2012 Annual Report/Design

Please note that all copy should now be finalised (except page six). No more changes now unless factual or typos. Thank you. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is for comments, edits and feedback on the designed PDF of the 2012 Wikimedia UK Annual Report. The PDF is below. Please add in your views under the relevant sub heading for each printed page. Corrections and suggestions will be sent to the report's designer on Monday 16 April so we can get a second iteration of the designed report. Many thanks - and apologies if the formatting on wiki isn't perfect! Please do use the discussion page. --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The latest version of the report has now been uploaded to the Wiki. From the list of amends below I've removed those that have already been made. Please review the report and note any amends. We're getting close to the point where the PDF needs to be with the printer now so if you'd like copy changes please note these in full if possible. I'm looking for changes to be noted by 10am, Monday 23 April. Thank you. --Stevie Benton (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page one (front cover)

• Question: What's the image? It doesn't immediately say "Wikimedia" to me. The Land (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Monnow Bridge, Monmouth. Connection with Monmouthpedia. Mike Peel (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If I didn't see the connection with our work, is anyone else who picks up the Annual Report going to? The Land (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Jon suggested a good compromise here. Make it very clear on the inside front cover what the image is and what its connection is. --Stevie Benton (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Is there something wrong with the colour profile here? E.g. the green looks *very* garish, and not at all the same as the dark green at the top-left of this page. (for cross-checks: the exact colour definitions in several different schemes are in the wmf:Wikimedia visual identity guidelines). Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  It doesn't look right as a thumbnail, but the colour scheme seems fine in the actual document... Rock drum (talk • contribs) 12:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  It's fine in the printed version too. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• • All edits now sent to designer --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Page two (inside front cover)

• List Jon together with other staff rather than separately. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• State that the screenshots of webpages on page 7 are used under the Fair Dealing copyright exception. Also check copyright of Wikipedia blackoug page with WMF. Mike Peel (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • • The blackout image is CC-BY-SA 3.0 on Commons so it's fine. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bottom of the page, specify 3.0 after CC-BY-SA. Same paragraph, change Wikimedia UMK to Wikimedia UK. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change the colour of "Contents" from green to blue.

Add copy: The image on the front cover shows the historic Monnow Bridge in the town of Monmouth, Wales. We've chosen this as our front cover because Monmouth is becoming the world's first Wikipedia town. See page ten for more details. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All edits now sent to the designer --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Correction: Fix un-italicised word: (Communications Organiser) > (Communications Organiser) Rock drum (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Again, good spot, thank you. Will pass that on. --Stevie Benton (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Missing space between "(Secretary),Andrew" Also "license.This" Mike Peel (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Wikimedia UMK" at bottom - correct spelling Mike Peel (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Mike, both noted.

Page three

• Suggestion: Double-spacing after full stops would be useful. Mike Peel (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Some comments on the prose:
  • Roger's section - the most important information about what Wikimedia UK has achieved as an organisation is the 2nd half of the first paragraph. We should probably open with more of this, and then talk about Roger's personal experiences later.

I think it works quite well in terms of setting the scene and telling a story. What do others think? --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Correction: Are we sure it should say "2012-2012 Chair"? -- KTC (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that's a very helpful spot. I'll make sure this gets corrected. --Stevie Benton (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

All edits now sent to the designer --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Page four

• Correction: change membership increase figure to 165. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Suggestion: 'Double' or "x2" for membership increase Mike Peel (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Update: change September 2011 box - remove current content, replace with "GLAM events in Bristol, Coventry, Derby and London - --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Update: Add "Some" ahead of "Key moments form the year" --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All edits now sent to the designer --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Specify '18 Jan 2012' rather than just 'Jan 2012'. I know it breaks the convention set by the other entries, but it's important to emphasise that it was one day only. Mike Peel (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Good idea Mike, I've advised the designer --Stevie Benton (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Page five

• Correction: Second column, first paragraph: change sentence to "they are writers and editors just like us." --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can things be tweaked so there the second column starts with a new paragraph? Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• In general, the text on this page currently doesn't distinguish well between WMUK and WMF fundraising efforts. E.g. the leafy green backgrounds was a WMF discovery, which WMUK replicated. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm still learning the distinction myself! Think we should leave in the line about the leafy background if poss, it's the kind of little colourful detail that people love! --Stevie Benton (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• We need to talk somewhere about what the money is spent on. In particular we need to be clear that just over half of the money we raise is passed on to the Wikimedia Foundation and ensures Wikipedia keeps running, while the other half is spent supporting our programme work in the UK. I don't know whether we're including any summary accounts in this document? The Land (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't checked the figures, but I should do when I get a moment. The Land (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The plan is for this document to be an at-a-glance overview. The financial data will be properly covered in the SORP report to the Charity Commission. This one is for members, donors and the general public. --Stevie Benton (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added in the line about half of the money going to the Foundation and the rest on UK programming. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All edits now sent to the designer. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Page six

• The white text on a black background is rather difficult to read with this font (or perhaps I've been staring at this computer screen too much today...) Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In general, white body text on a black background is very poor for readability. Maybe there is a way to get round this by putting the background on a gradient...? Stevie, I think this needs some thought. The Land (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I found it very readable, actually, and if anything it will look better on paper than on screen. I wouldn't want the whole report to be white-on-black, but having this page in separate colours marks it out in a striking way, which I like. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

While white on black isn't the best combination on screen, it's much, much better printed. I think the impact it has is worthwhile as well, contrasting as it does with the rest of the document. So, basically what Martin said. --Stevie Benton (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Needs to talk about WMUK's role here as distinct from Wikipedia - i.e. that the blackout was the Wikipedia community's decision, and that WMUK was just involved in communicating what was going on, and why, with the world rather than doing lobbying. Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. The Land (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions? --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can I suggest reducing the amount of the New Statesman article quoted, and try to find some more statistics on the scale and impact of the blackout? At the moment it's 3/4 of a page of text on the same subject, which is a lot. Could do with breaking up a bit more. 10:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction: In the opening when mentioning Steve Virgin we cannot describe him as a Trustee in this context so remove "a Wikimedia UK Trustee" and replace with "written as a Wikipedian" --Stevie Benton (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
--Stevie Benton (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with anon at 10:17. Do we have/need permission from the NS to quote so much from them? I suspect yes. Add second sentence like "The blackout was decided upon after extensive online discussion by the English Wikipedian community". And maybe more. 87.194.52.251 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We should be absolutely fine to re-use that copy from the NS as it's already been recreated on our blog here. Will add in the line about the English Wikipedia community, thank you for that. When you say you agree with the anon user, do you mean about the white copy on black background? There are two posts from users times at 10:17. Honestly, the white on black honestly looks great when printed. But it can be changed if enough people think it needs it. --Stevie Benton (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Page seven

• It's local media, but maybe worth a screenshot: [1] MartinPoulter (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure there's space Martin, after adding in the Physics World screenshot - sorry about that. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All edits to this page sent to the designer now. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Page eight

• Suggestion: play up the fact that the very first 'editathon' ever was at the British Library in January 2011. We (<ego>me and Tango</ego>) came up with the concept, and it's now been replicated world-wide to great success. Mike Peel (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I second this. :-) The Land (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy to do so if someone could give me a line. I don't really know about this. --Stevie Benton (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• It would be good if we could include some figures about the number of museums, galleries, archives etc we are working with, and the total attendance at GLAM events over the last year. The number would be quite impressive. Also, this will be read by various GLAM institutions, might be a good idea to mention contact details to use if someone wants to get in touch regarding outreach opportunities! The Land (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• I think we should reduce the amount of space we give Liam on this page. It's all good stuff, but Liam isn't familiar to most of our audience. The Land (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Re this and the point above - happy to trim Liam's content if there's some figures we can use. Happy to use figures, if anyone can supply some! --Stevie Benton (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I'd approach it is by looking at everything on the events page that's GLAM activity, most events have an attendance list, if they don't then one of us will probably know a ballpark figure. Not sure I'll have time to do that tonight, do you have a chance to? The Land (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've looked again at Liam's text and I think the best way to shorten it is by chopping the final two paragraphs as they don't really say much that is significant. That said, there's a pleasing (near) symmetry when looking at pages 8 and 9 together... I'll try and cobble together a similar amount of text to add to the end of the first GLAM section. --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Update to the above: Here's the changes I've sent to the designer:

Remove from Liam's section:

Furthermore, these major projects have not distracted from running regular editing and behind-the-scenes tour events up and down the country which help develop Wikimedia community cohesion and build awareness of the GLAM sector, the Chapter and Wikimedia generally.

In the coming one-to-three year period I look forward to Wikimedia UK building on their solid foundation in a number of ways.

Add at the end of the first section (before Liam's text):

2012-13 will see us build on our work with the GLAM sector, most notably with our GLAM-Wiki 2012 event in September, in partnership with the British Library, taking centre stage.

If you represent a GLAM institution and would like to find out more about working with Wikimedia UK, or if you are interested in getting involved as a volunteer, please contact us at glam@wikimedia.org.uk

--Stevie Benton (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edit Rock drum. Also added in a space. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Page nine

• I've added in the line about JISC and WWI. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All changes sent through. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Page ten

• To feature infographic currently being designed. UPDATE: Infographic is not suitable for the report due to its epic size. I'll prepare some text and images on Monmouth and circulate ASAP. --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Given that Monmouth is more of a 2012-13 story (most of it is/has been taking place after February 2012), I would suggest taking content from the 2012 Activity Plan and putting that in here instead, giving an overview of the projects that are taking place over the year (where they haven't already been covered elsewhere). Mike Peel (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft copy on MonmouthpediA for the report below. Please do comment or edit as appropriate. --Stevie Benton (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

MonmouthpediA - a case study in innovation

What do you get when you bring together a community of Wikipedians, an engaged local council, a town with a rich cultural heritage, motivated volunteers, and a creative use of new technology? You get MonmouthpediA – a project to create the world's first Wikipedia town in Monmouth, Wales.

The project aims to cover every single notable place, people, artefacts, flora, fauna and other things in Monmouth in as many languages as possible, but with a special focus on Welsh. This is a different scale of WikiProject. Monmouthshire County Council is working to install free town-wide Wi-Fi for this project.

MonmouthpediA uses QRpedia codes, a type of bar code a smartphone can read through its camera that takes you to a Wikipedia article in your language. QR codes are extremely useful, as physical signs have no way of displaying the same amount of information and in a potentially huge number of languages as Wikipedia can.

Articles will have coordinates (geotags) to allow a virtual tour of the town using Wikipedia's mobile apps (or the Wikipedia layer on OpenStreetMap or Google Streetview) and will be available in augmented reality software including Layar.

At the time of writing, the project has resulted in over 300 new articles in 26 languages, 145 improved articles, over 1000 images, 23 Did You Know? mentions and an extra 400,000 views of Monmouth-related content per year.

Why not pay a visit to Monmouth to take a look for yourself? You could even consider making your home town the next Wikipedia town... --Stevie Benton (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Correction: I would try to avoid putting in a date as most people reading this will be reading it after 19 May. Rock drum (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Good spot Rock drum, updated.--Stevie Benton (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've made some minor changes directly to the text. Could we mention OpenStreetMap rather than, or in addition to, Google Streetview? (supporting freely licensed content projects & all that). Mike Peel (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the edits Mike. I've also edited the text to drop in OpenStreetMap as per your suggestion. --Stevie Benton (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Page eleven (inside back cover)

This page is settled and finalised now. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Page twelve (Outside back cover)

• Replace Nottingham address with Development House address as our registered address. Address is 4th Floor Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT --Stevie Benton (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• This page should really use the Wikimedia logo without localisation if it's being used to link all of the Wikimedia sister projects together... Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Add @wikimediauk (twitter/identi.ca)? Mike Peel (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Add Facebook URL - http://www.facebook.com/WikimediaUK --Stevie Benton (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Add YouTube URL - www.youtube.com/wikimediauk

All edits sent through to the designer. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• The quotation is missing a closing " Mike Peel (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• "a raised a million" - remove first "a". Mike Peel (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I've advised the designer to remove the quotation mark. Will pass on the removal of the first "a" now. --Stevie Benton (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

General notes

• Looks really, really good - great work! Mike Peel (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• It might be a problem with me copying text from the PDF, but there seem to be a lot of missing spaces following punctuation - particularly full stops. This seems to go on throughout the document... Mike Peel (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  We'll make sure that the final artwork gets a thorough proofreading before it goes to the printers. Will encourage everyone to have a look for typos and spacing / punctuation errors. Thanks for the heads-up. --Stevie Benton (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)