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: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
