Wikipedia talk:GLAM/US/Consortium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mission & Goals[edit]

  • The GLAM-Wiki US Consortium will explore how the culture sector can better utilize its relationship with Wikimedia and vice versa.
  • To provide resources, outreach, and other peer support through a variety of platforms.
  • To combine organizational affiliates with cultural institutions, cultural professionals, and Wikipedians.
  • To allow workers to share professional tasks in a member cooperative manner.
  • To provide an interface for organizations to acquire Wikipedian help as a service rather than a hire.
  • To develop best practices in the United States for both parties.
  • To develop a collective of professionals and enthusiasts on both sides to provide support in the role of consultants, guides, volunteers, residents, trainers, etc.

Structure[edit]

Potential platforms[edit]

  • Email list
  • Wikipedia userspace
  • Website or blog
  • Newsletter
  • Facebook and linked in group. This should be private and invitation only to allow "venting."
  • Add more.

Potential organizational / administrative structures[edit]

  • Advisory board
    • Complete member-cooperative structure.
    • I'd like to see a mix of experienced Wikipedians and GLAM professions, specifically those who have worked in cultural institutions. Missvain (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Member database

How could this network best address your needs?[edit]

  • For me, I'd like to be able to not only have a community from both sides to reach out and provide support to, but, to also be aware of GLAMs that are supporters of the movement - this project could lead to a broader consortium of open culture supporters on a broader level. I'd love to see an "opportunities" section as well, which allows for consortium members to see where opportunities lie nationally for work & partnering. Missvain (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How could this network best centralize resources and best practice?[edit]

  • Perhaps a custom "consortium wiki" (similar to what the digital preservation community and the conservation community have done?) that is public and all CC BY SA (or private but still CC BY SA..though public would of course be ideal!) Missvain (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think we'd benefit the most out of having a PUBLIC mailing list. Cultural Partners, Internal-L, etc, haven't always had the best reception due to being private. The more open the better. If things need to be of a sensitive nature they should be taken to private email I guess and discussed with those who it involves...? Missvain (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we even need a new list? I imagine the existing GLAM list is the best place for this, with largely the same members. Dominic (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally any mailing list that's used for this group would capitalize on one that already exists - with the North American Cultural Partnerships list being the best place. It's already underutilized and has US-centric people there (and its geographic partners.) HstryQT (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I am chiming in a bit late here, but I would actually love to see a public blog. I feel like email lists are good for hitting people with time sensitive announcements, and wikis are good for people who are already comfortable with wikis (i.e. wikipedians) but a lot of GLAM professionals are overloaded with email lists already and not wiki-savvy, so they may be reluctant to jump in and post comments or edit. Blogs are a great outreach tool, and a platform for publishing (or republishing) content that will be very familiar and nonthreatening to your average GLAM professional. Just my $.02! --Sarasays (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sara - this is exactly the kind of specific, practical feedback I need. I would tend to agree with you on this point. I'm happy to hear any additional bits of .02 cents that you (and others!) wish to share! LoriLee (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thematic organization" and "User Group" structures[edit]

Taking note of several new types of organizational structures that will be recognized by WMF and eligible to receive WMF grants.

From my understanding of the way that it will work, this organization is a good example of a thematic organization that could be affiliated with WMF. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FloNight! It's great to see these more clearly defined and a structured process in place - immensely helpful! It will be useful to discuss how the thematic organization and user group models fit into our goals. This could make the process quite a bit easier : ). LoriLee (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suggestion (requirement?) that thematic organizations must be legally incorporated might be a major stumbling block early on, as I'm not sure the amount of overhead that step would require would be worth the trouble early on. Dominic·t 22:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was of coursed expected to be the situation in many cases, and the stock answer to that conundrum, as far as I understand it as an observer on those deliberations, is this: start with a user group, attain recognition (i.e. affiliation) as such, and see how it goes. When it makes sense to, or is necessary to achieve an actual goal, incorporate and seek recognition as a thematic organization. Ijon (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that the usual way consortiums work will be accepted? The consortium can have administrative see at the see of one of the (incorporated) members, which can be the technical recipient of any funds, together with all the finalized/restricted incomes and expenses. --Nemo 04:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of principles?[edit]

I think one thing that may be missing from the current vision is a statement of principles. Normally for GLAM activities, we try not to require any institution to adhere to any kind of ideological orthodoxy as long as they are interested in working with us in some way. That's a good policy. I think, though, that laying out some principles—and nothing too scary, but something about open content, increasing free access to holdings, a commitment to engaging and collaborating with the public, things like that—might be a good exercise, and help ensure that the Consortium is made up of our truest allies, not just the merely curious. I see this as similar to the "Freedom Declaration" idea that has been floating around for a while, and if it were drafted by Consortium members from all the different stakeholder groups, it would be a good way of making sure that cultural professionals are involved from the start in such a statement. Dominic·t 23:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that this is an important component that can really help clarify the relevance for interested participants. I know the idea of a Mission has also been mentioned. Do you think this should be in addition to, or instead of, a succinct mission?
Would you be willing to present the points you mention in draft-bullet-point fashion on the main page? I think it's important that we illustrate that we're working on establishing them. Thank you for bringing it up! LoriLee (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got around to doing this, but I added it commented out, since this page is a little more public now than it was back then, and I assumed others should look at them first. You can see my proposal here. The idea was to make it seem roughly symmetrical, so we're not imposing more on either group (though, in practice, Wikipedians will find it easier to agree than cultural institutions). The one thing I left off, because I wasn't sure if it was going too far, was a commitment to active engagement, so we don't get members who are just interested onlookers and never anything more. Dominic·t 20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HstryQT has made it live. I think that was may not have been a good thing to do at this stage--it is much too full of platitudes, just the sort of material I would immediately delete if it occurred in an article. How would I rewrite it? I wouldn't--nothing more is required than an interest in the field, and the commitment to the principles of the WP movement that is assumed of anyone who posts here. And very specially, with respect to Dominic's last point, I think it should certainly be open to all interested onlookers as well as active members--this is the way WP & all its groups so far have always been organized, and a good thing it has been to keep us as an open organization. There are not yet any formal standards for any particular sort of affiliated organization. If we mean to recognize non-open groups as affiliated in some manner, affiliated enough to use the WP trademark, this should really be a decision of the community--not the attempt of a particular group to do this presumptively. If we do organize to this extent, we will be making a critical move away from volunteerism-- we will be crossing the division from the more formal part of the universe that has attracted WPedians here in the first place. The problems BR mentions below are indicative of the difficulties in formal definitions and exclusive charters. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David, I think we may be talking past each other. Clearly, the Consortium is intended to be open and transparent, but it is a Consortium, not a WikiProject. It is intended to bring together dedicated outreach-oriented Wikipedians and Wikipedia-allied cultural professionals for sharing best practices and other support. This is what I meant by suggesting people should be actively engaged; of course any curious soul is welcome to join Wikipedia or monitor the mailing lists, but they might not be of much use as part of a working group. As for the "platitudes," if you have specific issues I'd like to hear them, because I don't really know what that is in reference to. I do think it is important, though, that Wikipedians be as equally committed and sensitive to the values of cultural institutions as we are expecting them to be of us. That was my main aim. Dominic·t 14:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for disunity[edit]

I am a Wikipedian in Residence at Consumer Reports. This institution is not "GLAM" - it is not a "gallery, library, archive, or museum", and people would more likely call it a research institution and publisher. It may or may not be a cultural organization; science and engineering are cultural institutions but less connected to the concept of GLAM.

In the future I expect that Wikipedians in Residence will be popularly positioned even further from what people call culture, and likely in nonprofit, for profit, and governmental organizations which people would not call cultural institutions. I suspect that non-cultural support for Wikipedia will be more popular than cultural support simply because non-cultural organizations have hugely more money for educational outreach and public learning programs than do cultural organizations.

Does this GLAM consortium want affiliation with only cultural institutions, or is its purpose more about doing Wikipedia outreach with any kind of institution? From what I understand about this consortium, its purpose is to help cultural organizations and the Wikipedia community connect. Why is its purpose not simply to help organizations and the Wikipedia community connect? There is little difference in best practices based on whether the organization is cultural or not, so why make the distinction and create the potential for exclusion and divide? Or perhaps I should ask, to what extent does the proposed GLAM Consortium model exclude non-cultural institutions? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make it clear that the intention of creating a consortium where there was not one before, even if it is not all-encompassing, is not to exclude. This is similar, in a way, to concerns about geographical scope, or encroaching on chapters' roles—fulfilling a need in a limited area is not exclusionary.

However, to take an example, OCLC isn't strictly a cultural institution either, but they clearly identify with the cultural sector, and we in the GLAM-Wiki sphere clearly identify with them. The GLAM-Wiki US Consortium isn't doing anything new here; it's just using the "GLAM" the same way it has been used on Wikipedia all along. We've always interpreted the label somewhat loosely, but I think there is value in the term, in grouping together a set of organizations that tend to have common values and practices, similar types of resources, and are already operating in broadly the same field. Perhaps a better question is what scope you are imagining, because it sounds to me like you are suggesting any company or organization should be welcome, but I think that would dilute the group's shared purpose. (And, in practice, I think there is much less community appetite for partnerships with for-profit organizations than you suggest.) Dominic·t 13:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with dominic above. GLAM is not meant to be taken literally, just a guidline. OCLC are almost certainly going to be part of this, despite being more of a software company than Library in some views. Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, Lane, and I do agree with Dominic and Max above. I think there is much value in the familiarity and branding of "GLAM" and that in itself is important in making people comfortable with what this consortium is and is aiming to do. That does not mean that it is exclusionary toward like-minded organizations that could benefit from taking part. But re-envisioning the scope of the community at this point would be more detrimental, in my opinion, than beneficial. It is useful to bring people around a specific shared purpose, in this case maintaining the scope of GLAM, which has a precedent for partnering with and sharing resources with similar organizations that may not be wholly "GLAM." LoriLee (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what Lane means, too, even though I definitely come from a strictly GLAM institution (National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health). But because we're more scientific than cultural (although in terms of history of medicine and so on, also cultural), I've found it difficult to reconcile the description of GLAM with its reality. The description is broad, but each encounter I've has underlined the message that GLAM is specific to a particular type of G, L, A or M. Haven't given up yet, but it's felt very exclusionary to me, too and I come from a classic GLAM institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildabast (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed platforms for engagement[edit]

Over the course of various email threads some suggestions have been made regarding ways to communicate and share information within the Consortium. I am compiling them all here in order to further the discussion. LoriLee (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public chats/hangouts[edit]

  • Develop a Google+ profile and host quarterly or monthly online public hangouts on agenda items that can be organized on the wiki.
  • A forum, chat, Google Hangout, or something multimedia where one or two people lead with a success story or challenge, which could be useful to others already in GLAM engagements or interested in GLAM.

A wiki[edit]

  • One platform can be the wiki as the anchor for our projects and conversations. Models include:
My immediate reaction is to think it odd for a Wikipedia project to use a separate wiki to organize, when we have a perfectly fine wiki that we're already organized within here on the GLAM:US portal. However, perhaps there are additional features in wikispaces that I'm not aware of that would make this more useful. If anything, maybe it would be useful for Advisory Group organizing, but I'd argue against it being used for the Consortium as a whole. A lot of time and energy has been put into the GLAM:US Portal and that will remain our predominate space for organizing, with the added perk of being connected with the broader Wikipedia community. I'm willing to be further convinced regarding the Advisory Group, though. LoriLee (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter[edit]

  • We can use Twitter for public conversations that bring Wikipedians and GLAM professionals together. Hashtag #glamwikius? A widget should be added to the wiki for recent updates.
I love the idea of doing Twitter chats occasionally to reach audiences that are comfortable there. But I'd argue against creating a new hashtag specific to the US. The #glamwiki hashtag is well-known and well-watched and if we take it over occasionally to have our own chat it wouldn't bother anyone; we would, however, have a captive audience, which is great. This doesn't deter from the suggestion to have a widget added to the blog (or wiki) with the #glamwiki hashtag, as the volume on that feed is very manageable and the content is applicable, in spite of its being global. LoriLee (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRC[edit]

An open chat platform used often by Wikipedians, but unfamiliar among most GLAM professionals. Arguments can be made for and against; so discuss away.

Throughout the 1990s I was a determined IRC user but I pretty much dropped it by 2000. Perhaps it's different today, but I'd say the one major obstacle was the instability of the servers. Somedays you could not be guaranteed to be able to login. If that instability still exists, that I'd say that disqualifies IRC from any serious consideration. -- kosboot (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

The GLAM-US mailing list is likely the most efficient means of communicating on a platform comfortable for both Wikipedians and GLAMs. This makes the most sense in regards to ongoing discussions, announcing projects and events, asking general questions, and planning for other Consortium-wide activities (such as the above mentioned public chats/hangouts.)

Support. - kosboot (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of broadcast[edit]

Most of the best forms of broadcast (rather than dialogue) we're already doing; these include:

  • Blog: Already created at blog.us.glamwiki.org. We can discuss a strategy in more detail.
  • Social Media: Already have Facebook (US) and Twitter (global) accounts.
  • Newsletter: This Month in GLAM. Global readership and widely read. Likely not useful to create our own.

In summary, it is my suggestion that Broadcasting remain on the blog, newsletter, and social media channels, and that dialogue remain predominately on the email list (GLAM-US), with discussion and decisions being copied to the GLAM/Consortium wiki page for future reference. Additionally, the idea of having a regularly scheduled chat that is off of email and wiki, either in the form of a public Google Hangout or otherwise, is a good means for allowing dialogue in a focused way. This component is what likely will require further discussion in regards to what platforms best suit both Wikipedians and GLAM Professionals' needs. It may be that it shifts depending on the information being presented (maybe sometimes it's a Twitter chat, other times a Google Hangout, or even possibly an IRC chat.) Please do continue to discuss these options! LoriLee (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AffCom questions[edit]

Thank you for your interest in furthering the Wikimedia goals as a user group focused on GLAM-Wikimedia collaboration.

I would like to ask a few questions to have all the relevant information in one place (one-two sentence or paragraph summaries or links to other pages are fine), which we use to get to know you better and to have a catalogue of all affiliates as we ask all of them a very similar set of questions. Please know, that there are no "expected" or wrong answers.

  • Who are the people behind this application?
    • How many?
    • any active (on local or international level) Wiki[pm]edians, MediaWiki developers? (please provide user names and wiki of origin)
  • Active in which communities if any?
  • How are they geographically distributed?
  • Could you give a short overview of the time path of the group up to now?
  • Have there been any activities/meetings etc. of this group of people?
  • What kind of activities are planned for the future?
  • Are your activities focused on one specific project, or a specific language version?
  • Do you have 2 contact persons who would be willing to sign the Wikimedia User Group Agreement for the group?
  • For how long do you request the user group recognition? (The default is a renewable one year term; I expect in your case it would also be "1 year")

Thank you for your time in answering these questions. These help us get a feel for your group and allows us to move forward with the recognition process quickly. --Bence (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to us!
  • The application was agreed upon at our advisory group's recent meeting. You can see the attendance on that page.
    • The "Who" section of this page lists advisory group members, interested Wikipedians who have signed themselves up, and also interested institutions.
    • All of the people associated with this group are active primarily on English Wikipedia, with some also active on some other projects like Wikimedia Commons, English Wikisource, and Wikidata, with only a couple of exception. The exceptions are the few members of the advisory group who are not active editors, but are part of the broader community, as cultural professionals who have managed Wikipedia outreach projects or supportive intellectuals.
  • The members of the group come exclusively from the United States (or that is the explicit scope at this point, at least), but they represent a fairly diverse geographic distribution within the US.
  • The vision for the Consortium was first formed by Lori Byrd Phillips while she was United States Cultural Partnerships Coordinator for the WMF. In June 2012, she put out the first draft in a sandbox and began soliciting feedback from many of the other GLAM-Wiki editors in the US. The draft was published here at the end of June, and discussion took place on this talk page and on the glam-north-america mailing list (can't link to the thread because the archives seem to have disappeared). At Wikimania, we further announced the group formation to the community at Wikimania, with the public launch at the GLAM Night Out, and it was mentioned in David Ferriero's Wikimania's closing plenary speech. By late August, we formed an advisory group with members representing various types of institutions and Wikimedia. In her Mid-Year Report, Lori noted the plan for a future in-person advisory meeting and other plans. Further discussions took place over the months. By the time of the Final Report for Lori's Coordinator term, the Consortium was clearly the main vehicle for national strategic GLAM-Wiki efforts. Finally, after much remote discussion, our first in-person advisory group meeting occurred in April with the help of the US National Archives and Wikimedia DC, with members traveling from various locations around the country to attend. That meeting allowed us to make considerable progress in defining the Consortium and its future trajectory, and that takes us through to present.
  • Our most major event was the recent strategy meeting at the US National Archives in April. We have also recently begun a monthly public information-sharing Google Hangout (WP:GLAMOUT). Previously, there were may informal meetings of smaller groups of the members, including Wikimania 2012, where the concept was officially "launched" to the community.
  • Other future activities include the action steps agreed upon at our meeting as well as, in a broader sense, the GLAM-Wiki activities of our members which we support in principle (and may support ore financially/organizationally in the future as we mature).
  • We are not actively focused on a specific language, except for the fact that English is the primary language for most members due to the geographic scope. We are certainly not actively focused on a specific project (and Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, and Wikidata are very relevant to our scope), but, as with Wikimedia generally, most activity naturally revolves around Wikipedia.
  • The most likely people to sign the used group agrement would be myself and Lori Byrd Phillips.
  • If a renewable 1 year term is the standard, then that works for us. Dominic·t 21:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dominic for the quick and great answers. I have a few follow up questions, if you don't mind:
  • Could you please clarify if the Consortium has any legal status at the moment, or if you are planning some for the future (e.g. perhaps becoming a Thematic Organization down the line)?
  • What is the status of the advisory group? Does it act as a leadership for the group, or are they merely advisory? How/when are they selected?
  • As I understand, for the purposes of the user group, everyone who has signed up as interested is to be considered a member; or is there a process from going from "interested" to "in" the group?
  • Finally, a question that I am trialling, and might perhaps add it to our standard repertoire of questions: does the group have any funding needs and if it does, do you have an idea of how to meet those needs?
Thank you once again, for your quick replies and cooperation. –Bence (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Consortium doesn't have any legal status now. All options are on the table for the future, and incorporation and Thematic Organization status have been discussed. However, serious movement towards those will wait until we have become more established and mature as a group.
  • The advisory group was formed to lead the Consortium as it is establishing itself. There is technically not any other leadership body it is advising, but the "advisory" refers to the fact that we're still running on consensus and the advisory group is leading just because it is composed of many people who are active and respected. It is not necessarily a long-term governance structure, but we are not at the point where we are drafting bylaws and worrying too much about governance.
  • Yes, I would consider everyone listed as "interested" a member (though not all as active ones). The "interested" section hasn't changed name since June, when the Consortium was a proposal and not yet real, and maybe we should rename that. It's a self-identification membership model, like most other Wikimedia projects, where anyone who is interested can sign up to join.
  • Our first major funding need was for the advisory meeting we held in April, which was organized with a combination of a donated venue, chapter support, WMF grant for partisipation, and self-funded participation. So, we have some experience with funding issues, but we are also on the lookout for more stable and sustainable funding. We do foresee future meetings or projects which would require funding, though there isn't any specific being planned at the moment. Dominic·t 20:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia LGBT[edit]

Fellow GLAM supporters, please see the following invitation re: Wikimedia LGBT:

Wikimedia LGBT is a proposed thematic organization that seeks to promote the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities. Proposed activities include outreach at LGBT events, Wikimania and other Wikimedia events, an international campaign called Wiki Loves Pride, and work on safe space policies, among other collaborations and interwiki projects. Active Wikimedians are welcome to join this cause! Please consider adding your name as a participant/supporter. Current tasks include translating pages, building a strong framework at Meta, and achieving user group status (with the eventual goal of becoming a thematic organization). Your feedback is welcome on the discussion page.

I am sending invitations to all chapters, user groups and thematic organizations at Meta. The consortium links me back to English Wikipedia, hence the invitation here on this talk page. One goal of Wikimedia LGBT would be to support GLAM projects and work with LGBT-related archives, community centers and museums. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Conference 2014?[edit]

Will anyone be representing the GLAM-Wiki Consortium at Wikimedia Conference 2014? I understand chapters and established user groups and thematic organizations can attend by invitation. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on Wikimedia user group logos[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Affiliations Committee is requesting comments on proposed best practices for Wikimedia user group logos. The committee will seek community input until Saturday, May 24, 2014. After considering the community's input, the Affiliations Committee will publish on Meta-Wiki guidelines for Wikimedia user group logos.

There is already a standard format used by chapters, and that format is being applied to thematic organizations as well. Chapters and thematic organizations have also worked with Wikimedia Foundation legal in the past on custom logos. Wikimedia user groups may also create custom logos, and the new trademark policy allows for logos to be based off the community or Wikimedia Foundation logos. However, there remains a question of the best practice for standard user group logos.

Please make any comments or ask any questions on Meta-Wiki at Affiliations Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia user group logos.

Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on 23:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Affiliations Committee call for candidates - September 2014[edit]

The Affiliations Committee is looking for new members. The committee's work requires communication with volunteers all over the World, negotiating skills and cultural sensitivity and the ability to understand legal texts. We try to get a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members.

Members are usually selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms. The applications will be voted on by the current members not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisers, WMF staff and board liaisons based on the membership criteria. A final decision will be made by the end of October 2014, with new members expected to join on or around 1 November 2014.

Please read the full call for candidates for more information, membership criteria, and details on how to apply.

Best regards,
Carlos Colina
Chair, Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 07:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

State of the GLAMouts[edit]

Hi All, I did not get the notice about the October GLAMout, and was not able to attend the November GLAMout, but was there a December GLAMout? And is anyone organizing a January or February GLAMout? I was initially excited about the GLAMout format moving from a national to a global monthly Hangout, but it also seems to require a lot more coordination, both in terms of time and scheduling, and in notifying all the stakeholders/interested parties, and I worry that U.S. participation has dropped off. It looks like the November GLAMout and the October GLAMout were hosted by Wikimedia Nederland and Wikimedia Sweden- are we working off of a rotating structure now for hosting or is any chapter or group in particularly responsible for the Global GLAMouts? I might propose that we develop a sign-up sheet for hosting future Global GLAMouts, and/or considering to continue to have U.S. GLAMout in addition to the Globally organized ones. Perhaps Wikimedia NYC could host these, rotating with Wikimedia D.C., Wikimedia Cascadia, and any other especially interested individuals, in the future... Thoughts? OR drohowa (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM-Wiki US Consortium Advisory Board Meeting – March 2015[edit]

The GLAM-Wiki US Consortium Advisory Board Meeting is occurring the weekend of March 21st-22nd, 2015 to discuss the shared goals and interests of the GLAM-Wiki U.S. Consortium. Documentation of the meeting will be forthcoming. OR drohowa (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Greetings,

I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 04:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help[reply]

Requests for comments on Wikimedia user groups approval process and agreements[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Wikimedia Affiliations Committee is requesting comments on the approval process and agreements for Wikimedia user groups.

Wikimedia user groups are groups of Wikimedia users who support and promote the Wikimedia projects in the offline world by organizing meetups and other projects. The Wikimedia Affiliations Committee's responsibilities include approval of new Wikimedia user groups.

The committee will seek community input until Friday, May 1, 2015. The committee will then review the community's input, and publish the new process and agreements on Meta-Wiki. The committee will again seek community input approximately six months after any changes are adopted to gauge effectiveness and if any additional changes are necessary.

Please see the RFC page on Meta-Wiki for more information and to provide feedback.

Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 04:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson will continue during the voting. Nominations for the Board of Trustees will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.

The FDC Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. Click here to vote. Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question. Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 FDC election page, the 2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page, and the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 03:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Board will continue during the voting.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Wikipedia's 15th birthday - get involved![edit]

Apologies for cross-posting the below!

The 15th birthday of Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia movement, is coming soon! We’re eager to make plans to celebrate on January 15, 2016.

As a way to kickstart planning around the 15th, there is a page on Meta for Wikipedia 15. Eventually, we plan for the page to have resources including:

  1. Resources to plan events and meetups locally to celebrate the 15th.
  2. More information on sharing birthday photos, videos, stories, Wikipedia content, and other media.
  3. Tips for pitching to local media to cover your event.

Many of the sections on the meta page are blank for now, but we’ll be working with you to add more information to the page over the next few months leading up to the birthday celebration in January. Please feel free to add, edit, and discuss what you’d like to see for Wikipedia’s 15th birthday!

We look forward to celebrating with you!

-for the Wikimedia Foundation Communications team, JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Wikimedia Affiliations Committee is pleased to introduce the launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a place for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) to discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events. The idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our movement, plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other communications from affiliates.

Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the mailing list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request additional spots if needed.

Please find a bit more information on Meta-Wiki and do not hesitate to contact the Affiliations Committee if you have further questions.

Thank you - Wikimedia Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 07:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Wikipedia 15 has a mark![edit]

Read this message in other languages

Wikipedia 15 now has a mark! Be sure to check out the “Material” section of the Wikipedia 15 meta page to see the design, and learn about how to use it. This year's mark is meant to be fun, interactive, and infinitely customisable. We can’t wait to see how you and your Wikimedia community use it!

–For the WMF Communications team, Sam Lien and Joe Sutherland 02:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign[edit]

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

2015 Affiliations Committee call for candidates[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

The Affiliations Committee – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is looking for new members!

The main role of the Affiliations Committee is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and advise the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.

The committee consists of twelve members, six of whom are selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms.

Key skills

Being a part of the Affiliations Committee requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We try to get a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members. The key skills and experience that we look for in candidates are:

  • Excitement by the challenge of helping to empower groups of volunteers worldwide.
  • Willingness to process applications through a set, perhaps bureaucratic process.
  • Readiness to participate in political discussions on the role and future of affiliates, models of affiliations, and similar questions.
  • Availability of up to 5 hours per week, and the time to participate in a monthly ~2 hour voice/video meeting.
  • International orientation.
  • Very good communication skills in English.
  • Ability to work and communicate with other languages and cultures.
  • Strong understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the WMF.
  • Knowledge of different legal systems and experience in community building and organising are a plus.
  • Effective communication skills in other languages are a major plus.
  • Experience with or in an active affiliate is a major plus.
  • Willingness to use one's real name in committee activities (including contacts with current and potential affiliates) when appropriate.

We are looking for people who are not afraid of the workload and are motivated by helping other volunteers to get organized and form communities that further our mission around the world.

Selection process

As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency, and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2015 member selection process will include a public review and comment period. All applications received by the committee will be posted on Meta (at Affiliations Committee/Candidates/2015), and the community will be invited to provide comments and feedback about each candidate.

At the end of the public comment period, the applications will be voted on by the members of the committee who are not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisors, WMF staff and board liaisons, and the community. A final decision will be made by mid-January 2016, with new members expected to join later that month.

How to apply

If you are interested in joining the committee, please send an application to affcom@lists.wikimedia.org by 31 December 2015. You will get a confirmation that your application was received.

Your application should include the following:

  • Your full name
  • Your contact information (including e-mail address and username)
  • A statement describing your relevant experience, skills, and motivation for joining the committee.

Your statement will be published for community review and feedback, so please do not include any information that you are not comfortable sharing.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to chat or have a phone call with anyone about our work if this helps them decide to apply. Please distribute this call among your networks, and do apply if you are interested!

Best regards,
Carlos Colina
Chair, Affiliations Committee

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Get involved in Wikipedia 15![edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!

People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their events on Meta Page. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.

Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:

Everything is linked on the Wikipedia 15 Meta page. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos that community members have already designed.

If you have any questions, please contact Zachary McCune or Joe Sutherland.

Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Help[reply]

Notification of User Group Expiration[edit]

Greetings,

This is a notification to bring to your attention that your organization is currently past due on its required annual reporting. and has expired. Wikimedia User Groups are required to submit an annual activity report covering the entirety of the 12-month agreement period in order to prompt review for a renewal. Reports must be written in English, posted to meta, and linked on the meta Reports page.

This page is used to track how organizations and groups are meeting reporting requirements described in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g. chapter agreements, thematic organization agreements, user group agreements). It is the central place where affiliates can add reports about their activities, share their plans, and even news or social media channels with the wider movement. When new reports are available, organizations and groups should add them to this page to keep their columns up to date.

As noted on the meta Reports page, your organization’s annual reporting became past due July 2014 and your user group agreement remains expired. If you wish to reapply for your user group status. please be sure to:

  1. Post your annual reporting to the meta Reports page as soon as possible to return to compliance with your chapter agreement.
  2. Check that your groups page is also up to date with past report links for historical record-keeping, and
  3. Please send an email to Wikimedia-l in order to share with a movement-wide audience.

If we do not hear from you or receive this reporting on the reports page within the next 30 days, your group's name and logo will be removed from the affiliates page and your information and page link will be migrated to the Formerly Active Affiliates page rather.

If you have any questions or need any further guidance, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Best regards, JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JAnstee (WMF):. @Dominic: Do you want to make a push to relaunch this? Sadads (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dominic: @LoriLee: Please see the notice above. If you do not follow the steps above to report on your group's annual activities, your user group will no longer be recognized as an active Wikimedia affiliate. Abittaker (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization, or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement.

In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks, including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements.

If you have questions about what this means for community members in the affected affiliates’ region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. The FAQ talk page is available for additional questions and comments, and the Affiliations Committee is happy to answer questions directly.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

This message, "We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)", was sent through multiple channels by Gregory Varnum on 15 and 16 of March 2017 to village pumps, affiliate talk pages, movement mailing lists, and MassMessage groups. A similar message was sent by Nicole Ebber to organized groups and their mailing lists on 15 of March 2017. This version of the message is available for translation and documentation purposes

Dear Wikimedians/Wikipedians:

Today we are starting a broad discussion to define Wikimedia's future role in the world and develop a collaborative strategy to fulfill that role. You are warmly invited to join the conversation.

There are many ways to participate, by joining an existing conversation or starting your own:

Track A (organized groups): Discussions with your affiliate, committee or other organized group (these are groups that support the Wikimedia movement).

Track B (individual contributors): On Meta or your local language or project wiki.

This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?

We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.

Sincerely,

Nicole Ebber (Track A Lead), Jaime Anstee (Track B Lead), & the engagement support teams

05:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/US/Consortium&oldid=1038057765"