Maybe I'm becoming a lila-fanboy #wikimania

Positively surprised by Lilas opening speech at Wikimania.

* It had substance

* It had content

* Hardly any bullshit

* For most of the things she said I could say yes.

* For some of it I could even say YES

* Having hope. Actually quite a lot.

Community II? #wikimania

Just had a look at the Wikimania programme. And I am really not sure if my understanding of Community is the same as the understanding of the Wikimania organizers. Here's the first day of the track "Community":

I am not sure. But a "community definition" that includes financial reporting and the Wikimedia Foundation as organization seems to be a really really loose understanding to me.

How to vote for the Wikimedia Foundation board - be negative!

The Wikimedia Foundation is - said roughly - the organisation running the infrastructure behind Wikipedia. The Foundation is governed by a Board of Trustees comprised of volunteers. Out of the 10 board members 3 are elected by the community of the Wikimedia projects. This election is now.

There is an election page and several posts about who to vote. I will focus on "How to vote" or: how to maximize impact with your votes..

In general the system used is a form of approval voting. As such it is similar used to the voting system used by Wikimedia Deutschland for its board and as already written in this blog (and agreed upon by Wikipedia): there are two ways to maximize impact in such as system:

When you really want somebody to be on the board only vote for this person (or these people) = Bullet voting

When you really want somebody not to be on the board vote for everybody but this person. = Compromise voting.

But the WMF system does not offer two choices (yes or nay) but three (yes, neutral, nay) and even more interesting. The different votes are weighted differently. In the most likely outcomes the nay votes will have way more impact than the yes votes. Neutral votes are not counted in any way:

How are the winners determined, and what is the process once voting is completed?

Voters submit votes using a Support/Neutral/Oppose system. The votes will be tallied and the candidates will be ranked by percentage of support, defined as the number of votes cast in support of the candidate divided by the total number of votes cast for the candidate ("neutral" preferences are not counted, so this is the sum of support and oppose votes) - Support/Support+Oppose. The candidates with the highest percentage of support will be recommended to the Board of Trustees for appointment, which occurs once additional verification of requirements is completed.

Why nay votes count

To give you some examples with small numbers:

Person A who receives 9 support votes and one oppose vote has an approval rate of 90%.

Person B who receives 17 support votes and two oppose votes has an approval rate of 89%.

In this case person A would be the winner although in total numbers he has only half the support of person B. In this scenario the candidate needs 9 support votes to make up for one oppose vote.

This of course works for bigger numbers as well:

A  90- 10 gives an approval rate of 90%
B 900-101 gives an approval rate of 89,91%
A wins

A. 900 - 100 gives an approval rate of 90%
B: 908 - 101 gives an approval rate of 89,99%
A wins

The higher the approval rate for the top candidates is in general, the higher is the impact of a negative vote.

With an approval rate of 90% for the top canditaes voting nay has 9 times more impact than voting yes. Around 80% approval rate the impact of a nay is 4 times as big, around 70% approval rate the factor is below 3 and around 50% the factor is just one. Below 50%, the support votes become more influential than nays.

Given normal circumstances in such an election the approval rates for the top three candidates should be over 70 or 80%; so a negative given has three to four times than impact than a positive vote given.

For you as tatical voter this means: don't waste nay-votes. Don't vote neutral. 

What does that mean?

First, let's hope not everybody votes strategically - the likely outcome would be that all of the candidates will receive an approval rate of less than 50% which would really deligitimize the whole system. But probably this won't happen.

What will likely happen is another scenario: not the people who have the most support in the movement will win, but those who have the least opposition. This of course favours a different kind of candidates: people more keen on compromise, without strong opinions and more middle-of-the-road-types.

On the good side: the probably will make the board in general more efficient. Middle-of-the-road candidates need less time and attention of the other board members. For an international board comprised of 10 volunteers this is important. Coordinating 10 people in this setting is even strenous enough when all of the are great teamplayers.

On the good side: if gives a fighting chance to people from smaller projects. They may not be as well known internationally as those from the english Wikipedia but in this system it's not really the total number of people supporting one candidate that counts. Coming from a smaller project and having a big majority there supporting you could be more helpful.

But, seen from a community standpoint, it favours candidates who are less likely to stand for their points, who are less assertive and are less ready that may hurt or are not popular. Or, said differently: it favours candidates who just may get lost inside the board and never be seen again after their election.   

 

Why oh why board? #wikimediafoundation #wmf

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation "oversees the foundation and its work, as its ultimate corporate authority." It is made up of volunteers who oversee the work of the Wikimedia Foundation, guide its strategy and are, in a very abstract way, the embodified ultima ratio of decision making inside the Wikimedia Foundation.

The make-up of the board and its composition are grown historically and organically. That means, they are not really suitable for standards of applied logic. They somehow they came into being. Right now the board consists of "1 founder (Jimmy Wales for eternity..), 4 appointed by other board members, 3 elected by the communities in a complicated process and 2 selected by affiliate organisations (mainly chapters) in a process one really doesn't want to know.

So it is a good idea to think about the composition of the board and if there are ways for improvement. The way I would think about it: is: "What is this board supposed to do? What is the doing? Is there room for improvement? Is there any way the composition of the board can be changed to cover this room?"

The Board thinks about its composition

The reason, why I'm writing all of this: the board really is thinking about its composition:

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Thinking about the WMF Board composition

As to the:

WHY?

..this text by the board remains utterly silent. The only reason given is "we started to think about ways to improve". So of course it is very difficult to comment on some propositions if one has no idea what these propositions are supposed to achieve. So I really don't know why. But at least the board tells me what it would like to achive. The board writes about its objectives:

    (1) A continuous process of looking for potential trustees
    (2) Diversity (gender, geography, expertise, background, different Wikimedia experiences)
    (3) Finding talent inside and outside our communities
    (4) Providing governance experience and training to potential candidates in our movement
    (5) Providing lower overhead ways to contribute to WMF governance and advise strategic decisions
    (6) Limiting bureaucracy and/or staff involvement
    (7) Flexible Board composition: e.g., allowing for an extra 1-2 Trustees in some years

I would say: two of these (1 and 6) are about process in a narrow sense. For somebody not involved in board-action this is almost impossible to answer. Two of these objectives (4 and 5) are about process in a less narrow sense, two objectives (2, 3) are about the composition of the board and one (7) I really don't understand at all. 

So I will focus on composition and on process.

Composition:

 As said, the board consists of 10 members. Focusing on diversity, these are:

* 1 is the founder (a North American male from inside the community)

* 3 are selected by the communities (due to the election process heavily favoring people from North America from inside the community)

* 2 are selected by the chapters and amical (due to the composition of the movement favoring candidates from Europe and South America from inside the community)

* 4 are appointed (the board is basically free to do what it likes, As far as I can see in the last years it selected one male from the USA (Matt Halin), and three females, one from India (Bishakha Datta), one from South America (Ana Toni) and one from Europe (Alice Wiegand) .

So of the 10 seats, six have a heavy regional bias by system and four are in principle available for candidates all over the world. So of course one could increase the number of appointed members to get more regional diversity. Unluckily these four (plus Jimbo) have a heavy bias against democratisation and participation. Increasing the number of appointed seats would at the same time decrease the democratic legitimsation this board has.

The other way is to change the composition of the board is to change the ways single seats are given: Since the board is already free to appoint whoever it wants (and I basically I have no idea at all how it decides) I have no idea as well, how this could be changed. Abolishing Jimbo would lead to more diversity but could bring some other problems. Changing the ways the community and affiliate seats are given could be a good idea, but also could create a lot of problems on a democratic/representative level. There we really would have to talk about details about how this is playing out. 

On another level: yeah, I like diversity and on a general level I'm deeply convinced that more diverse organizations work better than less diverse ones. But there are other factors as well that make an organizsation work better and that are not part of the boards reasoning From this board statement I cannot see why diversity in this case is such a special need and overall priority, I as well cannot see what kinds of diversity are primary goals (which should have a huge effect on the kind of process finally chosen). 

So I'm not really sure how this is supposed to playout and how the board will overcome the gap between its goal of a globally universal compositon of a board and an electorate that heavily weighs towards North America, Europe and South America. 

 

Volunteer structures inside WMF and responsibilities

About process: the two objectives: "Providing governance experience and training to potential candidates in our movement. Providing lower overhead ways to contribute to WMF governance and advise strategic decisions." This is a great idea. Right now the only way for volunteers to have a responsible position at the WMF is a board members. There is no tenure track, no way to hold responsibilty at a lower level and the only organised entities of volunteers on foundation level are in grantmaking. In these committees there is already a pool of potential candidates, but I'm not sure if the board is really aware of this. And of course there needs to be more - more volunteers involved, in a more defined process with more responsibilities. This is a way to develop a large pool of potential candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds, give them experience with foundation work and let the people at the community and the chapters already come into contact with them and know them.

Of course this is more demanding than a simple change of procedure in selecting board members. But at least it is sustainable and actually solves problems long-term :-)

So what to do

So, let's just assume the board has answerde the "Why?" already and the proposed "what" is the ultimate answer to the why. What I would do:

(1) Abolish Jimbo

(2) Maybe change the appointment process (although I don't know enough about it to really say so)

(3) Maybe change the election processes (but this is a matter of details and finetuning and could easily backfire)

(4) Create a lot more ways and positions for volunteers to have responsibility inside the movement / create a tenure track.

You want to put some flowers in your hair? Wikimedia sucht de-Communityvertreter full time

Community Advocate (Languages) Wikimedia Foundation
San Francisco, CA, United States
Full-Time

 Community Advocates serve to facilitate work between the Wikimedia Foundation and global volunteer contributors by improving communication and understanding of individual language communities and their contributors. The advocates speak and write fluently in at least two targeted languages, including French, German, Japanese, Polish, Spanish, Italian, and Russian.  

...

The Community Advocate will assist in building relationships with Wikimedians, i.e. key community members, in their languages, especially non-English speaking members.  

...

Candidates must be based in or willing to relocate to San Francisco.

...

Experience managing and resolving difficult situations between diverse groups a strong positive.  

 

Die tun ja was.. #WMF

I am happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation has just launched Page Curation, a new suite of tools for reviewing articles on Wikipedia.

Current page patrol tools like Special:NewPages and Twinkle can be hard to use quickly and accurately, and have led to frustration for some users. Page Curation aims to improve that page patrol experience by making it faster and easier to review new pages, using two integrated tools: the New Pages Feed and the Curation Toolbar.

Fabrice Florin:  Page Curation launch on English Wikipedia

Bildfilter

Netterweise ging dieser Post über die Mailingliste etwa drei Stunden nachdem ich meinen Vulva-Bildfilter-Fork-Talk auf Wikimania hatte. Ist natürlich reiner Zufall, freute mich aber trotzdem. Der Bildfilter ist jetzt auf offiziell tot. Und das trotz des Widerstands von Jimbo "Meinungsfreiheit" Wales.

Dear all,

 

I am happy to announce that the Board of Trustees has now *unanimously* approved this resolution [1] rescinding our previous direction to the Executive Director to develop a personal image hiding feature.

At our in-person board meeting of 11 July 2012, the vote on this was provisionally recorded at 9-1, with Jimmy voting against. Jimmy has since changed his vote to a yes, on reviewing an FAQ accompanying this resolution which notes that the board is willing to approve a plan broadly backed by the community.

Thus the vote on this has now been changed to 10-0.

The FAQ accompanying the board resolution on this has been published at: Talk:Resolution:Personal_image_hiding_feature

The resolution remains at: [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:_Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature

Best

Bishakha

#WMF will spammen

You are invited to a Wikimedia Foundation IRC Offfice Hours on Wednesday July 18, 2012 at 16:30 UTC

The Wikimedia Foundation features, product, design and legal teams want to discuss with the community how they see they use of e-mail in the future, as development of new features will increasingly make more use of e-mail as a way to contact and engage new, current and previously active users.

Netter gesagt: bei all den sozialen Diensten und Netzwerken und allem, bei denen ich bin, scheint mir e-mail als zentraler Anlaufpunkt immer wichtiger zu werden. Ich finde es spannend, dass die Wikimedia Foundation darauf reagiert. Der Chat könnte vielleicht spannend werden.

Reden mit dem WMF-Board

Board-Podiumsdiskussion deutschsprachige Mitglieder Board of Trustees der Wikimedia Foundation

1010 Pavel hat gerade Tagesprogramm vorgestellt


1010 Vorstellung des Podiums, lyzzy (kandidat), lodewijk (kandidat), ting (vorsitzender des boards), akl (chapter selected seat inhaber, kandidiert nicht wieder)

1012 Rundenprogrammvorschlag Pavel: (1) Selbstvorstellung der Teilnehmer, (2) Was ist das Board, (3) Grundsätzlich Rolle des Boards im Verhältnis zur Community zu den Chaptern

1013 Kamera zeichnet auf, aber überträgt nicht live

1013 p: „Alice, wer bist Du?“ lyzzy: ex-mitglied des wmde-vorstands, auch mitglied von wikimedia NL. Alles spannend, wo so etwas passiert. Wohne in der nähe der grenze und verstehe sprache

1015 ly: habe WMDE vor allem darin begleitet die heutige struktur vorzubereiten, habe viel daran gearbeitet, die internen arbeitsabbläufe aufzuarbeiten, wege zu finden, dass jeder über alles bescheid weiss. Für mich organisationsgedanke – wie funktionieren und agieren die einzelnen personen und gruppen miteinander. Sowohl bei wmde wie auch sonst,.

1016 ti: bin in shanghei geboren und lebe seit 24 jahren in D. in braunschweig studiert, arbeite und wohne in mainz. Bin seit 2008 in das board of trustees gewählt, seit 2 jahren vorsitzender. Werde den vorsitz im sommer abgeben, werde am ende der amtszeit auch nicht mehr kandidieren.

1017 ti: die letzten fünf jahre waren sehr spannend, in denen sich in er foundation und im board viel geändert hat

1017 akl zählt 40 lenze. Seit 2003 bei wp, hat sich schnell von der autorenebene weggebewegt, hat mit aufkommendem medieninteresse neues betätigungsfeld gefunden. Dann wikimedia deutschland gegründet. Durfte die ersten 4 jahre mitgestalten als zweiter vorsitzender und dann erster mitarbeiter

1018 akl seit frühjahr 2009 in der ersten runde der chapter selected board-seats. Kandidiere in der aktuellen runde nicht mehr für das amt. War eine sehr intensive zeit. Lebt in ffm. Arbeitet als berater für digitale kommunikation.

1019 lodewijk: war 5 jahre vorstandsmitglied wikimedia NL, auch gründungsmitglied von WM NL. War international aktiv in der zusammenarbeit mit den chapters (chapters committee), internationale zusammenarbeit bei wiki loves monument.

1020 p: frage ting und arne: wie sieht sich das board selbst und wie hat sich das in den letzten jahren geändert?

Finale Fundraisingempfehlungen von Sue

Wir erinnern uns: Sue Gardner macht einen Vorschlag, dass sämtliche Gelder sämtlicher Wikimedia-Websiten zentral bei der Foundation gesammelt werden, und die Foundation das Geld dann irgendwie in der Welt verteilt.

Danach gab es große Aufregung, viele Diskussionen, noch mehr Diskussionen, zusätzliche Diskussionen im Wiki, einen Board-Beschluss, und noch mehr Diskussionen. Das alles führte zu:

Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/Final recommendations from Sue

Oder soweit mir von Leuten überliefert wurde, die das schon in Gänze gelesen haben. Sue empfiehlt genau dasselbe wie vor den ganzen Diskussionen, verzichtet aber diesmal darauf, es zu begründen.

Eingangskontrollinstrumente der Foundation: New Page Triage

Das ist mal eine potenzielle Softwareänderung in MediaWiki, die erhebliche Auswirkungen auf das praktische Wikipedieren haben könnte. Die große Umgestaltung der Eingangskontrolle. Bisher läuft sie testweise in en, und ist zugeschnitten auf die Probleme von en, aber man weiß ja nie, wann man plötzlich vor überraschenden neuen Softwarefeatures steht:

Wikipedia:New http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifPage Triage

Technischer und detaillierter auch im MediaWiki-Wiki:

New Page Triage

Beim Querlesen denke ich ja erstmal, dass sich alles furchtbar kompliziert anhört. Bei genauerer Inspektion scheint es daran zu liegen, dass die Foundation da versucht ein halbes Dutzend Einzelmaßnahmen umzusetzen, angefangen bei einer Art gesichteter Versionen bis hin zu speziellen Arbeitsoberflächen, die alle nicht soviel miteinander zu tun hat.

Immerhin erhöht es die Chancen, dass etwas davon in der Praxis wirklich funktioniert. Da es sogar eine Engagement strategy für die Community gibt, möchte sich vielleicht ja jemand beteiligen, um bei den wichtigen Details darauf hinzuweisen, dass MediaWiki nicht nur in en.wikipedia läuft.

Why, o why, o Wikimedia Foundation?

Can't you just hire somebody/ get somebody who is able to translate your messages to the German community into German? You know, as a German I would feel so much more loved and appreciated, and as a member of the second largest community (from where a lot of donor money comes also) it would just give me an impression, that you care about something else than en.wikipedia.

Really. You know. With about 100 employees, and translations being cheap, it just looks so sad and so not-caring that you can't even talk to the people you are supposed to care about.

It just looks a bit like you just don't really care.

Auslöser: Können Sie uns helfen mit einer Übersetzung. Und wie üblich frage ich mich, ob es sinnvoll ist, daran teilzunehmen, oder ob die Ergebnisse dann eh nur dazu dienen, längst beschlossene Programme "durch den Communitywillen" zu legitimieren.

Doch noch mal Boardwahlen (und Lob an sebmol)

Im Wikimedia-Deutschland-Forums-Wiki gibt es eine Diskussionsseite zur WMDE-Stimmabgabe zu den Boardwahlen. Danke dafür an sebmol:

Boardwahlen 2012

WMF-Board-Chapter-Kandidaten zum letzten (mit kleinem Wunder)

Das unglaubliche ist geschehen. Alle Kandidaturen sind öffentlich, und die Vorstellungen der Kandidaten auch:

Chapter-selected Board seats/2012/Candidates

Neben den vier Kandidaten, die hier schon im Blog waren, sind es Craig Franklin (Lankiveil), Salmaan Haroon (Theo10011), Raúl Gutiérrez (Gumr51) und Patricio Lorente (Patricio.lorente).

lyzzy kandidiert. Und Liam auch,

Nach Phoebe und Lodewijk folgen hier das dritte und das vierte Kandidatenstatement für die Chapterssitze im Wikimedia-Foundation-Board. Diesmal von unserer one and only lyzzy: Ich kandidiere für das Board of Trustees

und weil es diesmal die die eigene und unsere kandidatin ist, zitiere ich doch auch etwas:

My relationship with Wikimedia started at the end of 2004, when I joined the German Wikipedia. ...

I have been a member of Wikimedia Deutschland since 2005 and a member of Wikimedia Nederland since 2010. I joined Wikimedia Deutschland’s board in 2008 as secretary and served as vice president from 2009 to 2011. The main focus of my work on the board was the development of the strategic plan “Kompass 2020”, the preparation and backing of the chapter’s structural advancement, and controlling and assessing the chapter’s executive. ...

... Wikimedia organizations including the Wikimedia Foundation are no ends to themselves. To bring out the best they can in supporting the communities, they need stable, consistent, and reliable organizational structures. ... Sometimes it’s better to make a decision which must be changed later than to not decide at all. And I am a friend of letting things grow with their own pace. Providing fertilizer helps on occasion, though.

What I want to achieve:

* Strengthen Wikimedia by strengthening decentralized structures
* Bring together the best of all parts: their voices ... We must make it easy and attractive for every entity to share more information than just reports. Each publication should enrich the whole movement and should be understandable, independently of the reader‘s origin or culture.
* Identification with Wikimedia



Dank lyzzy habe ich dann auch noch das Kandidaturstatement von Liam Wyatt gefunden: times-they-are-a-changin’

Insgesamt muss ich ja sagen: schöne Auswahl.

Noch ein Kandidatenstatement

Lodewijk: Nomination 2012

Erwähnte ich bereits, dass der Prozess besser übersichtlicher und transparenter sein könnte. Und das man dafür die Zustimmung von geschätzt 40 Leuten in dutzenden Organisationen (also Foundation und Chaptern) braucht. Es ist doch ein Elend!

WMF-Boardkandidatin stellt sich vor

Zur Zeit bestimmen die Chapter in einem Prozess voller Mysterien und Unklarheiten ihre Vertreter für das Board der Wikimedia Foundation, die aber auch nicht die Interessen der Chapter vertreten sollen. Klingt verbesserungsfähig? - Ja.

Anyway, eine der potenziellen Kandidatinnen hat ihre Bewerbungsrede auf ihrem Blog veröffentlicht:

Phoebe Ayers: statement

Neues vom WMF-Fundraising

Der ein oder andere mag es mitbekommen haben, die Wikimedia-Foundation, insbesondere die Geschäftsführung, hatte ein paar Ideen zum Fundraising. Die ließen sich auf die vergleichsweise einfache Formel bringen: die Foundation sammelt das Geld, und verteilt es dann nach Foundation-eigenen-Kriterien auf die Chapter. Zumindest die Chapter, die bisher selber erfolgreich Geld gesammet haben, wie zum Beispiel WMDE, waren darüber nicht glücklich.

Große Auseinandersetzung und Tohuwabohu.

Jetzt gibt es eine Board-Resolution der WMF, die doch eine deutliche Wendung bringt. Per Mailingliste:

If and when payment processing is done by chapters

Das scheint mir ein deutlicher Unterschied dazu, dass die Foundation auf jeden Fall alles macht, und entspricht weitgehend dem derzeitigen Status Quo.

Deutlich mysteriöser:

The board wants to create a volunteer-driven body to make recommendations for funding for movement-wide initiatives (Working title: Funds Dissemination Committee, FDC). ... #the FDC will be a diverse body of people from across our movement (which may include paid staff)

Klingt ein bisschen wie das Community-Projekt-Budget mit weiterem Fokus. Und in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass die SF-Geschäftsstelle bisher diese Gelder verteilte, auch keine wirklich gute Nachricht für das Büro dort.

Not all is happy on Global South

Spannende Mail eines Brasilianers über die Wikimedia Foundation in seinem Land. Er ist nicht glücklich: Waste of money, Wikipediacentrism. - Brazil

*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.

I'll keep imagining, and having to push myself very hard to see this world.
That will never be reached by Wikipedia alone.Especially in Brazil.

If it were to promote Wikipedia as a site, it would be best to hire a company,
not a Foundation, if that way selected, do things as a Foundation.

Sorry for my English, I'm tired and I didn't review.

Was macht ein Wikimedia Fellow?

Die Wikimedia Foundation sucht bis zum 15. Januar Fellows, auch in der deutschen Wikipedia. Diese Nachricht wird bei den meisten Deutschen, und selbst den meisten Wikipedianern, erst einmal für ein ahnungsloses Schulterzucken sorgen.

Deshalb gehe ich mal einen gedanklichen Schritt zurück:

Die Wikimedia Foundation hat Fellows. Die Foundation unterstützt für einen begrenzten Zeitraum ein Person, und deren Plan, zur Verbesserung von *buzzwords denken* der Wikimedia. Da das Fellow-System in Deutschland eher unbekannt ist, und da die jetzt ausgeschriebenen Community-Fellows auch noch anders funktionieren, als Fellowships das für gewöhnlich tun, verfolge ich einen einfachen Plan, das Programm zu verstehen.

Deshalb schauen ich doch einfach mal, was die Fellows so gemacht haben. Die Foundation hat dankenswerterweise eine Übersicht über alle Fellows

Derzeit gibt es noch zwei aktive Community Fellows und drei aktive Research Fellows. Ihre Fellowship beendet haben acht Fellows und acht Teilnehmer des Summer of Research. Die Fellows wiederum haben irgendwas zwischen 8 Wochen und einemal Jahr rumgefellowed. Und weil das aktuelle ein längerfristiges Fellowship ist, schauen wir doch einfach mal die Community Fellows an, die mindestens 6 Monate aktiv waren:


James Alexander: Die Businessanalyse für den 2011er-Fundraiser habe ich nicht gefunden. Die Reader-relations finde ich auch nicht, aber immerhin die Wikipedia:Wiki Guides. Die sind allerdings in der Categories:Inactive project pages. Am erfolgreichsten scheint mir der Fundraiser-bezogene Teil des Projektes gewesen zu sein, arbeitet er doch mittlerweile als Community Officer am Fundraiser.

Jon Harald Søby hat Übersetzer rekrutiert, die den Fundraiser übersetzen. 1400 aktive Übersetzer haben 500 Übersetzungen in 112 Sprachen geliefert. Und ja, ich hätte spontan gedacht, dass die Zahl der Übersetzungen die der Übersetzer übersteigen sollte.

Steven Walling: The Contribution Taxonomy Project will develop a taxonomy of the contributions made by Wikimedia communities, measure the contributions in that taxonomy, and elicit trends in volunteer contributions to the projects. By creating a comprehensive classification of the different types of roles volunteers may take, and by using our data to find active contributors that fill these roles, the project is intended to bring to light the historical and continuing development of Wikimedia wikis. Klingt halbwegs spannend, habe ich aber seit 2010 auch nichts mehr von gehört. Da würde ich aber nicht ausschließen, dass das noch wo lebt.

Lennart Guldbrandsson Da könnte Gastblogger Frank vermutlich mehr erzählen. Sowohl das Bookshelf-Project als auch das Account Creation Improvement Project haben es immerhin schon mal in mein Blickfeld geschafft, und klingen mir so spontan sinnvoll.-

Maryana Pinchuk:Maryana ist total super. Aber von Research:Virtual Community Histories summer fellowship hörte ich auch nie wieder etwas.


Liam Wyatt: Okay, über Wittylama und GLAM haben wir alle soviel geredet; das setze ich jetzt mal arrogantermaßen als bekannt voraus.

Sarah Stierchs "initial project will be a new-editor support pilot where she’ll build a team of volunteers to actively reach out to promising new editors (particularly women) to offer help, mentorship and peer support, encouraging them to continue editing and become more integrated into the Wikipedia community."

Ich will ja nicht dissen. Aber so spontan sieht das alles nach Projekten aus, die auch eine Menge deutscher Wikipedianer sinnvoll durchführen könnten. Noch sind es 12 Tage bis Bewerbungsende.