Dear all,
I'm just writing as a bit of a followup on our meeting with the ABC last
week (copying in the other participants who may wish to elaborate or answer
any questions).

The day was in two parts - boardroom meeting and staff presentation.

The meeting was packed with about 20 people from mid-level management from
different divisions (legal, radio, social media, website, news..). We
peppered them with collaboration ideas and it is now in their court to see
which department wants to take up which idea. The things that are most
likely to move ahead first would be for the news website to include WP
citation templates (so we can add footnotes easily) in their articles - this
is a simple technical fix and doesn't require financial or ongoing staff
investment. The other thing was the forthcoming "100 days that changed
Australia" project which will be a new microsite. For this they will be
clearing for online use lots of their own archival material. They figure
that since they'll be doing that clearance anyway then adding in a clearance
for putting on external sites too would be easier usual. We would then be
able to upload that archival material to Commons and potentially create a
parallel project similar to what the National Archives of the US is
currently doing with their "today's document" challenge:
were interested in the idea of having a "resident" wikipedian to
oversee this collaboration.

We discovered that abc is very 'project centric' so if anything is going to
happen it will begin as a relatively tightely-scoped "pilot" that, if
successful, would be increased the following year. Anything done at a
pan-institutional level it would need to be a directive from the very top.
On the other hand there are many options for pilot projects to have a wp
angle to them in the next 6months kind of timeframe. That's the timeframe
they work on, so we'll prob hear back from them with solid propsals in a
month or so.

The after that I gave a staff presentation to about 50 folks during lunch
break about all different aspects of the wikiverse stressing the
similarities between their and our mission. I tried to be a bit provocative
(but not enough to actually anger them) by comparing the fact that they've
got staff dedicated to Facebook and Twitter but no overt relationship with
us, also comparing how we have lots of USA content (because of their PD
laws) but Australian cultural heritage is very hard to access. I compared
our mission, and the Australian Chapter's mission, with their Charter
responsibility to bring Australian stories to Australians and the world.
Using I also showed them our
pageview stats that demonstrate that over 600k people viewed articles in
[[category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] (and sub-cats) last month
which emphasised our visibility.

So - In a month or two we'll see which people have gone back to their
departments and want to push forwards to have a proactive relationship with
us. The ball's in their court now :-)

Hope that helps,
Peace, love & metadata
Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to