Talk:Wikimedian in residence

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Nemo does not understand[edit]

I really don't understand the issue. We should care about something only if we're directly involved: what a WiR needs to be clear for us so that 1) institutions ask possible things, 2) we know what to offer and ask and who to propose. If we're not involved in the preparation of the project nor in the selection of the person, there's no reason to care and if something goes wrong we'll just blame whoever is responsible. On the contrary, if we try to regulate things we can't control we'd fail to control them but we'd be blamed for failing because we would have asserted our duty to control them. --Nemo 12:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo bis Thanks for raising the issue, I just re-wrote this page, maybe now you can understand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-updating WiR table[edit]

Very nearly ready! I think I've just finished all of the wikidata items (table). Should soon be fully implementable, and the suggestion at talk:WREN is that it might be best to merge to this page from outreach:Wikimedian_in_residence. In the meantime, see the map! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and evolvability yes I agree do you have ideas for getting your table or other data visualizations represented here? Thanks for all that you have done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted some visualisation ideas over at Talk:WREN to centralise discussion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 updates to this page[edit]

I just rewrote this page.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to llywrch for the 2006 essay[edit]

Thanks llywrch for the 2006 essay "Wikipedian-in-residence, a proposal". At that time llywrch was in Portland and I was in Seattle, which are two nearby cities in Cascadia which share a common culture. I got my first paid professional Wikipedia appointment for a few months in the summer of 2006, and although I have not been able to trace the thread of social relationships, I believe that the nonprofit organization which hired me must have done so on the recommendation from all the Wikipedia meetups and discussions happening in Seattle and Portland in that time. People from each of those cities were in communication and travel with people from the other. At a different position for the University of Washington I got department approval to edit Wikipedia as part of my outreach objectives in medical research in 2008. In 2010 I was regularly presenting Wikipedia at medical organizations in Seattle and especially at the University of Washington. Other schools did Wikipedia projects in Seattle and Portland in that time too. The United States Public Policy Initiative began at that time, also in Cascadia organized by the same community, and that project also was a key precedent in the Wikipedia Education Program in India. It happens that I was in India attempting to teach Wikipedia around that time, and some of the American people behind the Wikipedia Education Program in India were also with that Public Policy Initiative. We were not collaborating directly but we had the same ideological and programmatic origins. All of these programs collectively were major contributing factors to the establishment of the Wiki Education Foundation. When I was doing wiki outreach in Seattle, Richard / Pharos in 2010 encouraged me to join the United States national network of wiki outreach activists. He was in New York City similarly in appointments for what many people now call "Wikimedian in Residence" roles. When Consumer Reports in 2012 offered me an appointment as Wikimedian in Residence, they had hired Peteforsyth from the Portland Wikipedia community and the Public Policy project to assist them with the hiring decision. I did not know Pete at that time, nor did I personally know Richard, but after Consumer Reports hired me Richard met me within 24 hours of my arrival to NYC and described to me how he managed his institutional affiliations. When Consumer Reports took me on it was the first time an organization made a full-time role for a person to only engage in Wikipedia. It was also the first permanent position, and I stayed there for a little over 6 years. My Consumer Reports role depended on university partnerships, where so many people in Cascadia, New York City, and Maharashtra had done so much work. I am aware that other projects from Central and South America, East Asia, and Europe had their own social connections and their own story of institutional partnerships, and I am less familiar with those. For me so much of my professional direction and work traces back to whatever community conversation was happening in Cascadia, and if I had to point to a single powerful intervention which pushed a lot of thought forward, then it would be this 2006 essay which either guided thought or was the product of intense local conversation and thought. Thanks Geoff Burling / llywrch for speaking out at the right time. I would like to properly draft out this narrative in a more full way to the extent that you can remember 13 years ago and we can get other parts of this into the story. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation in new media with metrics[edit]

When I describe Wikimedian in Residence positions I typically make the comparison to hiring staff to post to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or any other new media outlet.

All organizations are familiar with the concept of hiring social media staff to manage their online outreach. The nature of the relationship is to post content on a website then track media metrics as a way to measure impact and success.

The early development of the Wikimedian in Residence concept had its basis in these media metrics and comparison to social media. When I got my appointment in March 2012 at Consumer Reports, I defined the role as "post content, measure pageviews", which was also my recommendation for how that organization should plan its social media team. In time the social media team grew to about 10 people in that organization of ~600 full time staff.

I got the idea of doing this from the Cascadia region where a group of us who became Wikimedia Cascadia where already discussing this model. Various people in Cascadia split off to lay the foundation of media metrics into the Wiki Education Foundation outreach plan, so the tens of thousands of professors who edit wiki in their format also measure these media metrics. Media metrics are fundamental to the programs in New York City, medicine and WREN meetings.

I advocate for anyone who wants to explain the Wikimedian in Residence concept to an organization to explain it in terms of tracking audience engagement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Astinson (WMF): Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of all previous discussion posted at outreach:talk:Wikipedian_in_Residence


Is Derby actually a residency? It's certainly an active ongoing collaboration, but I don't think it should be on this list. Regards, Rock drum (talk · contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Real" residencies[edit]

If the "Wikipedian in Residence" format comes from the "Artist in Residence" format, this means that the residency can be negotiated, defined, offered and agreed as people and institutions like. The residency format is as flexible as you wish (please refer for example to Res Artis to get a general overview on the different residencies; but it is quite obvious that a programme develpped in Douala is different from one in New York, and residencies are everywhere). What defines an "Artist in Residence" is rather the link between a person and an institution and also - very important - the sense of support implied in this relationship. The institution supports the person with its resources (space - in the art system can be not necessarily living space but simply working space - network, documentation and other resources, money...) and the person concentrate on his/her work (art, culture, wikipedia). Rather than space, the link and the time are probably the most important elements. ref. Derby. --Iopensa (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for chapters supporting Wikipedian in Residences[edit]

Here are some suggestions for the role of chapters in supporting Wikipedian in Residence programs, written by User:Mike Peel, partially based on Wikimedia UK's experience of supporting Liam Wyatt's residency at the British Museum.

In general terms, I'd say that there are the following ways for chapters to support a residency:

  1. Recorded networking: knowing who to contact at an organisation, and developing more contacts via the residency (i.e. if they meet someone from another museum, then the chapter should have a record of it for the future)
  2. Supervision: not in the direct sense, but in the general "the chapter can help provide a safety net if something goes wrong" - if the chapter can indeed do that. E.g. in the future, if the chapter has employees, then one of their roles could be keeping an eye on residency programs and checking in with both sides every so often to make sure everything's going OK, as well as to provide help in situations like the museum saying "they've started uploading our content to Wikipedia without our consent!"
  3. Events: I'd encourage every residency to have at least one public-facing event, like a Backstage Pass or a challenge, to involve more Wikimedians and get them interested in the topics online. Chapters can fund these, e.g. by paying for lunches and by covering transport costs where needed (I'd avoid paying for room hire or tour guides, though - those should be provided by the GLAM organisation)
  4. PR: advertising the residency, its outcomes and its events, making sure that they're known about in the community as well as in the media and by other GLAM organisations
  5. Content donations: facilitating the upload of material, e.g. by putting the museum in touch with an upload expert, or taking a copy of the content and handling the upload. This is where agreements come in useful - if you get given a CD of content to upload it, make sure you have an agreement with the museum saying clearly that they're releasing it under a free license and asking you to upload it.
  6. Continuity - having a point of contact after the residency, for any queries that come up later, or for arranging the next Wikimedian to go to the museum. A chapter's in a better position than a single community member here, as community members tend to have a shorter 'half-life' than a chapter (i.e. it's easier for a single person to retire from editing than a chapter to stop existing).

Remember that each Wikipedian in Residence is unique, so knowledge of one will not necessarily directly apply to another.

The above were my comments from GLAM/Model projects/Creating a Wikipedian in residence program (since deleted) on 20:22, 17 June 2011. Mike Peel (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the WIR always be maintaining a relationship to the local chapter. It's beneficial for the hosting institution to know that their WIR is not a loner but that there is an organization behind them, and this also helps Wikimedia in establishing connections and (hopefully long-term) relationships to the host institution. -- Kosboot (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedian vs Wikipedian[edit]

I think these pages should be renamed to "Wikimedian in Residence". Wikimedia is the more inclusive term. Most residencies will be more board than pedia work, and there will be some residencies that will not focus on Wikipedia at all. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Wikimedia as a whole is much more representative of what I do and fits in with the wider strategy of collaboration with a GLAM. As one, today I worked on Commons, Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Our tender was written on Wikiversity, and we have plans to have a book be written on Wikibooks. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed in principle, if not so much in practice. The movement is larger than just Wikipedia, even for things that are primarily designed to effect WP end up using Commons at a minimum. That said, Wikipedia is our most famous brand name, and we shouldn't be afraid to use it for name recognition when needed, as many contacts will know Wikipedia instantly, whereas Wikimedia is a unknown name in many outside the movement. Courcelles (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish National Heritage Board page error[edit]


Is there some information about the origin of the term and the genesis of the concept? Of course we all know that its breakthrough was thanks to Liam Wyatt and that his residence at the British Museum in 2010 was the first one, but the term and the concept seem to have been proposed much earlier, e.g. in this blog post by en:User:llywrch from 2006. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a "history of idea" section. --Piotrus (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page from the now inactive Strategy Wiki should not be left out: strategy:Proposal talk:GLAMwiki -Pete (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More love for success stories[edit]

Re: GLAM/Success stories. That page is a very important selling point of the idea, it needs more expansion and care! --Piotrus (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Fellow at Belfer - related?[edit]

This seems like a different name for Wikipedian in Residence. Could anybody comment on that? Wikipedia Fellow is a red link... --Piotrus (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of levels of approval that that job description went through before being posted, and it was decided that the term Wikipedian in Residence was not 100% reflective of the position being described. Hence, a more neutral "Wikipedia Fellow" was used. HstryQT (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It still seems highly relevant to this page, so I suggest we list it here. --Piotrus (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More information[edit]

I think we should add to the table more columns with information, on issues such as: part-time/full-time, unpaid / paid (how much), source of funds (which organizations contributed), and so on. This would make the job of those trying to design a new WiR position easier. --Piotrus (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WiR projects without project pages, WiRs without userpages[edit]

I've tried to add links to project pages for the WiR projects. For those I couldn't find it, I asked the listed WiRs to provide them. The following individuals I could not contact, as they edited as anons: Kilian Klug (City Museum Berlin Foundation (Stiftung Stadtmuseum Berlin) project), Lennart Guldbrandsson (Swedish National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet) project), Francis Awinda (Africa Centre project). Can anyone contact them? --Piotrus (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New WiR project[edit]

I'm organizing a residence at Brown University's w:Ladd Observatory in w:Providence, Rhode Island. A draft of the project description is at Wikipedian in Residence/Ladd Observatory. Any feedback, suggestions or help spreading the word would be greatly appreciated. --mikeu talk 16:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia is being built by volunteers, I am aware that the WMF does have paid staff, regardless of this knowledge my opinion is that compensation in cash goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and it's not just paid residency: it's institutional ties between individuals and Wikipedia itself. I do not understand how to draw the distinction that is being made here between non-profits and governmental organizations for whom it's "OK" to have a W-i-R, and for-profits and governments for whom it's not. While it may seem obvious to some that having formal ties between the British Museum and a Wikipedian is not a threat to NPOV, that would not have been the case in the 19th century, and I don't know that there is a principled way to make the distinction now. Would a W-i-R at the CIA be considered NPOV? (direct CIA edits of pages about them have already been declared COI in other discussions). The Catholic Church? (ditto.) US Congress? (ditto.) The Museum of the Confederacy? The Assad government in Syria? or should that be the Syrian rebels? As welcome as it would be to have tons of content generated from institutions that know their material, this seems to me to cut directly against the grain of a critically important bright line that Wikipedia has been seeking to draw for a long time, and it seems to me that the only coherent place to draw the line is: no editing of Wikipedia by those associated with an institution that is the subject of the edited pages (which is exactly the current COI policy; no exceptions are made for the type of institution). I would like to see this whole project submitted to a Wiki-wide discussion and vote, because I think it is a distinct threat to Wikipedia's real and perceived neutrality. Wichitalineman (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't add link to NLS Wikipedian in Residence vacancy[edit]

I couldn't add the link as apparently it was "link spam", hmm. If you know a way to add it then go ahead. Actually the deadline is closing today, so maybe it's not necessary. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrLukeDevlin (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry about the delay. I've added as many details as I could find.
Was the NLS position was ever filled? Quiddity (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hello! I just started Monday as the NLS WiR. ACrockford (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, and congratulations! I've added your name to the table. Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't add link to Wikipedian-in-Residence press release of KB and NA[edit]

Today (16th May) The National Library and Archives of The Netherlands announced their Wikipedian in Residence project

The press release is here (in Dutch)

I'm trying to add this link to the "Seeking Applicants" table, but it was deemed a spam link. If you know a way to add it then go ahead — The preceding unsigned comment was added by OlafJanssen (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry about the delay. I've added the link now, and fixed a few other links in the section below (some of which lead to non-existent articles, but at least they're targeted at the right wiki now!)
Let us know if we can be of any further help. Quiddity (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK is running a survey of its WIR programme[edit]

Hi All,

This survey, run over March 2014, is looking at the UK residencies, but if you are interested to contribute, you are most welcome!

All the best, Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page is getting long; suggest a split[edit]

This page is -- appropriately -- the #1 hit on Google for "Wikipedian in Residence." In March, it was viewed 3376 times. (For comparison, in the same month, the English Wikipedia article by the same name got less than half as many views.)

I think it's important that this page be presented in a way that is simple, concise, and accessible to somebody new to the concept, whether they are a GLAM staffer new to wiki interaction, a Wikipedian new to GLAM outreach models, or somebody not directly affiliated with either movement, following up on a news article.

To that end, I'd suggest splitting off a separate page, List of Wikipedians in Residence, and moving the big table on this page to that one. -Pete (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think it is too long, as it is rather short by list standards. In terms of splitting the page up, I feel like it would just be awkward to have two pages for one topic, especially since we aren't really having anything harmed in having all of the traffic come to one site. I guess it's just my preference, but I really don't see a need to split it at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards mergism for a variety of reasons, including: Easier and more likely for editors to watchlist, less likelihood/necessity for duplication of intro-material, easier ctrl-F, and a single hit for google search-results.
However, the intro section in this page is currently only one paragraph long; if a better simple-overview is needed, I'd suggest adding slightly to that. Or, possibly just refining the structure of the section-headings, so that scanning the ToC is easier for newcomers. HTH. Quiddity (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Press Section[edit]

Hi All, I'd like to create an additional section on this page for 'press' related to Wikipedian-in-Residence positions. I realize that there have been many articles written on residencies, so I want to post here to get an ok from other users, and also to discuss creating a 'curated' list of great articles on Residencies. Thanks! OR drohowa (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderbilt University / Nikilada[edit]

Another WiR is self reported at w:User:Nikilada, at w:Vanderbilt University. Include as you see fit. Danny lost (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Edinburgh[edit]

Might there be some expansion of the article and links to talk about issues such as Conflicts of Interest, Paid Advocacy, and what sort of entities can (or cannot) have a WiR? (I made a similar comment on the Wikipedia page.) --Petercorless (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, tried to add University of Edinburgh to list of places looking for a WiR, and was denied because the edit was marked as "spam." Ironic. --Petercorless (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI sentence[edit]

In the sentence about COI it says 'in compliance with local policy'. What exactly is this trying to get at? Derek Andrews (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norway is missing[edit]

What about User:Profoss, who works for Riksarkivet and Nasjonalbiblioteket?--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I work for Riksarkivet, but not as a WiR (I used to be a WiR at Nasjonalbiblioteket though. Profoss (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Profoss, that's good to hear: please add an entry about your WiR at Nasjonalbiblioteket so that we can learn from your experience. Thanks, Nemo 15:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interest without application process yet[edit]

Where should we put expressed interest in having a WiR, or discussion about how to frame a call for participation / job posting? A step before 'seeking applicants', but related.

For instance, I've seen recently public interest in an {linked data for libraries} Wikimedian in residence, some months before they finalized what they needed or asked for applications. Then the posting was closed, without a public listing of the position -- I believe they have someone in residence but am not certain. Other organizations have a general interest in a WiR but never figure out how to express it and do not end up realizing the interest.

Sj (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sj: I posted Wikipedian in Residence/Ladd Observatory in 2012 and received exactly one response since then. That was after announcing it in numerous forums on commons, wp, and elsewhere. The contributor was enthusiastic but the photographs that we were hoping to use were of marginal quality and not really useful. I've become discouraged about recruiting for a specific internship and have instead focused my energy on local edit-a-thons or online only WikiProjects on site. I'm fairly familiar with the wikiverse, yet I couldn't find a single hub for such announcements that contributors are actually following.
I'm of the impression that institutions are seeking alternate means of implementing these types of projects. For example the Rhode Island Council on the Humanities now has a paid fellowship after receiving a grant.[1] I'll be attending a conference workshop next Saturday where this will be a topic of discussion.[2] See also the visiting scholar in public humanities. [3]
This is a bit of a vicious circle where there is no obvious mechanism to successfully recruit for internships on-wiki and those organizations that are recruiting are using off-wiki activity to fill these positions. I suspect there is also some degree of unrealistic expectations. An institution will often have specific (perhaps overly ambitious) goals that require more experience than randomly recruited editors can satisfy. --mikeu talk 17:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-updating WiR table[edit]

Timeline of Wikipedians in Residence up to 2012 (incomplete).

I'm in the process of writing some templates to be able to make the Wikipedian_in_Residence table easier to maintain using wikidata. It requires Module:WikidataIB, which is currently absent from this wiki so you can see the test template over at w:Template:WiR_table_row, and discussion at w:Module_talk:WikidataIB#Function_qualsToTable. It'll also allow for more sensible sorting by start and end dates and updating of this rather out-of-date diagram. Evolution and evolvability (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for attending to this. --mikeu talk 23:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very nearly ready! I think I've just finished all of the wikidata items (table). Should soon be fully implementable, and the suggestion at meta:talk:WREN is that it might be best to merge this page over to meta:Wikimedian_in_residence. In the meantime, see the map! Evolution and evolvability (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this page into version on Meta[edit]

Based on the discussion over at meta (here), would anyone be willing to help merge this page over to meta:Wikimedian in residence? Evolution and evolvability (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll now implement a cross-wiki redirect over to meta:Wikimedian_in_residence and merge in any unique info from this page to try to help reduce the duplication and divergence of information. Evolution and evolvability (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To try to help reduce the duplication and divergence of information. I've merged in the content of the equivalent Outreachwiki page, and placed an inter-wiki redirect there. For the outreachwiki talkpage record, see this link. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've managed to merge in all the info from outreachwiki that differed from here. The "Seeking applicants" table only seemed to have expired/closed applications upon investigation. Happy to see them re-added if I'm wrong, or the links have simply moved! I also included that "" section as a floating box, since I think it works quite well as a little summary (and avoids the page getting too long). I've also put in a request for an update of modelule:WikidataIB to get the date columns of the table working again. I've placed the table inside a div of fixed height with a scrollbar to avoid the section getting too long (<div style="height: 300px; overflow: auto;">). As always, happy for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: thanks will discuss today at the regularly scheduled meeting - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network/minutes 2020 06 10 Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before I could with one glance see a comprehensive table of all past and present WiR projects. I could easily add another one and correct and old one. Now I have a collapsed table that I cannot edit. As source code I only see some Wikidata items. I see a mistake in a link in line 8. To correct it I don't even know where to start, instead I see some Query in some programming language. A Wiki page only for programmers, not for editors any more. Thank you. Not. --Gereon K. (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gereon K.: I'm not sure what to say. I'm sorry it's caused such a problem. I've made it possible to click-through to an uncollapsed version. It's a pretty overwhelming length to include in the page, so probably better as a subpage. Sadly it's not possible to make the column headers sticky without quite a bit of CSS. There were also quite a lot of errors throughout the old version at outreachwiki and it wasn't sortable so hard to search through. I thought automating it would reduce the person-hours needed to try keeping it up to date and make it more useable for e.g. identifying what organisation types and countries are underrepresented. I realise it's not everything you're looking for, but you can see the old version from outreachwiki at this link if it is useful. Correcting items is pretty easy (there's an edit pencil next to each name that'll take you the relevant wikidata section). But ytou're defnintely right that adding items isn't simple and I put some instructions on how to create a wikidata item (if necessary) add a statement, and add a row to the table. That last step is necessary because, frustratingly, it's not possible to fully automate yet without listeriabot. I hope that helps at least somewhat. If you've any other recommendations, I'll try my best to accomodate. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: Thank you so much for your answers. I see that the new list in theory has many advantages over the old outdated and incomplete list. I try to fix mistakes in the new list, but still fail. The name of Australian Laura Hale appears as [[User:|Laura Hale]] and 11 projects have the link [unknown value unknown value]. This should be at least blank when an url for the project is not known. --Gereon K. (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to fix the username misformatting when the user has been deleted. For the other one, I've asked RexxS (here) since he built the module that pulls info out of wikidata. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this highlights some of the challenges of working with Wikidata to populate articles, namely that if the information is in Wikidata but it takes more work, training, and effort for editors to change when coming at it from the informed article itself, then it likely will not be changed when people notice issues needing to be edited. To your point Gereon K., I saw a number of minor issues in this table but find the steps involved to edit them too cumbersome to do, so unfortunately left them uncorrected. I applaud Evolution_and_evolvability to try connecting the technologies, and think this basic and useful example highlights a broader challenge we face in this area across Wikimedia projects. --- FULBERT (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. My hope is that by having the templates well implemented, it'll be equivalently easy to edit wikidata as compared to editing a table. The ideal will be when it's possible to edit wikidata by editing the table locally! Also, to note: the [unknown value unknown value] should also now be fixed (discussion). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of all previous discussion posted at outreach:talk:Wikipedian_in_Residence/Creating_a_Wikimedian_in_Residence_position

Community Feedback[edit]

This is a draft recommendation based on interviews with affiliates with successful and established Wikipedian in Residence programs and individual residents and champions for roles at institutions, as well as the broader body of documentation that discusses residency roles (including This Month in GLAM, several reports from Wikimedia UK, and the Wikimedia Foundation’s experience supporting residents through its grant programs). I would love feedback from community members who have worked as residents or helped developed residencies, especially in response to the questions below.

Some notes on the document:

  • This document has been created as a general framework to describe the options available to affiliates, Wikimedians and partner organizations that might want to create a Wikipedian in Residence position. This document is not designed for “selling” a residency or as a “how to”, but instead is designed to help communities once there is agreement with the partner in creating a residency. For more information about developing partnerships, see the GLAM portal on outreach Wiki and the Partneships and Resource Development portal on Meta.
  • The document is designed with a limited number of interviews and documentation. If you have documentation or examples that help illustrate these pieces of advice please add it below.
  • I am not making recommendations about which options are “correct” or “true”” in this document, because each cultural and community context requires local organizers to adjust their expectations and design of Residency roles. This has also resulted in a complex and long document -- feedback on clarification is welcome.

Thank you in advance, and I really appreciate your feedback in the below sections! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What recommendations suprised you?[edit]

Are there particular experiences that you have had with a Wikipedian in Residence position that either support these recommendations?[edit]

Are there pieces of advice in this recommendation that don’t match with your experience?[edit]

The statement that Wikimedians in Residence do not create new content is not universally true. The document states that only non-WiR positions such as interns, Visiting Scholars, and Wikipedia Fellows directly edit, but there are a lot of examples of WiRs who do edit directly, such as myself at NIOSH as well as Science History Institute and (I think) Consumer Reports.

I suspect direct editing is more prevalent for STEM WiRs than for GLAM ones. STEM institutions don't have a "collection" in the same sense that GLAM institutions do; their output is generally text-based publications. So while GLAMs are more likely to engage on Commons and Wikidata, STEM institutions are more directed towards text-based contributions on Wikipedia. (Additionally, STEM WiRs generally do not restrict themselves to using their own institution's publications, but cite broadly with the goal of improving the topic. I personally have a self-imposed rule that sources from NIOSH authors should be less than half of the sources I use in an article, to avoid the appearance of being promotional.)

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom and Bluerasberry: and others may have more thoughts. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any documentation, examples or practices that might help better illustrate the recommendations?[edit]

I feel like all my feedback fits into this section, my general feedback is that:

  • I think that the document assumes too much knowledge and would benefit from more links an explaining acronyms (e.g GLAM) and other specialist terms.
  • It would benefit from an overview of what Wikimedia does and an overview of the kinds of project that can be done with Wikimedia (not just linking to 100s of case studies, more an executive summary), I think that this could be reused and maybe generalised a bit.
    • This page is not designed to persuade folks new to the space -- we need a separate entry point/handout/concise for that audience. This is for folks who already have an idea of what they want to do, but need a better sense of what they "can do" -- if you have links or specialist terms that you are seeing that need clarification: feel free to rewrite or link directly. My brain/eye for this stuff in this document is not seeing it very well, since I have been working on it for so long. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be worth mentioning Open Access at least a few times as many organisation's OA goals will link up to their goals working with Wikimedia.
  • Provide links to Wikimedia's overall goals including the 2030 statement at the start and also in the establishing shared goals section.
  • A list of previous residencies somewhere (I know one exists) would be helpful to normalise the role, to show it is a thing that has been done a lot before.

Specifically for each section I think:

Why a Wikimedian in Residence role[edit]

Suggest 'experimental' is replaced or accompanied by 'innovative', this carries more connotations of breaking new ground and less about risk without tangible implemented outcomes.

What does a Wikimedian in Residence do?[edit]

I think Creating new content on Wikimedia projects needs clarification, maybe something abotu they don't write contact directly but can help others to create content.

In the list of other options mention campus ambassadors?

In communications or marketing one way I've found helpful to explain what I do is to say that Wikipedia is a place to share knowledge about the subjects you work on rather than about the organisation its self.

Done on the two content clarifications. As for the Ambassadors, I don't think we have seen campus ambassadors be much of a thing anymore (correct me if I am wrong?). That format of support died early in the US Education program, and doesn't get revitalized very often as a formal role, I don't think. For the kinds of institutions that would traditionally have an "ambassador" I am trying to focus on staff roles and responsibilities: especially academic libraries and teaching and learning centers, should think of it as "part of their existing work" rather than a separate function. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Astinson (WMF):, oh one more small thing, for visiting scholars you say they're for Wikipedia specifically, there's also one for Wikidata, I think this model could be useful to others too so might be worth mentioning. --John Cummings (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Astinson (WMF):,Excuse me I do not understand this paragraph (Wikipedian in Residence roles are not….). A Wikipedian in Residence can not create content on Wiki?--Modjou (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello @Astinson (WMF):,I do not know if I understand but the position of Wikipedian in residence no longer allows you to produce content on Wiki platforms. is it correct?--Modjou (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Modjou: We have been really careful, especially in the early days of Wikipedian in Residence positions, to focus on the roles on uploading batches of existing content, and help professional participate in Wikimedia platforms -- it reduces the potential for conflict of interest, and helps distinguish between the role of the Resident and volunteers who contribute directly to the project. We have seen several roles cross this line over the years, but its not always been very good -- and as I mention elsewhere, we could apply different titles to content-creation roles, to better define the expectations of the roles. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Astinson (WMF):, Okay thank you very much.--Modjou (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steps for creating WIR roles[edit]

To me each of these steps needs its own section, also mention that chapters and user groups can often help you in this process e.g WMUK has a long history of working with orgs to set up WiR roles

What formats do Wikipedian in Residence roles come in?[edit]

Change the word formats to length in the title?

@John Cummings: Not all of these are length-based formatting questions. I tried to figure out a way to cleanly seperate these different, for lack of a better word, formats of positions -- but I am not finding a good organizational structure -- if you can recommend a good structure that would be awesome Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Astinson (WMF):, sure, if I think of anything I'll let you know but the classifications here are fuzzy so I feel your pain. --John Cummings (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing shared goals[edit]

Link to the goals and activities of Wikimedia including the 2030 statement and maybe WMF year report

Hope it helps --John Cummings (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other comments you would like to share?[edit]

Possible page import/move to meta[edit]

@Astinson (WMF): With the possible move of the Wikipedian in Residence page to meta:Wikipedian in Residence (discussion here), would it be reasonable to also move this page to keep all the info consolidated together? Evolution and evolvability (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: Please do! I wrote the documentation so that it can be used to help folks make the roles: would love for it to be profiled and connected :) We don't have any plans in the near term to do more with it, so go for it, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: @Astinson (WMF): Could I bump this request to get the page moved under ? It's a great write up that I'm referencing right now, but it seems a bit lost without the main page. Viola-Ness (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Viola-Ness:} Since there've been no objections raised so far, I'll implement the move and leave the redirects over to meta. Could you check the new page at meta:Wikimedian_in_residence/Creating_a_Wikimedian_in_Residence_position has the correct wikilinks etc? Evolution and evolvability (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

broken wikilink to a case study[edit]

On Wikimedian_in_residence/Creating_a_Wikimedian_in_Residence_position#What_formats_do_Wikimedian_in_Residence_roles_come_in? under the subheading Project-based residencies there is a broken wikilink to a case study: this Veterinary Anatomy Museum Case Study. It had a typo in it, and I thought that must be it, but it wasn't. I couldn't figure out where to try to find the case study. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table automation![edit]

I've fianlly got the table to be fully automated by {{Wikidata list}} (via user:ListeriaBot). Anyone listing wikimedian in residence as an occupation on wikidata should now automatically appear. I had to use the |row_template= to call {{WiR table row}} (see wikidata:Template:Wikidata_list) because just using the defaults of {{Wikidata list}} causes each person's positions to be all combined into a single row and if they've had multiple residencies it becomes unclear which parts of that combined row applies to which residency. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

query is broken[edit]

Hi, Evolution and evolvability. How are you? I think the query of WiRs on this page is broken. I am not sure how to fix it, so I am pinging you. Best. --Joalpe (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joalpe Thanks for letteing me know! Which one is giving the wrong output? Testing the map query ( and the list query ( on my computer seems to work, but it might be missing items I'm not aware of? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: Hey. Thanks for getting back to me. The "full list of past and present WiRs" is broken, apparently. --Joalpe (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joalpe Seems to be working for me on desktop. The table on Wikimedian_in_residence should be truncated with a scrollbar at the side and Wikimedian in residence/table should give the full table. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is weird, Evolution_and_evolvability. I get this error message on columns 5 and 6: "Lua error: bad argument #2 to 'formatDate' (not a valid timestamp)." and I am unable to update the table. I have just added two new WiRs to Wikidata. --Joalpe (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: Apparently, the bug is related to my using Brazilian Portuguese as my default language. It shows OK in English. Calling Ederporto to the rescue. --Joalpe (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, that makes sense. I wouldn't have guessed that. I hope it's not an issues in too many other languages. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joalpe, Evolution and evolvability, and Ederporto: I have the same issue with the French interface. I tried with Italian, Inuktitut, Serbian and German interfaces, and found this issue too (but somehow, with the German interface, some of the dates are displayed). I guess this issue is related to the MMDDYYYY date format?
By the way, I am also a Wikimedian in Residence for Lingua Libre (3rd May-3rd September). Could I also appear on the WiR list, please? All the best — WikiLucas (🖋️) 12:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLucas00: Welcome! The list is generated by the transposing of information from Wikidata. You would need to have a Wikidata item and include information about the WiR position, hopefully with a reference. An example is this case.
@WikiLucas00: Please check Lucas Prégaldiny (Q107388126) to see if the WiR details are correct (and add a city as the work location if possible). The list should have updated based on this item. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joalpe and Evolution and evolvability: thank you for your help! I added the place I work in and my employer (which is not Lingua Libre but a component of a university), but I don't know where I could specify that I mainly work with the Lingua Libre project during this residence (apart from the label of the element). Isn't there a possible qualifier that could fit (that one may use for a WiR mostly working with e.g. Wikidata or Commons rather than WP or than any project)? All the best — WikiLucas (🖋️) 23:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging Mike Peel and RexxS, as the issue here might be about how qualsToTable is coded. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, folks, is that we get the format alright jg xy or something like that. We also get the date on the local language just fine. But in that function on WikidataIB the language passed seems to be always English ("en"). So it tries to format "30 de junho de 2021"/"30 junho 2021" in the English language, that then breaks. Good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City[edit] Jim.henderson (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic distribution of Wikimedians in residence[edit]

Looking at the interactive map on this page, I noticed that there are (or have been):

  • 5 WiRs in Latin America
  • 4 in the Middle East and North Africa, 3 of whom are located in Israel
  • 2 in sub-Saharan Africa
  • 2 in India
  • 1 in Southeast Asia (the Philippines)

Most Wikimedians in residence are located in the USA or Europe. I think we should focus our efforts on recruiting WiRs from outside these regions. Qzekrom (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other people may have other answers, but in general, Wikipedia program activity reflects Wikimedia Foundation funding.
The Wikimedia Foundation does not fund community programs in those regions. It is hard to determine what kind of funding exists because the Wikimedia Foundation does not report its community investment in these regions, nor does it sponsor Wikimedia community development of such discussions. The Wikimedia Foundation brings in US$200 million a year, and so far as I know, communities in each of those regions get around 0.1% of that money.
There is no one here who has the power to access or direct that money. Perhaps no one in this organization is getting funding from the Wikimedia Foundation, or if any are, it is very little. However, almost everyone in this organization is in a region where other groups get funding, and I think most people here routinely collaborate with funded Wikimedia community organizations. I think if the Wikimedia Foundation funded organizations in those regions like it did in wealthier countries, then there would be more Wikimedians in Residence in those regions.
It would be a big help to have Wikimedians in those regions, because many people here do multinational and multilingual projects of broad general interest.
Thanks for asking. If you have more questions or requests then ask, but I do not know what anyone here has to offer or give. I encourage people in those regions to apply for grants at Grants:Start, and I expect that if there were funding requests, many people here would support them.
Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly the figures you quote seem to be incomplete. There have, AIUI, been Wikimedians in Residence in Tunisia and Indonesia, for example.
Secondly, "we" do not recruit WiRs; they are usually recruited by the host institution, although this is sometimes in association with local chapters. Blue Rasberry's point about grants is well made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 11:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all above + There is much chicken and egg situation here, as information, knowledge and skills to develop opportunity for WiR is fairly high and is not available outside of established centers, unless someone takes proactive action (WMF does not unfortunatly) and takes it on itself to setup partnership. I am only first WiR in Croatia and did that, but now trying to support others to be able to do the same. It is not easy as it is unconventional type of work and relations, but it is possible. --Zblace (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update and improve data from Wikidata[edit]


I don't have much time but I could help and at the very least I wanted to leave a message that the images/queries/listeria table should be update and/or improved.

For instance, the first image is File:Wikimedian in Residence map 2019.png (3 years old) and the query could maybe be improved (retrieve the coordinates of the employer if no work location is provided ?).

Then the second image is also from 2019 and the tool seems to be broken (and title include a typo "Wikimediain" instead of "Wikimedian"). Could we fix it? (I don't know this tool, I'm usually using for timelines based on Wikidata). Plus, maybe the length calculation could be improved also (to be checked but I'm thinking of replacing ?tp_end=?tp_start by ?tp_end > 8 && ?tp_start > 8)

@Evolution and evolvability: could you take a look?

PS: @Joalpe: is NeuroMat still seeking for applicants?

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON en résidence: It is not. Should the adv't be removed or kept for documentation? --Joalpe (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joalpe: I would say remove from where it is (and where it kinda looks like it's still active) but indeed it could be kept elsewhere for documentation. Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

300 WIR[edit]

According to the data on Wikidata, 290 residences have been created! France will add 3-4 more next weeks. We can probably reach the number of 300 by adding missing WIR. Pyb en résidence (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the outreach wiki is still used! I've added some info on Wikidata, so there is now 298 WIR. Pyb (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This really is sounding like a milestone. Who will be number 300? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-storing the redirect from Outreach Wiki[edit]

I noticed that there were two official-looking descriptions of what a Wikipedian in Residence is, one on Meta and one on the Wikimedia Outreach wiki ( Puzzled, I looked through the Talk page archives of both pages. It appears that there was consensus to merge the pages and that the merge was completed by User:Evolution and evolvability on June 8 2020.[4]

I cannot find a comment from anyone saying we should go back to having two pages. However, on February 19 2021‎, User:JarrahTree replaced the redirect at the Wikimedia Outreach wiki, effectively undoing the merge.[5] The edit summary was "ce" which is an abbreviation of "copyedit". Based on the edit summary and the absence of controversy over the merge, I imagine this was an accidental edit of an old version of the page. I also imagine most of us don't often check our watchlists at the Wikimedia Outreach wiki so nobody noticed. Since the un-merge was probably accidental, I will go ahead and restore the soft redirect. If anyone objects, I'm happy to discuss. Take care, Clayoquot (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just lost an explanation in edit conflict. Please go ahead and restore the soft direct. Thanks for your explanation, appreciate the understanding of accidental edit. :JarrahTree (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super! Done :) Clayoquot (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]