Talk:Wiki Education Foundation

Page revamp

Just a quick note to say I moved the previous page here to the Wiki Education Foundation/Background subpage, because much of the information was out of date, and replaced it with a simpler page that covers more of the current status of the Wiki Education Foundation. If there's something important I've missed capturing on the new page, please let me know! LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the whole "structure" section? --Jbmurray (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that section is outdated (see its reference to Thematic Organization status, which the Wiki Education Foundation withdrew its application for), but I will get a better answer for you and post it here when I can confirm it. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Much of it is not, in that it is inscribed in the by-laws: the numbers of board slots for various constituencies etc. --Jbmurray (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, when the WEF withdrew it's application for Thematic Organization status, I understood that it was going to re-apply. Is that no longer the case? The sticking point, I believe, is that the WMF wanted it to be a membership organization, and the WEF refused. Is that still the WEF's stance? --Jbmurray (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Great point -- I've added a section linking to the bylaws on Commons, and added all the monthly reports from your link below. Thanks for those. As to formal affiliate recognition, Frank's statement in February is still current: We are focusing on programmatic work right now. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also the list of monthly updates is far from complete. For a fuller list, see here. --Jbmurray (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for all this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

LiAnna, I note that you haven't incorporated the section on "structure," as suggested. Among other things missing on this page is also a link to the WEF's own wiki. Perhaps this could be added sharpish. --Jbmurray (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you added the link to the WEF board wiki; thank you. About structure: I thought you were looking for the information on the structure as found in the bylaws, as you mentioned that specifically; I added the section linking to the bylaws last week. What additional information on structure do you think needs to be added? My general view on this page is that it should be pretty simple and provide links to more information (so if people are interested in learning more about the structure of the board, they can click on the bylaws link), but I'm open to suggestions of what other basic information should be included. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

LiAnna, I think that's the right approach. (Funny enough, I just this morning added a suggestion to that effect about the similar Wikipedians in Residence page.) -Pete F (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Jbmurray's edits

@Jbmurray: Can you explain a bit more on your reasoning behind this edit? Given your accusation that we try to obfuscate things and your specific complaint about my job not being advertised, I am trying to err on the side of transparency and listing the most accurate information we have available on-wiki about our job openings and about the people participating in our program. What specifically is your objection to this information appearing on our page on Meta? --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Less defensiveness, please! The issue is simply how we see this page: as a site for recruitment, or for information. I see it as the latter, as I hoped to make clear in my edit summary.

There are meanwhile no doubt plenty of other pages where a fuller description of the WEF's plans could be outlined (if we're going to trade diffs, what about this one, from over two weeks ago?). But I'm not sure this is the place for that. --Jbmurray (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'd have thought this was a good place to put job adverts. --Jbmurray (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Jon, regardless of where else links to open jobs appear, surely there's no harm in them appearing here? I do very little editing on meta, but I'd be surprised if it was usual for an organization not to have some latitude over adding material like this to its pages. And I'm a bit surprised you want to remove it, given that it's just a link. Is there some precedent or background on common practice on meta I should be looking at? Mike Christie (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. This is an entirely pointless thing to argue about. Jon, if you don't like this information, the solution is obvious -- stop looking at it. -Pete F (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be defensive, and I'm sorry if it came off like that — I'm just genuinely trying to understand your position here. I'm trying to be more transparent about our activities (including the volunteers who participate in our programs and that we are hiring), and I don't understand your objection to providing that information on Meta. I am working on getting our website up (we've had technical difficulties), but even once we have that up, I plan to keep Meta up to date to be transparent to the Wikimedia community. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing start dates

Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up I'm removing the start date information; given legal complications around contract status, having these listed may put us in a gray area legally. We want to be sure we're legally compliant, so I've been asked to remove them. I don't think this is critical information to include, but I'm open to hearing why this is useful information for the Wikimedia community. @Jbmurray: Maybe you can chime in, since you added them? I'm hoping to include whatever is useful from this in another way that still makes us okay legally. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add these dates: I believe it was User:Biosthmors, over on en.wiki. The information was merely deleted when you set up this page, and I put it back in. Otherwise, on the whole I don't particularly care, though I don't really see the point in removing information for the sake of it. No doubt this would be material for a proper article on en.wiki at some point.

But look, and in response to stuff like this (doesn't AGF apply here?) and this, where even attempts to improve the grammar of the wording on this page are reverted because "the organization's leadership seems to think it's a good idea to have this stuff here"... This is precisely the problem I pointed out on en.wiki in the discussion about deleting that page and replacing it with a redirect here. It looks as though the WEF wants to treat this article as though it were its own website and manage what information they want to have here or not, now invoking "legal complications" to remove information that's in the public domain. And so on and so forth.

It's tiresome, but I guess if Pete and the folk here on meta put up with it, then so be it. I have no interest in such petty edit wars. But so much for "information fluency" or "free knowledge" or the other buzzwords that the WEF invokes. --Jbmurray (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)