notablog

Aller au contenu | Aller au menu | Aller à la recherche

vendredi 29 juillet 2011

All Your Money Are Belong To Us

Stu West, treasurer and vice-chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, published an interesting post about "Fundraising, chapters, and movement priorities", where he asks questions. Sebastian Moleski gives a very thoughtful and rational answer based on the idea of subsidiarity (Subsidiarity as a fundamental principle), one which I subscribe to.

There are however a few comments that come to mind while reading both posts, which I will try to bring to light here. To try and keep some clarity, I will structure this around Stu's questions. Note for those too lazy to read all the other posts (although you really should), we're talking about Wikimedia, and Wikimedia chapters (the national associations that foster free knowledge and support Wikimedia projects).

The infamous 50%: Where do we really need them?

Stu says

The issue is whether our approach to distributing funds to chapters should change along with all the other things that have changed over the past five years. Here are a few key questions I’m asking myself: Is it right that 50% of rich country donations stay in those rich countries?

Sebastian argues (with a few calculations at the top of his head) that the actual amount of donations that stay in the "rich countries" is much more than 50% of the overall money received (which, incidentally, I agree with).

But this conversation right here is a bit awkward, because it seems to me we are mixing apples and oranges. Let's try and remember where those infamous 50% come from. Actually, we don't really know where they come from, but they are the backbone of the fundraising agreement between Chapters and Foundation and have been for a few years. I'll pass on the details, but here is how it works: if 100€ are donated to a chapter, 50€ go to the Foundation, 50€ stay with the chapter. So the latter 50€ are the 50% which Stu says stay in "rich countries".

Well, since this 50% rule only applies to money raised through the chapters, what we're really talking about here are $2.15 million (50% of $4.3 million, which is the amount raised by the chapters), which, indeed do stay in "rich countries". Sebastian points out that if you actually look at the whole (donations to the Wikimedia Foundation included), much more than just 50% of the donations to Wikimedia actually stay in "rich countries". What I genuinely don't understand here, is why and how that would be wrong.

Actual figures are clear, Wikimedia spends most of its money in "rich countries", but if we're going to go that route, the amount that stays in rich countries due to chapters is actually only 7 or 8% of the total (the 2.15 million I mentioned above) 50% of 15% of the total amount of donations received by Wikimedia worldwide. Is that really insane? I personally don't think so. Also, I don't see anytime soon where the Foundation is going to spend 50% or even more than 50% of its revenue in the "Global South". It will, and should, as per the strategic plan, increase its investment there, but whether or when that amount will ever reach 50%+ of the total donations is, at least for now, and until the real need and impact are measured (as suggested by Sebastian), unlikely and/or unknown.

Now for the real question, which Sebastian hints at:

The emphasis on the Global South just started last year and there’s been, so far, no evaluation of how much impact Foundation spending in the area has actually had. We simply don’t know how much money needs to be spent on the Global South in total, or even within the coming year, to achieve the goals set out in the strategy. But if we don’t know that, how are we to decide whether 50% is enough?

How much money do we, as a movement, actually need to invest in the Global South? Stu seems to regret that money is staying in "rich countries" instead of going to the Global South,[1] but it is not clear to me what Wikimedia's investment in the Global South actually needs to be.

Whatever it needs to be, however, the next question is: are we actually short on money to invest? Is the money that stays "in rich countries" through chapters, missing anywhere else? And if that's the case, could it be an option to ask those chapters in rich countries to actually direct some money from their own programs to invest (or support the investments made by the Wikimedia Foundation) in the Global South? I have a hard time imagining that if the money is sorely needed and the programs make sense, a chapter would not consider this option.

Establish solid movement-wide financial controls

Stu asks:

How do we establish solid movement-wide financial controls to protect donor funds?

Sebastian's answer is one I would subscribe to. He points out:

My approach to „how to establish solid movement-wide financial controls“ would be to start conversations between Foundation and chapters both on a set of global minimum standards and a solid and independent reporting/enforcement structure.

The minimum standards are a must, and have been discussed in various places, not least within the development of the Wikimedia Charter started by the Movement Roles project. While the charter probably has a wider scope than just financial, it could actually contain the criteria for financial control needed to ensure our donors' money is used well.

Every time the subject comes back on the table, I can't help thinking about the International Non-Governmental Organisations Accountability Charter, which in my opinion is an excellent basis as to what we could be looking at for Wikimedia. I also started, in the frame of my work in the Chapters Committee, developing a set of chapter assessment criteria that could be used as measurement points somewhere along the line. In any case, I do believe, like Sebastian, that the standards need to be far reaching within Wikimedia, and that all Wikimedia organisations should be held up to them.

Who is ultimately responsible for stewarding donors’ contributions?

Actually, I find this to be the most interesting question of all. I find it interesting that in the past say 4 or 5 years, the question of "Shouldn't the Foundation be the one responsible to ensure transparency, financial control, and actually, complete control?" still is out there. It may be that I am old and remember a time where there was Wikipedia, and a very weak (not to say inexistant) Foundation. Because that's what history says. The Foundation was built to support Wikipedia, as were the Chapters. Wikipedia is not a product (in the generated sense) of the Foundation, nor is it a product of any Wikimedia organisation. As a matter of fact, it was there before all organisations. What I don't understand, and this is a genuine "not understand", is why in all of these conversations, I always have the impression that many Foundation affiliated people, be they staff of board, are under the impression that the money belongs to the Foundation. Does it? If yes, why?

I won't hide that for me, the elephant in the room is that the Wikimedia Foundation today acts both as an international coordinating body and a chapter. Seeing that the only existing chapter in the US is not allowed to fundraise, this makes the Foundation the national entity in the United States, and hence, a chapter by default, if not by design. Which to some extent skews the equation.

I am a strong believer that the money belongs to the projects, and that if an organisation is best placed to steward donations, it is indeed the Foundation, but not the Foundation as it exists. A truly international coordinating body would not actively fundraise in one country or another, since, if we agree with the principle of subsidiarity, a "local" organisation is best placed to do that. It might (and actually should) act as a fundraising recipient in countries where there is no organisation to apply the principle of subsidiarity, but would let local organisations fundraise where they can do it best.

I'll join Sebastian here to say that we (all Wikimedia organisations) are all responsible for stewarding donors' contributions. In a constellation where the Wikimedia Foundation is not a US chapter, but more something like a "Wikimedia International", it could then more easily steward donations and redistribute them appropriately, where needed. Each chapter (US included) would have a duty to finance operations and programs, and do so by giving X (where X could be 50%, 80% or 20% or whatever, depending on designed programs and needs) of the donations originating in their country to Wikimedia International. A truly international coordinating body would also have the necessary political power to develop a binding development strategy, which all entities in Wikimedia would follow. Whether the existing Wikimedia Foundation has that is yet to be confirmed.

I am convinced that having "Wikimedia international" in the US is a good thing for what we're doing (legal frame for hosting providers being one of the strongest points), and also convinced that the chapters should never argue about giving money to keep the projects up and advance the overall mission. But as long as the Foundation is effectively a chapter, I can understand why we're hitting the same wall again and again. After all, color me a French chauvinist, but why should the US rule the world of free knowledge and decide what's best for us all? And here, I am refering to returning intercultural problems in how to fundraise (you just don't fundraise in Germany, the UK, the Philippines, the US or India the same way), how to work on messaging (be it fundraising or overall presentation of who we are and what we are doing), how to develop organisations (should every chapter have an office? To do what?) etc. If, indeed, subsidiarity is king, then "Wikimedia International" should be empowered to make the high level strategical decisions, which local organisations would then have a duty to implement on a local level, and to fund where necessary on a global level (investments in the Global South, for example).

And what I still don't get, is that many other international organisations fundraise on a local level, see for example the WWF which claims on its international page: You can also donate to your local WWF office: they can do more with your donation! , or SOS Children's Villages which states Please select the country you live in from the list below in order to get tax advantages which could help you to give even more support to help children in need with your online donation. or again Amnesty which sends you to the local website to donate if there is one. Why couldn't we?

As a sidenote: I understand, and actually share, the concerns about newly formed chapters coming into way too much money in their first years, and this definitely is an attempt at putting together a set of guidelines which will prevent failure and ensure continuity in how chapters develop. But this is not solved by simply saying "All the money must go in one place". And since this post is already way too long, it'll do for another one.

More to read

I'll edit this section to point out posts or comments that I find interesting about this conversation

Note

[1] by the way, I dislike the term "rich countries" almost as much as I dislike the "Global South" thing, but I have found no satisfying alternative

vendredi 11 février 2011

Wikipedia Is Ten Years Old: A Human Adventure

Wikipedia turned 10 about a month ago. For me, the adventure is about five and a half years old. I started editing Wikipedia in October 2004. I remember how I found Wikipedia, it was through the Firefox Crew Picks at the time, a bundle of links to cool open source/free websites included in the Firefox browser, which was then in its infancy. I remember why I contributed the first time, I found that there was no article about Greta Garbo on the French Wikipedia, which I thought was like "wow, this is an encyclopedia and there's no article about Greta Garbo? That can't be a good encyclopedia." What I don't remember, however, is how I found the edit button. I just found it. I registered right away, and started translating the Greta Garbo article into French from the English article. I had never looked at Wikipedia before, and I don't remember it taking me more than 5 minutes to actually get into the editing part of thing. It was, somehow, rather natural.

From my first edit, everything went very fast. I started editing like crazy, spending nights improving articles, translating a lot, correcting spelling mistakes, fighting vandalism. Very quickly, I ended up in the wikipedia-fr chatroom on IRC, asking here and there about how to edit, how to organize, basically how to go about being part of this adventure. I had no clue about Wikipedia being free content, and frankly, I didn't care. It was fun, and most importantly, it was full of cool humans I could interact with from my little Parisian appartment.

A few weeks into Wikipedia, I got to talk to "Anthere" (Florence Devouard), who was on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. She asked me what I did for a living, and when I answered "event manager", she said "great! we're looking to organize an international conference, and we have no clue where to start, you're the right person for that". So two weeks into Wikipedia, I was brought into the "organisation", introduced to Jimmy Wales, and asked to help with the organisation of the first Wikimania (the name came later). What was but a virtual adventure became pretty quickly a human adventure. I kept on meeting people, at Fosdem first, then at various international and local meetings. The translation of a virtual world into a real-life world was quite a natural thing to me, as I had been a long-time chatter in other channels and had met a bunch of people on the internet, who had quickly become real life friends through meetings across the globe.

The more I got involved into organizing Wikimania, the less I edited. Parallel to the organisation of Wikimania, I followed the founding of the French chapter, and got more and more involved in the organisational part of things. I also got to understand more about open source and free content. I was very active on Wikimedia Commons at its beginning, as I saw in it probably the greatest achievement of the Wikimedia world. I still think that Wikimedia Commons has a tremendous potential, that is held up by the very thing it is built on, namely the "wiki" part of it. But that is for another debate.

The first Wikimania came and went. I met even more people, and edited even less, but got involved more and more in the organisational development. The Foundation, chapters, all of these things that made the whole virtual part of free knowledge less virtual, were the things that kept me there. And are the things that keep me here today. To me, Wikipedia, and even further, Wikimedia, is primarily a human adventure. That so many people around the world share the same ideal of bringing knowledge to everyone, and work together on making it happen, is the most important thing about Wikimedia. I am dedicated to the mission, but most importantly, I am dedicated to the people, because without the people, there is no wiki, no knowledge and no collaboration. I might not be the greatest contributor in the projects, but I am so conceited as to hope that my work (as staff, as a professional and of course, as a volunteer) has helped the whole Wikimedia ideal come a tiny bit forward.

I am extremely grateful to have been part of this adventure for the past 5 and some years and hope to be part of it for years to come. And I want to thank everyone who is making this adventure possible, because without them, well, you know... Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects would not have become the resource that they are today.

(This post was in the works, and got finished thanks to the prompt of Dieci anni di sapere (Ten Years of Knowledge) where it was translated into Italian.)

lundi 7 février 2011

Wikimedia Chapters: We Want to Hire Someone, Where Do We Start? (part II)

This is the second part of a blog post that got way too long to be just one. The first part, which details prerequisites, what Wikimedia chapters do and much more, can be found here.

So I left off at the three possible paths I see to professionalisation of a Wikimedia Chapter. Note that I don't necessarily believe that all chapters should professionalise to start with. But given that a chapter is thinking about it, here are three possible start points I can imagine.

Getting rid of administrative hurdles: The Secretary

The first direction I see is prompted by the growth of administrative burden on chapter volunteers. Whether it comes in the form of donations (lots of tax receipts and accounting to do) or members (keep lists up to date, take money in, prepare General Assemblies), or expense reports (many volunteers doing little events by themselves, sending in their train ticket and other bus ticket to be reimbursed), the administrative burden is the first one that usually becomes too heavy. It is also probably, some exceptions notwithstanding, the most boring part of running an association. When that takes too much of the volunteers time and motivation, the first thing that suffers is programs. Cool activities, outreach and such, which directly pertain to the objective of the chapter, are quickly put in second place, with an enormous guilt feeling. Not because they are not good, but often because the little administrative things have some fear factor engrained in them if you don't do them, as they are often tied with legal requirements that might threaten the survival of the chapter. So the first option is to outsource (here, outsource means take out of the hands of volunteers to a professional) those, in way of hiring a secretary-type person. A good option might be to start with someone freelance, when the workload does not justify having someone full time. The advantages of having a secretary is that all the administrative things are then taken care of professionally, by someone who can be held accountable. The drawbacks is that a secretary usually has little potential of "growing", of becoming more than a secretary, just because it's what they do well and they don't really want to do other things. In the mid term, a secretary might not be enough to ensure the chapter runs smoothly, especially if the potential for growth is important.Note that the secretary-type job might also apply to other areas such as accounting or press relations. Those are quite easily outsourced (this time, not hired in full, but buying a few hours of someone doing this as a freelance).

Supporting members and initiatives: The Project Manager

The second option to get onto the path of hiring someone is that of hiring a Project manager. In chapters wih active members that come up with lots of ideas, one of the bottlenecks might be that those ideas never see the light of day because the logistics or program management aspect of them never gets done. We go back to the "not having time" to do things. Having someone dedicated to implementing ideas might be a good option to make sure that nothing gets forgotten and that the chapter keeps a healthy level of programmatic activities (in direct connection with the objectives of the chapter). Often, events for example, will require some things such as finding a venue, keeping a budget and such, which not all volunteers are ready/able to do. However, without this part, the events just don't happen. Having someone who has an idea of what the timetable should look like, who is able to break down tasks and assign them, is a good way to make sure that as many people as possible see their ideas implemented. It also takes the boring-stressful part of putting together real-life projects which might put off volunteers. It also helps with talking to integrated bodies (such as local institutions, or even suppliers) as this gives them a sense of organisation which might reassure them. A project manager should be comfortable working with volunteers (not always an easy thing) and take the lead on organisational aspects without taking the lead on content aspects (you want to keep your volunteers in a state where they are actually doing something). They should also be comfortable with the very difficult step of making virtual things into concrete things (a particularity of Wikimedia crowds being that they live in a very virtual world and that going "back to earth" may be a difficult step). The advantages of having a project manager is that while not all projects might see the light of day, it is easier for the chapter to prioritize which initiatives they want to carry out by assigning one person to support the volunteers on a particular idea, rather than having only ideas implemented which have enough volunteers to be carried out. The drawbacks is that a real project manager needs projects, otherwise they get bored. They also need a strong management, which is able to give strategic directions as to which projects should be supported and which should not, in short, what the priorities are. And that kind of management takes an awful lot of time on the part of volunteers. On the longer term, the project manager could evolve into say a "program manager" overseeing a little team of project managers. However, I don't think a chapter can go on for ever with just project managers, there comes a point where more management strength is needed, which leads up to my third option.

Starting at the top: The Executive Director

The third and last option I am going to look at here is that of hiring an executive director. If a chapter is big enough (read: has the money), hiring an Executive Director is another option that they might want to consider. The idea being here that you introduce right away someone at the top of the management scheme, who will help the chapter implement its strategic decisions. Their role is then not so much to do things, but rather to have things done by building the chapter staff from scratch, addressing the right issues at the very beginning. This might be an option for chapters which come into a lot of money quickly (obviously, an executive director with the right skills will probably cost more than a secretary), or for those who are willing to invest in the future quickly. Note that I think that any hiring will mean investing in the future, but hiring an executive director right away is a way to push a chapter's volunteer body (the board, mainly) to evolve to a strategic planning role and take them away from the day-to-day business. Hiring an executive director as the first person is a tricky thing, as volunteer boards (in Wikimedia and otherwise) usually have a hard time getting away from the operational side of things. The advantages I see in hiring an executive director is that the chain of command is easier to build on the longer term. Hiring a project manager or even a secretary, and then imposing a manager on top of them is sometimes difficult, especially when they have been working alone for long. An executive director coming in first has the advantage that they can build their team from scratch, and avoid having to "manage" people who are not ready to see someone come and tell them what to do. The drawbacks might be that an executive director as a first hire will have well... nobody to manage. This situation depends on the chapter's means of course, but it might linger until the chapter actually have the means to hire someone else. Starting off with an executive director can also be problematic if the board is not ready to let go of operations, or on the contrary suddenly gives up everything they were doing until then, which might end up in an executive director doing tasks that should be done by others (read: doing the work of a secretary and/or a project manager, among others). An efficient executive director must be empowered from the start, not an easy thing to do.

The more I think about it, the less I know which option has my preference. I've seen all implemented, with more or less success, and I am not sure if I have a preference at all. I guess a project manager might be the easiest to handle as a first hire, simply because you can always have a secretary on an hourly basis if the need really arises, and because I believe that in the end, programs should have the highest priority. This said I believe that a project manager should be hired because they're good at what they do, and not in the light of them becoming an executive director at some point. Of course, it can happen, but managing an office and managing staff and setting up an office are not the same thing, so the project manager should probably be told at the beginning that the next hire might be an executive director.

Note that all of these options are thought up to answer the question of "who should we hire first". In the longer run, if a chapter is to professionalise, I think that all of these people should be part of the staff. Along with, later on, a person specialised in PR, someone to take care of fundraising etc. (which, however, I don't think should be the first hires). Of course, there's always the fourth option, which implies not hiring anyone. I think it's particularly true for Wikimedia that not all chapters will have to professionalise, even in the long run. But I'll talk about this in another post, maybe a part III. :)

jeudi 3 février 2011

Wikimedia Chapters: We Want to Hire Someone, Where Do We Start? (part I)

To this day, there are around 30 Wikimedia Chapters. Wikimedia Chapters, for those who don't know, are national organisations which purpose is to support the Wikimedia Projects. At this point in time, they are organized along national territories. The oldest Wikimedia Chapter, Wikimedia Deutschland (Germany), of which I am a board member at the time of writing, exists since 2004. It has now an office and around 12 employees. In the constellation of Wikimedia Chapters, it is the only one with such a strong presence of staff at all. Other chapters have hired people, but no other chapter, as far as I know, has more than 3 permanent employees.

I have been observing the development of Wikimedia Chapters for a while now, and I have been thinking a lot about what the best path for professionalization (read: hiring people and setting up an office) might be. I must say that I have no exact solution to the question, but here are three ideas I've come across, and the advantages/drawbacks I see associated with them.

Let me start with a simple question that bears answering before we get into specifics:

What do chapters do?

Chapters are usually non-profits established in a given country, whose general goal is to support free knowledge and/through the Wikimedia Projects (Wikipedia et al.). Their activities vary very much country to country, but here is a list of what a chapter may do:

  • fundraising (not all chapters are in a position to do fundraising, but those who are usually offer tax-deductibility and participate one way or the other in the Wikimedia Fundraiser)
  • real-life events: chapters may support community meetings, or organize conferences on topics related to free knowledge for example
  • outreach: chapters support community members doing presentations about Wikimedia projects in all kinds of settings, they pilot programs to acquire new editors on the Wikimedia projects (students, elderly people...), they explain Wikipedia to children, teachers, librarians, companies, you name it.
  • partnerships with local institutions: chapters work hand in hand with national/regional institutions, governements, museums, like-minded organisations etc. to either broaden access to free knowledge,

These, in no particular order, are the four main focus of Wikimedia Chapters. They certainly are not exhaustive, (one could add lobbying, support quality in the Wikimedia projects, technical development of tools to better the Wikimedia projects etc.), but they are, in my opinion, the main activities that may warrant sooner or later the need for staff and an office.

All of those, in the early life of a chapter, are taken care of by volunteers. All Wikimedia chapters to this day are member organisations, and have a board elected by a General Assembly of sorts. The details of how this works are country specific, but on the whole, the existing structures are rather homogenous.

When does a chapter need to professionalize?

Huge question, as a matter of fact, since this will as always vary with how a chapter evolves, what kind of activities it fosters (often driven by what kind of members it has), what kind of financial means it has etc. To cut a long story short, my assessment would be that a chapter needs to professionalize when the load of work is too heavy to be taken care of by volunteers (who, after all, only have a haphazard - if sometimes important - amount of time). More explicitely, I would say that a chapter should professionalize when the balance between doing fun stuff or boring stuff for chapter activities tips in the direction of the boring/stressful. In short, when administrative, accounting, organizing et al. becomes so important that as a volunteer, you feel you are lsoing the connection to whatever ideal/fun stuff brought you here in the first place (in many cases within Wikimedia, this will be contributing to the projects, but it can also be "meeting people", or "organizing cool events", or "challenging your brain", whatever). So first question to ask yourself as a chapter: which direction does the fun/boring-stressful balance tip? Mind you, I am convinced that for everything fun, there must be some boring/stressful, it's part of life, but the balance should stay...well, balanced. So let's say a chapter has decided that there is stuff to be done which the volunteers can't do anymore. How are they going to tackle the professionalizing thing?

Where do we start professionalizing?

Good question. I don't think there is one answer, of course, since there are too many things to be taken into account which could favor one way over another. But in the course of Wikimedia organisational development as I have witnessed it, I end up with three different directions a Wikimedia Chapter could take. And a fourth one which would be, don't professionalize at all (don't hire anyone, don't get an office etc.), which might be the topic of another post. But let's start with the prerequisites.

Prerequisite to professionalisation

Well, that one is an easy answer of sorts.

  • First, money. Because hiring someone means that you have to pay them. And to pay them you need money. In the case of Wikimedia chapters, this money might come from incoming donations, grants (from the Wikimedia Foundation or other organisations) or any other legal way of getting money. Without money, forget about hiring anyone.
  • Second. A clear list of minimum tasks that you expect your employee to carry forward. This ties in with the following point. Without clearly defining a basic task-list of what your employee should be doing, it's going to be hard to even find anyone.
  • Third, a willing body of volunteers who will "manage". Now, managing is a broad subject. But if a chapter is going to have employees, there needs to be some kind of managing body (it can be a person alone) which is going to tell the employee what they should be doing. Mind you, noone should prevent the employees from coming up with initiatives as to what they might be doing, but you need a sense of direction.

Once you have those, there are in my opinion three possible directions a chapter could go on the way to professionalisation, these are defined by the person they might first hire. And I'll detail them in another post, because this one is just too long already.

jeudi 2 juillet 2009

Wikibu, rating Wikipedia articles on statistical information

I just discovered this great tool called Wikibu. Wikibu is an initiative and research project form the Zentrum für Bildungsinformatik of the Pädagogischen Hochschule PHBern in Switzerland. It is only available for the German Wikipedia, but it looks promising.

The principle is quite simple (well, it might be technically difficult, but that's another story): its goal is to rate the potential quality of Wikipedia articles on a few objective markers, including: Wikibu, ratings for the Michael Jackson article

  • Number of visits
  • Number of authors having participated to the construction of the article
  • Number of backlinks within Wikipedia
  • Number of sources used in the article [1]

It also takes into account whether the article is being heavily worked on, and if the discussion page is being used, which allows to see if the topic is either "hot in the news" or maybe "heavily discussed" due to disagreements. It also takes into account the ratings given by the Wikipedia Community (good article - lesenswert- or a featured article - exzellenter Artikel). Wikibu also lists the different authors of the article, assessing their participation in writing it.

Finally, it lists the necessary links to the different pages of the article (discussion, history) and a link which prompts to work on the article, as an incentive to make it better.

Wikibu is meant to be a tool for education. It does not pretend to be able to rate the quality of the content, but rather aims at giving a few pointers as to what makes a potentially good article in Wikipedia. Based on statistical analysis, it provides a good starting point to evaluate the content and most important, gives a good overview of how an article is built, taking into account the most symptomatic pieces of the community process and making them clear for readers who might not know where to look for discussion or authors.

I am looking forward to seeing it extended to other wikipedias, I think it can help both the readers and the contributors to look at Wikipedia in a different way.

See below the ratings on the article "Dolphin" in the German Wikipedia.

wikibu_screenshot.png

Notes

[1] The illustration shows the ratings of the Michael Jackson article on the German Wikipedia, article which, at the time of this post, is highly "newsworthy".

lundi 16 février 2009

There Are Way Too Many Beautiful Pictures...

...on Wikimedia Commons. The vote for the Picture of the Year 2008 has begun and like every year, I am flabbergasted with the amount of amazing pictures that Commons reveals.

Vendeuse d'arachides - © Roman Bonnefoy, licence CC-BY-SA 2.0

I thought I would list here my criteria for choosing the pictures I supported this year. This is how I proceed:

  • Look at the gallery
  • Click on the pictures that catch my eye
  • Enlarge them to see them at full resolution
  • Go back to the credits page to see where the picture comes from.
  • Vote

And these are the criteria I keep in mind when choosing to support a picture or not.

  1. The picture needs to catch my eye. This starts with a thumbnail, so any picture that does not have enough contrast or does not present something "different" does not go past the first page.
  2. The picture needs to be of "good quality". This means a high resolution to start with, but also a picture with as little grain as possible and with details as sharp as possible. In the case of diagrams and animations, the smoothness of the animation or the fact that the diagram is in svg will prevail.Ammonite lamp post at dusk, Lyme Regis - © MichaelMaggs - License CC-BY-SA 3.0
  3. The picture should be of "encyclopedic nature". There are lots of debates about what is an encyclopedic picture, but I guess that for me it means that the picture should find its place as an illustration in one of the Wikimedia projects.
  4. The picture should be clear in its subject. This means that I pay attention to how the picture is cropped, what frame was chosen and whether it illustrates well the subject it is about.
  5. The technical skills that the picture entails. This goes especially for panoramas or macros.
  6. Who took the picture. I must say that I give plus points for pictures taken by "normal contributors" as opposed to pictures imported from Public Domain repositories (such as US governmental organisations). This is my little way of promoting the individual contributor. Mind you, I have supported some "imported" pictures when they were particularly to the point, or when they represent historical views or art pieces.
  7. My subjective opinion or emotion also plays a role, there are pictures I simply love, others I just like. This is the personal factor to my vote. However, there are a few pictures I love but which are in my opinion too far from all of the other criteria to catch my vote as "picture of the year".

You'll find on Commons the list of pics I voted for in the first round.


Crédits Images :

  • Vendeuse d'arachides - © Roman Bonnefoy, licence CC-BY-SA 3.0 - Source: Wikimedia Commons
  • Ammonite lamp post at dusk, Lyme Regis - © MichaelMaggs - License CC-BY-SA 3.0 - Source: Wikimedia Commons (I didn't vote for that picture because although it is probably one of my favorite, I find it does not answer the "encyclopedic" criteria that I set myself).

mardi 2 décembre 2008

It's the curse of knowledge, you cannot unlearn it.

For people not working with MediaWiki outside Wikipedia, it is hard to imagine what learning curve you went through when you first started editing.
It's the curse of knowledge; you cannot unlearn it.
Marjon Bakker, in a post to foundation-l

I love that last line! It is so true. And not just for wiki-knowledge. For all knowledge. Getting back to a time you "didn't know" is just impossible.

mardi 24 juillet 2007

Why I don't always go for free

Résumé en français : Pourquoi je choisis pas toujours le libre. J'ai peu de photos sur Flickr, comparé aux nombres impressionnants de quelques-uns. La plupart de mes photos sont sous licence Creative Commons, cc-by-sa (paternité-partage à l'identique), mais pas toutes. Je garde la totalité de mes droits par défaut sur toutes les photos où l'on voit et peut reconnaître quelqu'un (que je connais ou pas), pour une raison qui vient d'être illustrée par l'utilisation par l'agence de pub de Virgin Mobile en Australie, qui a utilisé des photos de Flickr sous licence CC-BY (paternité) et en a fait... ce qu'elle a voulu, sans plus se soucier de demander quoi que ce soit, à qui que ce soit. Bien sûr, c'est "libre". Mais dans ces cas-là, je suis pour l'adage qui dit "la liberté des uns s'arrête où commence celle des autres.'"

Lire la suite...

vendredi 29 juin 2007

Absolutely Intercultural

While at Reboot I hooked up with Anne Fox, who does part of the podcast Absolutely Intercultural a very interesting series on cultural differences, gaps and similarities.

Lire la suite...

dimanche 3 juin 2007

Give me a sec', I need to reboot

So I am back from Copenhagen, where I was at the 9th edition of Reboot.

Lire la suite...

mercredi 31 janvier 2007

Marmande, trois (dixièmes de) secondes d'arrêt

Jusqu'à aujourd'hui, Marmande était pour moi l'une des étapes du TER qui relie Agen à Bordeaux, genre.

Lire la suite...

mardi 14 novembre 2006

Wikimedia logo highjacking

Where I am reassured that there are still people with imagination in the Wikimedia projects

I am one of those tedious defenders of the integrity of the Wikimedia logo. It is not, in itself, the best logo ever, but well, the Wikimedia Foundation has enough problems as is trying to differentiate itself from Wikipedia, it deserves at least its own visual identity.

Lire la suite...

dimanche 8 octobre 2006

Madame et Monsieur tout le monde, il faut citer ses sources !

Où l'Agence n'est pas la seule en cause

Lire la suite...

jeudi 5 octobre 2006

Madame l'Agence, il faut citer ses sources !

Où l'AFP oublie de citer Wikipédia

Il y a de cela deux jours, Mathias Schindler invitait qui le voulait à une petite comparaison de texte.

Lire la suite...

dimanche 17 septembre 2006

Wikipedia ergo sum

Où la notoriété est durement mise à l'épreuve

Comme il pleut et que je n'ai rien à faire, je me suis baladée sur mes stats et mes référents, pour me rendre compte que l'un de mes plus gros référents était... Wikipédia.

Lire la suite...

dimanche 20 août 2006

Free as in?

First, good news, Florence is back on the blog scene. Yay! Second, she writes a very interesting post about the meaning of "free" as stressed in the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement.

Lire la suite...

mardi 8 août 2006

Zee ende

Wikimania a fermé ses portes.

Lire la suite...

jeudi 25 mai 2006

Perspectives mises en perspective

Patrice Létourneau, dont le blog est un havre de paix, a fait part sur la liste de discussion de la Wikipédia francophone de la sortie d'un article sur L'encyclopédie Agora intitulé Wikipedia : perspectives

Lire la suite...

samedi 1 avril 2006

At the beginning, there was the English Wikipedia

And it was good

Hmmm, I am not even sure that this title reflects the utter irony with which I write those words. There has been of late a fantastic number of amazing threads on various Wikimedia mailing lists. Those all started because a team of good-willing people decided they would clean up meta.

Lire la suite...

mercredi 22 mars 2006

Nobody knows everything, but everybody knows something

You just have to find out who knows what

Well, the Nobody knows everything, but everybody knows something has been a long standing slogan for the construction of Wikipedia. However, I am not going to linger on the Wikipedia aspect of it, but rather on the applications I see in other areas, and especially on the organisational area of Wikimedia.

Lire la suite...

- page 1 de 2