On 13 October 2015 at 15:12, leu...@fabiant.eu <leu...@fabiant.eu> wrote: ... > I think there is what we do and what we imagine we do. Although the > propaganda is that editathons are there to develop new editors, in fact they > are very poor at this with somewhere around a 5% success level. This is > something Wikimedia UK has known for several years, yet we have continued to > run these even though they fail at their stated aim. ... > It is quite clear that if we want to train up editors then what is needed is > regular (probably weekly) training events at which people can build their > skills, carry out "homework" between sessions and perhaps be given an > assessment if they are up for it.
Leutha has some good insights, however I disagree with some the ideas for action. When we set up the Wikimedia UK charity (in Andrew Turvey's time), as trustees we were very clear that the best use of our donated funds was to keep our focus on the mission. Charities often get side tracked into setting up activities and internal functions that eat into funding that could just as easily be done by other charities. If the current board feel that more should be done for education of new internet users, then there are other charities that have immense expertise at using money to deliver these outcomes and to comply with Charity Commission guidelines for best practice, the money would be better going to directly fund those charities. If the "Wikimedia" brand has value, then that brand and some staff time could be lent to cooperative events with other charities. I know that Doug and some others have experience in supporting "third age education" and could advise the board on concrete options and contacts. With regard to editathons, I agree that general public editathons are invariably a poor use of charity funding, but I think narrow and targeted /events/ have more intended outcomes than 'increasing editors'. For example the editathons that I used to be part of for academics, influence University and institution policy and create long term relationships that have great value. My professional contacts have proved useful for resolving copyright issues arising from my million-ish GLAM related uploads to Commons, even though those individuals may not regularly contribute to Wikimedia projects themselves; in effect a key measurable outcome was keeping me interested and contributing at this 'expert' level in ways that they never would. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
