Difference between revisions of "Proposal talk:List of proposals for 2014 planning process"

From Wikimedia Australia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Proposal: modify given Kerry's comment)
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
==Proposal==
 
==Proposal==
I like the idea of instructional vids for editors, to bypass the editathon idea, or as a prep or post-activity reinforcing editathons. Might be too ambitious at this stage, though. [[User:Tony1|Tony1]] ([[User talk:Tony1|talk]]) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (EST)
+
I like the idea of instructional vids for editors, to bypass the idea editathons and/or face-to-face edit-training events, or as a prep or post-activity reinforcing them. Might be too ambitious at this stage, though. [[User:Tony1|Tony1]] ([[User talk:Tony1|talk]]) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (EST)
 
: Tony1, did you mean "edit training" rather than "editathon" here? [[User:Kerry Raymond|Kerry Raymond]] ([[User talk:Kerry Raymond|talk]]) 07:51, 21 July 2013 (EST)
 
: Tony1, did you mean "edit training" rather than "editathon" here? [[User:Kerry Raymond|Kerry Raymond]] ([[User talk:Kerry Raymond|talk]]) 07:51, 21 July 2013 (EST)

Revision as of 15:58, 21 July 2013

A few comments

Wheatbelt project—these are not at all loaded questions:

  • Can this be framed in specific ways that would appeal to the WMF? How exactly is it going to enrich/improve WMF websites?
  • What are the benchmarks for success (numerical if possible ... like how many editors are there from the region now, and how many would be considered a reasonable success after the funded activity?
  • This would be WP-based articles and uploads of images to Commons?
  • How many contributors would be involved, and how many WMAU members are interested in contributing/organising?
  • Indigenous content?
  • "widest range of interests", but then four thematic bullets below (which look like a good starting point).
  • "Initial funding for the appraisal and review of the scope of the project is an immediate component of the project."—I'd be more attracted to action than just funding for appraisal and review, which as applicants we'd be expected to have done the basics of already.

Involvement in international events

  • My inclination is not to ask for petrol, pensiones, and paper, unless critical to improving a WMF website (e.g. essential travel for wheatbelt project photography). Just meeting up to chinwag is increasingly regarded as a luxury.

Interested to hear more. Tony1 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2013 (EST)

In 2013, we didn't budget any money for participation in international community events, precisely because we (the committee) were doubtful about the benefits from chinwagging relative to the costs. However, that has been interpreted by others as not engaging with the broader community, etc. In particular we had a certain amount of criticism for not being represented at the Chapters Conference. The other issue here is that, despite all the electronic means of communication, people still seem to need face-to-face meetings (and, in particular, the act of eating together) to build trust and goodwill; this is something that I have seen so many times in my years in international standards development (even though almost all the people I worked with were IT people and hence those who one might think most able to work effectively electronically). And trust/goodwill is important when it comes to getting money, so it may be that an international airfare for some carefully-chosen event (meaning "who" will be there) might be an excellent investment. So that's why it's on the list of possibilities. Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2013 (EST)

Proposal

I like the idea of instructional vids for editors, to bypass the idea editathons and/or face-to-face edit-training events, or as a prep or post-activity reinforcing them. Might be too ambitious at this stage, though. Tony1 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (EST)

Tony1, did you mean "edit training" rather than "editathon" here? Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2013 (EST)