From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


It seems important, being one-third of the Call to Action, but without a page or category of its own. So I boldly started one. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


We should have in mind that innovation means trying new things, which is great. But major decisions should only happen with community consensus. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I would hope that one route into practice would be via the Community Tech team: for example via Community Tech project ideas. Research is another major connection. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


In a previous post [1], to the ED's talk page, which sadly aged off without her having had the opportunity to respond to it, I raised this issue.

I suggest that WMFinitiate their focus on innovation by sending a few people over to AMPLab in Berkeley. They have a pretty exciting form of innovation going on there. If they care to venture futher afield, they could do worse than visit London (the Wikpedia Science Conference would be a great opportunity). There they'll find the Open Data Institute, a Google Campus, the Farr Institute, Alan Turing Institute, Health and Social Care Information Centre and University College Big Data Institute, the last four incidentally all being within a few minutes walk of the conference venue in the London Knowledge Quarter. There's a lot of fire-power in research and innovation in knowledge and data in just those few places: well worth a visit? Perhaps some of the innovation-related staff could make it? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Question on partnerships terms and conditions[edit]

The English Wikipedia community / Arbcom has repeatedly affirmed that it is unwilling to observe the standards set out in US law for a non-hostile working environment for volunteers, and supports the use of gender-related and sexual profanity in the administrative and enforcement areas of this website. Why do you believe that institutions supported by US taxpayer money should put up with this poor treatment of volunteers as a condition of participation on the website? --Djembayz (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Added review[edit]

I've added a brief review of the many ways WMF currently works on innovation, including some hopefully frank assessments of our shortcomings. Happy to hear other suggestions of how we could improve as we go forward. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The sentence Partnerships: The Foundation has historically been pretty ad-hoc about partnerships; the recent addition of partnership development into Advancement department are intended to change this, and bring third-party partners in as a regular source of is incomplete and I was unable to guess what it might have been intended to say. Is there more to say here? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of interest[edit]

I started this page as a place to discuss the ways in which the WMF might engage in Innovation when that was announced as a component of its Call to Action. It seems that there has been little interest in discussing the topic either on the part of the WMF or the Community, and so I propose to mark it as {{historical}}, especially as the Call to Action itself seems to have been abandoned. I find that regrettable but that seems to be the position. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Marked as {{outdated}} since we may hope that the WMF will regain some interest in the topic at some future time. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)