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
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
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>,
but because it allows editing by default anyone can contribute to
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
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
> 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
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.
>> 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.
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l mailing list