Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/CFR

Ought the header mention Tuesday's event on East 68th Street? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: Thanks Jim, missed that one.... Added to header box and moved to main Google calendar. Best, Erika BrillLyle (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

expensive NYC wiki event, not general interest, should we list it?

(also sent by email to the WM NYC board)

I made a project page for this event.

I listed it in the WM NYC events board, but I have mixed feelings about it being there. Can someone comment on what I should do with this? Here is the situation -

I am presenting at an academic conference at CUNY. It is only a one-hour time slot. The target audience is medical students and young doctors, and not our general WM NYC audience. Attending the talk would cost $80 per person at least. This is neither a high-impact event nor of general interest. Personally, I do not need any direct WM NYC support for this event, although I like being a WM NYC representative everywhere that I go.

However, I do think it is useful for me to give credit to WM NYC when I present, especially locally. I continue to take for granted that advertising anything as a "WM NYC supported event" is useful for the chapter. I will note attendance at the talk, and that can be reported with everything else the chapter tracks.

WM NYC is not currently distinguishing highly targeted events with general audience events. There is only one event listing. For that reason, I listed this event in the general marquee. I think it is a waste of most people's time and attention to see it because it is expensive, short, and targeted to medical school students. Another perspective is that listing it might bring some prestige to the chapter for people to see that the chapter has a presence at local conferences, or with local professional organizations. A comparable event that WM NYC could have advertised was METRO's September 8 online paid webinar.

Does anyone have a better recommendation of where we should log these special interest talks? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Pro, all members ought to know about all local Wiki-activities. Con, it's mere clutter. To me, the pro outweighs the con, though I don't intend to be there, having no connection with the target group. You might want to debold the item or otherwise suggest the narrowness of its interest. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeking ideas to redesign Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Header!

We need some clever visuals ideas to prettify and condense the header box, especially as the number of events each month has grown: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Header. Possible options include more liberal use of "hide", icons in a calendar table, etc. Also consider usage on mobile devices, and the option of having different content on desktop and mobile (which we use to a limited extent currently).

I personally pledge two boxes of pizza (or caloric equivalent) to the winner!--Pharos (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, events for the present month can be displayed, while comming months can be collapsed into single lines. Maybe include thumbnail pics of the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building? -- kosboot (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Other ideas could include incorporating elements of {{Meetup}} or {{Calendar}}, or making it all a bit like the existing 'Recent' section.--Pharos (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
December 2024
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31  
January 2024
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31  
  • I have a working sandbox up at Template:NYC meetup announcements. Still deciding on what kind of decoration/color works best, very open to suggestions. I took some liberties with reorganizing the information with the redesign—I think it puts the most important info up front (re: separating edit-a-thons), but I'm going on a small sample size there. Doesn't look like the calendar will be a good fit (the template is kind of clunky). czar 23:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Pharos, czar 01:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Czar - I like your design - it looks clean and neat (I confess to disliking that tan color in the current template). Really like it! - kosboot (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: @Kosboot: -- I reverted this change. This change needs to be discussed by the whole board and approved by the whole board. Also I don't see a big difference in the two options. I am appalled this was done without any significant discussion. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

ALSO. I am not happy with the initiation of this redesign project that was done with ZERO regard to discussing it with the Board and/or with me. I have been one of the stakeholders updating and maintaining the header. It was a total mis-step -- and an insult -- to not give the courtesy of a discussion about this project with me and/or other stakeholders before making this public. I am very unhappy with the whole thing. This is an important chapter matter that has been completely mis-handled. -- Erika, Wikimedia NYC Secretary & Board Member, aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC) I reverted the comment in error. Apologies. However this is a matter that needs to be agreed upon by the Board so I hope that is understood. -- Erika BrillLyle (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

  • A few things. (1) I appreciate the work you put into maintaining the on-wiki schedule of events, and would of course prefer your feedback and blessing on the design. (2) My understanding was that this page was the place to give public notice and discuss the template. And like all on-wiki content, the template is subject to "bold, revert, discuss" revision where, at worst, someone reverts a bold action rather than taking none at all. (3) I sense a potential cultural disconnect in that this template is on-wiki and thus belongs to all WP editors—it isn't technically controlled by any outside body or board apart from community consensus. To clarify, I think it's fine to discuss it off-wiki as much as anyone wants, but the actual consensus-building should be happening in a public, prominent, on-wiki place (this page), no? czar 17:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could join the email list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia_nyc where you and the board can discuss it. - kosboot (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link—it's not so much that I wanted to participate myself but that I wanted the discussion to be open for both posterity and anyone who wanted to participate czar 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Stony Brook edit-a-thon

There's an edit-a-thon next Monday (24th) at Stony Brook University for Open Access Week. Other OA-related events: New York (general), Stony Brook, Columbia, CUNY. czar 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Czar: Do you know if there's an event page on wiki set up for the Monday event?
Also, when are you moving here? Would love to say hi in person at some of the upcoming events if you can swing it! -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi @BrillLyle, I don't believe it has one, but I only happened to stumbled into the event while searching for a book online! I'm in the area but it's a little trek to get downtown—perhaps some day soon. Looking forward to meeting you too czar 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks like various institutions are discovering that anyone, anywhere can do one of these events. They can seek help from us, in which case we'll know; otherwise just go ahead. They don't need a license. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Yep but on the other hand, they might not know how WM NYC could help, so it wouldn't be a bad idea for someone to reach out just in case czar 20:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: Agree 1000%. I think the NYC chapter could do more to provide outreach and support with non-NYC based initiatives. Half the time I don't think we are all communicating with each other. One of Wikimedia NYC's mission is to support efforts from communities that don't have chapters and might need assistance. Thanks again for letting us know about all of this. You are subscribed to the WMNYC calendars, right Czar? :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Last night at the wine and pretzel party for OHNY Weekend (we snuck in a third Wikipedian, on an invitation for two) I explained about the photo contest, which led to what an edit-a-thon is. One interlocutor asked how he could get such a thing at Stony Brook. "Oh, one is already scheduled for, umm, this week or next. Oh, yes here it is, day before yesterday." So, he promised to look into it. Clearly someone organized this one without looking for us, and maybe even without proper local publicity. Or else sought deliberately to keep it small and somehow word leaked out late to us. Anyway, maybe next time. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I did this one. See WP:STONY. Also see Category:Wiki Loves Open Access Week 2016. Perhaps we could talk about reporting out of town events. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's here: Stonybrook Open Access Week 2016 -- BrillLyle (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize until Lane mentioned it the other day at Fordham, that our events are outnumbering the weeks. This makes me think of splitting the list into a central one (still the majority) and a supplement for those either happening beyond the usual metro commuter zone, or intended for people affiliated with the host institution or otherwise not reaching out to the general public. We do want to know about those; they just don't belong on the WMNYC (main?) Google calendar or atop the central chapter page. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
We can add them to the WikimediaNYC google calendar I think. There is also the Wikimedia Global events google calendar I keep on an ad hoc basis. I think beyond the logistics and organization the real issue is communication, which obviously could be improved. There is a Phabricator task that is an effort to provide a solution to all of these tech and editathon events. It's recognized this is an ongoing problem everywhere. :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Event notice policy

Inside the WM NYC chapter there have been some discussions about what sorts of events can be noted here. The discussion has not been focused, and there are not any disagreements or sides, but rather just a general lack of clarity.

I am going to propose something here. If anyone wishes to add or comment, then feel free. What follows is my perspective of how current practice in the chapter is playing out -

  1. Any event organized by friends of WM NYC can be listed on Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Event archive, and any person may list events there. This is not a high-traffic page and not a place for advertising events to participants, but it is an appropriate place to list WM NYC supported events.
  2. WM NYC offers some support for any wiki-related event organized by anyone in the region, but that support is not defined and may be slight or nearly nonexistent. The support might only include sharing online support tools which are available to anyone without permission, and perhaps no one in the chapter could be aware or acknowledge that an event is happening. In general the chapter tries to help everyone who is contributing constructively to wiki, but right now no promises are made about what that support will be. One advantage of people listing their events here is that it makes it possible for the chapter to discuss them and collaborate further, if possible. An advantage to the chapter of listing all events here is that collectively the list helps the chapter to understand what its participants are doing and what developments are useful to provide sufficient support to as many events as possible.
  3. The more restricted advertising real estate is in the box at the top of the meetup page, which is at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Header. There is an open invitation for any friend of WM NYC to advertise their events in this box by listing it, but there might be more chapter regulation of how this space is used. Although there are no published rules, some general expectations of events advertised in this box are that they should be (1) open to the public (2) "nonprofit", which perhaps all events to date have been anyway (3) ideally free to attend, but this has been flexible (4) have a point person in contact with the WM NYC chapter in case there are questions, (5) have a wiki focus, which almost always happens anyway but some events have promoted non-wiki free culture projects.

None of these are laws or rules, but instead, I wanted to have a summary of some of the conversations to date. If anyone has anything to add or change then please share. If someone has ideas for more formal rules then share.

Personally, I work at Consumer Reports and host wiki events with that organization. I am also a WM NYC member. Lots of the chapter members host events with organizations, and the question has come up about who "owns" an event. The common answer to date is that events can have multiple stakeholders with some ownership. Personally, I feel that every event that I do for Consumer Reports is an event supported by WM NYC and I think that it is appropriate that WM NYC get due credit for the event outcomes. I depend on the chapter's support to run wiki outreach programs for my organization, and I list the events I host among WM NYC events to give credit. Other chapter members with organizational affiliations have often done the same thing, even though sometimes there have been questions about whether the chapter is liable for problems with such events. Giving credit to WM NYC for support is not the same thing as having WM NYC be liable for potential problems at events which its members list on the event page, and the event listings are more of a community notice space than a log of events which WM NYC manages as an authority. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lane
One of the organizational principles of the Event archive page is whether or not I was gathering metrics for the event. The events in the main area for each year have metrics and info in Podio. For WikiEdu and workshops and conferences -- as well as supported events where we often provide remote support -- there are no metrics being gathered and the event is not being collocated in Podio. This was a way to triage recording of events in order that we could provide WMF with event metrics. Events that would not have an attendee list or are managed / administered by other stakeholders, seemed to be outside the scope of our recording process. Although they are included in the graphs and detailed listings of general overview of the chapter's activity.
As far as the WM NYC light blue box, I think it's definitely something to think about because it takes up a lot of precious geography for event pages. I use the box all the time to learn about upcoming events and also for quicklinks to various projects WM NYC supports. It's mission critical IMO until and if other options are explored. Which I think should be done publicly and with full chapter engagement. But for people with small screened laptops, it's a lot of info to wade through. So I would hesitate in endorsing adding non-WM NYC related events. Brevity is a good thing. I am, however, more than happy to Tweet, add the event to the Meetup calendar, the WM NYC Google calendar(s), etc. And offer whatever assistance is needed that I have bandwidth to provide. -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
BrillLyle I hear you about the metrics and I do not have answers. Part of what you are saying is that you wish to have a plan to capture global metrics, and I acknowledge that, but one important metric which is more fundamental than the global metrics is the fact of an event happening at all. I do not wish to create a burden by adding events for which global metrics collection is difficult or challenging, but at the same time, I would like to log those events somewhere even if that results in defaulting on the global metrics reporting for that event. The log can happen on the event archive or we can make things more complicated and establish another list for logs, but at this time, my opinion is that the best option is to dump everything into the event archive and worry about what can and cannot be processed later. What other ideas do you have for logging events with some amount of WM NYC support but which are below the threshold of having compliance with the metrics system?
I acknowledge a problem of endorsing "non-WM NYC related events", but personally I wish to sidestep that issue because I find it too challenging to address. If you like, I invite you to define what constitutes a "WM NYC related event", but I think drawing a line to say what is and is not "WM NYC-related" is a difficult legal, social, and organizational issue. I drafted some general guidance above for what I think should go into the event log, but I tried to avoid saying that everything in the event log is "WM NYC-related". I think that most of the WM NYC organizers and more active members would have different expectations of what "WM NYC-related" means and since I think there is so little consensus I am not eager to try to promote that as a defining requirement to be listed. If you have time and interest in digging into to this point then I would join a conversation with you but unless you think this is critical then I wish the issue could be avoided and left ambiguous and subjective. I do not anticipate that developing a simple ruleset would be easy, but if you feel bold, you might draft one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
following bluerasberry's reply, BrillLyle further raised these issues -
Point #1: The Event archive page is not meant to be a grab-all for events globally. There are other place for this.
Point #2: I know that you, Richard, and I have been providing outreach and support service to interested folks. I had hoped the Metrics & Reporting position would incorporate an Editathon-in-a-Box concept, as well as a GLAM-namespace-in-a-Box concept. Despite the negative feedback from many WM NYC leadership during the grant process, I think all of this work is even more valuable than ever, but I am not interested in being managed or patronized about (on this ongoing work that I happily provide for those who ask) by people who are taking on a managerial role within the chapter and barely show up and/or edit Wikipedia, yet call themselves Wikipedians / Wikipedia experts / Wikipedia editors. When approached or when I see people in need of assistance, I help. I am not going to do this work under someone's thumb. It is part of why I like Wikipedia, and is a time & effort that could benefit the chapter, but not in its current state.
Point #3: Agree generally. Open open open. Yes. But sometimes there will be small private workshops and conferences that require fees. I think we can be flexible in this. Ideally editathons are open, though there are typically access restrictions, which is only fair to the cultural institutions. I think that was the general consensus, and is beneficial to all.
As far as "giving credit" to WM NYC, I tried to use the guiding principle that if WM NYC WikiFacilitators show up -- at least one to two Board members as well as WikiFacilitators from the chapter community, I see that as a WM NYC event. Events that was facilitate from afar and/or do not physically attend, those are groups below the main events, etc. added in these edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrillLyle (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lane
We have a plan that captures metrics. I don't know how many times I have to say this.
The event organization and metrics gathering has been an effort of time and energy that I have donated to the chapter since I became active. I have used my library and archive training received during my Master's degree in Library Science, in addition to my three years of work in TV metadata, as well as over 25 years of administrative and office work, which often included creating office manuals and how to documentation. I believe that intuitively the information is organized in a usable format. I also believe that with the Content Management System structure of Podio, which piggybacks on WM DC's existing system, there is a good structure of usable and easily exportable metadata for the events.
So this is not starting from zero, but is an organizational system that is based on common sense and industry (library, clerical) practices. I don't believe going back to a Learning & Evaluation area is helpful from my perspective, as the structure is workable, the structure is set up, and this is a donation of my volunteer work. I had hoped to be hired to do the Metrics & Reporting position which would have been focused on this administrative work, but that did not happen. I am not able to commit to even more free digital labor than I have given already, and am somewhat happy to contribute on an ongoing basis. I think ethically this work should be paid, as it is for European chapters. It is work that if the Metrics & Reporting position was made more flexible -- or resembled the position as I described and advocated on the grant page, but was summarily defeated on -- well, this is where Joelle can step in. If she is interested in donating this institutional knowledge base, once she has a grasp on our activities and the existing historical and current metadata.
I have embraced the WP:BOLD approach in trying to logically and cleanly present the information for end-users and event organizers. I am VERY defensive of this work because it seems to be dismissed, denigrated, or completely ignored. Until it is time for compliance or reporting. I ask for help and like this week, have no success in getting the help -- and am made to feel that my work is a waste of time. My donated digital labor that includes over 1,000 checkins, and will provide the Outreach Dashboard mission-critical historical metadata.
Also I see this as a very long discussion where I am repeating myself. And no one is really interested in hearing what I have to say or contribute. So Lane, if you want to talk in person on this, I would be happy to do so. But I also don't have the bandwidth right now to have long Talk page conversations. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You raise many controversial points. I will not disagree with you but I am also unable to agree with you. I should not speak for others, but I also am not aware of other people taking the sort of strong opinions you have on these matters. While you might be correct, I also would say that some of the issues which you present as settled matters are instead issues which have not been discussed much and which lack wiki community consensus.
Voice conversation would be a good next step. You have my schedule. I will take steps to advance the organization of the next WM NYC board meeting also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/NYC/Archive_4&oldid=769711397"