Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:39 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Andrew Gray wrote: >> (The actual job description did make my eyes roll a bit, though. >> "Storyteller", oh dear.) > > Thank you very much for this post, Andrew. This post clarified the job role > in a very nice, clear way and I really appreciate you taking the time to > write it. > > I'd also like to apologize to the list (or to any members of it) for being > excessively rude or stupid this afternoon. Some of the, er... cutesy wording > in the job opening left me with the wrong impression about this role and its > purpose. That is (as is Andrew's eyes rolling), an extremely interesting observation. So I looked at the other job openings to get an idea of the "tone" employed. Just for the fun of comparing, you might want to look at this job description: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Fundraiser_Data_Analyst Which tone really is _very different_ from the "Storyteller. Without any pretence at thorough analysis, I guess job openings (should) reflect both the person who puts them up _and_ the person you want to have. For something like statistical analysis, you probably are looking for someone with less of a "dreaming" mind than for storytelling. I guess what's interesting here is that you don't catch flies with vinegar (is that an English expression?). So obviously, the tone employed and the words chosen will try and catch the attention of a particular type of person, with a particular mindset. Birgitte pointed out in this thread that some people should feel repelled by a job offer if it's not for them, and I agree with that. It does make a good job offer to be able to "talk" to the people you are targeting rather than those who are not fit for the job. While I find the cutesy a bit too "emphatic" and to say the truth, too "American" [1], I can understand where this is coming from and I do believe that it will draw the right kind of people to the job. It's all about how you speak. If you are looking for someone who thinks square, you probably want to have a job offer that is square, while if you're looking for someone who needs to let their creativity and words loose, you probably want to have a job offer that does exactly that. It's all a matter of communication, really. As a very good example, Andrew was able to rephrase the job offer so that it actually makes sense to those of us who need facts and rational explanations. Achieving that is a rare talent, actually :) Delphine [1] please forgive my generalisation here, words like "impressive" and "exudes enthusiasm" are just not words you'd find in a job opening even in the coolest, craziest, bestestestest company in France, for example, no matter how creative the job opening may be. Let's say that I am not convinced that this (over)use of words works efficiently in a truly international environment. -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] participation in Indic-language wikis
Shiju Alex from Malayalam Wikipedia did an analysis of the Indic-language wikis & their active community sizes: http://shijualex.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/indian-language-wikipedias-2010-statistical-report/ It's a really interesting study, and a good reminder of how far we have to go with the smaller wikis. -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:39 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Andrew Gray wrote: >> Here's one line of reasoning: >> >> a) Our fundraising was effective (it brought in money) but also pretty >> tedious for readers - it relied heavily on variants of one banner, >> with the side-effect that millions upon millions of people were forced >> to stare at one J. Wales for quite a while, only lightly alleviated by >> staring at someone else for a short time before reverting to the >> original. >> >> b) This was widely derided (see discussions passim), with people >> objecting to it for reasons including (in no particular order): i) >> undue focus on "figurehead" personality; ii) stylistic issues; iii) >> terminology (mostly of non-Wales banners, sometimes of letters); iv) >> sheer tedium of seeing the same thing for a month; etc. etc. ... >> >> c) ...but pretty much everything else we tried didn't work very well... >> >> d) ...even though, anecdotally, people liked seeing the other ones >> much more than they liked the routine banners. >> >> e) Running another fundraiser is probably inevitable. >> >> Given these points, it seems a good idea to try to ensure that when we >> next throw big banners up at a million people to ask them for money, >> we do so in a way that is less tedious and irritating. It seems a >> fairly good approach (anecdotally, at least) that people like the >> varied individual user banners; the problem is that there's something >> not quite working about them. >> >> Hiring someone to make them work - thus allowing us to do away with >> the All Wales, All The Time approach which was, to say the least, not >> universally loved - will hopefully mean the next donation campaign >> annoys fewer people. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, to me. >> >> (The actual job description did make my eyes roll a bit, though. >> "Storyteller", oh dear.) > > Thank you very much for this post, Andrew. This post clarified the job role > in a very nice, clear way and I really appreciate you taking the time to > write it. Agreed with MzM that (though I do not have any special insight into this job and what it entails or is meant to entail in particular) Andrew's post was good, clear, and made an excellent point. And I think I am going to adopt the phrase "see discussions passim" whenever applicable! Model discourse, we can haz :) -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
Andrew Gray wrote: > Here's one line of reasoning: > > a) Our fundraising was effective (it brought in money) but also pretty > tedious for readers - it relied heavily on variants of one banner, > with the side-effect that millions upon millions of people were forced > to stare at one J. Wales for quite a while, only lightly alleviated by > staring at someone else for a short time before reverting to the > original. > > b) This was widely derided (see discussions passim), with people > objecting to it for reasons including (in no particular order): i) > undue focus on "figurehead" personality; ii) stylistic issues; iii) > terminology (mostly of non-Wales banners, sometimes of letters); iv) > sheer tedium of seeing the same thing for a month; etc. etc. ... > > c) ...but pretty much everything else we tried didn't work very well... > > d) ...even though, anecdotally, people liked seeing the other ones > much more than they liked the routine banners. > > e) Running another fundraiser is probably inevitable. > > Given these points, it seems a good idea to try to ensure that when we > next throw big banners up at a million people to ask them for money, > we do so in a way that is less tedious and irritating. It seems a > fairly good approach (anecdotally, at least) that people like the > varied individual user banners; the problem is that there's something > not quite working about them. > > Hiring someone to make them work - thus allowing us to do away with > the All Wales, All The Time approach which was, to say the least, not > universally loved - will hopefully mean the next donation campaign > annoys fewer people. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, to me. > > (The actual job description did make my eyes roll a bit, though. > "Storyteller", oh dear.) Thank you very much for this post, Andrew. This post clarified the job role in a very nice, clear way and I really appreciate you taking the time to write it. I'd also like to apologize to the list (or to any members of it) for being excessively rude or stupid this afternoon. Some of the, er... cutesy wording in the job opening left me with the wrong impression about this role and its purpose. I still think there should be a broader discussion about whether it's appropriate to rename the "Community Department," but that's largely outside the scope of this thread. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 3/1/2011 4:31 PM, SlimVirgin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 18:06, Sue Gardner wrote: >> On 1 March 2011 15:54, SlimVirgin wrote: >>> Michael, I wouldn't underestimate the "I'm being exploited" feeling for >>> people either leaving, or failing to join up. In Wikipedia's early years, we >>> were exploiting ourselves, as it were. But the more of a corporate structure >>> the Foundation assumes, the greater the sense that we're working for >>> something in which we have no input. There will be a tipping point that >>> differs for each individual, and they may not even express it in those >>> terms. >> Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've >> just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create. >> I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the >> Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in >> which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization. >> >> Thanks, >> Sue > I accept that, Sue, but it's a matter of perception. I can see a lot of > effort on the Foundation's part to reach out to new communities, but a > similar "in-reach" program to keep current editors feeling invested would > help a lot. I appreciate that, and would renew my suggestion to have some kind of communications staff dedicated to internal relations, as distinct from external. > Every time one of these new jobs is announced it does add to the feeling > (rightly or wrongly) of corporate expansion that we're not part of. It's interesting that these feelings should attach to job openings in particular. In contrast to how it was put earlier - "Nobody likes being exploited, in particular volunteers" - actually, in my experience it is people who work for pay that most resent being exploited, not people who work for other reasons. While volunteers can feel that they have been taken advantage of when their work is abused, in general employees are much more sensitive to inadequate compensation for their labors, overwork, or being underappreciated. Volunteer motivation is important to understand, of course, although I'm not a big fan of "volunteer management" as a phrase because our environment is geared more toward self-organization and self-management. The foundation can try to influence things to motivate people up to a point, but one of the wonderful things about volunteers is that we supply our own motivation, and largely regulate it as well. Here we happen to be touching on a sensitive area, partly because balancing volunteer and staff effort is one of the factors in motivation, but there's also a factor here that's beyond the foundation's control, and where volunteers have to figure out their own motivation. I realize that economic conditions in much of the world are not the best these days, and I sympathize with people who are personally affected. To get to one of the points underlying this discussion, I would like to offer some advice. Volunteers who happen to also be looking for paid work should not focus on openings at the Wikimedia Foundation as their solution, as it can't possibly hire all the diligent wiki editors who might want to work there, no matter how successful the next fundraiser is. For people looking to add volunteer work to boost their CV, I would expect that Wikipedia is now widely-recognized enough to give about the same benefit as volunteer work with various other well-known charities. But if someone is really focused on working at the Wikimedia Foundation specifically, then my advice is the same as it would be for anyone targeting a specific employer - demonstrate that you have the skills and experience that employer is looking for, or go get them, quite possibly by going elsewhere first. Experience in our particular community may figure as an advantage among similarly-qualified candidates, but it doesn't substitute for having other qualifications that the foundation needs for a position. Nor, as I expect current staff who started as editors could confirm, is working for the foundation the solution to all of your problems, just exchanging one set of challenges for another. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 2 March 2011 00:53, Erik Moeller wrote: > Stories are absolutely essential to any non-profit's ability to > persuade new people to support or join its cause. Sometimes we tell > our stories well, sometimes we tell them poorly. Telling a story well > is a very specific skillset that few people possess. Even for those > who are good writers (and of course there are many in Wikimedia), it > takes a lot of conscious effort to construct a narrative in a way > that's accessible and appealing to someone who's not already on the > inside. Erik wikipedians do know their history. The English term is propaganda. Please use it. If you feel completely unable to use it "public relations" is the closest to an acceptable alturnative. > We've talked about this issue at length in the past. Back in October > 2007, I tried to call attention to the significance of storytelling > specifically in fundraising: > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/thread.html#33431 > > In that fundraiser, we made some first humble efforts at storytelling, > and we've more systematically collected and compiled stories since > then. But just putting stories on a page, like this one: > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en > > Is not going to persuade anyone to support us. Well lets face it. Your problem is not that you don't have a propaganda line it's that the old one (bare bones foundation struggling on a minimal budget) is no longer remotely credible. So you are now looking for someone to create new propaganda lines that allows for greater foundation growth with a larger budget. Now it's possible that that could be a lot of fun. Spreading twitter like propaganda about how we are helping with whatever moderately good news story there is this week (hey no journalist is going to go to the effort to prove it is false). Trying to get pro wikipedia statements out of random role models that kind of thing (although if a football WAG ever tuns up in a donate to wikipedia T-shit there is going to be trouble with a capital Z). However it is understandable that people are going to be concerned about what this means with regards to the direction the foundation is taking. > As Zack said, in the > context of fundraising, it's all about distilling essential points > effectively. In the context of other movement work, such as public > outreach, it's about connecting with our target audience by choosing > meaningful examples that resonate (how do you talk to educators, to > scientists, to students). Which I seem to recall is a role that has largely been left to the chapters. Now thats a choice the foundation is free to make but it does rather render your position inconsistent with events. > People have made attempts at telling > success stories of public outreach here, for example: > > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Success_stories > > But all these stories would benefit from a more skillful approach to > telling them. The structure of a story is one of the most fundamental > ways in which human beings understand the world, and we all have a > regrettable tendency to underestimate that significance. As I have in > the past, I'd really encourage you to watch Andy Goodman's talk in > full: > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-289257716014946841 Why? Have Edward Bernays works been banned or something? > He gives plenty of examples of non-profits that are terrible at > telling their own story, which can have disastrous consequences. > There's absolutely nothing morally questionable about telling a story > effectively -- if anything it's morally pernicious to tell an > important story poorly. Oh nice try. Great set of appeals to emotions and attempts to falsely frame the debate. Just one tiny problem. We are wikipedians. Not only do we tend not to see the world in terms of stories (See wikipedia's house style sometime) but a big part of NPOV is shattering stories. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: > >> On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: >>> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and >>> they >>> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general >>> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This >>> situation >>> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public >>> relations >>> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of >>> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the >>> other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you >>> have >>> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what >>> their >>> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they >>> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a >>> new >>> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a >>> more >>> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to >>> apply >>> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. >>> Narrow >>> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and >>> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. > > on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: > >> This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described >> is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a >> somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and >> allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation >> I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different >> positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background, >> skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for >> us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the >> hiring process in how we think about the position. >> > Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how > detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at > the heart of this Project? > > Marc Riddell Michael isn't staff; he's the former chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, and is speaking as a (very) long-time and respected community member. -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Stories are absolutely essential to any non-profit's ability to > persuade new people to support or join its cause. Sometimes we tell > our stories well, sometimes we tell them poorly. Telling a story well > is a very specific skillset that few people possess. Even for those > who are good writers (and of course there are many in Wikimedia), it > takes a lot of conscious effort to construct a narrative in a way > that's accessible and appealing to someone who's not already on the > inside. > > We've talked about this issue at length in the past. Back in October > 2007, I tried to call attention to the significance of storytelling > specifically in fundraising: > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/thread.html#33431 > > In that fundraiser, we made some first humble efforts at storytelling, > and we've more systematically collected and compiled stories since > then. But just putting stories on a page, like this one: > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en > > Is not going to persuade anyone to support us. As Zack said, in the > context of fundraising, it's all about distilling essential points > effectively. In the context of other movement work, such as public > outreach, it's about connecting with our target audience by choosing > meaningful examples that resonate (how do you talk to educators, to > scientists, to students). People have made attempts at telling > success stories of public outreach here, for example: > > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Success_stories > > But all these stories would benefit from a more skillful approach to > telling them. The structure of a story is one of the most fundamental > ways in which human beings understand the world, and we all have a > regrettable tendency to underestimate that significance. As I have in > the past, I'd really encourage you to watch Andy Goodman's talk in > full: > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-289257716014946841 > > He gives plenty of examples of non-profits that are terrible at > telling their own story, which can have disastrous consequences. > There's absolutely nothing morally questionable about telling a story > effectively -- if anything it's morally pernicious to tell an > important story poorly. To have a staff position dedicated to this is > a wonderful thing, and if we find someone really good for this job, > the benefits will become obvious really, really quickly. > > -- > Erik Möller > Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > That seems rather funny coming from an organization which is having an internal identity crisis. When an organization seems inept at communicating with its own stakeholders, the priority is instead shifting towards developing the outside narrative. This brings me back to quote what Mark Ridell said above, "do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community." I would suggest as a business analyst addressing the gaping holes in the organization before hiring a "storyteller" to paint over the rough parts and provide a depiction of what is "...beautiful about a movement of Wikimedians..." some of those are probably reading this, start by listening to them. Jason ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: > > > On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > >> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want > and > >> they > >> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a > general > >> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This > >> situation > >> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public > >> relations > >> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set > of > >> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take > the > >> other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring > you > >> have > >> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to > what > >> their > >> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things > they > >> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you > want a > >> new > >> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing > a > >> more > >> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to > >> apply > >> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. > >> Narrow > >> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging > and > >> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. > > on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: > > > This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described > > is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a > > somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and > > allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation > > I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different > > positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background, > > skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for > > us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the > > hiring process in how we think about the position. > > > Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how > detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at > the heart of this Project? > > Marc Riddell > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Wikimedia Foundation seems to be turning into another non-profit bent on social outreach. The internal structure appears to be mutating into something very corporate, from the constant direction of consultants/analysts to expansion into emerging markets. They all seem to resemble any other corporation trying to expand, overlooking that fact that the actual product is governed and maintained by an active community which is responsible for most of the content. One look at the current staff page points to the flawed vision of the internal structure, with titles like chief talent and culture officer, which sounds more like a job from a futuristic science fiction or even a cult, a successful one of course. The fundraising part of the staff seems to be under the community department, communications seems to be under global development. There seems to be only one person in the finance and administration department. Chief propaganda officer doesn't seem to be far behind, unless you prefer raconteur which is more or less the same title. Jason ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 1 March 2011 15:54, SlimVirgin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 16:41, Pronoein wrote: > >> Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit : >> > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote: >> >> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the >> >> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat. >> > Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted >> > (see >> > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), >> > this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant >> > minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are >> > overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their >> > work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go >> > back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify >> > comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here. >> >> Michael, I wouldn't underestimate the "I'm being exploited" feeling for > people either leaving, or failing to join up. In Wikipedia's early years, we > were exploiting ourselves, as it were. But the more of a corporate structure > the Foundation assumes, the greater the sense that we're working for > something in which we have no input. There will be a tipping point that > differs for each individual, and they may not even express it in those > terms. Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create. I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization. Thanks, Sue > > Sarah > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
Stories are absolutely essential to any non-profit's ability to persuade new people to support or join its cause. Sometimes we tell our stories well, sometimes we tell them poorly. Telling a story well is a very specific skillset that few people possess. Even for those who are good writers (and of course there are many in Wikimedia), it takes a lot of conscious effort to construct a narrative in a way that's accessible and appealing to someone who's not already on the inside. We've talked about this issue at length in the past. Back in October 2007, I tried to call attention to the significance of storytelling specifically in fundraising: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/thread.html#33431 In that fundraiser, we made some first humble efforts at storytelling, and we've more systematically collected and compiled stories since then. But just putting stories on a page, like this one: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en Is not going to persuade anyone to support us. As Zack said, in the context of fundraising, it's all about distilling essential points effectively. In the context of other movement work, such as public outreach, it's about connecting with our target audience by choosing meaningful examples that resonate (how do you talk to educators, to scientists, to students). People have made attempts at telling success stories of public outreach here, for example: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Success_stories But all these stories would benefit from a more skillful approach to telling them. The structure of a story is one of the most fundamental ways in which human beings understand the world, and we all have a regrettable tendency to underestimate that significance. As I have in the past, I'd really encourage you to watch Andy Goodman's talk in full: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-289257716014946841 He gives plenty of examples of non-profits that are terrible at telling their own story, which can have disastrous consequences. There's absolutely nothing morally questionable about telling a story effectively -- if anything it's morally pernicious to tell an important story poorly. To have a staff position dedicated to this is a wonderful thing, and if we find someone really good for this job, the benefits will become obvious really, really quickly. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 18:06, Sue Gardner wrote: > On 1 March 2011 15:54, SlimVirgin wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 16:41, Pronoein wrote: > > > >> Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit : > >> > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote: > >> >> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of > the > >> >> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat. > >> > Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted > >> > (see > >> > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results > ), > >> > this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of > significant > >> > minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are > >> > overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly > their > >> > work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go > >> > back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify > >> > comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing > here. > >> > >> Michael, I wouldn't underestimate the "I'm being exploited" feeling for > > people either leaving, or failing to join up. In Wikipedia's early years, > we > > were exploiting ourselves, as it were. But the more of a corporate > structure > > the Foundation assumes, the greater the sense that we're working for > > something in which we have no input. There will be a tipping point that > > differs for each individual, and they may not even express it in those > > terms. > > Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've > just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create. > I'm not denying that some Wikimedians may feel alienated from the > Wikimedia Foundation: I'm sure it is true for some. But "something in > which we have no input" is, IMO, not a fair characterization. > > Thanks, > Sue > > I accept that, Sue, but it's a matter of perception. I can see a lot of effort on the Foundation's part to reach out to new communities, but a similar "in-reach" program to keep current editors feeling invested would help a lot. Every time one of these new jobs is announced it does add to the feeling (rightly or wrongly) of corporate expansion that we're not part of. Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
> On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: >> Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and >> they >> choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general >> need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This >> situation >> strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public >> relations >> material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of >> applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the >> other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you >> have >> done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what >> their >> "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they >> believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a >> new >> employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a >> more >> open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to >> apply >> for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. >> Narrow >> and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and >> uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: > This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described > is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a > somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and > allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation > I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different > positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background, > skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for > us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the > hiring process in how we think about the position. > Michael, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at the heart of this Project? Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 2 March 2011 00:00, Birgitte SB wrote: > Also you have to remember that the purpose of > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller is not to explain > the job to curious community members. Maybe but it's the only information we have (openess not being the foundation's strong point) and it's no secret that the community contains people with a lot of experience in reading job adverts, >The only purpose that should be > considered in writing a job opening is to attract people who may be a good fit > for the job and inspire them to apply, while repelling people who would be a > bad > fit for the job. The target audience of the job opening is job seekers. The > only > useful measure to judge if a job opening was "good" is whether it resulted in > lots of applicants that you would like to find out more about and few > applicants > that are an obviously poor fit. Wasting your time processing the applications > of > obviously unsuitable people is nearly as bad as not producing an interview > pool > filled with equally great applications. And the former has become the more > likely scenario these past few years. So if you personally find that a job > opening turns you off, it may just be working quite well. A good job opening > should turn off a fair number of people. However this person is meant to be working with the community. I would suggest if the advert for a position turns off those who that position is meant to be working with then you have a problem. Obvious exception would be the likes of prison officers but I would suggest that that is not a model we wish to explore. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and > they > choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general > need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This > situation > strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations > material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of > applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the > other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you > have > done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what > their > "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they > believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a > new > employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a > more > open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply > for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. > Narrow > and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and > uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background, skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the hiring process in how we think about the position. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
From: Birgitte SB To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 4:46:10 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening From: MZMcBride To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 3:24:37 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening Zack Exley wrote: > But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in > between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help > free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising. I think part of my confusion (maybe the biggest chunk of it) comes from terminology and naming. I guess you're not really trying to hire a "storyteller," you're trying to hire a "public relations (fundraising)" person. One title is obviously a bit more poetic, but also a lot more confusing, I think. The other aspect to this that's confusing to me is the underlying purpose of the "Community Department." Best as I can tell, it's largely focused on fundraising. Is there a description of the current "Community Department" that clarifies what it does (other than fundraising)? I'm not saying that Wikimedia shouldn't have a team devoted to fundraising, but I don't really understand why it's named the way it is. Is there something wrong with it being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only one confused about this. It makes sense to me that there would be a lot of overlap on the ground delivering the two messages "We are a worthwhile project and you can join us and contribute on our websites" and "We are a worthwhile project and you can donate some money to the supporting Foundation". Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and they choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This situation strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you have done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what their "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a new employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a more open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. Narrow and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. Birgitte SB Also you have to remember that the purpose of http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller is not to explain the job to curious community members. The only purpose that should be considered in writing a job opening is to attract people who may be a good fit for the job and inspire them to apply, while repelling people who would be a bad fit for the job. The target audience of the job opening is job seekers. The only useful measure to judge if a job opening was "good" is whether it resulted in lots of applicants that you would like to find out more about and few applicants that are an obviously poor fit. Wasting your time processing the applications of obviously unsuitable people is nearly as bad as not producing an interview pool filled with equally great applications. And the former has become the more likely scenario these past few years. So if you personally find that a job opening turns you off, it may just be working quite well. A good job opening should turn off a fair number of people. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 16:41, Pronoein wrote: > Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit : > > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote: > >> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the > >> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat. > > Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted > > (see > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), > > this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant > > minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are > > overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their > > work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go > > back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify > > comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here. > > Michael, I wouldn't underestimate the "I'm being exploited" feeling for people either leaving, or failing to join up. In Wikipedia's early years, we were exploiting ourselves, as it were. But the more of a corporate structure the Foundation assumes, the greater the sense that we're working for something in which we have no input. There will be a tipping point that differs for each individual, and they may not even express it in those terms. Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 3/1/2011 2:41 PM, Pronoein wrote: > Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit : >> On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote: >>> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the >>> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat. >> Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted >> (see >> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), >> this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant >> minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are >> overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their >> work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go >> back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify >> comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here. >> I would prefer to hope that as the foundation's community department >> works to develop the fundraising and messaging, it will also create and >> improve upon initiatives that lead to a better community environment, as >> that seems to be the dominant problem. > Thank you for your answer Michael. However: > «Note that this survey was aimed at less experienced editors. » > > I remember for example that many administrators quit during the sexual > content controversy because of the decision of Jimbo. Those people were > driven by a vision of a certain type of governance and felt betrayed or > disappointed. I acknowledge the limitations of the survey, and as always would be thrilled if we had more and better data. But since you were connecting your thesis to a broad systemic trend, I considered it more useful to look at evidence of systemic trends, not anecdotal reactions to a single incident. In terms of volunteer motivation, I'd have to think being "driven by a vision of a certain type of governance" has to rank pretty low, considering that our mission has nothing to do with promoting any particular vision in that field. A survey of former administrators or something like that might be informative, certainly, if somebody is available to drive that. My guess is that compared with other former volunteers, their responses would have more similarity than difference. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
I'm not with the WMF, to clarify. Your point stands, however, as the WMF team rarely contributes to content on the wikis they know so much about. On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:45 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 1 March 2011 23:41, The Mono wrote: > > > We think so little about our community that we have to hire someone to > > figure out how to explain it. > > > I expect your volunteer efforts were factored into the decision. > > > - d. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- *Mono* http://enwp.org/m:User:Mono ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 1 March 2011 23:41, The Mono wrote: > We think so little about our community that we have to hire someone to > figure out how to explain it. I expect your volunteer efforts were factored into the decision. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Jason donovan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:52 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > > > David Gerard wrote: > > > On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride wrote: > > > > > >> I'm curious how > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller > > >> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan. > > > > > > It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for > > > anyone else who's wondering. > > > > > > What bit of the page wasn't clear? > > > > The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's > > mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a > > Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite > > amount > > of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type > of > > reasonable cost/benefit analysis. > > > > If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the > underlying > > concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make > > something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to > > Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of > people > > who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel > > their > > donations would be spent like this, in my view. > > > > MZMcBride > > > > > > > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > +1 for calling the title 'Propaganda Minister'. Raconteur would be my > second > choice. > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > We think so little about our community that we have to hire someone to figure out how to explain it. -- *Mono* http://enwp.org/m:User:Mono ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:52 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > David Gerard wrote: > > On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride wrote: > > > >> I'm curious how > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller > >> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan. > > > > It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for > > anyone else who's wondering. > > > > What bit of the page wasn't clear? > > The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's > mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a > Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite > amount > of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of > reasonable cost/benefit analysis. > > If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying > concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make > something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to > Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people > who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel > their > donations would be spent like this, in my view. > > MZMcBride > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > +1 for calling the title 'Propaganda Minister'. Raconteur would be my second choice. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
From: MZMcBride To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 3:24:37 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening Zack Exley wrote: > But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in > between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help > free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising. I think part of my confusion (maybe the biggest chunk of it) comes from terminology and naming. I guess you're not really trying to hire a "storyteller," you're trying to hire a "public relations (fundraising)" person. One title is obviously a bit more poetic, but also a lot more confusing, I think. The other aspect to this that's confusing to me is the underlying purpose of the "Community Department." Best as I can tell, it's largely focused on fundraising. Is there a description of the current "Community Department" that clarifies what it does (other than fundraising)? I'm not saying that Wikimedia shouldn't have a team devoted to fundraising, but I don't really understand why it's named the way it is. Is there something wrong with it being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only one confused about this. It makes sense to me that there would be a lot of overlap on the ground delivering the two messages "We are a worthwhile project and you can join us and contribute on our websites" and "We are a worthwhile project and you can donate some money to the supporting Foundation". Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and they choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This situation strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you have done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what their "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a new employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a more open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. Narrow and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit : > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote: >> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the >> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat. > Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted > (see > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), > this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant > minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are > overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their > work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go > back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify > comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here. > I would prefer to hope that as the foundation's community department > works to develop the fundraising and messaging, it will also create and > improve upon initiatives that lead to a better community environment, as > that seems to be the dominant problem. Thank you for your answer Michael. However: «Note that this survey was aimed at less experienced editors. » I remember for example that many administrators quit during the sexual content controversy because of the decision of Jimbo. Those people were driven by a vision of a certain type of governance and felt betrayed or disappointed. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
Did autocomplete change your sentence Fred? I don't follow and it doesn't seem to relate to MZMcBride's new question about naming. -- Dan Rosenthal Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity. On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:33 PM, "Fred Bauder" wrote: >> Is there something wrong with it >> being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only >> one >> confused about this. >> >> MZMcBride > > There is plenty wrong with messing with us. This is hardly the first > time. I doubt advancing the project is on your agenda. > > Fred > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 1 March 2011 20:44, MZMcBride wrote: > It's not really about my personal preferences (I originally asked how this > job opening fits within Wikimedia's strategic plan or mission). You've > chosen to side-step the actual questions being asked here (twice now). Based > on my past discussions with you, I generally take this to mean that you > agree with the premise, but don't want to say so aloud. (Your brand of > Wikimedia criticism is much more diplomatic than my own, to be sure.) If I'm > wrong and you really do believe that this job opening is a good idea, > perhaps you can explain why you think that. :-) Here's one line of reasoning: a) Our fundraising was effective (it brought in money) but also pretty tedious for readers - it relied heavily on variants of one banner, with the side-effect that millions upon millions of people were forced to stare at one J. Wales for quite a while, only lightly alleviated by staring at someone else for a short time before reverting to the original. b) This was widely derided (see discussions passim), with people objecting to it for reasons including (in no particular order): i) undue focus on "figurehead" personality; ii) stylistic issues; iii) terminology (mostly of non-Wales banners, sometimes of letters); iv) sheer tedium of seeing the same thing for a month; etc. etc. ... c) ...but pretty much everything else we tried didn't work very well... d) ...even though, anecdotally, people liked seeing the other ones much more than they liked the routine banners. e) Running another fundraiser is probably inevitable. Given these points, it seems a good idea to try to ensure that when we next throw big banners up at a million people to ask them for money, we do so in a way that is less tedious and irritating. It seems a fairly good approach (anecdotally, at least) that people like the varied individual user banners; the problem is that there's something not quite working about them. Hiring someone to make them work - thus allowing us to do away with the All Wales, All The Time approach which was, to say the least, not universally loved - will hopefully mean the next donation campaign annoys fewer people. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, to me. (The actual job description did make my eyes roll a bit, though. "Storyteller", oh dear.) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
> Is there something wrong with it > being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only > one > confused about this. > > MZMcBride There is plenty wrong with messing with us. This is hardly the first time. I doubt advancing the project is on your agenda. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote: > If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the > reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat. Based on the one survey of former contributors that has been conducted (see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results), this doesn't figure highly enough to demonstrate the kind of significant minority you suggest. Rather, the concerns of those surveyed are overwhelmingly about how rulebound, overly complex, and unfriendly their work in the community seemed to be. Perhaps somebody would care to go back through the full survey responses and see if they can identify comments that fit the "I was being exploited" line you're pushing here. I would prefer to hope that as the foundation's community department works to develop the fundraising and messaging, it will also create and improve upon initiatives that lead to a better community environment, as that seems to be the dominant problem. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
Zack Exley wrote: > But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in > between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help > free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising. I think part of my confusion (maybe the biggest chunk of it) comes from terminology and naming. I guess you're not really trying to hire a "storyteller," you're trying to hire a "public relations (fundraising)" person. One title is obviously a bit more poetic, but also a lot more confusing, I think. The other aspect to this that's confusing to me is the underlying purpose of the "Community Department." Best as I can tell, it's largely focused on fundraising. Is there a description of the current "Community Department" that clarifies what it does (other than fundraising)? I'm not saying that Wikimedia shouldn't have a team devoted to fundraising, but I don't really understand why it's named the way it is. Is there something wrong with it being named the "Fundraising Department"? I can't imagine I'm the only one confused about this. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
Zack Exley, 01/03/2011 21:08: > And not just for the fundraiser. For the purposes of the fundraiser, we need > this person to amass a mountain of creative material that we can remix, in > collaboration with the original voices behind the material, and test during > the fundraiser. Is this person going to work on the contributors' stories (which, in brief, replaced donation comments)? How to actually use them was a big question during the fundraising. (Bards are usually expected to know previous works. :-) ) Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
Le 01/03/2011 17:26, David Gerard a écrit : > On 1 March 2011 20:22, MZMcBride wrote: > >> The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's >> mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a >> Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount >> of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of >> reasonable cost/benefit analysis. >> If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying >> concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make >> something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to >> Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people >> who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their >> donations would be spent like this, in my view. > > > You appear to be generalising from your personal preferences to the > world here. This is a common fallacy and a really bad idea in general. No, I subscribe to this point of view and all my circle of relations feel the same about donating to non-profit organizations who show too much interest into receiving money. I'm not insinuating any accusation but stating a fact about a category of minds. David, your sentence wasn't very clear. You're "doubting"[1] that the ethical-driven concerns expressed by MZMcBride can be generalized. Are you saying that this point of view is so minoritary, maybe even unique, that it should be disconsidered? Let's pretend you're right for a second. If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat. Nobody likes being exploited, in particular volunteers. This is a common mistake of volunteers management. (aka "butchering the golden egg producing chicken"). This hypothesis would be worth checking. A survey could be drawn about why the very active wikipedians left since 2001. [1]: in fact you even say it would be a fallacy. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 1 March 2011 20:44, MZMcBride wrote: > It's not really about my personal preferences (I originally asked how this > job opening fits within Wikimedia's strategic plan or mission). You've > chosen to side-step the actual questions being asked here (twice now). Based > on my past discussions with you, I generally take this to mean that you > agree with the premise, but don't want to say so aloud. (Your brand of > Wikimedia criticism is much more diplomatic than my own, to be sure.) If I'm > wrong and you really do believe that this job opening is a good idea, > perhaps you can explain why you think that. :-) Erm ... because it's fairly obviously for the purpose of getting more funding and getting more content contributors. I'm still completely failing to see what you don't get about this. -d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's > mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a > Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount > of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of > reasonable cost/benefit analysis. > > If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying > concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make > something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to > Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people > who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their > donations would be spent like this, in my view. > > MZMcBride > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > Don't you see it? It's a position needed to ensure and improve the cash flow. Which in turn is needed to support a continuosly increasing spendings and an increasingly large staff. This position is key for the strategic sustaining of the wikimedia movement (and don't you dare to speak bad of that). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
David Gerard wrote: > On 1 March 2011 20:22, MZMcBride wrote: > >> The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's >> mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a >> Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount >> of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of >> reasonable cost/benefit analysis. >> >> If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying >> concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make >> something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to >> Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people >> who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their >> donations would be spent like this, in my view. > > You appear to be generalising from your personal preferences to the > world here. This is a common fallacy and a really bad idea in general. It's not really about my personal preferences (I originally asked how this job opening fits within Wikimedia's strategic plan or mission). You've chosen to side-step the actual questions being asked here (twice now). Based on my past discussions with you, I generally take this to mean that you agree with the premise, but don't want to say so aloud. (Your brand of Wikimedia criticism is much more diplomatic than my own, to be sure.) If I'm wrong and you really do believe that this job opening is a good idea, perhaps you can explain why you think that. :-) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 1 March 2011 20:22, MZMcBride wrote: > The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's > mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a > Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount > of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of > reasonable cost/benefit analysis. > If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying > concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make > something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to > Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people > who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their > donations would be spent like this, in my view. You appear to be generalising from your personal preferences to the world here. This is a common fallacy and a really bad idea in general. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
David Gerard wrote: > On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride wrote: > >> I'm curious how http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller >> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan. > > It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for > anyone else who's wondering. > > What bit of the page wasn't clear? The part where adding this person leads to better content? Wikimedia's mission is to educate the world with free content. I'm not sure how a Propaganda Minister really furthers that goal. There is a very finite amount of resources for staff hires; I just don't see how this passes any type of reasonable cost/benefit analysis. If it's the outside world's perception of Wikimedia that is the underlying concern, I think hiring someone whose job description includes "make something incredibly beautiful every month" might be more detrimental to Wikimedia's image and mission than anything else. There are a lot of people who would be (more) willing to donate to Wikimedia if they didn't feel their donations would be spent like this, in my view. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride wrote: > > > I'm curious how > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller > > fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan. > > > It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for > anyone else who's wondering. > > What bit of the page wasn't clear? > Thanks David - I tried to make it as clear as possible. But there is one important purpose of that job that may be a bit hidden in between the lines: For this position, I'm looking for someone who can help free us from dependence on "The Jimmy Letter" in fundraising. No one -- least of all Jimmy -- thinks it's acceptable that our fundraising model relies entirely on a letter from the founder. In the 2010 fundraiser, we found that banners from editors (and Sue) got similar, sometimes slightly better, click rates as the Jimmy banners. But the best 15 or 20 major versions Jimmy's letters all performed massively better than the best-performing editor letters. (BTW: Megan and Ryan Faulkner are working on a big post-fundraiser report on our testing which will be released here as soon as it's done.) Therefore, there's a large chunk of creative work to be done in discovering letters that can work from editors -- and not only editors, but also readers, donors, and other figures, such as maybe the Nobel Laureate Physicist who writes us fan mail. There's no question that the winning letters have to be written by the people themselves -- not only for reasons of integrity, but also because fake letters don't actually work. But letters don't work as fundraisers simply because they come from the heart. They need to tell a gripping story (in two paragraphs!), ask for money effectively, and answer several questions that potential donors have on their minds. That's a tall order. And that's why I want to hire someone to go spend a ton of one-on-one time with a whole lot of Wikimedians while working on these letters. That is not all this person will do. They will also capture images and hopefully some video. And not just for the fundraiser. For the purposes of the fundraiser, we need this person to amass a mountain of creative material that we can remix, in collaboration with the original voices behind the material, and test during the fundraiser. But shouldn't we use that mountain of material for other purposes too? Yes. And so this person -- if we are lucky enough to find someone to fill this role -- will also work closely with Jay & Moka in Communications to use this material for general purposes too. (Please send recommendations if you know anyone who can fill this role!) Max, I hope that helps. If it doesn't, just let me know and I'll provide more info. Zack > > > - d. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 3/1/2011 11:44 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride wrote: >> I'm curious how http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller >> fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan. > It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for > anyone else who's wondering. > > What bit of the page wasn't clear? Well, some people might selectively read that page and only see the parts about working on the fundraiser (spending money to raise more money), while missing the parts about creative work that conveys who we are to the world (creating educational materials), or telling stories that "convince readers to become editors and donors" (either one, or both, I would add). It mostly depends on what kind of bias you read the page with. I think all the misapprehensions and misunderstandings out there about the Wikimedia projects (even Wikipedia as the best known example) make a pretty compelling case that work along these lines is still needed. If people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather than creating drama about things they aren't. Then we could focus more on dealing with the drama on the projects themselves. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
> Hi. > > I'm curious how > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller > fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan. > > MZMcBride It's an effective marketing technique. Something to watch on YouTube that doesn't trash us. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 1 March 2011 19:35, MZMcBride wrote: > I'm curious how http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller > fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan. It's pretty much directly answered right there on the linked page, for anyone else who's wondering. What bit of the page wasn't clear? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
Hi. I'm curious how http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Storyteller fits in with Wikimedia's mission or its strategic plan. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Language committee meeting in May - open discussion
Hello all, The Wikimedia Language committee members are going to meet in May. I created a new page in Meta for the open discussion of this meeting: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/May_2011_meeting Everyone is welcome to influence this meeting by proposing to discuss. Please edit this page and propose your ideas. Thanks, -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
