Wikimedia and Libraries User Group/Meeting minutes/2018/March/27

Navigate to Brainstorm

March 27-28, 2018

The meeting started with a few introductions from members who couldn’t make it to the last meeting. After which, the committee worked on the details of managing the user group.

Processes for the group

Discussion about what constitutes a quorum considering that we are a busy and distributed group.

For voting, a quorum of 5 is required, and if voting, simple majority would suffice. Can vote via email. Can hold a meeting with fewer people than a quorum, just not make decisions. Discussion of major topics should be announced ahead of time so that people have a heads up as to what is on the table for a given meeting. Also, announce major topics to the wider community for feedback with the deadline for feedback (typically next WLUG meeting)

Guidelines for running a meeting - how to take turns as we are all equals?

Instead of having a formal chair, rotate facilitation among the group, the facilitator assembles agenda and is responsible for organising the next meeting time slot and handover to next facilitator (based on expected availability).

SWOT Analysis

Strengths

1. Diverse group: countries, gender
2. Diversity in library types: “state”, “academic/research”, no public librarian but some of us work with public librarians
3. Library knowledge, Wikipedia knowledge
4. Support of other members of the User Group
5. Experience in working in the Library+Wikipedia intersection, lots of know-how
6. some WMF staff support
7. One of the strengths of this group is the fact that there are some founding members still here and could pass on some experiences
8. Representation from a variety of institution types (in terms of how they are structured, audiences served), gender diversity, the range of Wikipedia experience (including long-term and active Wikipedians).
9. Support of our user group
10. Demonstrated experience working in outreach / with the library and broader heritage community

Weaknesses

1. No resources, no budget, all volunteers (with other busy lives)
2. Just advisory. No capacity to enforce decisions, only to influence
3. Multiple time zones, makes it harder to hold meetings
4. Newness of the group, most of us have never worked together before
5. Coming from different backgrounds, timezones, cultures and having different temperaments
6. Inability to meet in person
7. Relationship with Wikipedia Library is somewhat unclear (goals are somewhat different?)
8. Inability to resource Wikimedia projects that libraries might want to undertake, difficult to locate local Wikipedians to engage with them
9. Could be more geographically diverse, particularly representation from the global south [need a better term - feel free to supply!]
10. Lack deep experience with public libraries
11. Perception of people who are “paid” to do work - “being accused of conflict of interest crimes”

Opportunities

1. Spreading the message to the wider library community (staff and patrons) and engaging with them to shift attitudes
2. Advocating for Wikimedia projects before librarians themselves and the academics
3. Creating ways for more joint projects between libraries and Wikipedians (edit-athon, digitization, etc)
4. Roll out more of OCLC course “Wikipedia + Libraries: Better Together” (or things like it)’
5. Engaging a professional workforce and getting them to see their work as reflected in and important to their future
6. Chance to extend knowledge about work on Wikipedia to broad audiences that are served by libraries
7. Attitudes have changed so that librarians are really open to the message of collaboration
8. Librarians can be great advocates for Wiki work
9. Opportunity to model peer behaviour

Threats

1. Conflict of interest on-wiki as paid editors. Need to remind everyone (librarians and Wikipedians) of en:WP:CURATOR (ok for librarians to write about collections, not a collection)