On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sarah Ewart <sarahew...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think that being a place where people who are interested in
Australian Wikimedia activities can discuss things is considered
"all-purpose hosting". Sure, if people start spamming etc. we would have to
respond somehow (I would suggest requiring login - no IP editing) but if
people start talking *too much* on the chapter wiki then I think that's
probably a good problem to have. Certainly it's a better problem than having
*not enough* activity.

-Liam

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

Reply via email to