Talk:Wikipedian in Residence
"Real" residencies 
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)
Suggestions for chapters supporting Wikipedian in Residences 
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:
- 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)
- 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!"
- 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)
- 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
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
Wikimedian vs Wikipedian 
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Swedish National Heritage Board page error 
- I don't know if it's due to my location, but i clicked the Swedish National Heritage Board link and came up with a page error. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
More love for success stories 
- 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)
More information 
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)
WiR projects without project pages, WiRs without userpages 
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)
- Lennart is sv:Användare:Hannibal.--anon
- Thanks for doing this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
New WiR project 
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)
Paid residency goes against the grain of Wikipedia 
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)
- 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)
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.
Today (16th May) The National Library and Archives of The Netherlands announced their Wikipedian in Residence project
The press release is here http://kb.nl/nieuws/nieuwsarchief-2013/wikipedia-primeur-voor-koninklijke-bibliotheek-en-nationaal-archief (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