Talk:Wikipedian in Residence

From Outreach Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is a soft redirect.


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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Swedish National Heritage Board page error[edit]

  • 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)Reply[reply]


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[reply]

It would be nice to have a "history of idea" section. --Piotrus (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrLukeDevlin (talkcontribs) 22:05, 6 May 2013

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[reply]
Yes, hello! I just started Monday as the NLS WiR. ACrockford (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, and congratulations! I've added your name to the table. Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlafJanssen (talkcontribs) 16:21, 16 May 2013

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

Norway is missing[edit]

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

Sounds like a good idea! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for attending to this. --mikeu talk 23:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]
Thank you for doing this! It was one the major things that kept me confused before I joined WREN and asked the question. Zblace (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]