Talk:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
Accusation against a Wikimedian in Residence
edit"Rachel Helps, the Wikipedian-in-Residence at Brigham Young University and operator of the above two accounts, has for years engaged in extensive undisclosed WP:COI editing on Wikipedia in collaboration with her employees and professional colleagues. This misconduct falls well short of what is expected of any editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence,"
As this concerns a Wikimedian in Residence who has been active for years in this organization, interested persons may wish to join the discussion. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Update - "rough consensus for topic banning Rachel Helps from LDS Church-related topics". Rachel was a Wikimedian-in-Residence at Brigham Young University, the center of scholarly expertise on the LDS church, and her focus in my opinion was the secular and social culture and position of this demographic. Her ban is not the outcome I wanted but I respect and accept the wiki community mediation process.
- Here are my reflections:
- Wikimedians in Residence need documentation to explain what they do. Irrespective of the outcome of this case, I am alarmed at the skepticism and mistrust that the Wikimedia community expressed about expert institutional partnerships. I expect Wikimedians in Residence to follow rules, but for some commentators, I feel like their major objection was to having institutional or expert collaborations in any case.
- I perceive bias against the LDS church in this discussion, and I wonder how that applies to other demographics. In the wiki community we have other institutional partnerships with other minority groups which may be cultural or ethnic or both. This time the objection was to a Christian church. I feel like we do comparable projects with religions of indigenous peoples, 1000 Women in Religion, and many other projects which develop content by and for people of minority cultures. If there is mistrust of LDS people, then that is one issue; if there is mistrust of any religion, that is another kind of issue; if the mistrust is of minority groups talking about themselves, then that is yet another kind of issue. Personally I am LGBT+ and my experience with the LDS church is persecution and discrimination, so I can relate to negative disposition from wiki community members. At the same time, I think the world gets better with the flow of wiki-style general reference info and I do not find it productive to turn off the flow of information if we have some controlled, rules-abiding sources.
- Bluerasberry (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is very interesting. I came here looking for advice on a similar situation (I will post about this in a separate talk page entry below). EMsmile (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
The full Movement Charter draft awaits your review on Meta
edit- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Hi everyone,
The full draft of the Movement Charter has been published on Meta for your review.
Why should you care?
The Charter is important as it will be an essential document for the implementation of the 2030 strategy recommendations. Participating in the Charter discussions means that you ensure that your voice is heard and your interests are represented in shaping the future of the Movement.
Community Engagement – April 2nd to April 30th, 2024
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) cordially invites everyone in the Wikimedia movement to share feedback on the full draft of the Movement Charter.
Let your voice be heard by sharing your feedback it in any language on the Movement Charter talk pages, attend a community drop-in session, or email movementcharter@wikimedia.org.
Please read the Committee's latest updates for more information.
Thank you.
On behalf of the MCDC,
Affiliations Committee News (January-March 2024)
edit
You can find this newsletter translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Quarterly newsletter sharing news and events about the work of Wikimedia's Affiliations Committee.
Affiliate Recognition and Derecognition: Recognition of Cyprus, Botswana, Niger, and Telugu user groups
Affiliate Activities Report: Reports from Belgium, South African, and Ukrainian chapters
AffCom Movement Contribution: AffCom engagement with the new Affiliates Strategy and Movement Charter drafts
AffCom Administration: New AffCom members and advisors
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Board of Trustees selection call for candidates
editHello all,
The call for candidates for the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from May 8, 2024 - May 29, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term. This is a volunteer position.
This year, the Wikimedia community will vote to fill four (4) seats on the Foundation Board in August 2024. You can see the timeline of the full selection process here.
Traits
Wikimedia is a global movement and seeks candidates from the broader community. Ideal candidates are thoughtful, respectful, community-oriented and align with the Wikimedia Foundation mission. Candidates should think about what experiences and perspectives they will bring to the Board.
The Board would like to find perspectives and voices that are essential but underrepresented in our movement. Accordingly, all candidates will be asked to include statements in their application that speak to their experiences in the world and in the movement and share how those experiences have equipped them to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Trustees commitment
Trustees serve a three year term and can serve up to three consecutive terms. The expectation is that Trustees serve on at least one of the Board’s committees. The time commitment is about 150 hours per year, excluding travel. This time is not evenly spread throughout the year. The time is concentrated around meetings.
Trustees requirements
English is the language of business for the Board. Candidates must be fluent in written and spoken English. Previous experience serving on a collective decision-making body, especially Boards or committees, and significant experience in Wikimedia (or equivalent) movement building and organizing are expected from candidates.
Apply
Candidates from all projects and communities who meet the criteria to become a Wikimedia Trustee are welcome to apply. Could you - or someone you know - be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? Encourage them to run for election. Candidates can find information and submit their nomination on the candidate application page. If you want to learn more about the role of Trustees or have questions, refer to this candidate resources page.
Community questions for candidates
All community members, including affiliates, are invited to submit questions for the Board of Trustees candidates to answer. From the list of questions, the Election Committee selects 5 questions for candidates to answer, which the candidates are expected to answer. The selected questions may be a combination of what’s been submitted from the community, if they’re alike or related. Questions can be submitted between May 8 - June 12 at 23:59 UTC. Learn more about how to submit your questions on this Meta-wiki page.
Best regards,
The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group
MPossoupe_(WMF) 18:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle
edit- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Dear Wikimedia Affiliates,
The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. Affiliates play important roles in the Movement, working with communities and external partners, and thus they bring valuable perspectives to the table. We warmly welcome you to the conversations. In addition, please share information about this with your affiliate membership, and any project communities your affiliate works with or supports. You can also help translate the procedure into more languages so that people can join the discussions in their language.
This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects. It aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee. It is also separate from the closing projects policy.
You can find the details of the proposal on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.
We have also reached out to your contact persons via the emails provided.
On behalf of the CAC,
RamzyM (WMF) 16:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now on Meta
edit- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Hi everyone,
The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now up on Meta in more than 20 languages for your reading.
What is the Wikimedia Movement Charter?
The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.
Join the Wikimedia Movement Charter “Launch Party”
Join the “Launch Party” on June 20, 2024 at 14.00-15.00 UTC (your local time). During this call, we will celebrate the release of the final Charter and present the content of the Charter. Join and learn about the Charter before casting your vote.
Movement Charter ratification vote
Voting will commence on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. You can read more about the voting process, eligibility criteria, and other details on Meta.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment on the Meta talk page or email the MCDC at mcdc@wikimedia.org.
On behalf of the MCDC,
RamzyM (WMF) 08:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy: Affiliate health criteria and changes to User Group recognition process
edit- This communication has been adapted from the original message.
Dear all,
We would like to thank all of you who shared feedback with us during this phase of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy process that started in November 2022, both on- and off-wiki. You can read the report from the first phase here.
Since that point, AffCom has been working with the Board of Trustees, Foundation staff, affiliates, and wider community members to enable them to provide appropriate guidance to affiliates regarding what it means to be an active and healthy Wikimedia organisation. As a result of those conversations, the committee has voted to adopt the following 10 criteria for affiliates, grouped into four main areas:
- Goal delivery
- Organisational Development
- Good governance & communication
- Financial & legal compliance
- Affiliate health & resilience
- Leadership & Inclusion
- Diverse, skilled, and accountable leadership
- Diversity balance (especially gender)
- Universal Code of Conduct compliance)
- Engagement & Collaboration
- Internal (membership) engagement
- Community connection
- Partnerships & collaboration
You are encouraged to read more details about each of these criteria here, including guidance on how each can be met. All criteria will be tracked for all affiliates, except for the criteria around financial and legal compliance, which only apply to those affiliates receiving funds and/or that are incorporated.
Staff and AffCom are working on streamlining affiliate reporting requirements, and responding to feedback raised during the community feedback period about the reporting burden. The new requirements of data collected in reports would be useful also for different Foundation teams and departments, and allow for the creation of detailed regional or global reports that demonstrate affiliate health and impact.
In July 2024, AffCom will work to finalise the implementation plans for the changes to the affiliate requirements and application process. In August 2024, updates will be made to Meta-wiki and other supporting platforms.
You can follow the process here.
The insights from the 2023 process also included recognising a need to strengthen AffCom processes for evaluating potential User Groups’ furtherance of shared movement goals, sustainability, and general ability to be healthy and active movement participants. AffCom has adopted a revised process for User Group recognition, and will be pausing new User Group recognitions until September 2024.
No immediate changes are happening, except the pause of considering new User Group recognitions until September, for applications received after today, June 12, 2024. Once more detailed implementation plans are developed, there will be an update here and on the relevant Meta pages with the next steps after Wikimania.
To provide your feedback, please leave a comment on the main talk page on Meta.
Alternatively, you can join AffCom's open office hours on June 19 at 14:00 UTC or request a conversation as a part of Talking:2024. You can use the Let’s Talk to sign up for a time to speak with us.
Looking forward to your feedback!
Best regards,
Nat, Mike & Lorenzo
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Liaisons to the Affiliations Committee
Sunday June 23 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting (WMF BoT statement on Movement Charter ratification)
edit
Hello everyone!
The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas about current developments in the Wikimedia Movement. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for further Wikimedia 2030 strategy process work.
At this meeting we will focus on the recent statement by the WMF Board of Trustees liaisons statement on the Movement Charter in which the liaisons stated that they will be recommending the Board of Trustees not to ratify the final draft of the Movement Charter. The community and affiliate votes on the ratification are supposed to start on Tuesday, 25 June. This meeting offers a venue to discuss the situation and formulate the "next steps".
This month, we are meeting on Sunday, June 23, and you are all invited to RSVP here.
Nadzik (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Affiliations Committee News (April-June 2024)
edit
You can find this newsletter translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Quarterly newsletter sharing news and events about the work of Wikimedia's Affiliations Committee.
Affiliate Recognition and Derecognition: Recognition of Madagascar, Senegal, Republic of Congo, and Namibia user groups
Affiliate Activities and Compliance Report: Activities reports around the world
AffCom Conflict Intervention: Six active conflicts, no new reports for Q4
AffCom Movement Contribution: AffCom engagement at Wikimedia Summit and ESEAP Conference
AffCom Administration: Officers elections and departing members
Upcoming AffCom Events: AffCom at Wikimania 2024
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Sunday July 28 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting (Results of Movement Charter ratification)
edit_en_el_Palacio_de_Nymphenburg,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania35.JPG)
Hello everyone!
The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas about current developments in the Wikimedia Movement. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for further Wikimedia 2030 strategy process work.
At this meeting we will focus on the results of the Movement Charter ratification. We will also discuss the aftermath of the Board of Trustees' decision to veto the Movement Charter, including their recent proposals. We will also cover updates about upcoming Wikimania 2024.
This month, we are meeting on Sunday, July 28, and you are all invited to RSVP here.
Nadzik (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Affiliations Committee News (July-September 2024)
editYou can find this newsletter translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Quarterly newsletter sharing news and events about the work of Wikimedia's Affiliations Committee.
Affiliate Recognition and Derecognition: Recognition of Togo, Wayúu, and Singapore user groups
Affiliate Activities and Compliance Report: Activities reports around the world
AffCom Conflict Intervention: Updates on conflict intervention cases
AffCom Movement Contribution: AffCom engagement at Wikimania
AffCom Administration: Results of the officers elections
Upcoming AffCom Events: AffCom at WikiIndaba and a strategy meetup
Other Movement News: Regional conferences, mental health support, and new committee support inboxMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Affiliations Committee News (October-December 2024)
edit
You can find this newsletter translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Quarterly newsletter sharing news and events about the work of Wikimedia's Affiliations Committee.
Affiliate Recognition and Derecognition: User group application pause lifted
Affiliate Activities and Compliance Report: Activities reports around the world
AffCom Conflict Intervention: Updates on conflict intervention cases
AffCom Movement Contribution: AffCom engagement at WikiIndaba
AffCom Administration: Mari Avetisyan appointed new AffCom secretaryMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Looking for advice
editHi, this network seems really interesting, although a bit inactive (?). Has the discussion moved to a different page or network maybe? Has the enthousiasm for WiRs reduced? I am technically not a WiR but I'd like to be one and I think a lot of my work (paid editing) has been WiR-style. I was recently the subject of a long discussion at AN/I regarding COI with my editing work (see en:Special:PermanentLink/1274969384#Non-neutral_paid_editor). In the course of the discussion I noticed how some (or even many) people seem to be quite biased against WiR-style paid editing which I find sad. Some people even proposed to ban me completely from Wikipedia. I wonder if the guidelines around COI and paid editing are not well laid out yet. I actually very much like en:WP:CRY but it's only an essay.
Anyhow, here are my specific questions: I have a small consultancy contract with the University of Utrecht. It's not called a WiR, although I am wondering if it would be worth making it into one (further down the line) or what would be involved to do so. The work I am doing under this consultancy is described on my user page as follows:
- "From July 2024 to March 2025, I supported Utrecht University with integrating key results from publications that have come out of the Global Goals project into relevant Wikipedia articles (for example earth system governance, global governance, Sustainable Development Goals, sustainable development, environmental governance, environmental policy, environmental politics, policy coherence for development). The Global Goals project was a five–year programme to assess and explain the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals."
I am now wondering: should I have taken up a second Wikipedia login name for this work package? Is it still worth doing it now (given that it's only a short contract). Like "EMsmile-Utrecht" or "EMsmile-various clients" so that in future, the distinction between my volunteer edits and paid edits are clearer? (I have no paid editing stints lined up at present; they are hard to come by)
And is it problematic that I add content from publications that have been published by academics at the University of Utrecht to Wikipedia articles where they fit; when my contract is with this university? Do I have to put certain safeguards in place so that people don't think I am "blindly adding content from my employer's publications" whereas I would argue that I am carefully selecting content from en:WP:reliable sources which enrich the content of the articles in questions. In parallel, I also make other improvements to the articles, like improving structure and readability. For an example you can see my work at en:global governance or en:environmental governance which I worked on last year.
I look forward to your advice. If this talk page is not so active, where else could or should I ask my question? I am wondering if I should ask at the conflict of interest noticeboard?
By the way, I've recently come across this interesting network: Wikimedia Science Communication Network. I think the work that I do falls under "science communication" but how can I ensure that others don't see my edits where I utilise publications from the University of Utrecht as COI and PR? EMsmile (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- @EMsmile:
- I am a Wikimedian in Residence at the School of Data Science at the University of Virginia. You do the activities of a Wikimedian in Residence. If you wish to call yourself one, then great. If not, then that is fine too. There are ethical practices associated with being in the Wikimedian in Residence community, and I find that compliance with those is helpful for explaining projects to wiki community members. Getting accused or misunderstood for COI is routine. It is hard to explain exactly how some users avoid this while other users do not. Here is me talking about how organizations can do this correctly:
- This group regularly hosted monthly meetings for some years. The reason this group quit hosting was that there are few new Wikimedians in Residence taking appointments or becoming active. Also, most people who take on these roles already have their own social networks for support. Because of this, the meetings tended to be among people who already had good connections with the others. If anyone wanted to revive the meetings by scheduling and organizing them, then I would join as would others, but no one in the group has administrative capacity to volunteer to host.
- "Is it problematic that I add content from publications that have been published by academics at the University of Utrecht to Wikipedia articles" - you should identify the best sources in the world and add those to Wikipedia articles. It is common for universities to have focus and have top authorities on the topics they research. If that is the case, then my experience is that it is no problem to share such information. I do it routinely. It is problematic when a university or any organization is just one source among many, all publishing nearly the same topic, and someone emphasizes the sources from one organization's brand over another. In general, when I share scientific papers, they include researchers at my university and researchers from other authorities with no connection to my university. Also, citations to academic journals do not indicate any institutional connection, so citing science papers is not promotional in any sense that a typical person would imagine. There are no PR or marketing agencies anywhere in the world that would cite scientific papers as a way of promoting an organization, university or otherwise. That is not a promotional product that anyone would buy, or that anyone would try to sell.
- I personally am happy to talk by voice or video as you like about any of this. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, this is super helpful for me! I'll drop you a line so we can set up a call. My main concern right now is that issue of COI and how I can make sure I follow best practices there (I am contemplating asking at the COI noticeboard, too). Regarding "you should identify the best sources in the world and add those to Wikipedia articles." this is very true. It means getting inputs from external experts (such as those from University of Utrecht) to let me know what the most relevant publications are for a certain topic area... The best would be if I became an expert in that topic myself! ;-) If not then I have to rely on others. But I think what I could do at the very least is to investigate which publications from other academics are cited in those publications from University of Utrecht, and investigate including those as well where appropriate. Luckily, I do have an academic background myself (I have a PhD in engineering) so I do know how to work with scientific literature. EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Someone else pointed out to me that the selfcite policy applies here (where "you" is the client/university in this case): "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive." So I guess then the question arises what is "excessive". Is this something you have come across in the past? EMsmile (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, this is super helpful for me! I'll drop you a line so we can set up a call. My main concern right now is that issue of COI and how I can make sure I follow best practices there (I am contemplating asking at the COI noticeboard, too). Regarding "you should identify the best sources in the world and add those to Wikipedia articles." this is very true. It means getting inputs from external experts (such as those from University of Utrecht) to let me know what the most relevant publications are for a certain topic area... The best would be if I became an expert in that topic myself! ;-) If not then I have to rely on others. But I think what I could do at the very least is to investigate which publications from other academics are cited in those publications from University of Utrecht, and investigate including those as well where appropriate. Luckily, I do have an academic background myself (I have a PhD in engineering) so I do know how to work with scientific literature. EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I also do a lot more editing on the same articles than what my work would require. For me having two accounts is helpful:
- It clearly demarcates the edits which others need to watch with a more strict eye (due to my COI).
- It helps me track my edits to see (and report) the impact I make. I often do small edits on articles I come across but I wouldn't want those to be included in the tracking of aggregated pageviews.
- With my personal account I edit a wider variety of topics and I don't want that to be associated with my workplace.
- I do have a third account that I used in the past for a shorter-term residency (Adam Harangozó (OSA WiR))
- It is a minor annoyance to switch accounts (using a private window) but I think it is more transparent this way. Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Wikimania 2025
editFYI, submission for Wikimania 2025 are due at the end of this month. I'll send an email to the mailing list to see if folks want to coordinate a session. - Fuzheado (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)