who may speak with the media from time to time because of their programming work. I'm not sure what you mean regarding accreditation for trainers I'm afraid - could you clarify please? Not attending won't prevent a volunteer from speaking with the media. It's about empowerment, not restriction. Attending will enhance the skills and confidence of volunteers in dealing with the media, and make them more effective in their use of the media and promotion of their work. Of course, the office is here to support volunteers in that as well! I do hope this helps but am happy to answer any other questions people may have. Do please remember that places are limited. Thanks and regards, Stevie On 31 October 2012 16:50, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 31 October 2012 16:40, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I just wanted to remind you of the availability of media training for our volunteers who may come into contact with members of the press. Please do take a look and, if you;re interested, please do let me know. The course outlined looks like a very good one. I'm already comfortable with speaking to the media; I've had similar training in my past professional life, and a fair amount of experience (for Wikimedia and elsewhere), so I wouldn't want to take up a p\ace that would surely be of more benefit to others, Please can you confirm that not attending won't prejudice a community member from being put forward to speak to the media (c/f accreditation for trainers)? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
Hello all, I thought you might like to know that I spoke with the journalist from PR Week yesterday about the story they published on this issue. They are keen to include it in their print edition, which goes out tomorrow. The main points: - I reminded him of the existing guidelines that Wikipedians, Wikimedia UK and the CIPR worked on and recommended the guidelines to his readers - I explained that COI doesn't just apply to PR professionals, but to everyone. We aren't making PR a special case in that respect - Wikipedia is a collaborative, voluntary project - nobody owns the content - I also made the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a PR platform. I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome. If anyone has any specific concerns and would like to discuss them, I'm more than happy to discuss this, on or off list. Thanks and regards, Stevie On 14 November 2012 09:00, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 14/11/12 05:51, Doug Weller wrote: The OTRS Quality queue is again over 200, which is pretty worrying. Partially my fault as I haven't been doing much if any OTRS work recently. Doug This is volunteer effort, so, from time to time volunteering effort can slide (I speak from my own personal experience). On the other hand, PR Industry. Gordo __**_ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 things for the PR flacks as the temptation would be to ignore them as they are likely to have raised things elsewhere. What we should be doing is advising them of the best place to go with their problem, and the best way to escalate things if that doesn't work. The confict of Interest noticeboard is not usually going to be appropriate for them, as it says: Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutralityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV. Where a Living person is being misreported then the BLP noticeboard is an option for escalation. But encouraging PR flacks to forum shop is not going to be part of a workable solution. We need to work with the grain of the community and that means understanding that forum shoppers get short shrift. As for the idea that all PR complaints should be responded to within 24 hours, that would have the effect of prioritising the updating of a company article to name a company's new chair above dealing with a case of cyber bullying in a school playground. I suspect that most of us would take the ethical line that dealing with cyber bullying gets priority over a slightly out of date business article. Yes it would be good to know how quick OTRS is, and if OTRS needs additional volunteers, but if OTRS needs to prioritise anything it should be serious issues above less serious ones, and some business related issues will be more urgent than others. I would be surprised if OTRS doesn't already have some such prioritisation system, if only that volunteers will concentrate on the urgent stuff. WSC On 14 November 2012 00:00, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: 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 CIPR fellow, and CIPR and PRCA are rival bodies. In fact, Ingham used to be the CIPR's assistant director, until he defected to the PRCA. Shall I make an ad-hominem comment based on your COI too? Yes, Finsbury is one of several hundred members of PRCA. Even so Ingham did not condone their behaviour. And what he says about the poor perception of PR professionals is the same thing CIPR have said (and according to Wikipedia, it's one thing CIPR and PRCA agree on, and have collaborated on). The question is not, does the man have a COI; the question is, Is there merit in what he says? 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 address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. PR professionals could be invited to post to the COI noticeboard AND the article talk page at the same time (leaving a link on the article talk page to the COIN discussion), so they get a prompt response. There should be a discussion whether PR professionals should be forbidden or encouraged to contribute to COI noticeboard queries where they do not have a COI themselves beyond being PR professionals too. These are some ideas. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 14 November 2012 11:25, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome. Stating the obvious isn't always unhelpful: making the system work properly is win-win for Wikipedia's readers and those with legitimate corrections/updates. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
I think the journalist was more interested in trying to paint a picture of conflict by asking that question, which makes for a more interesting story for some people. I was really keen for that not to happen. I was more interested in getting across the points about how Wikipedia works and how it can be engaged with, rather than stirring up trouble! Thanks, Stevie On 14 November 2012 11:42, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 11:25, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome. Stating the obvious isn't always unhelpful: making the system work properly is win-win for Wikipedia's readers and those with legitimate corrections/updates. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
I would be tempted to say We hope this is an isolated problem and that most UK PR agencies employ someone who doe not find it cumbersome to send an Email. WSC On 14 November 2012 11:46, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: I think the journalist was more interested in trying to paint a picture of conflict by asking that question, which makes for a more interesting story for some people. I was really keen for that not to happen. I was more interested in getting across the points about how Wikipedia works and how it can be engaged with, rather than stirring up trouble! Thanks, Stevie On 14 November 2012 11:42, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 11:25, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome. Stating the obvious isn't always unhelpful: making the system work properly is win-win for Wikipedia's readers and those with legitimate corrections/updates. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello all, I thought you might like to know that I spoke with the journalist from PR Week yesterday about the story they published on this issue. They are keen to include it in their print edition, which goes out tomorrow. The main points: - I reminded him of the existing guidelines that Wikipedians, Wikimedia UK and the CIPR worked on and recommended the guidelines to his readers - I explained that COI doesn't just apply to PR professionals, but to everyone. We aren't making PR a special case in that respect - Wikipedia is a collaborative, voluntary project - nobody owns the content - I also made the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a PR platform. I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome. If anyone has any specific concerns and would like to discuss them, I'm more than happy to discuss this, on or off list. Thanks and regards, Stevie Here is a good thread started by a Wikipedia admin, Smartse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Spotting_off-wiki_disputes_that_end_up_causing_serious_problems_here . He gives the example of a person who posted at least seven times to the AIV board about clear BLP violations, and never got an answer. (Of course it's not the right board, or the right format, but it shows how people struggle with our system.) As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it? Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it? No; but there are articles in the PR weight class that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604 His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it? No; but there are articles in the PR weight class that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604 His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article. With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The too thin phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 14 November 2012 12:31, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. Yes, it's Andreas pushing a hobbyhorse again. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it? No; but there are articles in the PR weight class that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604 His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article. With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The too thin phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012. Charles Sorry, I am not following you. How has it been addressed in 2012? Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 three invitations to fix the article themselves before they would come to the OTRS e-mail address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 huge difference, because previously, PR professionals would pass three invitations to fix the article themselves before they would come to the OTRS e-mail address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got. The trouble is ... we have no power over Google, do we? It is a familiar argument that you are putting. The actual solutions are (1) to grow the community (and I mean growing it with responsible, well-trained editors). I personally have put time and effort into this in the past, as well as editing many hours a day. And (2) to make it easier for the community to do useful work. Now the WMF is well resourced, we should really be discussing these matters. The traditional spiralling blame game set off by case studies is not the best way, IMX. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 14 November 2012 12:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it? No; but there are articles in the PR weight class that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604 His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article. With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The too thin phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012. Charles Sorry, I am not following you. How has it been addressed in 2012? Training in the UK, and the WMUK VLE, are two things in which I have a personal involvement. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 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 address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got. The trouble is ... we have no power over Google, do we? It is a familiar argument that you are putting. The actual solutions are (1) to grow the community (and I mean growing it with responsible, well-trained editors). I personally have put time and effort into this in the past, as well as editing many hours a day. And (2) to make it easier for the community to do useful work. Now the WMF is well resourced, we should really be discussing these matters. The traditional spiralling blame game set off by case studies is not the best way, IMX. What do you suggest the WMF should or could do? In my experience, they are wary of getting involved in anything that might imply they are exercising control over content, as that could conceivably jeopardise their Section 230 safe harbour protection, and leave them with liability for anonymous people's edits. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (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 put time and effort into this in the past, as well as editing many hours a day. And (2) to make it easier for the community to do useful work. Now the WMF is well resourced, we should really be discussing these matters. The traditional spiralling blame game set off by case studies is not the best way, IMX. What do you suggest the WMF should or could do? In my experience, they are wary of getting involved in anything that might imply they are exercising control over content, as that could conceivably jeopardise their Section 230 safe harbour protection, and leave them with liability for anonymous people's edits. 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 standards. There is a big underlying debate here about barriers to entry for WP editing. We need the help of more editors on WP - but not just at any price. The content for me of Wikimania this year was that the WMF has funded various initiatives on barriers. There is plenty more to do. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 standards. And specifically, cumbersome is the PRCA making excuses for a member having been busted whitewashing Wikipedia. The entire premise of the supposed problem is fraudulent. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 ish). I'm not sure how many the WMF has for the global queues, but to answer every email within, say, 48 hours, would require (in my opinion) at least several hundred volunteers, with several dozen being active daily. Wikimedia UK did run an OTRS workshop, which was useful, but it turned into more of an OTRS planning weekend, with only a few new people trained to use OTRS. It's a very slow way of training people - it's not just the OTRS software, but customer service skills which are needed. Most Wikipedians can't reliably answer emails from OTRS because they don't have the needed levels of WIkipedia experience, OTRS system experience, and customer service experience. There's the added (necessary) stumbling block of identifying to the WMF. radicalthinking Perhaps OTRS access to the English Wikipedia courtesy queue could be given to English Wikipedia admins who are willing to identify to the WMF? That would free up the experienced OTRS agents to handle the more important 'quality' queue. /radicalthinking 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 14 November 2012 12:53, 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 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 address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got. The trouble is ... we have no power over Google, do we? It is a familiar argument that you are putting. The actual solutions are (1) to grow the community (and I mean growing it with responsible, well-trained editors). I personally have put time and effort into this in the past, as well as editing many hours a day. And (2) to make it easier for the community to do useful work. Now the WMF is well resourced, we should really be discussing these matters. The traditional spiralling blame game set off by case studies is not the best way, IMX. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 burned out of OTRS recently (just taking a break till more time comes available) when we cleared out the whole queue (I handled something like 300 tickets in a month) but I see it is already back at massive-scale... Apparently we will finally be getting a software upgrade soon, but even that is not entirely fit for purpose. Overall these are not easy problems to fix; I think we desperately need to implement pending changes, and the WMF should enforce this system. There are technical/community drawbacks to that technology but we need to consider the moral obligations to our subjects first. Tom On 14 November 2012 13:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 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 standards. And specifically, cumbersome is the PRCA making excuses for a member having been busted whitewashing Wikipedia. The entire premise of the supposed problem is fraudulent. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 (OTRS access can be given to people 16) to the OTRS admins. If people aren't required to send their full identification documents perhaps that could reduce that stumbling block slightly? Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone On 14 Nov 2012, at 14:36, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: 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 ish). I'm not sure how many the WMF has for the global queues, but to answer every email within, say, 48 hours, would require (in my opinion) at least several hundred volunteers, with several dozen being active daily. Wikimedia UK did run an OTRS workshop, which was useful, but it turned into more of an OTRS planning weekend, with only a few new people trained to use OTRS. It's a very slow way of training people - it's not just the OTRS software, but customer service skills which are needed. Most Wikipedians can't reliably answer emails from OTRS because they don't have the needed levels of WIkipedia experience, OTRS system experience, and customer service experience. There's the added (necessary) stumbling block of identifying to the WMF. radicalthinking Perhaps OTRS access to the English Wikipedia courtesy queue could be given to English Wikipedia admins who are willing to identify to the WMF? That would free up the experienced OTRS agents to handle the more important 'quality' queue. /radicalthinking 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. On 14 November 2012 12:53, 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 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 address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got. The trouble is ... we have no power over Google, do we? It is a familiar argument that you are putting. The actual solutions are (1) to grow the community (and I mean growing it with responsible, well-trained editors). I personally have put time and effort into this in the past, as well as editing many hours a day. And (2) to make it easier for the community to do useful work. Now the WMF is well resourced, we should really be discussing these matters. The traditional spiralling blame game set off by case studies is not the best way, IMX. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK:
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Operation Cowboy: OpenStreetMap editathon in London
I can offer training in OSM editing, using the JOSM tool, if that's needed. On 14 November 2012 14:46, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: I recently sat down and figured it out myself, for what it's worth, but it took quite a few hours of hmm, is this what I'm meant to do?. Documentation (especially on editorial decisions) is often sparser than on Wikipedia, so it's easier to feel a bit lost as to what you're meant to be doing and whether you should code something as A, B or C. It feels a bit to me like Wikipedia in 2005-6 - you can figure out what you're doing with a bit of effort, but you're never quite sure how it's going or if someone else approves. - Andrew. On Wednesday, 14 November 2012, Katherine Bavage wrote: Sadly I'm not in London that weekend :( However, as I said on Sunday Tom, I'm a n00b with OSM stuff but I'd like to be able to log in for an hour or two and do my part remotely. Is this really feasible i..e to 'learn how to map' if you're not there? If not, no worries, I don't doubt this will be a success and I'd be keen to help/join another event in future! Kat On 12 November 2012 15:30, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: Over the last day or so, I've been working on putting together a new event in London, Operation Cowboy. The plan is for it to be the weekend after next, which is very soon, I know. http://lanyrd.com/2012/cowboy-london/ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_OPC2012 Operation Cowboy is a plan for an all-night OpenStreetMap editathon (mapathon!) focussed around improving OpenStreetMap for the United States, an area OpenStreetMap is known to be not quite so good (compare San Francisco with London: on OpenStreetMap, damn near every pub, bar and shop in central London is on the map, in San Francisco, it's not nearly as good). Though the best mapping we can do generally involves getting a GPS out and walking or cycling the streets yourself, there's plenty of work that can be done to improve OSM from your armchair. You can read more about Operation Cowboy at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Operation_Cowboy Part of the point of the Operation Cowboy event is to be a place where Wikimedians and others who haven't played around with OpenStreetMap and want to learn can come along, learn how to set up an account and start editing. Though we'll use the US as the focus of the event, the skills people learn improving the US map will be applicable to improving the map for their local area in the UK. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0949 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
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 by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 14 November 2012 15:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.comwrote: 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 (OTRS access can be given to people 16) to the OTRS admins. If people aren't required to send their full identification documents perhaps that could reduce that stumbling block slightly? Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone On 14 Nov 2012, at 14:36, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: 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 ish). I'm not sure how many the WMF has for the global queues, but to answer every email within, say, 48 hours, would require (in my opinion) at least several hundred volunteers, with several dozen being active daily. Wikimedia UK did run an OTRS workshop, which was useful, but it turned into more of an OTRS planning weekend, with only a few new people trained to use OTRS. It's a very slow way of training people - it's not just the OTRS software, but customer service skills which are needed. Most Wikipedians can't reliably answer emails from OTRS because they don't have the needed levels of WIkipedia experience, OTRS system experience, and customer service experience. There's the added (necessary) stumbling block of identifying to the WMF. radicalthinking Perhaps OTRS access to the English Wikipedia courtesy queue could be given to English Wikipedia admins who are willing to identify to the WMF? That would free up the experienced OTRS agents to handle the more important 'quality' queue. /radicalthinking 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 14 November 2012 12:53, 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 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 address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. What WSQ said. Also, rethinking the contact us route is one thing, encouraging more people to use it early is another. The first may well be helpful, the second in current circumstances is not going to improve things. Some of your questions here are clearly for the WMF. Charles For better or worse, Wikipedia is the number one Google link for pretty much everything and everyone. With that comes a responsibility to get things right; a responsibility we cannot live up to, given the open editing system we've got, and the number of articles and editors we've got. The trouble is ... we have no power over Google, do we? It is a familiar argument that you are putting. The actual solutions are (1) to grow the community (and I mean growing it with responsible, well-trained editors). I
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 other words. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
More OTRS agents would certainly help (any experienced Wikpedians, please do go to meta:OTRS/volunteering if you can help). But lack of agents isn't the only problem with OTRS. We're inundated (and that's not an exaggeration) with emails we can't do anything about. Many people email us with issues that can easily be resolved on-wiki or don't realise that OTRS agents don't have superpowers and can't intervene in disputes. We get rants, chain letters, and plain old spam (because the email addresses are plastered all over the Internet). We get emails that we *can* help with but end up taking up a lot of our time (I have a ticket that's been open for over a year and I still get regular emails from the client). 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 agents are volunteers and that we have other commitments on Wikipedia, not to mention in real life. I don't have a proposed solution, I'm just trying to let people knowwhat we're up against. So Andreas' suggestion of directing people to COIN makes a lot of sense Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell From: Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk To: Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com Cc: Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@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 by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. On 14 November 2012 15:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: 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 (OTRS access can be given to people 16) to the OTRS admins. If people aren't required to send their full identification documents perhaps that could reduce that stumbling block slightly? Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone On 14 Nov 2012, at 14:36, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: 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 ish). I'm not sure how many the WMF has for the global queues, but to answer every email within, say, 48 hours, would require (in my opinion) at least several hundred volunteers, with several dozen being active daily. Wikimedia UK did run an OTRS workshop, which was useful, but it turned into more of an OTRS planning weekend, with only a few new people trained to use OTRS. It's a very slow way of training people - it's not just the OTRS software, but customer service skills which are needed. Most Wikipedians can't reliably answer emails from OTRS because they don't have the needed levels of WIkipedia experience, OTRS system experience, and customer service experience. There's the added (necessary) stumbling block of identifying to the WMF. radicalthinking Perhaps OTRS access to the English Wikipedia courtesy queue could be given to English Wikipedia admins who are willing to identify to the WMF? That would free up the experienced OTRS agents to handle the more important 'quality' queue. /radicalthinking 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, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. On 14 November 2012 12:53, Charles Matthews
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 agents are volunteers and that we have other commitments on Wikipedia, not to mention in real life. Triage is all, and if OTRS isn't set up to make it easy then it should be. (General point about volunteers' time being valued, and free software being a misnomer as soon as you do that.) BTW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_and_notes is relevant to th whole debate. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 week. Try finding the urgent BLP complaints amongst that lot, bearing in mind that OTRS agents are volunteers and that we have other commitments on Wikipedia, not to mention in real life. Triage is all, and if OTRS isn't set up to make it easy then it should be. Sadly it isn't. There are several queues, but probably not enough for effective triage (i.e. most of it ends up in quality or courtesy). There is also an urgency attribute on tickets that can be changed - but this only puts them higher up the queue (which a lot of people work on from the end). Moving tickets is a pain - you have to scan through a dropdown menu mostly consisting of unrelated other-language tickets to find the english queues, then pick one hit submit. At which point the queue you are on is reloaded, and if you happened to have been on e.g. a ticket or differnet queue in another tab you will end up there... Pain in the.. :P Tom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
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 isn't something many Wikipedians really want to do. Pending changes would probably help a lot but many editors have no idea of what OTRS do and those who do probably don't understand the scale of the problem or the consequences of not dealing firmly with it. Doug On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: 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 week. Try finding the urgent BLP complaints amongst that lot, bearing in mind that OTRS agents are volunteers and that we have other commitments on Wikipedia, not to mention in real life. Triage is all, and if OTRS isn't set up to make it easy then it should be. Sadly it isn't. There are several queues, but probably not enough for effective triage (i.e. most of it ends up in quality or courtesy). There is also an urgency attribute on tickets that can be changed - but this only puts them higher up the queue (which a lot of people work on from the end). Moving tickets is a pain - you have to scan through a dropdown menu mostly consisting of unrelated other-language tickets to find the english queues, then pick one hit submit. At which point the queue you are on is reloaded, and if you happened to have been on e.g. a ticket or differnet queue in another tab you will end up there... Pain in the.. :P Tom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 14/11/12 12:55, Charles Matthews wrote: Training in the UK, and the WMUK VLE, are two things in which I have a personal involvement. Charles Does the WMUK VLE exist? Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
It certainly does, although we don't think it's quite ready for rolling out to the entire world yet. Would you be interested in becoming a beta-tester when we start larger-scale testing? If so, please drop Charles a line. Cheers, -- Doug On 14 November 2012 20:39, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 14/11/12 12:55, Charles Matthews wrote: Training in the UK, and the WMUK VLE, are two things in which I have a personal involvement. Charles Does the WMUK VLE exist? Gordo __**_ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedians in residence / volunteer conflicts of interest policy principles
Dear all, I've just posted some thoughts on our wiki about how we can update some of our policies around Wikimedians in Residence and circumstances where we might need volunteers to make declarations of interest. Do let me know what you think, preferably on-wiki. http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Draft_WiR_and_Volunteer_Conflicts_of_Interest_policy Regards, Chris ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
