User talk:The Land
Please fill out our brief Participation Support Program survey
Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.
This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Assistance with registering
Hi. I've left a comment on Talk:Boards_training_workshop_March_2014#Scholarships but I would like assistance registering myself and user:pi zero to attend using the registration page. We're both on the board of a thematic organization and professionalization is at the heart of our current planning. Both of us are planning to attend contingent funding from either WM-UK or WMF. Can you please assist us in registering? --LauraHale (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitions
The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.
If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.
This is really well done, Chris. Thank you. While there's always room for refinement, I find it an inspirational approach and an inspirational idea. I'm trying to achieve some semblance of something called "work life balance" so I won't do it today, but I want to call this out on the staff mailing list on Monday for the benefit of those who don't read FB. I assume that's okay with you? (Mind you, somebody might beat me to it who has not yet decided to try this concept. ;)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, that's fine. (And, I'm a wholehearted supporter of work-life balance :) ) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your note - my question is extremely open-ended on purpose: I'd like the candidates to think this through and tell us what's going through their head. I'm updating my question to let them know that yes, it is a difficult one ^^ Cheers, Popo le Chien (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK - thanks. It will be useful for the candidates to know that you aren't driving at anything in particular. (I made a small edit which I think clarifies what you mean in the text you added, please just revert it if it doesn't) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi The Land, You have read this page ? After all, this conflict is associated with the organization of Wikimedia Armenia, particularly associated with the Susanna Petrosyan.--6AND5 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I converted WCA from a redirect to a disambiguation page. That's why the hatnote should no longer be necessary. If you really think a hatnote is needed on that page, I guess we can add one with modified text? But saying "'WCA' redirects here [...]" is no longer true. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi MZMcBride - ah yes I didn't spot that - makes sense now! Thanks.... 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There are no kangaroos in Austria.
Dear Chris, there are no kangaroos in Austria. Just sayin'. Fortunately, some people know this. :D Delphine (WMF) (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC) (Braveheart you beat me to the correction!) Delphine (WMF) (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I found the difference between Austria and Australia very confusing when I was five years old and see no reason to change my mind now. :) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
2017 Board Elections candidate interviews
Thank you for running for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in this year's community elections. I am contacting you on behalf of the community podcasts Wikipedia Weekly and Source Code Berlin. We are sure you recognize the importance of transparency and a fully-informed community when it comes to these elections. To that end, we would like to conduct short audio interviews (under 30 minutes) with each of the candidates for publication in podcast form prior to the conclusion of the election. If you agree, we will contact you via email to coordinate the time and date of these interviews. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi @Gamaliel:! I would be delighted to take part, please do get in touch. On weekdays GMT I am mainly available between 1800 and 2200, though I might be able to squeeze this in before work or in a lunch-hour - at weekends I can be more flexible. Look forward to hearing from you! Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for agreeing to our proposed candidate interviews, but we have decided that we will not be conducting them this year. We feel that Sunday's video interview has accomplished the goal of providing the community with exposure to the candidates and we are currently exploring ways that our potential election coverage can supplement and not duplicate that exposure. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Uncontrolled spending increases
(I am asking this question of all board candidates.)
In my essay at User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer I make several proposals.
Whether of not you agree with the essay as a whole, would you be willing to propose and/or support any of the following?
- Make spending largely transparent, publish a detailed account of what money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details. There is no need for you to remind us that some things cannot be published because of legal or privacy issues. I am asking whether we should be as open and transparent as possible, not asking the board to do something stupid or illegal.
- Limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views). Are you willing to support any limit at all on spending growth, and if so roughly how much? 10%? 20%? 30%?
- Build up our endowment and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principal when times get bad. There is no need to answer with something to the effect that either you or the WMF have good intentions. I am specifically asking whether you support making the endowment principle legally untouchable, allowing the WMF to only spend the endowment interest.
If we do these things now, in a few short years we could be in a position to do everything we are doing now, while living off of the endowment interest, and would have no need for further fundraising. Or we could keep fundraising, using the donations to do many new and useful things, knowing that whatever we do there is a guaranteed income stream from the endowment that will be large enough to keep the servers running indefinitely. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Guy! My answer to this covered some of the ground, but not all of it, so happy to fill out my answers to your specific questions.
- Make spending “largely transparent”: Yes, broadly. In my answer on the main question, I said I wanted WMF to publish clearer and more granular financial information, which will further increase transparency to the community. WMF can also do more to align its spending with its priorities, some of the narrative they currently offer is a bit vague (below the standards I am used to from Wikimedia UK!).
- Limits on growth. No, I'm not going to name a hard figure. Again, as I indicated in my previous answer, I do not think the Wikimedia movement is anywhere close to being "mission accomplished" and I think the WMF's funds are a significant (thought not actually the most important) factor in enabling us to achieve that mission. As to rates of growth, I think there are significant practical problems in the WMF attempting to grow any faster than it has been, connected to culture and institutional memory - but I still don't feel I have enough evidence to say I back a specific % limit.
- Structure the endowment so WMF can’t draw down the principal. This sounds attractive, but we’d need to take care we weren’t creating a problem in 25 or 50 years time by doing this. In 50 years there are a very wide range of scenarios about how we are delivering our mission - for instance, “paying for servers” might be a quaint anachronism. If a structure can be found that achieves the core goal you've set out but also allows flexibility in the event of a radical change in circumstances, I would support that.
- Hope this is helpful for you. Regards, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Your question re FDC recommendation
Hello Chris - Just wanted to let you know that your question is not being ignored. Thanks very much for bringing it to the talk page, as it seems to be the most common concern in the off-wiki forums. If nobody else has responded to you by the time I get up tomorrow, I'll post then. Risker (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Chris, you may not feel you want to, but if you have criticisms or comments on any of my propositions concerning the FDC in my rather long post at the bottom of that page, I'd be pleased to hear them. Tony (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Tony - will see how I'm doing with Wikitime this weekend to respond in detail, but broadly, yes I agree that one of the challenges the FDC and WMF grantmaking faces is how to make high-value decisions while reducing the burden of form-filling on applicants, and also reducing the costs (in money and volunteer time) of conducting reviews; and another is about communication between grant rounds. Certainly the WMF APG process has evolved over the last 5 years and these things have generally improved - though I'm not sure it's possible to see this that well unless one is actually involved in the process somehow. Regards, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
All the best for FDC election!
Hey Chris! We were both you and I candidats for Board of Trustee. And now we're again candidats for FDC election. It will be a great honor for me to serve with you in the committee.--BamLifa (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Military history user group title
Greetings, firstly thanks for your support and feedback to the proposal to form a user group for military historians of Wikipedia. As there is enough support for the proposal, it is time to choose a title, and go ahead. Please vote at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians#Group name. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk — mail) 11:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)