I am a global media anaysis consultant for dow jones. Working with top lline global clients. Am keen to help the wiki team both as a team member and as a contact outside who may be able to introduce the team to potential sponsors. Am currently trying to set up a chat with klm on this subject and have interest internally inside dow jones as a potential sponsor.
I am working on developing both opportunities and will report back if successful.
I have a cv style profile on linked in. Feel free to use my work experience in any way you wish to develop and raise the chances of success for the oxford bid.
Best to the team
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sat Apr 04 15:28:57 2009
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania Bid - Local Team
On-wiki or on-list (or both?)
I have extensive experience in technical management, whether it be for sound / lighting equipment on stages, or computer networks (through wifi, etc) in my capacities as an IT Technician for a 1500 pupil secondary school. I am, therefore, willing to help out in any way I can in these respects, and anywhere else I can possibly get involved!
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Mickey Conn <mickey.conn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It would also be good if those of us who are listed as the local team
could note our relevant experience. Of course, people can still be
part of team without any relevant experience, but if members of the
team have organised events, negotiated contracts, worked on publicity
or technical set-up, etc, I'm sure the panel will be very keen to
know.
Mickey
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 21:20 +0000 2/4/09, joseph seddon wrote:
>>I suppose either is possible, both would be preferrable
>>
>>
>>Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:07:15 +0100
>>From: andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com
>>To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania Bid - Local Team
>>
>>.ExternalClass p {;}
>>At what time? During the run up and during the conference or does
>>just during the conference count?
>
>
> It might be a good idea to contact everybody on the list, and ask
> them such questions. The sign page could be archived, and replaced
> with a time based plan of commitment, for example.
>
> There are many phases of this project, and many skills that would
> help. And also, as with anything, just people required to do stuff...
>
>
> Bid, get the bid, plan, plan, plan some more, execute (drink beer
> here) and after care.
>
> Gordo
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/////////
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
-- Paul "skenmy" Williams
-- paul(a)skenmy.com
It would also be good if those of us who are listed as the local team
could note our relevant experience. Of course, people can still be
part of team without any relevant experience, but if members of the
team have organised events, negotiated contracts, worked on publicity
or technical set-up, etc, I'm sure the panel will be very keen to
know.
Mickey
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 21:20 +0000 2/4/09, joseph seddon wrote:
>>I suppose either is possible, both would be preferrable
>>
>>
>>Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 22:07:15 +0100
>>From: andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com
>>To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania Bid - Local Team
>>
>>.ExternalClass p {;}
>>At what time? During the run up and during the conference or does
>>just during the conference count?
>
>
> It might be a good idea to contact everybody on the list, and ask
> them such questions. The sign page could be archived, and replaced
> with a time based plan of commitment, for example.
>
> There are many phases of this project, and many skills that would
> help. And also, as with anything, just people required to do stuff...
>
>
> Bid, get the bid, plan, plan, plan some more, execute (drink beer
> here) and after care.
>
> Gordo
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/////////
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
Following the IRC meeting, it was recommended by the Jury that we try and differentiate between our supporters and the local team of volunteers. I know that many people have offered thier assistance and are willing volunteer but we need to make it clear how many volunteers there are.
If you will be willing to Volunteer in some way please indicate here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2010/Bids/Oxford/Team.
Many Thanks
Seddon
_________________________________________________________________
Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
I spotted this today - "Somewhat less excitingly: Stephen O'Brien, an
MP with far too much time on his hands, had been asking Parliamentary
Questions about whether government department staff have edited
Wikipedia ..."
http://news.ansible.co.uk/a261.html
Huh, I thought. Interesting. It turns out the question was asked a
little over a year ago, but you might like to see the responses -
* The Ministry of Defence (who have blocked write access since
November 2007), and the Department for Transport both name names. [1]
* Health give us a little graph of their activity, month-by-month
(using our data - 1500 edits or so), but don't name articles. [2]
* Children, Schools and Families admit that "a Minister" has edited
one article, and Culture, Media & Sport have edited 103 articles, but
neither will say what they were.
* Wales & the FCO are definite they haven't done any, but most other
departments just gave the traditional ritual incantation of "this
information is not held centrally and could only be provided at
disproportionate cost". (One department helpfully explains that they'd
have to comb through all their records of individual access to the
internet to find out, which is fair enough, but then say this is
impractical because it's not held online. One wonders how they do
store this data!) About a quarter of the departments, it seems,
explain in their response that IP addresses pass through a central
government system and so are effectively anonymised at the Wikipedia
end. I'm not sure if the person writing the response for the others
didn't know this, or just omitted it.
The two best non-responses were from the Leader of the House, who
sternly informed us that "Officials in this Office are not responsible
for the creation of, or amendment to, Wikipedia entries and there are
no plans for them to become so." [3]
&, best of all... the Prime Minister himself, who denies everything:
"I know of no instance where my Office has either created or amended
any records on Wikipedia." [4]
(Isn't seeing that sort of thing said by him a bit scary? Huh. How far
we have come, and all that.)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
[1] -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080317/text/80…http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080516/text/80…http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080403/text/80…
[2] -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080421/text/80…http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080115/text/80…
[3] -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080218/text/80…
[4] -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080403/text/80…
We had a chat at the Board meeting last night and there was a bit of
nervousness at the fewness of people who have expressed an interest in
standing for the Board. The applications are going straight to the
tellers so the current Board members won't actually know who's applied
until they're anounced in about a week's time (so that they dont get
an unfair advantage over other candidates) but from discussions it
looked like only two of the five interim Board members have applied
and the other three are looking to retire; two non-Board members are
also interested in applying and we don't know of anyone else who has
come forward.
One aspect which might be putting people off is the frequency and
length of the Board meetings we've been having to date. The initial
Board has met 23 times so far (nearly once per week on average) often
for 3 hours or more. Whilst this is probably necessary when we're
getting things sorted out, I'd like to suggest that the next board has
shorter and less frequent meetings. I think meeting once per month for
no more than 2 hours would be ideal, so that it's not too much of a
burdon on Board members and we avoid burning our volunteers out. At
the same time we can change the Board into more of an "oversight"
role, and do more "organising" work outside.
It's surprising what you can acheive when working to a strict
deadline, and our productivity does tend to dive after a couple of
hours.
Hopefully this will also encourage people who are thinking of putting
their names forward but are put off by the commitment of meetings.
What do others think?