[Wikimediaau-l] warning on the wiki

[private musings]

I've been chipping away a bit on the wiki, and thought I should probably
report this error which now appears at the top of the page;
Warning: file_get_contents(
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?titles=Image%3AWikisource-logo.svg&iiprop=timestamp%7Cuser%7Ccomment%7Curl%7Csize%7Csha1%7Cmetadata%7Cmime&prop=imageinfo&format=json&action=query)
[function.file-get-contents]:
failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! in /srv/www/
www.wikimedia.org.au/html/w/includes/HttpFunctions.php on line
116

I hope I didn't break anything.
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Andrew]

2009/12/14 Stephen Bain 

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Andrew  wrote:
> >
> > This assumes that meetups will fix the perception problem. I don't think
> it
> > will - they're good for social purposes but not much else.
> ...
> > I work in education and I know that allowing people to own their
> successes
> > increases their willingness to try more and stick around, and gives us
> > valuable selling points to encourage sceptical locals.
>
> But who is out there, and what sort of successes would they like to
> own? And what methods would be better than meetups for establishing a
> core of regular participants?
>

Re successes - that's exactly what I want to try and find here in Perth and
encourage others to do similarly elsewhere. And meetups don't build much
beyond personal links/friendships in my view - they're fun, but not
productive. It shouldn't be forgotten WP meetups are not WM meetups -
enthusiasts of one may have no interest in the other, especially if "what's
in it for me?" can't be answered adequately (Gnangarra and I actually had
this experience at largish Perth meetups trying to promote WM.)

cheers
Andrew
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 02:05:42PM +1100, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> It seems there are a variety of arguments that have now been put forward
> against opening up editing to non-members:
> 
> * "It's a member benefit" - I think we all agree that this is no longer held
> as a valid claim. IIRC this was the SOLE reason why we didn't have open
> editing to start with, but no matter.

I agree.
 
> * "There'll be lots of vandalism" - This has been responded to with the
> proposal that only logged-in editing be allowed and some form of
> CAPTCHA/email confirmation be used to stop spambots.

Still a pain, like the spam on the mailing list.
 
> * "We need to keep the official pages stable" - The official pages (rules,
> minutes, donation info...) can be easily locked from editing in just the
> same way that the copyright notice page on Wikipedia is locked. We could
> even use some form of flagged-revs if we chose.

It is more than stable. Some, like minutes, must never change. Soem,
like rules, need a general meeting to change them. The process is quite
different from most wikis.

> * "It will look bad to our potential partner organisations" - I have heard
> many criticisms or complaints from external organisations/professionals
> about Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia-Australia and none of them have been
> about the potential for unruly discussion on the chapter wiki. If an
> organisation is unwilling to work with the Chapter on the basis that there
> might be some disucssion on the wiki that they don't like, then they've
> obviously never heard of Wikipedia. Many organisations have some form of
> public discussion section on their website (e.g. comments on company blogs)
> and this does not meant that people think less of the company.

Right now they probably do not know about our wiki. I am certainly not
saying that they will consciously say they are "unwilling to work with
the Chapter on the basis that there might be some discussion on the wiki
that they don't like". I would say that they may get put off if they get
the impression that our wiki is not professional about who and what we
are. They might not recognise why they are being put off.
 
> If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we
> cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can
> engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money
> to volunteer. 

I agree.

> Any organisation that choses not to associate itself with WM-Au on the
> basis that we operate a wiki that members of the general public can
> edit is more than likely not ready to work with an organisation that
> promotes free-culture at all. 

See above.

> And, just like on WP, we can indeed include layers of locks or tags
> that indicate 'this page is official policy' or 'this page is for
> general discussion'.

It is not like WP. WP policies can be changed by consensus so we can
have edit wars on policy pages. Much of our stuff can only be changed by
either the committee or a General Meeting (Annual or Special). That is
why I say that for these pages we have to lock down and explain with a
tag.

Maybe we should move stuff that is not wiki-editable to a non-wiki web
site on the same server. We can give links to it from the wiki. That
would make it clear that it is fixed approved stuff. It would free up
the wiki to be like a wiki. At present most of it is not like a wiki. 

Brian.

> -Liam
> 
> 
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Salter-Duke
> wrote:
> 
> > There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who
> > should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I
> > have not kept any other comments.
> >
> > This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just
> > to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam
> > institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and
> > with the general public.
> >
> > It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of
> > general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other
> > official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity.  We now
> > have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund
> > raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We
> > have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
> > status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages.
> >
> > We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range
> > of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official
> > wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we
> > are by how professional we present ourselves.
> >
> > The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and
> > professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly
> > destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not
>

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Liam Wyatt]

It seems there are a variety of arguments that have now been put forward
against opening up editing to non-members:

* "It's a member benefit" - I think we all agree that this is no longer held
as a valid claim. IIRC this was the SOLE reason why we didn't have open
editing to start with, but no matter.

* "There'll be lots of vandalism" - This has been responded to with the
proposal that only logged-in editing be allowed and some form of
CAPTCHA/email confirmation be used to stop spambots.

* "We need to keep the official pages stable" - The official pages (rules,
minutes, donation info...) can be easily locked from editing in just the
same way that the copyright notice page on Wikipedia is locked. We could
even use some form of flagged-revs if we chose.

* "It will look bad to our potential partner organisations" - I have heard
many criticisms or complaints from external organisations/professionals
about Wikimedia/Wikipedia/Wikimedia-Australia and none of them have been
about the potential for unruly discussion on the chapter wiki. If an
organisation is unwilling to work with the Chapter on the basis that there
might be some disucssion on the wiki that they don't like, then they've
obviously never heard of Wikipedia. Many organisations have some form of
public discussion section on their website (e.g. comments on company blogs)
and this does not meant that people think less of the company.

If we hope to get more grassroots involvement in the chapter then IMO we
cannot force people to pay $40 and register an account before they can
engage in chapter activities. Volunteers should not be forced to pay money
to volunteer. Any organisation that choses not to associate itself with
WM-Au on the basis that we operate a wiki that members of the general public
can edit is more than likely not ready to work with an organisation that
promotes free-culture at all. And, just like on WP, we can indeed include
layers of locks or tags that indicate 'this page is official policy' or
'this page is for general discussion'.

-Liam


wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Salter-Duke
wrote:

> There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who
> should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I
> have not kept any other comments.
>
> This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just
> to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam
> institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and
> with the general public.
>
> It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of
> general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other
> official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity.  We now
> have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund
> raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We
> have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
> status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages.
>
> We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range
> of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official
> wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we
> are by how professional we present ourselves.
>
> The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and
> professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly
> destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not
> officially approved, and edits that are inappropriate. If readers find
> information that they find to be inaccurate or inappropriate, they will
> conclude that we are not a serious professional body that they can work
> with, and they may doubt the accuracy of material on what are clearly
> official pages.
>
> This does not mean that we have to restrict editing to the committee,
> but we have to make sure that integrity and professionalism is preserved
> and indeed enhanced. It is not just a question of removing vandalism.
> There are some pages that must never be allowed to be vandalised. Karl
> has suggested that the committee does not need to be involved in
> removing vandalism, but this misses the point. Certainly non-committee
> members can assist with improving and preserving the wiki, but the
> committee has to be involved. That is what the committee is elected for.
> The committee is responsible for the integrity and professionalism of
> our official presentation outside the association.
>
> As a wikimedian, of course I am in favour of opening up the wiki as much
> as we can, but as a member of the committee and as Public Officer
> responsible for reporting on our work to Consumer Affairs Victoria, I am
> very conscious of the responsibility to preserve the integrity and
> professionalism of the official wiki. If we decide to open it up, we
> must be quite open about what we are doing. We can not just protect some
> pa

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Stephen Bain]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Andrew  wrote:
>
> This assumes that meetups will fix the perception problem. I don't think it
> will - they're good for social purposes but not much else.
...
> I work in education and I know that allowing people to own their successes
> increases their willingness to try more and stick around, and gives us
> valuable selling points to encourage sceptical locals.

But who is out there, and what sort of successes would they like to
own? And what methods would be better than meetups for establishing a
core of regular participants?

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.b...@gmail.com

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Brian Salter-Duke]

There has been a lot of discussion about the official wiki and who
should be able to edit it. This is in response to the whole debate, so I
have not kept any other comments.

This wiki is the official wiki. It is how we present ourselves, not just
to members, but to prospective members, to regulatory bodies, to Glam
institutions who we hope to work with, with a range of other bodies and
with the general public. 

It is the only place where our rules are displayed, where minutes of
general and committee meetings are recorded, and a host of other
official stuff. We are incorporated. We are a legal entity.  We now
have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We need to apply for fund
raising approval to all other States and Territories, except the NT. We
have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
status. All this has to be reflected in our official pages.

We are trying hard to relate in a professional manner with a large range
of GLAM institutions across the country. They will look to our official
wiki for reliable information about us. They will judge how serious we
are by how professional we present ourselves.

The issue is not really about vandalism, but the integrity and
professionalism of the whole official wiki. Vandalism with certainly
destroy that, but so will edits that discuss ideas that are not
officially approved, and edits that are inappropriate. If readers find
information that they find to be inaccurate or inappropriate, they will
conclude that we are not a serious professional body that they can work
with, and they may doubt the accuracy of material on what are clearly
official pages.

This does not mean that we have to restrict editing to the committee,
but we have to make sure that integrity and professionalism is preserved
and indeed enhanced. It is not just a question of removing vandalism.
There are some pages that must never be allowed to be vandalised. Karl
has suggested that the committee does not need to be involved in
removing vandalism, but this misses the point. Certainly non-committee
members can assist with improving and preserving the wiki, but the
committee has to be involved. That is what the committee is elected for.
The committee is responsible for the integrity and professionalism of
our official presentation outside the association. 

As a wikimedian, of course I am in favour of opening up the wiki as much
as we can, but as a member of the committee and as Public Officer
responsible for reporting on our work to Consumer Affairs Victoria, I am
very conscious of the responsibility to preserve the integrity and
professionalism of the official wiki. If we decide to open it up, we
must be quite open about what we are doing. We can not just protect some
pages, or restrict editing of some pages to certain groups. We must be
clear to the readers. 

I therefore propose that all pages be clearly tagged with a statement of
their status. Pages of rules, minutes, etc. should be tagged with
something like "This page is an official page of Wikimedia Australia
Inc. and is approved by the association. Editing is restricted to
members of the committee". Other pages might be tagged with something
like "This page is for the development of ideas by members and supports.
Editing is open to all. The page does not necessarily reflect the
official views of Wikimedia Australia Inc." We might have a whole series
of different tags. The idea is that the reader will not be mislead about
our official views and will be quite clear where authentic information
is to be found. The committee, because it is responsible, must have the
total right to tag any page on the wiki with the first tag above and to
restrict editing of that page to the committee. There can be no debate
about this. The committee is responsible.

Of course these tags will be criticised as being ugly, but to me they
are essential. I can only support opening up editing on the official
wiki, if we do clearly tag all articles to make their status absolutely
clear.

Cheers, Brian.

-- 
Brian Salter-Duke bd...@wikimedia.org.au publicoffi...@wikimedia.org.au  
 Committee member and Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia Inc.
   Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.
[[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Sarah Ewart]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Andrew  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Before I reply, I'll note that I actually agree with Sarah here re
> Melbourne - it's also evidenced by Victoria's membership following the
> national trend rather than NSW/ACT's.
>

In fact, melbourne's situation may actually be even worse that elsewhere as
far as the typical uptake of memberships goes. Of the 8 Victorian members, 3
are current committee members and  two are former committee members (and one
of those two now actually lives in regional NSW but was counted as a
Victorian for the purposes of my stats of last years memberships), so only 3
members from Victoria are "typical" (for want of a better word) members and
at least one of those is from regional Victoria and not from Melbourne. So
if you're considering the regular uptake of memberships, Melbourne really
only has two members that don't have some kind of atypical connection with
the chapter.


>
> 2009/12/13 Liam Wyatt 
>
> So, if there is a concern that the chapter is focusing too much on Sydney
>> (and/or Melbourne), I wouldn't want this to be the perception, off the back
>> of local Wikimedians being particularly interested in hosting meetups.
>
>
Liam, I agree that meetups organised outside the chapter shouldn't be
attributed as chapter activity. But I also agree with Andrew that it's
really not the meetups that give the impression that Sydney is the central
focus, but more an unintentional attitude thing. It's very difficult because
as I said last night, I don't see an easy or simple solution to these
issues. I've been telling Andrew for some time now, and Craig referred to
this as well in his earlier email, people in other states who want to see
the chapter active locally need to become active themselves and make things
happen in their local regions because the reality is that we're all
volunteers and we just don't have the resources to swoop in and organise
things for people around the nation. So it's really important that members
around the country become active, create and build connections with their
local organisations and organise functions, events etc but in turn the
committee needs to be able to come on board and provide support, both in the
form of emotional/mental support, facilitating connections, and potentially
also financial support of some degree. I think everyone on the committee is
on board with this and I've never sensed any kind of resistance to providing
support to local members pursuing local activities, but from my perspective,
it's really vitally important that local members who want the chapter to be
active in their local regions take on some responsibility for that as it's
really not going to happen otherwise.

At the same time, I think we also need to be careful of unintentionally or
inadvertently penalising the more vibrant regions because they've only
become active due to the efforts of local members. For example, Glam was
only organised because Liam had an idea and followed through with it to the
fullest extent. Same with the Backstage program.They weren't projects the
committee or  even the chapter came up with or organised or pursued, but
rather an individual member had a vision and pursued it and the committee
played more of a support and facilitation role. and we can do that kind of
thing for other members in other states if they keep the committee informed
of what they're doing but they need to be prepared to basically do what Liam
did - come up with an idea, pursue it and work to implement it.
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Nick Jenkins]

> Would this be a good way to empower more local activities around the
> country?

What if there was a "national meetup day" for Australia, when we got a
banner displayed on the Wikimedia sites for any Australian IP addresses,
that told people about their nearest meetup? And then we'd have a meetup
on the same day across the country in every city/town where someone was
willing to put their hand up and say "I'll be there". Then the locals
could meet, have a chat and a beer/coffee/whatever, and if people wanted
they could let other people know about Wikimedia Australia (what it is,
what we do, how to join, etc).

Would that not be a good way to encourage participation and raise
awareness, even (and especially) outside of the twin evil show-pony
lime-light-hogging south-eastern sin cities? ;)

> In fact, I don't even think that Sydney should be lumped in with
> Sydney when talking about chapter activity in the last year

I have to agree! The main reason any events happen or happened in Sydney
was because keen go-getter people (e.g. Liam / PM / Angela) picked a
time/organised them/told people about them/etc, off their own bat and of
their own free will. I.e. the lesson is if you want things to happen in
your area, you either need to make them happen yourself, or be fortunate
enough to have other people who'll make them happen living nearby.

-- All the best,
Nick.


___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Brian Salter-Duke]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:15:35PM +1030, Karl Goetz wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:57:02 +1100
> Brian Salter-Duke  wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:09:58AM +1100, Peter Halasz wrote:
> > > So lock those specific pages. Have you ever used Wikipedia? Do you
> > > think it would exist if they were worried only about representation?
> > 
> > I will try to respond to this debate, wearing my hat as Public Officer
> > of WMAU later, but for now let me just say that our official wiki is
> > not like wikipedia. It is much more like:
> 
> I assume this means this is your personal view?

It is my personal view but based on my experience as Public Officer
since the start of Wikimedia Australia. 
 
> >  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page
> > 
> > As an incorporated association we have legal obligations to the
> > community via CAV, not only to the membership. This means the issue of
> 
> For those of us not in the know, what is CAV, and can you provide a
> reference to it for us to look at?

CAV is Consumer Affairs Victoria and is the body that administers our
incorporation. The general link is:-

http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/

but you need to click on to look under Associations, Clubs & Fundraising 
and then to incorporated associations. It is not just incorporation. We
are a legal entitity. We now have approval to fund raise in Victoria. We
have an ABN. We will be applying for deductible gift recipient (DGR)
status. I will give a more thought through response to the question of
access later when I have woken up properly.

Brian.

> > access is not simple and it requires thought.  There is also a real
> 
> Not simple on the backend? I assume whatever sits behind the login
> process is able to automatically remove people who didn't pay (ldap?
> sql?). If thats the case its also easy to work out who should be in
> certain edit groups: they have valid memberships or not.
> 
> > tension here, not only about access. For example, there is also a
> > tension between the project's love of anonymity for users, with the
> > legal requirements imposed by incorporating.
> 
> Aye. Its entirely possible annon edits will not be a possibility. That
> doesn't mean that only members should be able to edit though.
> kk
> 
> > Cheers, Brian.
> >  
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
> Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
> http://www.kgoetz.id.au
> No, I won't join your social networking group



-- 
Brian Salter-Duke bd...@wikimedia.org.au publicoffi...@wikimedia.org.au  
 Committee member and Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia Inc.
   Active on English Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, and others.
[[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account.

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Andrew]

Hi,

Before I reply, I'll note that I actually agree with Sarah here re Melbourne
- it's also evidenced by Victoria's membership following the national trend
rather than NSW/ACT's.

2009/12/13 Liam Wyatt 

> So, if there is a concern that the chapter is focusing too much on Sydney
> (and/or Melbourne), I wouldn't want this to be the perception, off the back
> of local Wikimedians being particularly interested in hosting meetups.


It's got nothing to do with meetups (more attitudes, actually) - in essence,
and I am paraphrasing a couple of concerns I have received, people feel
Sydney is given full support at national chapter level to conduct events,
national spaces are used to organise them etc, but the perception is that
the smaller cities are "on their own" and lack of expertise/knowhow is an
issue. In the words of one correspondent, but summarising several views I've
heard during 2009, "it's important for some in the organisation to realise
this is Wikimedia Australia, not Wikimedia Sydney like some seem to think it
is".

This is why my election statement sought a role for the committee in
enabling volunteers to do stuff wherever they were by developing a resource
pack or kit they could fall back on - most likely not use as is, but they're
starting from something rather than nothing. It's about enabling people to
achieve (rather than trying to run the projects from head office) and
knowing they have the support to do so, rather than dictating what they
should or should not do. It also ensures Wikimedia Australia gains some
brand integrity and we're not solely relying on the strengths and weaknesses
of individual volunteers with no direct experience of this kind of work or
of approaching institutions and the like.


> The solution is not to stop Sydney/Melbourne Wikimedians from having
> meetups but to encourage people in different cities to host their own.


This assumes that meetups will fix the perception problem. I don't think it
will - they're good for social purposes but not much else. Projects allowing
locals to contribute as they have time and ability to do so would be more
effective and importantly create a sense of achievement as results are
obtained and people can feel a sense of direct connection with the results.
I work in education and I know that allowing people to own their successes
increases their willingness to try more and stick around, and gives us
valuable selling points to encourage sceptical locals.


> The first priority of my election statement
> this
> year was to encourage the formation of a regular series of meetups in (at
> least) some major cities as a way of galvanising greater local-community
> activity - beyond the ad-hoc system that currently prevails. It would be
> fantastic if all Wikimedians in, say, Adelaide knew that the second Saturday
> of the month at the xyz pub was definitely going to be a meetup. It is the
> time and place consistency that makes the meetups in London (for example)
> such a success.
>

The fact is that regular meetups just aren't going to happen in some cities
due to the local culture, and people don't like a "top-down" direction for
these things. (The point on your election statement re that was brought to
my attention at the time by a non-WA member, so I suspect it's not simply an
issue in Perth as I'd previously thought.)

London and Sydney are big cities with a critical mass and a centre of
gravity, so things work there which are not going to work in Australia's
smaller cities. I've actually been a member of WA organisations which have
tried something like this and it's fallen on its belly before it even
started - nobody turns up at the agreed time, everyone assumes everyone else
did and they don't need to. There's no commitment to it - and you're talking
about a state full of people who've abandoned their commitments to a home
somewhere else to come here with their families to work here, which explains
in part why that is a feature of our culture and to some extent Queensland's
also. In order to make it work, everything has to be negotiated and tweaked
so that they can turn up, are committed (by name, individually) to turning
up etc and the process can take weeks or months (and sometimes fails to
happen at all).


> Would this be a good way to empower more local activities around the
> country?
>

In short, no.

cheers
Andrew
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Liam Wyatt]

In fact, I don't even think that Sydney should be lumped in with Sydney when
talking about chapter activity in the last year :-) IIRC the only "official
Chaper events" that happened in real life last year were GLAM-WIKI
(Canberra), a Backstage Pass (Sydney), Linux-Australia conference booth
(Hobart). Effectively Canberra was our hub of activity :-) All of the
activities that may make Sydney active and therefore appear to be getting
Chapter attention are actually normal meetups that happened quite
independently of the chapter - and thank you to the organisers of those
events!

So, if there is a concern that the chapter is focusing too much on Sydney
(and/or Melbourne), I wouldn't want this to be the perception, off the back
of local Wikimedians being particularly interested in hosting meetups. The
solution is not to stop Sydney/Melbourne Wikimedians from having meetups but
to encourage people in different cities to host their own. The first
priority of my election statement
this
year was to encourage the formation of a regular series of meetups in (at
least) some major cities as a way of galvanising greater local-community
activity - beyond the ad-hoc system that currently prevails. It would be
fantastic if all Wikimedians in, say, Adelaide knew that the second Saturday
of the month at the xyz pub was definitely going to be a meetup. It is the
time and place consistency that makes the meetups in London (for example)
such a success.

To do that however, requires a local organiser. It doesn't necessarily have
to be a chapter-led thing (although, as an elected chapter rep. that I would
be nice!), but it does need local administration. It might also require some
form of official organisation status (in order to book the function room of
the city library for example).

To that end - would people in some of the cities feeling left out of the
action feel empowered to run a more frequent series of meetups (or other
more involved activities) if there was a designated "Chapter-approved
organiser" in the city? Would it assist in the creation of a feeling of
activity and solidarity if there was someone in your city who's
chapter-agreed responsibility it was to make local events happen? In the
future they may even be able to have a local "events budget", who knows.
Moreover, would anyone in these cities like to take on this task? (I would
like to suggest that the "local rep" *not* be a member of the committee,
such as myself, in an effort to empower more people in the Australian wiki
community rather than centralising power).

Would this be a good way to empower more local activities around the
country?

Best,
-Liam [[witty lama]]

wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata


On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Sarah Ewart  wrote:

> Just to say that I also agree with membership concerns and it's something
> that's worried me for a long time, just from being aware of the membership
> from membership records and it's something that's going to need to be
> addressed for the viability of the chapter in the medium-long term. I don't
> think there's any quick and easy solutions to the problem though. However, I
> don't think it's correct to say the chapter activity has been concentrated
> in Melbourne. Melbourne always gets lumped in with Sydney when talking about
> the chapter, but really, its probably been as active here as in Queensland
> and pretty much anywhere else except Tassie (poor Chuq).
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Craig Franklin  wrote:
>
>>  Hear hear!
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d like to add some of my own to cents to this discussion.  The turnover
>> in Queensland isn’t quite as bad, but based on the secretary’s report and my
>> own observations of who’s been showing up to the AGMs, we had a forty
>> percent turnover of membership in the last year.  As Andrew says, that sort
>> of statistic is simply not sustainable in the long term, and it **must**
>> be addressed by the committee in 2010.  As Andrew says, a lot of this is due
>> to the fact that a lot of the chapter activity to date has been concentrated
>> in Sydney and Melbourne, while things have been fairly quiet everywhere
>> else.
>>
>>
>>
>> To a degree, in the case of Brisbane at least, this has partially been our
>> own fault; events and perks for members simply are not going to materialise
>> out of this air for us.  At the same time though, there has to be a
>> realistic commitment from those in the southern/eastern states to assist us
>> in the northern/western in growing our local communities and membership.  I
>> note with satisfaction that those I’ve spoken to in the committee seem to
>> “get it”, so hopefully there can be some real progress on this front.
>>
>>
>>
>> In closing, I think Andrew’s idea is an excellent one, and I’d encourage
>> everyone (particularly those of us in Queensland) to get aboard and start
>> brainstorming.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Craig F.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Member / non-member

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:18:22 +
Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Karl Goetz 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:33:51 +1100
> > Richard Ames  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I sent in a donation in lieu of joining and I don't really
> > > remember why... but it was something to do with too much trouble
> > > to meet the requirements to join...
> > >
> > > FWIW, Cheers, Richard.
> >
> > Hm...
> > I got as far as looking at memberdb's login window and thought 'ya
> > know, its just not worth of digging out my login.'. I can sit in a
> > quiet IRC channel for free :)
> > thanks,
> > kk
> >
> >
> If it's a memberDB problem, then hopefully that will be solved with
> the move to CiviCRM.

Hopefully so!
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Sarah Ewart]

Just to say that I also agree with membership concerns and it's something
that's worried me for a long time, just from being aware of the membership
from membership records and it's something that's going to need to be
addressed for the viability of the chapter in the medium-long term. I don't
think there's any quick and easy solutions to the problem though. However, I
don't think it's correct to say the chapter activity has been concentrated
in Melbourne. Melbourne always gets lumped in with Sydney when talking about
the chapter, but really, its probably been as active here as in Queensland
and pretty much anywhere else except Tassie (poor Chuq).


On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Craig Franklin  wrote:

>  Hear hear!
>
>
>
> I’d like to add some of my own to cents to this discussion.  The turnover
> in Queensland isn’t quite as bad, but based on the secretary’s report and my
> own observations of who’s been showing up to the AGMs, we had a forty
> percent turnover of membership in the last year.  As Andrew says, that sort
> of statistic is simply not sustainable in the long term, and it **must**
> be addressed by the committee in 2010.  As Andrew says, a lot of this is due
> to the fact that a lot of the chapter activity to date has been concentrated
> in Sydney and Melbourne, while things have been fairly quiet everywhere
> else.
>
>
>
> To a degree, in the case of Brisbane at least, this has partially been our
> own fault; events and perks for members simply are not going to materialise
> out of this air for us.  At the same time though, there has to be a
> realistic commitment from those in the southern/eastern states to assist us
> in the northern/western in growing our local communities and membership.  I
> note with satisfaction that those I’ve spoken to in the committee seem to
> “get it”, so hopefully there can be some real progress on this front.
>
>
>
> In closing, I think Andrew’s idea is an excellent one, and I’d encourage
> everyone (particularly those of us in Queensland) to get aboard and start
> brainstorming.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> *Sent:* Sunday, 13 December 2009 7:41 PM
> *To:* Wikimedia-au
> *Subject:* [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other
> things
>
>
>
> Fellow members and supporters,
>
> A key priority for 2009-10 has to be building the chapter and make it
> successful.
>
> Before being elected to my present role, I heard lots of people saying they
> felt this chapter was overly Sydney- and Melbourne-focussed not just in
> activity but in priorities. There was also a fair few people saying (both
> among those who stayed/newly joined, and some who lapsed) that the chapter
> was overly focused on central or headline priorities and, in their view,
> gave insufficient support to members.
>
> Using the figures from the secretary's report at the AGM, in regional terms
> our numbers were stable, here in WA we went from 5 to 3 members (I am in
> fact the only original WA member left) and, even more concerningly,
> nationally we lost 2/3 of our initial intake although we actually gained a
> fair number of people. We need to do *far* more to retain members, and to
> give those outside the two biggest cities reasons to join and ways to
> participate - otherwise this chapter will fail. I ran on a platform to that
> effect and got support for it, so I'm hoping that means the members trust me
> to find ways to act on those concerns.
>
> I am happy for people to approach me privately with project ideas they want
> feedback on or support for. I think peer support is vital to keeping
> people's enthusiasm up, and I understand not everyone wants to go public
> with projects before they're ready. I would note in saying so that I can't
> give "official chapter approval" to anything although I can certainly seek
> it on your behalf from the committee if you wish me to.
>
> On the wiki I've been working on an early draft for a regional
> participation drive, and I'd also appreciate comments on that. I'll be
> adding more to it after the first committee meeting on the 20th as I'll know
> then what I have support for.
>
> kindest regards
> Andrew Owens
> (WM-AU committee general member)
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Karl Goetz]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:16:10 +1100
Sarah Ewart  wrote:

> >
> > > Fellow members and supporters,
> > >
> > > A key priority for 2009-10 has to be building the chapter and
> > > make it successful.
> >
> > > Using the figures from the secretary's report at the AGM, in
> > > regional terms our numbers were stable, here in WA we went from 5
> > > to 3 members (I am in fact the only original WA member left) and,
> > > even more concerningly, nationally we lost 2/3 of our initial
> > > intake although we actually gained a fair number of people. We
> > > need to do *far* more
> >
> > Are you able to give us these sort of stats for each state?
> > thanks,
> > kk
> >
> >
> Karl, they're in my secretary report -
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/2009-2010_AGM/Secretary_report

Thanks,
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Member / non-member

[Liam Wyatt]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Karl Goetz  wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:33:51 +1100
> Richard Ames  wrote:
>
> >
> > I sent in a donation in lieu of joining and I don't really remember
> > why... but it was something to do with too much trouble to meet the
> > requirements to join...
> >
> > FWIW, Cheers, Richard.
>
> Hm...
> I got as far as looking at memberdb's login window and thought 'ya
> know, its just not worth of digging out my login.'. I can sit in a quiet
> IRC channel for free :)
> thanks,
> kk
>
>
If it's a memberDB problem, then hopefully that will be solved with the move
to CiviCRM.
The difficulty of becoming a member (both from the applicant's and
secretary's POV) in MemberDB is well established, as well as the
difficulties of knowing your financial status. The shift to the CiviCRM
software, which is effectively the standard system across the Chapters and
the WMF for tracking donations/members, will no doubt solve a lot of
problems. It will also clear the major hurdle in the way that kept us from
joining the annual fundraising drive.

-Liam
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata





> --
> Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
> Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
> http://www.kgoetz.id.au
> No, I won't join your social networking group
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Sarah Ewart]

>
> > Fellow members and supporters,
> >
> > A key priority for 2009-10 has to be building the chapter and make it
> > successful.
>
> > Using the figures from the secretary's report at the AGM, in regional
> > terms our numbers were stable, here in WA we went from 5 to 3 members
> > (I am in fact the only original WA member left) and, even more
> > concerningly, nationally we lost 2/3 of our initial intake although
> > we actually gained a fair number of people. We need to do *far* more
>
> Are you able to give us these sort of stats for each state?
> thanks,
> kk
>
>
Karl, they're in my secretary report -
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/2009-2010_AGM/Secretary_report
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Official Wiki

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:45:40 +1100
Virtual Steve  wrote:

> 
> As the new treasurer of the Wiki-Aus I have been reading this
> discussion with some interest and I now make the following comment.

Congrats on your election then!

> I am in support of Sarah's continual point that only financial
> members should be able to edit the official wiki for many reasons,
> however the below snippet from Andrew's comment is particularly
> useful and valid. Quite frankly folks the committee members of this
> chapter already have absolutely far too many things to read - to the
> extent that there is a very great chance that we will come awash with
> the excess of that information (and indeed there are clear instances
> where we have already).  

I've moved the comment for context.

> > *Andrew comment sent Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
> > Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even
> > speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances
> > is an imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do
> > we stand to benefit from it, as against the costs?

So _don't_ make this the committees job!

> Adding to that situation with open editing of the official wiki is
> neither practical nor reflective of real world boards, and quite
> frankly we are a real world board with real world responsibilities as
> a part of corporate governance requirements. In a nutshell we are

Which is nice, but not relevant to the website structure.

> responsible in the main to the financial members of this chapter and
> it is only their material that should take any more of our time or
> effort at the the official chapter pages.

How much extra effort will be required to police the site if it uses
confirmed logins instead of ip based editing?

> There are plenty of ways to draw our attention to issues of concern
> at other open wikis and so I for one do not support open editing in
> any form.

Getting your attention may not be the only reason to edit the site ...
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] open wikis for chapters....?

[Karl Goetz]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:29:13 +0800
Andrew  wrote:

> I think the post at
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2009-December/002764.html
encapsulates
> quite well the sort of challenges that chapter websites face
> which, for example, Wikipedia does not. The fact of legal
> registration makes anarchy (even structured anarchy) an undesirable

How much worse will the anarchy be with non-members rather then
members? What form will this 'bad' anarchy take?

> option and would mean we are not acting in the best interests of our
> members who have bothered to commit to and support the chapter's aims
> financially and expect the chapter to act responsibly.

Pardon? Don't assume the only people giving their time or money[1] to
WMAU are members - its wrong, and likely to become increasingly wrong if
this organisation goes anyware.

> I would also note based on the discussions and on earlier committee
> deliberations that there's no serious likelihood of the Australian
> chapter changing its current policy on this at this time. It's worth
> highlighting that one does not need to be a member to contribute to
> wikimediaau-l, collaborate in person or virtually on projects or
> attend city-based meetups (other than the AGM).
> 
> cheers
> Andrew
> 

[1] Recent thread, Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Member / non-member


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Karl Goetz]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:57:02 +1100
Brian Salter-Duke  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:09:58AM +1100, Peter Halasz wrote:
> > So lock those specific pages. Have you ever used Wikipedia? Do you
> > think it would exist if they were worried only about representation?
> 
> I will try to respond to this debate, wearing my hat as Public Officer
> of WMAU later, but for now let me just say that our official wiki is
> not like wikipedia. It is much more like:

I assume this means this is your personal view?

>  http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page
> 
> As an incorporated association we have legal obligations to the
> community via CAV, not only to the membership. This means the issue of

For those of us not in the know, what is CAV, and can you provide a
reference to it for us to look at?

> access is not simple and it requires thought.  There is also a real

Not simple on the backend? I assume whatever sits behind the login
process is able to automatically remove people who didn't pay (ldap?
sql?). If thats the case its also easy to work out who should be in
certain edit groups: they have valid memberships or not.

> tension here, not only about access. For example, there is also a
> tension between the project's love of anonymity for users, with the
> legal requirements imposed by imcorporating.

Aye. Its entirely possible annon edits will not be a possibility. That
doesn't mean that only members should be able to edit though.
kk

> Cheers, Brian.
>  


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Karl Goetz]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:15:56 +1100
Peter Halasz  wrote:

> Sarah,
> 
> The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
> non-members is because of fear of vandalism.
> 
> Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism.
> 
> Solutions?
> 
> 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down.
> 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week

2b. Enable rss on recent changes, and people can look whenever they
want and load up a browser if fixes need to be made.

(trim other options)

> Peter Halasz.
> User:Pengo
> (Lapsed member)

kk (also Lapsed).

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:44:09 +1000
"Craig Franklin"  wrote:


> Perhaps a compromise between the "no access for non-members" and "open
> access" viewpoints is in order.  We could open access to everyone,
> provided they had an account.  Accounts would still need to be
> approved by someone to weed out spam bots and the like (having
> managed a public-facing Wiki, I know that this is often a serious

There are public block lists for mediawiki sites available to help with
such things are there not?

> problem), and perhaps the accounts of non-members could be
> sequestered into the user space or something.  If you look at
> Wikimedia UK's "Recent Changes" page, there is a lot of rubbish there
> that their admins are having to spend their time cleaning up -
> frankly I think our people have better things to do than play janitor
> on the chapter wiki.

Surely its possible to let anyone do the cleaning up? I've seen it said
several times that it would be the committees job. Sounds like
something 4-5 people should be selected to do as part of the
(potential) opening up process.

> I don't know, apart from the whole "open philosophy", I don't see any
> real reasons why anyone who is not a member would want to post on our
> Wiki, and the fact that the Billabong is quiet. I don't really see
> that as a problem since most of the communication and discussion
> occurs on this list, which is essentially open to the public anyway.

Someone else replied to this, so I'll go with 'what they said'.

> Cheers,
> 
> Craig

I've replied to the following email inline as well.

> From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sent: Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
> To: Wikimedia-au
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
> 
>  
> 
> At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well
> understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this
> is the official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up

Hopefully we can all agree on this and take it into account.

> in such a way that those that are willing to support the aims of the
> organisation can edit freely. I don't know of any other similar
> organisations which offer open editing or participation - one I know

'similar organisations' Meaning NGOs? NFPs? *wiki groups? ...?

> that runs meetings for its members (and this is just networking!)
> charges $10 for non-members to attend a meeting; another runs closed
> email lists that non-members can't even see.

That sounds distinctly un-community-like to me. For an industry group
(Something like http://sage-au.org.au/display/SAGEAU/Home ) I can
undestand that. For a group ostensibly trying to promote wiki it seems
distinctly counter to the groups aim.

> As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest
> prospective problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the
> risk that we will be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of
> those we seek to build partnerships with. In the relatively insular

Did you mean "... those we seek to build partnerships with, *if they
see vandalism*, or "... those we seek to build partnerships with, if
they see our website is editable".

> world of free culture, edginess seems like a good thing, but in the

edginess? Not sure I follow.

> real world, quite apart from our legal and other obligations with
> CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large organisations,
> governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their attention
> with more professional outfits which can offer them something. We're
> asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of
> credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our

It doesn't mean you have to (try and) be a business.
What "Random chaos" are you envisaging, if vandalism isn't considered a
major problem (hopefully not misquoting you there).

> official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem
> in that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not
> even speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such

They shouldn't. Thats what other members should be doing.

> circumstances is an imposition on them and a completely unnecessary

Agreed.

> one - what do we stand to benefit from it, as against the costs?

Thats what we are trying to work out :)
kk

> cheers
> Andrew


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Member / non-member

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:33:51 +1100
Richard Ames  wrote:

> 
> I sent in a donation in lieu of joining and I don't really remember
> why... but it was something to do with too much trouble to meet the
> requirements to join...
> 
> FWIW, Cheers, Richard.

Hm...
I got as far as looking at memberdb's login window and thought 'ya
know, its just not worth of digging out my login.'. I can sit in a quiet
IRC channel for free :)
thanks,
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:41:25 +0800
Andrew  wrote:

> Fellow members and supporters,
> 
> A key priority for 2009-10 has to be building the chapter and make it
> successful.

> Using the figures from the secretary's report at the AGM, in regional
> terms our numbers were stable, here in WA we went from 5 to 3 members
> (I am in fact the only original WA member left) and, even more
> concerningly, nationally we lost 2/3 of our initial intake although
> we actually gained a fair number of people. We need to do *far* more

Are you able to give us these sort of stats for each state?
thanks,
kk

> kindest regards
> Andrew Owens
> (WM-AU committee general member)


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Craig Franklin]

Hear hear!

 

I'd like to add some of my own to cents to this discussion.  The turnover in
Queensland isn't quite as bad, but based on the secretary's report and my
own observations of who's been showing up to the AGMs, we had a forty
percent turnover of membership in the last year.  As Andrew says, that sort
of statistic is simply not sustainable in the long term, and it *must* be
addressed by the committee in 2010.  As Andrew says, a lot of this is due to
the fact that a lot of the chapter activity to date has been concentrated in
Sydney and Melbourne, while things have been fairly quiet everywhere else.  

 

To a degree, in the case of Brisbane at least, this has partially been our
own fault; events and perks for members simply are not going to materialise
out of this air for us.  At the same time though, there has to be a
realistic commitment from those in the southern/eastern states to assist us
in the northern/western in growing our local communities and membership.  I
note with satisfaction that those I've spoken to in the committee seem to
"get it", so hopefully there can be some real progress on this front.

 

In closing, I think Andrew's idea is an excellent one, and I'd encourage
everyone (particularly those of us in Queensland) to get aboard and start
brainstorming.

 

Cheers,

Craig F.

 

 

 

 

From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Sent: Sunday, 13 December 2009 7:41 PM
To: Wikimedia-au
Subject: [Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

 

Fellow members and supporters,

A key priority for 2009-10 has to be building the chapter and make it
successful. 

Before being elected to my present role, I heard lots of people saying they
felt this chapter was overly Sydney- and Melbourne-focussed not just in
activity but in priorities. There was also a fair few people saying (both
among those who stayed/newly joined, and some who lapsed) that the chapter
was overly focused on central or headline priorities and, in their view,
gave insufficient support to members.

Using the figures from the secretary's report at the AGM, in regional terms
our numbers were stable, here in WA we went from 5 to 3 members (I am in
fact the only original WA member left) and, even more concerningly,
nationally we lost 2/3 of our initial intake although we actually gained a
fair number of people. We need to do *far* more to retain members, and to
give those outside the two biggest cities reasons to join and ways to
participate - otherwise this chapter will fail. I ran on a platform to that
effect and got support for it, so I'm hoping that means the members trust me
to find ways to act on those concerns.

I am happy for people to approach me privately with project ideas they want
feedback on or support for. I think peer support is vital to keeping
people's enthusiasm up, and I understand not everyone wants to go public
with projects before they're ready. I would note in saying so that I can't
give "official chapter approval" to anything although I can certainly seek
it on your behalf from the committee if you wish me to.

On the wiki I've been working on an early draft for a regional participation
drive, and I'd also appreciate comments on that. I'll be adding more to it
after the first committee meeting on the 20th as I'll know then what I have
support for.

kindest regards
Andrew Owens
(WM-AU committee general member)

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Member / non-member

[Sarah Ewart]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for supporting the chapter. If you can remember the exact reasons you
decided not to join, we can talk about it. Unfortunately the membership
requirements are set down in both the Association Rules and the Victorian
legislation and there's not much flexibility. I'm personally not really
comfortable with asking people for their real names and addresses and it was
something that the membership discussed at length when forming the chapter
but it's just not something we can get around.

Cheers,
Sarah

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Richard Ames  wrote:

>
> I sent in a donation in lieu of joining and I don't really remember
> why... but it was something to do with too much trouble to meet the
> requirements to join...
>
> FWIW, Cheers, Richard.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

[Wikimediaau-l] Official Wiki

[Virtual Steve]

As the new treasurer of the Wiki-Aus I have been reading this discussion with 
some interest and I now make the following comment.

I am in support of Sarah's continual point that only financial members should 
be able to edit the official wiki for many reasons,
however the below snippet from Andrew's comment is particularly useful and 
valid.
 
Quite frankly folks the committee members of this chapter already have 
absolutely far too many things to read - 
to the extent that there is a very great chance that we will come awash with 
the excess of that information 
(and indeed there are clear instances where we have already).  

Adding to that situation with open editing of the official wiki is neither 
practical nor reflective of real world boards,
and quite frankly we are a real world board with real world responsibilities as 
a part of corporate governance requirements.
In a nutshell we are responsible in the main to the financial members of this 
chapter and 
it is only their material that should take any more of our time or effort at 
the the official chapter pages.

There are plenty of ways to draw our attention to issues of concern at other 
open wikis and 
so I for one do not support open editing in any form.

> *Andrew comment sent Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
> Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even
> speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an
> imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to
> benefit from it, as against the costs?
  
_
Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox Find out how
http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/hotmail/article/823454/web-im-for-hotmail-is-here___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

[Wikimediaau-l] Membership, regional participation and other things

[Andrew]

Fellow members and supporters,

A key priority for 2009-10 has to be building the chapter and make it
successful.

Before being elected to my present role, I heard lots of people saying they
felt this chapter was overly Sydney- and Melbourne-focussed not just in
activity but in priorities. There was also a fair few people saying (both
among those who stayed/newly joined, and some who lapsed) that the chapter
was overly focused on central or headline priorities and, in their view,
gave insufficient support to members.

Using the figures from the secretary's report at the AGM, in regional terms
our numbers were stable, here in WA we went from 5 to 3 members (I am in
fact the only original WA member left) and, even more concerningly,
nationally we lost 2/3 of our initial intake although we actually gained a
fair number of people. We need to do *far* more to retain members, and to
give those outside the two biggest cities reasons to join and ways to
participate - otherwise this chapter will fail. I ran on a platform to that
effect and got support for it, so I'm hoping that means the members trust me
to find ways to act on those concerns.

I am happy for people to approach me privately with project ideas they want
feedback on or support for. I think peer support is vital to keeping
people's enthusiasm up, and I understand not everyone wants to go public
with projects before they're ready. I would note in saying so that I can't
give "official chapter approval" to anything although I can certainly seek
it on your behalf from the committee if you wish me to.

On the wiki I've been working on an early draft for a regional participation
drive, and I'd also appreciate comments on that. I'll be adding more to it
after the first committee meeting on the 20th as I'll know then what I have
support for.

kindest regards
Andrew Owens
(WM-AU committee general member)
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

[Wikimediaau-l] Member / non-member

[Richard Ames]

I sent in a donation in lieu of joining and I don't really remember
why... but it was something to do with too much trouble to meet the
requirements to join...

FWIW, Cheers, Richard.


___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki

[Andrew]

PM, things are decided on Wikimedia Australia by committee, not consensus -
this isn't Wikipedia. And I've had a few financial members write to me or
chat with me since this debate of sorts opened with concerns similar to
Craig's re observations on WM-UK - basically saying the committee members
would end up wasting their time dealing with silliness on the Wiki rather
than stuff we need to do to grow the chapter. As one said, and I think they
won't mind me quoting, "this is navel-gazing".

I have some other semi-related comments but I'll make a new thread for those
as I doubt too many are reading this one at this point.

cheers
Andrew

2009/12/13 private musings 

> Having open editing for accounts only sounds great to me :-)
> If this idea could gain consensus, and get done by christmas I think that
> would be wonderful :-)
> cheers,
> Peter,
> PM.
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Craig Franklin  wrote:
>
>>  I think that presenting editing access to the chapter wiki as a
>> “benefit” of membership is a bit silly really.  When I spruik membership to
>> potential members, “the ability to edit our wiki!” doesn’t even register on
>> the things I tell them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps a compromise between the “no access for non-members” and “open
>> access” viewpoints is in order.  We could open access to everyone, provided
>> they had an account.  Accounts would still need to be approved by someone to
>> weed out spam bots and the like (having managed a public-facing Wiki, I know
>> that this is often a serious problem), and perhaps the accounts of
>> non-members could be sequestered into the user space or something.  If you
>> look at Wikimedia UK’s “Recent Changes” page, there is a lot of rubbish
>> there that their admins are having to spend their time cleaning up – frankly
>> I think our people have better things to do than play janitor on the chapter
>> wiki.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t know, apart from the whole “open philosophy”, I don’t see any real
>> reasons why anyone who is not a member would want to post on our Wiki, and
>> the fact that the Billabong is quiet… I don’t really see that as a problem
>> since most of the communication and discussion occurs on this list, which is
>> essentially open to the public anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
>> wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew
>> *Sent:* Saturday, 12 December 2009 9:38 AM
>> *To:* Wikimedia-au
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaau-l] official wiki
>>
>>
>>
>> At the end of the day, and I think this is a point that isn't well
>> understood because we have a foot on both sides of the border, this is the
>> official wiki for a non profit organisation. The wiki's set up in such a way
>> that those that are willing to support the aims of the organisation can edit
>> freely. I don't know of any other similar organisations which offer open
>> editing or participation - one I know that runs meetings for its members
>> (and this is just networking!) charges $10 for non-members to attend a
>> meeting; another runs closed email lists that non-members can't even see.
>>
>> As for the argument re vandalism - that isn't even our biggest prospective
>> problem. The biggest is actually misrepresentation - the risk that we will
>> be discredited as an organisation in the eyes of those we seek to build
>> partnerships with. In the relatively insular world of free culture, edginess
>> seems like a good thing, but in the real world, quite apart from our legal
>> and other obligations with CAV, we have to deal with businesses, large
>> organisations, governments, NGOs and the like. We're competing for their
>> attention with more professional outfits which can offer them something.
>> We're asking them to give us something - which requires a standard of
>> credibility and professionalism. If random chaos is unfolding on our
>> official website (and that is what it is), we have a bit of a problem in
>> that area. Expecting already busy committee members (and I'm not even
>> speaking for myself here) to monitor the wiki in such circumstances is an
>> imposition on them and a completely unnecessary one - what do we stand to
>> benefit from it, as against the costs?
>>
>> cheers
>> Andrew
>>
>> 2009/12/12 Peter Halasz 
>>
>> Sarah,
>>
>> The only actual reason you've given for not opening up the wiki to
>> non-members is because of fear of vandalism.
>>
>> Ok, so we have a problem: Potential vandalism.
>>
>> Solutions?
>>
>> 1. Actually observe actual vandalism before locking anything down.
>> 2. Assign a couple of people to patrolling recent changes once a week
>> 3. Locking individual pages when we require their integrity to be
>> preserved.
>> 4. Requiring wiki users to sign in
>> 5. Requiring new wiki users to wait 3 days before editing
>> 6. Banning everyone but paid members, who, after paying their
>> membership, can apply for an account, which, when it expires, is no
>