Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[Ed Saperia]

Maybe there’s an easy way to just test this? A chapter could start calling 
itself e.g. Wikipedia UK in its comms for a year and see if there’s any 
noticeable difference?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Apr 2019, at 01:47, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Rebecca O'Neill 
> wrote:
> 
>> I agree Galder!
>> 
>> I would like to respond to Phoebe's comment on not wanting to draw people
>> to the *Wikimedia* movement is not true of the Irish experience. We have
>> some idea of an editing community that aren't interested in getting
>> involved in our user group (and probably never will be), so we are very
>> keen to draw people to volunteering as Wikimedians not just as editors.
>> Presenting our group as something more than people who are experienced
>> Wikipedia editors is very important to us, and anything that makes that
>> message easier would be of huge benefit to us.
>> 
> 
> Dear Rebecca,
> Thanks for this. Let me try to explain my thinking a bit more...
> I too want people to join Wikimedia New England, which is the group I'm
> currently running. And in general, I want a thriving and healthy ecosystem
> of affiliates. But I want that to be true because the work that chapters,
> affiliates and the Foundation itself does is meant to be enabling for the
> larger goal of making free knowledge available, and specifically for
> improving and sustaining Wikipedia and her sister projects.
> 
> Everything that the groups do - from building the technical/legal
> infrastructure side, to training new editors, to providing a friendly
> geographic or topical face to Wikipedia, to doing outreach, to supporting
> existing editors - is a means to an end. It is not the end itself. We do
> this multivarious work because we recognize that there are many, many
> effective ways to contribute in a project as complex as ours, and that
> participants can sometimes best find a home in ways that are not directly
> editing. But equally: there are of course other means to this end of
> building free knowledge that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia group/
> structure, most notably the thousands of independent volunteers who work
> largely alone to maintain and build the projects, and upon whose work we
> all depend. Groups, and the Foundation, are important! But they are not, in
> themselves, the end goal.
> 
> So where does this leave us with rebranding? I admit I haven't read all of
> the comments/analysis. But, to my mind, there's a cost to rebranding: the
> several hundred person-hours that have already been put into this
> discussion, if nothing else. For the benefit to outweigh the cost, we need
> to imagine what will happen to increase participation in building free
> knowledge as a result. If we are "Wikipedia New England" or "Wikipedia
> Ireland" et al, will our groups be more effective -- for instance, with an
> easier to understand name, will new people join our trainings, perhaps
> becoming Wikipedia editors? Will more cultural institutions reach out, and
> be more amenable to releasing images? If the Foundation is the Wikipedia
> Foundation, then how does this improve the infrastructure that the
> Foundation provides, exactly?
> 
> If the answer is that this change will definitely increase participation in
> the projects and free knowledge generally, through the mechanism of the
> various groups being more recognizable and thus reaching a bigger audience,
> then the proposal is worth seriously considering. But if it is hard to
> imagine - and I admit I do find it hard to imagine that the name of the
> Foundation is the thing standing in our way to wider Wikipedia
> participation - then it doesn't seem worth the cost.
> 
> -- Phoebe
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Ed Saperia]

A Wikimedia monastery! ^_^

Sent from my iPhone

> On 26 Feb 2016, at 08:39, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> 
> I think there are more ways of supporting volunteers than just paying them
> cash. For instance another option could be to offer them a place to stay,
> food and healthcare. That is how many volunteer programs work, like
> workaway or woofing, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> Would it be an acceptable compromise?
> 
> Regards,
> Micru
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>> 
>> Involving the foundation as a broker would corrupt  the Foundation
>> altogether.  It would in essence turn it into an advertising agency. We're
>> supposed to be different from Google. Google earns money by letting itself
>> be used as a medium for advertising. It at least  hopes to achieve this by
>> while not being   evil, and succeeds reasonably well at the compromise.
>> 
>> Wikipedia fortunately does not need to earn money, as ordinary people
>> freely give  us more than enough for our needs,  and can therefore hope to
>> achieve the positive good of providing objective information on
>> encyclopedic topics that people want to read about, not information that
>> other organizations want people to read.  We have no need to compromise.
>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:15 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> - Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
 - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
 WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were
>>> paid
 arguing with me, and would do it until they convince me or I give up,
>>> and I
 was doing this in my free time, and got tired very quickly. I also had
>>> very
 unpleasant experiences interacting with some chapter people whose only
>>> goal
 was to keep their position. They did not care about the quality,
 efficiency, anything, only about their personal good. And if somebody
 defends their personal good, you know, thy usually win, and the quality
 loses. Now, imagine there is a content dispute between a user who is
>> paid
 (and is afraid to lose the salary) and a user who is unpaid and have to
>>> do
 the same for free - I am sure a paid user will be way more persistent.
 
 
 ​Yaroslav, we already have a lot of paid editors on the English
>>> Wikipedia.
>>> Some are Wikimedians in residence, and this has always been regarded as
>>> okay, though I believe they're expected not to edit articles about the
>>> institution that employs them.
>>> 
>>> But we also have a lot of paid PR editing and obvious COI problems
>> because
>>> of that, as well as the problems you highlight (e.g. the paid editor
>> being
>>> more persistent).
>>> 
>>> Introducing the Foundation as a broker between organizations that want
>>> articles and editors who want to write them would not solve all the
>>> problems you highlight, but it would remove the COI aspect. So my
>> thinking
>>> was that it would be better than the current situation.
>>> 
>>> Sarah​
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> David Goodman
>> 
>> DGG at the enWP
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Our final email

[Ed Saperia]

Sent from my iPhone

> On 19 Dec 2014, at 08:44, WereSpielChequers  
> wrote:
> 
> Two weeks ago I emailed the fundraising team with the following note, quietly 
> and discretely pointing out an error in their messaging. Sadly I haven't had 
> a reply and I think that in the UK they are still using the £3 buys a coffee 
> for a programmer line:
> 
>> Aside from the incidental nature of the appeal, £3 and $3 are very different 
>> sums of money. When I saw $3 I thought that was an expensive way to buy 
>> coffees and that the WMF should invest in a kettle and some mugs. But £3 for 
>> a coffee, now that just looks wasteful, even to someone living in an 
>> expensive part of London. I dread to think what it looks like to someone 
>> living in other parts of England, let alone cheaper parts of the world. "£3 
>> gets coffee and biscuits for a potential wikipedian coming to a training 
>> session", that I could defend.
>> 
>> There's also the honesty/credibility factor. I doubt I am the only person 
>> seeing different versions of these ads including different currencies, if 
>> the sums are this far apart the suspicion has to be that none of the figures 
>> are to be trusted. Not a great help to our program of improving Wikipedia 
>> quality and getting such details right in our articles.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jonathan Cardy
> 
> 
>> 
>>  3. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We receive no government
>>> funds. We survive on donations from our readers. If all our past donors
>>> simply gave again today, we could end the fundraiser. Please help us forget
>>> fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia.
>>> 
>>> We are deeply grateful for your past support. This year, please consider
>>> making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia
>>> 
>>> .
>>> 
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Jimmy Wales
>>> Wikipedia Founder
>>> 
>>> PS: Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep Wikipedia running.
>>> Your contribution counts!
>>> *DONATE NOW »*
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "our final email"?
>>> This is the last email reminder you'll receive"?
>>> Surely that should be qualified with "... this year."??
>>> If that weren't embarrassing, what about...
>>> 
>>>  - Using *bold* AND *italics *AND yellow backgroud colouring all at the
>>>  same time in the heading.
>>>  - Sending an email on the 18th of December saying that if "ALL past
>>>  donors simply gave AGAIN today" [my emphasis] then you wouldn't need to do
>>>  any more fundraising "for the rest of the year", i.e. for 2 weeks!!
>>>  - On the one had it says "we'll never run ads" but in the sentence
>>>  immediately beforehand pleads help to us stay "ad-free another year".
>>>  - Does the phrase "Less than 1% of our readers donate enough to keep
>>>  Wikipedia running" mean a) that less than 1% of readers donate, which is
>>>  enough to keep us running, or b) that less than 1% of readers who have
>>>  donated, donated enough to keep us running (implying that the other 99% of
>>>  donors didn't donate enough)?
>>>  - Finally, this email is addressed from Jimmy, but when you receive a
>>>  "thank you for donating" email, it's addressed from Lila. [I should note
>>>  that the thank you for donating email IS very positive and
>>>  mission-oriented].
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Effectiveness != Efficiency*
>>> One of the official WMF Fundraising principles
>>>  is "*minimal
>>> disruption*...aim to raise money from donors *effectively*" [emphasis is
>>> original].
>>> I believe that this wording has been interpreted by the fundraising team to
>>> mean *"*do the fundraising as quickly as possible". However, I contest that
>>> "less disruption" and "more effective" is not the same as "shorter
>>> fundraiser". i.e.: Effectiveness != Efficiency.
>>> 
>>> I am sure that these desperate fundraising emails/banners are *efficient *at
>>> getting the most amount of money as fast as possible (they have been honed
>>> with excellent A/B testing), but, they achieve this by sacrificing the core
>>> WMF fundraising principle of being *minimally disruptive. *In fact, they
>>> actually appear to be following a principle of being "as *maximally 
>>> *disruptive
>>> as they can get away with, for as short a time as required".
>>> 
>>> Can the WMF to say how "minimal disruption" and "effective fundraising" is
>>> defined in practice, and how they are measured?
>>> 
>>> *Shareable vs Desperate*
>>> On the same day that the WMF communications team release this inspiring and
>>> positive "year in rev

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015

[Ed Saperia]

It would, however, significantly increase the work for the Wikimania 
organisers. They didn't sign up to programme and organise an affiliate org 
conference, so they shouldn't have to if they don't want to.

Guestlists cause all sorts of politics, but are a necessary evil when dealing 
with limited resources. Choices must be made, and it's up to the hosts to 
decide who gets to come. A mission statement for the conference might help 
alleviate some of the bad feeling, but there will inevitably be some as long as 
there are fewer places than people.

Ed Saperia
Conference Coordinator Wikimania London

Sent from my iPhone

> On 12 Sep 2014, at 01:44, Pine W  wrote:
> 
> I like the idea of having this event be a pre-conference for Wikimania.
> That may reduce total travel costs and travel time for the people who
> usually attend both events. This may also simplify planning for people and
> thorgs.
> 
> Pine
>> On Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM, "Pete Forsyth"  wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Richard Symonds <
>> richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> What I'm saying is, let's plan a conference before we argue over the
>> name.
>> 
>> 
>> But, most of the people on this list wouldn't have anything to do with this
>> conference -- surely there's a better resource for conference-planning.
>> 
>> The thing most of us have a stake in is the name of the conference, and --
>> perhaps -- nothing more.
>> 
>> Pete
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

[Ed Saperia]

I am furious about this coverage. Incredibly insulting to the entire movement. 
Our volunteers break their backs putting on a conference and the best NYM can 
think to write is "haha dorks"? Imagine if they did that for any other tech 
conference. Not even the barest attempt to cover the actual content or issues.

Ed Saperia
Chief Coordinator Wikimania London

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Jun 2014, at 08:41, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Thank you Issara. I was not at the conference, but journalism is a world
> I've inhabited, and this was exactly my impression -- an opportunistic
> reporter cutting many corners to come up with something that would
> titillate and entertain. Yes, the choice to use real names, given the way
> she described people, was really inappropriate. But I'm very glad to have
> this confirmed by somebody who was there and involved.
> 
> In the more traditional world, what happened there carries a certain
> accountability. If a company got that kind of treatment by the NY Magazine,
> they would call the reporter and express that disappointment, and perhaps
> put things in motion for better coverage for the future. If the reporter
> doesn't get it, that's the sort of thing that will result in the
> publication losing access to the company.
> 
> What's our analogue of that?
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Isarra Yos  wrote:
> 
>> On 07/06/14 06:36, Risker wrote:
>> 
>>> Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote.  But you know what?  It was
>>> a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
>>> knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story
>>> they
>>> want to tell, and this is what happened here.  She came in looking for the
>>> geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
>>> suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
>>> One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
>>> woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women.  And yet the reporter
>>> herself refuses to allow them their voice.
>>> 
>>> I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people
>>> who
>>> did, and I also looked at the photos.  What struck me was how many women
>>> were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the
>>> women
>>> were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
>>> 
>>> Russavia, give everyone a break here.  I feel badly for the young woman,
>>> because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation.  I feel badly
>>> for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
>>> the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
>>> situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
>>> and
>>> the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet.  We
>>> all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
>>> sources in our articles.
>> 
>> Hi. Thank you for this.
>> 
>> I was there, the woman who randomly joined in, and I must say, what the
>> journalist did was very unfair to Kevin and the others. It wasn't just
>> putting them on the spot in the way in which she did, but even going so far
>> as the rather childish descriptions to further stereotype them... naming
>> folks by name and then doing that, that seems perhaps even more rude than
>> what we tend to do to each other around here. As I recall Schulenberg had
>> the sense to leave partway through (for which I say good for him), but most
>> of us wouldn't know to do that (or how), and taking advantage of that
>> wasn't very nice either.
>> 
>> Thing is, these guys were put on the spot and pressed, and that they are
>> the ones getting crap for it is ridiculous. Sure, there may have been some
>> some awkward things said, but the entire thing got very awkward and quite
>> frankly I think they handled it remarkably well considering the line of
>> questioning and discourse. A lot of what looks so bad appears to have been
>> jokes taken seriously - because in a tense situation, trying to alleviate
>> the tension with humour is a pretty normal response - and as a result I
>> don't even know how much of what was quoted is even representative of the
>> views of those quoted, never mind the wider community.
>> 
>> For my part, no apologies are owed, nor should anyone expect them t