This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Would be great if this article explained how you go about getting or applying for or requesting a "Wikipedian in Residence." Someone searching on the topic will find this article first; it's great historical info, but nothing about how to get one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.232.119 ( talk) 13:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK is soon to have one. [1] JFW |  T@lk 12:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the OR tag added by User:Fuzheado, as it seems to me that every sentence outside the lede is cited. Have I missed something? Is there a problem with something in the lede (in which case an inline tag may be better)? Or are the sources being challenged (in which case a source-specific tag would be better)? (I declare an interest, as I am one of the WiR described.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Kevin Gorman: Hi Andy, I don't have a strong opinion on it, but perhaps putting in a tag for more references would be appropriate. After looking at the first two paragraphs, there are no references at all. Also, as much as I love the diagram in the article (and the people who did it!) there's no context or sourcing for it. Maybe just better info in the caption as saying it's the formulation of Lori Phillips and some other GLAM folks would be enough. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Fuzheado: Kevin who? ;-) Its quite usual to have no references in a lede, which should simply be an "executive summary" of facts cited later in the article. I've extended the image caption, using material from the file description on Commons. We don't usually name the author of such content, but I'm happy for someone to change that of they feel it appropriate in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

outreach:Talk:Wikipedian in Residence#History points towards a 2006 blog post by User:Llywrch. I'm not sure how to work it in (and my eyelids are drooping), but it probably warrants a mention in the article.

(Also, that Outreach page could use some more watchlisters/assistance. I just saw this blog post, and it appears our Outreach list doesn't include most of those.)

Cheers! – Quiddity ( talk) 08:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be Wittylama came up with the idea independently of that blog post. I remember informally mentioning the idea to a couple of people at the 2006 Wikimania conference, & maybe at one of the Seattle WikiMeetups before then, but nothing ever came of these discussions to my knowledge. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch, you're right. It's patently true that you published your blogpost several years before my side of the story kicks in (see bullet point 1, above), so I'm quite willing to say that you spoke the immortal words "Wikipedian in Residence" first :-) However, as far as I can recall, I hadn't actually seen that blogpost, and indeed I don't recall reading it until recently. So, I'd say, chalk it up to two people having the same good idea independently! Witty lama 11:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the "history" section should note the role of the Wikimedia Strategic Planning process, but it will be a little tricky as it's probably never been covered in an independent reliable source. But this discussion is worth a read: strategy:Proposal talk:GLAMwiki - Pete ( talk) 06:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

MOSCAPS, Chicago Manual of Style, the Oxford New Hart's Rules, and many other authorities say to minimise caps. If you want vanity capitalisation here, could you please take it up at WT:MOSCAPS or the central WT:MOS page. Before we know it, we'll be calling each other "Advisor" and "Consultant"; we decided not to go along that route long ago. Tony (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

G'day,

I'd write this directly on the article, but it's pretty clear that I have a large CoI since I created the concept, so I'll leave comments here for people to integrate as they see fit...

• The first ever public mention of WiR was at this conference that I convened in 2009. Specifically, it is bullet point 6 of the "requests to GLAM" in the Education section of the "GLAM-WIKI Recommendations" (which was the purpose of the conf - for both communities to express their wishes/concerns to the other). it said 'Rreate a rotating position of "Wikimedian in residence" (like artist/writer in residence) to allow tertiary students to gain experience in the professional sector and to have their Wikipedia efforts recognised.' [2] I inserted this point into the middle of the recommendations myself in the hope that someone would jump on the idea.
• Currently the article says that I was "hired" by the British Museum. This implies that it was a paid project, it was not. The history of this was that the user:Mike Peel from WMUK and I were visiting a bunch of London GLAMs to introduce the human face of WP, because at that time the NPG dispute was what they were all talking about. We had a meeting with the Web team and talked hypothetically about the variety of things that a WP-BM relationship could achieve. Several months later the BM wrote to me and said, in effect, "we've approved your proposal to come here and be a voluntary WiR". Not wanting to miss such an opportunity I finished my contract at AustLII and traveled to (and lived in) London at my own expense for the 5 week period of the project. The reason it was 5 weeks was a) financial on my part and b) because that was when Wikimania Gdansk happened - a convenient moment to report on the pilot project.
• The history section makes it look like the Smithsonian was the 2nd WiR. In fact it was the Children's Museum, Indianapolis followed by the Chateau de Versailles. You can see the full timetable here http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence It might also be good to give a wider variety of examples of institutions that have had the position (both geographically and in terms of type of organisation) as currently the lead mentions the British Museum + three USA organisations.
• The lead should probably express something about how the nature of the organisations that have hosted WiR, and the types of tasks that the WIR does, are very varied - that there is no one standard model. The different formats and general criteria are also listed at the previous link.

Thanks. No doubt I'll come back again with other points in the future :-) Witty lama 03:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made some of those changes. My times as "Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador" (WiR, albeit under a different title) at ARKive was in July-Sepetember 2011; see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive which links to press coverage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

{{ Request edit/request}} I'd be grateful if someone could add the ARKive residency, please. Sources: [3], [4], [5] (the later is a WikimediaUK page, but uses the term "in-residence role"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to RexxS for doing this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• University of Edinburgh to employ ‘Wikimedian in Residence’ web editor

With this position, there's now a few non-GLAD entities, universities, that have a sponsored WiR position. Also, 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? -- Petercorless ( talk) 18:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Added a bit about compensation and linked to the section for CoI where it talks about WiRs as a benign activity. -- Petercorless ( talk) 19:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nations and Wikipedia is a new meta page to accumulate and help organize ways nations/governments and Wikipedia interact and for the Wikipedia community to establish relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedians in residence can be one such interaction. I thought you might be interested in this page. Please share your thoughts on it on its talk page.

-- Fixuture ( talk) 13:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This phrase appears in the diagram at the top of the article, but its meaning is unclear. Please discuss here. Thanks! zazpot ( talk) 14:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

To editor Gamaliel: What's the problem with Andrew Orlowski's piece. You claim it's not reliable and it's clickbait; only one of those is an issue on Wikipedia. What has WP:RSN said? Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to save you time, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#The Register doesn't indicate a consensus that The Register is not reliable. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Further, what he claims is both attributed to him and is presented as his opinion (with quote), not in Wikipedia's voice as Gospel truth. Removing that material really looks like an attempt by WMF to silence critics. I just assumed an editor as accomplished as you had some involvement in the program. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would assume an editor as accomplished as you would know that including an unreliable tabloid source that, according to one editor at RSN, "regularly publishes rumor and tripe" is inappropriate, and even more inappropriate to have it dominating an entire section, a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not that accomplished. My ship doesn't sail on the orders of "one editor at RSN". That criticism is one of three sentences. It's unfair to claim it dominates the section. I have a hard time understanding how a single sentence of 43 words out of the entire article is UNDUE. Now that you've tagged the section for not being neutral, what are you going to do about it? Find more rah-rah material to praise the program for balance? Your editing seems to evince your personal beliefs. I write based upon sources. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The editor doth protest his neutrality too much, methinks. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Think what you like. You can't answer the charge. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

If by "charge" you mean "evidence-free accusation thrown out to desperately distract from my own clearly biased editing", I believe I just answered your charge. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You've claimed that The Register is an "unreliable tabloid source". You have neither evidence nor consensus. I say you're editing based upon your beliefs because clearly it's not based on sources. You've introduced a situation for which you have no answer, save finding sources to praise WiR so the NPOV tag can be removed without your objection. You also imagine that I'm a partisan; you have intimated above that I am a biased editor, also without evidence. I'm not desperate to distract; you're the admin just making stuff up. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're the only one allowed to make stuff up about other editors here. Is that a policy somewhere? Gamaliel ( talk) 00:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I wanted to rationally discuss this; apparently you don't. You let me know when you can substantiate your claims. I've removed the NPOV warning since your argument has no merit. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Where does one rationally discuss things by immediately falsely accusing someone of a COI without evidence? Could you point me to a definition of rational discussion that includes this scenario? if you want rational discussion I've outlined my policy-based objections above and as such I'm restoring the tag. Gamaliel ( talk) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've requested comment here and here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 06:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with Orlowski's writing, but finding a reason to sledge Wikipedia is standard procedure. Over many years. That removes any pretense of reliability for the source when used in this context. His views might belong at Andrew Orlowski if WP:DUE. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)