Talk:2012 Communications Strategy

Please do leave your comments on the Wikimedia UK comms strategy here. Please submit your comments before the end of Friday 6 July. Thank you. --Stevie Benton (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was wondering where this was! I'll add mine under the section headers of the report, which I suggest we all do, to keep it tidy, with an initial "overall" bit. It would have been better to upload the text itself I think, if only for ease of quoting. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall

• Generally I think trhis is good, & very largely good in the reccommendations. Detail points below. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

stakeholder map

• Top left: "For archive content" - means? Clarify or cut. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, yes. That should read: "Businesses / charities - for archive content. We make friends with them, they give us stuff to use. An example would be Inmarsat just around the corner to the office. We get Wikipedians to help them with content, they release archives, diagrams, historical records and so on under open licenses. Totally take your point --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Channel review

WMUK wiki

• So how many views/unique vistors do we get? Same info for Twitter, Facebook, IRC chats. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Not many! We do need to source this information. IRC chats - very, very minimal - single figures the first time it was tried, apparently. --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• "For the most part, the site navigation is easy enough". You think?? Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • For top level navigation, yes. However, inconsistent labelling of pages and files doesn't help at all. Does anyone know user experience testers with time on their hands? --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Should be "archiving old and out of date content". Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Better categorization of pages - Absolutely YES. In fact it is is often impossible to find anything, once it goes from "Recent changes", which I find the most useful navigational method. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Geonotices

• Clarify this applies to WMUK "corporate" announcements, like those mentioned. I don't think the board needs to approve those for GLAM events, still less meetups (which are not WMUK events - a reminder of that here might be useful). I don't think the whole board needs to approve every press release myself, & if we get a devolved system going it should apply here too. All GLAM type events with a general invite should continue to use Geonotices, so the last point seems too tight. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I clearly need to learn more about geonotices. I think everyone who has commented on the strategy has picked that up. Chris and Harry both had some useful feedback on this point too. --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • John: the board has no business approving any geonotices—WMUK's disclaimer says Please note that we are a separate organization from the Wikimedia Foundation, and have no control over Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation projects. Besides which, geonotices are mostly put up by a single admin (in the UK, it's often me, either independently or after an informal request), so it would be difficult for anyone to efficiently control it beyond the very ad-hoc control exerted by the admin who act as gatekeepers.

Things like the AGM & some other "corporate" events are clearly WMUK posting as an organization. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Stevie: The best way to keep track of geonotices is to create ourself a watchlist on enwiki and watch a few article you're interested in so you have a reason to check it every now and again. Alternatively, you can create an email alert for w:en:Mediawiki:Geonotice.js, but there are disadvantages to that. Feel fee to give me a ring and I'll talk you through genotices (and CentralNotices, which are used for the fundraiser; sitenotices, watchlist notices and the nuances and purpose of each). Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

News & Print

• Sceptical about postcards, which look a tad extravagant imo, plus rather selling the pass for an online organization. Maybe if we ever do WikiLovesMonuments. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been surprised by how popular the Commons postcards WMDE produced were - they seem to get a lot more interest than any other printed material. They're probably more useful and enticing as a promotional tool than (eg) the "about WMUK" glossy leaflets, and I'd definitely support us making some. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Andrew. That's actually where the idea came from! We have some on the office wall and they look great. Also, in the likely absence of Wiki Loves Monuments from the UK this year postcards may be a good vehicle for some kind of photo competition. In my view, it's an engagement thing. --Stevie Benton (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Add to Reccomends that there should always be an online version. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Good point. The reason it's not in there is because I thought it went without saying! The artwork is always created digitally (Annual Report is an example)--Stevie Benton (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Is there a case for some sort of press party to meet Wikimedians & have some light presentations? Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • At some point, yes. But I think it's a little way down the road. There's something I'm investigating at the moment which could be very useful. Bold Creative and Demops are interested in doing some work around internet literacy and wiki literacy. An event for that, with press invitations and so on would be perfect. I'm meeting them next week to discuss some ideas but haven't committed to anything at all. --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I know it happens, but I think we should be a bit cautious about pushing ourselves as WMF-East for the media. Inter-chapter relations are not a high priority imo; you will only talk to the brass. "Support t smaller chapters" is to be treated with a certain caution - fortunately language barriers make this difficult much of the time. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My view is that if it happens we need to control the outcomes of it. No point being a victim of circumstance when we can benefit from it instead. We shouldn't push it but we shouldn't ignore it either. --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think we need a simple page & handout version explaining how WMUK fits in to the rest of the movement, & other things - open content, Wikileaks. For once, Venn diagrams would be actually useful. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Nice idea. If anyone would like to have a crack at this I would welcome it. --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I would love to see an all-Wikimedia Venn diagram. Absolutely no idea how to construct it, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Blogs

• Should not have be approved by board, yes. Maybe a review by one nominated trustee with a backup, if people worry. But should carry a disclaimer re views represented. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A disclaimer is a sensible option, yes - but only if people post on their own behalf. It's not appropriate for me to accept responsibility for the views of others if I'm doing the posting. --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with the recommendation here. We could always have a disclaimer saying "Posted by XX on behalf of YYY, views are YYY's and not those of Wikimedia UK". The Land (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we (collectively) worry too much about these things (and I'm aware that I probably don't worry enough). As long as there are sensible guidelines on what to post and/or some sort of review process (where a second pair of eyes looks at a blog post before it goes up), a disclaimer is probably covering ourselves too much, and risks damaging the credibility of the post. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Communications

with donors

• Yes, more often (ie than never, as at present), but even every two months might be too oftem. I'd say offer a signup to a monthly newsletter, otherwise max 4x per year, with an opt-out to just statutory notices, Annual Report. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we have a duty to let people know what we are spending their money on, hence the suggestion for more regular contact. Equally importantly, donors are our biggest untapped resource of warm leads for volunteering and editing. We shouldn't neglect this. --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a case of where the "mark as junk" threshold of donors is, which of course varies, but in my case every 2 months might well hit it for things that aren't a main interest. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I think a quarterly newsletter is a good idea. More often might be too often, and less often is probably not often enough, but we should tell people what the pattern is, and we should give them the option of changing the pattern along with the plain old "unsubscribe" link. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
        • • I don't think we can legally "unsubscribe" them from the AGM & EGM notices & a few other rare instances where we are obliged to inform all members. I mean if we did we have to mail them anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)