The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-10-02. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• Wikidata has changed everything. We need to seriously start thinking about (meta)data display user preferences, a.k.a. smart boxen. There is the data (such as a date), and how that data is displayed (dmy, mdy), and different readers and situations may call for different interpretations. Data may even need editing-specific interfaces, in the inevitable case when data storage formats are too complex to deal with directly (think templates for Wikidata). Or something... Yes, that's hard, but its a next iteration of the project, and its way too complicated for me to deal with. I, personally, want automatic dmy date formatting preferences; but I think now its part of a bigger problem in need of a more general solution. Int21h (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dates: once you take the time to code a templated date, every language and culture can render the date with their order and names for months, example: {{Start date|2013|10|06|df=yes}} shows as 6 October 2013 (2013-10-06), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that makes dates dmy for everyone; in US-centric articles, mdy dates are appropriate, but I still want to see dmy dates regardless. This is not possible at the moment. Int21h (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, - if you use {{Start date|2013|10|06}} you get October 6, 2013 (2013-10-06). Or do you think further that a user preference could render all templated dates this way or the other? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I think one should be able to render such templated dates this way or the other, as determined by a user preference (or even a page-by-page or other control, or any combination thereof). Certain people may want dmy, some people may prefer mdy, and some people may just want to let the article editors decide. It was just one immediately available example where the underlying data should be separate from its display, i.e. "different readers and situations may call for different interpretations". I see no reason why the same could not be true for infoboxes, e.g., some may want only certain information displayed, some people may want to filter certain information, some people may want none, and some people everything. Int21h (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Infoboxes, if small and concise, can add value to a page. The Merkel box, on the other hand, is an excellent example of what they should not be. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  I disagree, while the example is a bit too long, the truth is, things like a politician's history in elective office are very relevant, for example James Madison; where people forget how extraordinarily qualified he was for the office of the Presidency, and a quick access point for basic information is quite useful. OTOH, I would agree that an inboxbox that runs "below the fold" on a computer screen is overdoing it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this article focusing on the negative aspects of infoboxes only and doesn't take into account at all their value? I feel infoboxes are extremly valuable (and yes, the Merkel one too is fine by me) in providing a quick and concise recap of basic facts about a subject. It is the first thing I look in a WP article. While there are reasonable objections to them, I feel this is a very biased article about the issue. --cyclopia^speak! 09:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• And because (per Gerda's comment below), those of us expressing a pro-infobox viewpoint were attacked quite unreasonably, with our views, comments, and our noting the non-AGF and non-NPA behavior of the anti-infbox crowd discounted. The bullying by the anti-infoboxers was pretty much winked at, while defenses by and of the pro-infobox group were viewed as "attacks" or "not getting it." Very frustrating experience. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is easy: because the case was biased, and - if you ask me - it wasn't even on infoboxes. - I was restricted and told to be silent, that's another reason. Let's get real. Look at L'Arianna, the author of that article (at FAC) tried an infobox on 9 September. Look at the alternatives, the present so-called identibox (a step in the right direction), my suggestion of an infobox presenting date and place, and the former side navbox. What do you prefer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, let me state the obvious: The article about the opera L'Arianna shouldn't show "Titian's depiction of Bacchus's arrival on Naxos" at the top, but it should prominently provide an example of the music:

BTW, as a german Wikipedian i have to say that de:L’Arianna is a terrible example. An ugly, 100% repetitive infobox and very little content in the article. --Atlasowa (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What you say about L'Arianna would best be said in the FAC. - The sound example is not so great because it shows not the operatic version. - I like the German infobox: beauty is not needed, but repetition of the key facts wanted. - Do you know {{infobox opera}}? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The metadata aspect of infoboxes was always more beneficial to the small developer than a large company that can spend a lot of resources parsing the article. In that respect I think it is not obsolete. 173.61.149.213 (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• The scope and specificity of infoboxes is an issue as well—what is the focus, and what should, or can, they be mandated to contain? For example, should {{Infobox book}} be a box about the book in general, or about the first edition of the book, as some have insisted? Should particular images be mandated—is an imageless infobox even allowable? Can an image be automatically enforced by a WikiProject, without debate as to the particular image's pros and cons? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The scope can be discussed. Please note that I - thinking that infoboxes can be helpful to readers - would not claim they or anything in them should be "mandated". I like to show an unprepared reader at a glance what an article is about (in the above mentioned example: L'Arianna is an opera) plus a time and location, - that's why I would pefer "my" suggestion to the "identitybox". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed. The result of the discussion was that it was not to be discussed. I like the idea of an "identitybox"—that sounds exactly like what I had intended (and have been barred from). Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we mean the same thing by "it"? I meant the scope of an infobox in general, "was discussed" sounds like you mean {{Infobox book}}. Identitybox is the name the author of L'Arianna gave to the box now in that article, which can be seen also in Symphony No. 1 (Sibelius). I would like to add (for a random reader who may come across the article via a search) a time and location, as for example in Lolita (opera) and Symphony No. 8 (Dvořák). I respect the wish of the author but would like to know what uninvolved people think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see some comments here that seem to suggest the design of our infoboxes is part of the problem. I think most English Wikipedians are not aware of the fact that the small team of professional designers at the WMF would love nothing more than to streamline the look and feel of infoboxes. Frankly, they mostly don't because A) it's a daunting task with so many different templates B) the templates are viewed as "community controlled" and thus not particularly open to changing C) there is always more work to do in other places and on our normal work projects, like VisualEditor and mobile. I can tell you though, that if there were community members willing to lead the discussion on redesigning infoboxes to be more clean and less heavy-handed, then the designers would love the feedback and would be very happy to see some improvements go live. In short: they'll do the design work for you. Just check out some of the early mockups I linked to above. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 03:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the community sure does shoot itself in the foot with its shock-horror knee-jerk resistance to technical trial and innovation—most unhelpful (even destructive) in relation to VisEd. Quite a bit has been said in the past about engineers being out of touch with the community; now its time for the community to reach out. Tony (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

    One problem in infobox land is that different subjects require different info, and the info needed by specialists may be different from laypeople. Personally, while past debates over silly things like which color to make the stripe have wasted untold bandwidth, a totally standardized model may be impossible, I use the Presidents of the USA model as an example, sometimes, a person just needs to know when Woodrow Wilson was Governor of New Jersey, and it's easier to use the long infobox than to scroll through the text. As for Visual Editor, it was an unmitigated disaster, rolled out too soon with too many bugs and required an entire re-learning to use, not a knee-jerk reaction at all. Was a solution in search of a problem (yes, a more user-friendly interface would have some advantages, but VE wasn't it. Almost as bad as Windows eight ...  :-P ) Montanabw^(talk) 06:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

    • The need for different color variables is something that could be more easily built in. Designers are used to the requirement for a complimentary but varied color palette, and with templates able to be written in proper code now, it's quite easy to define switches that could change colors based on the desire of a certain WikiProject or other set of maintainers. Anyway, just putting the thought out there. If the design of infoboxes is a sticking point, then the designers can potentially help. It just takes the community stepping up to lead on this one, since WMF management isn't going to dictate any change. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 07:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts like this sound promising, but if there was an infobox war (which I doubt) the arbs supported those who want no infobox at all, ignoring their widespread use on Wikipedia. However, while the case was still open, (missed) Smerus installed a compromise for the Sibelius symphony mentioned above, and now we see the approach on Monteverdi's opera, - I still have hope for peace, in discussion rather than restriction. As for colour, I like unobtrusive better than overly colourful, - being able to make a choice seems a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Stephen, what does the community need to do if it's to liaise effectively with WMF engineers on this matter: if a page is established to knock ideas around, it may become bloated and unruly. If we knew the kind of boundaries, wish-lists, specs that engineers could work with (and that would be essential for them to frame the job technically—and perhaps throw back with comments in a negotiation process), it could open up a route. Tony (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty Sign has a deletion request citing the sign was made by a private company and not by the US Government. The issue is of fair-use of the image and it's usage on Wikipedia. Dunno if the thing has been finalized or not, but I think this should be noted. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replaced the image. --Pine^✉ 07:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Very happy to see the Discussion Report back in the Signpost. I missed it. Just wanted to note that there's a big RfC to rewrite the Foundation's privacy policy at meta:Privacy policy. The discussion is at meta:Talk:Privacy policy and will run a couple months—until January 15, 2014. 64.40.54.87 (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Took the liberty to add this to the meta-list. @main editors, please feel free to change or revert, if necessary. GermanJoe (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-02/Featured content

This Signpost article has been mentioned by a media organization: Andrew Orlowski (8 October 2013). "Wikipedia Foundation exec: Yes, we've been wasting your money". The Register.

Just a note: The maximum number of people would have been 228 on Oct 1; but the number increased over time from about 20. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 14:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Can't think of a way to include that the number increased over time and still keep the text flowing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's fine like this; from a security standpoint the exposure was to 228 people. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 15:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The WMF and FDC are far far away for local users, too far away. There is a huge gap between local users and WMF for already more than 7 years, which makes WMF unreachable for local users. Where do local users (individuals) then go to if they need money and other support? the chapters. Who has the contacts with cultural institutions so that for example tens of thousands of images are uploaded to Commons to illustrate articles? the chapters. Is the proportion of spending by the chapters a problem? No. If there is a problem, it is WMF itself for already more than 7 years to be in general unable to reach out to local individuals, WMF has a large communication problem and the little communication often gets damaged by decisions that annoy local communities much. Because WMF itself is unable to reach out to all those individuals around the world, chapters have jumped in that gap to support locally the cultural institutions and local individuals who need that support that WMF does not provide. I am sure a lot of things can be improved in chapters and in spending by chapters and that is something which can be critical looked into, but I am more concerned about the unreachable Wikimedia Foundation which is too far away if local individuals and communities (in another country) need help. So please improve that first... Romaine (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A key question has to be: "How many active dues-paying members do the chapters actually have?" or how many people can they actually claim to represent? If the numbers for most chapters is a dozen or so, then Sue Gardner is correct, we're putting a lot of money into places that may not be able to use it to benefit the overall community. If the numbers for the chapters are in the 100s, then that conclusion should be modified, and if the numbers for a chapter are in the 1,000s, then Sue is clearly wrong. Does anybody have good membership figures? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WMAT has 115 active members with a budget of 430,435 USD, WMCH has 259 active members with a budget of 997,795 USD, WMDE about 4.000 active members with a budget of 23,372,268 USD. This makes an average spending of ~3852 USD in CH, ~3743 USD in AT and ~5843 USD in DE. Looking at the size of the communities and further specialities is important: One can assume that there are some base costs just to have an association running, almost independantly of the number of members, at least beyond a certain size. So smaller countries are bound to have slightly higher costs. Of course with the increasing number of members these fixed base costs become neglectable. Then there is normally an economy of scale: the 2nd 1000 members should add less spendings than the 1st 1000 members. WMAT exsist since 2008, WMCH since 2006, WMDE since 2004. Switzerland is special in another way: a split community in four different projects, internal communication in four languages sure adds some overhead which might reflect to the budget. Then another point: accessibility to programs. WMAT for instance states publicly that their programs are available to anyone, not just members.

So one should do some research in the number of potential volunteers that may be reached by each chapter (based on existing volunteers, potential according to number of inhabitants of the country, accessibility of their programs), stage of development, number of members and the spendings. I hope the numbers I gave help doing that, I'd be really interested if someone would make such a research! --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 11:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80686 (talk • contribs)

Does anybody have numbers on other chapters? I'm a bit concerned about the argument that local chapters represent non-members just because they live in the same country. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WMUK's membership numbers are here; membership currently stands at 220 or so. But it should also be noted that the number of members actively involved in the charity's activities is far, far smaller than that, probably only around a couple dozen or so. Perhaps a few dozen. In the 2012 WMUK board election, for example, only 60 or so members voted. In the Australian chapter's 2012 board elections, the number of votes was considerably smaller than that, just over 30. Andreas JN466 20:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Always nice to hear an unbiased voice, Andreas! WMUK keeps (or used to) an informal count of named individuals who were recently active in some form of IRL activity (as opposed to just editing), & the figure was about 80 last time I saw it it. Not all were necessarily members, though most certainly were (with user name/real name issues, one doesn't always actually know). Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem: I do (well, did, not so much in recent months) a lot of active high-profile work with a chapter. I don't actually know whether I was a member of it for most of that time! I was, and then I forgot to renew, and then I renewed again, but I'm not sure when that was, etc etc.

In practice, most chapters don't require membership for things other than a) internal governance, or b) actually applying for money. As a result, "membership" is really a function of how interesting (or more often, offputting) the governance is - if you can do what you want to do without membership, treating it as a friendly service organisation, people won't worry so much about actually being members. Indeed, WMF is a perfect example of this - it has no members but that doesn't mean people are unable to engage with it, as eg the grants program shows. Membership numbers are a pretty bad proxy for size, activity, impact, etc; it's one of the only ones we have, but that doesn't make it meaningful. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

the chapters primarily don´t work for their members, who have their status mostly only, to support the chapters-work with a yearly donation (membership fee). the chapters main goal is to support their local community and they do get in contact with the biggest part of all those users. to get good numbers for that, would be very interesting, but challenging too, because of varying criteria of measuring the direct or indirect interaction, between the chapter and the users. on the other hand: is there a considerable ammount of people, who get in contact with the WMF directly? i don´t think so. but it wouldn´t be fair to divide the WMF-budget, with those few users. such comparisons are useless, regarding our aims. --Kulac (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Numbers are very important to evaluate the questions raised here. Whatever numbers can be offered to support the contention "Where do local users (individuals) then go to if they need money and other support? the chapters," would be appreciated. I'd be very uncomfortable with an argument that the WMF must support a chapter monetarily simply because a dozen people got together and formed a chapter and there are a lot of people in the country. Offering evidence that the chapters do represent people and do involve a lot of people in their activities is key. Please show us what you got. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

the question is, which numbers can show you which goals. in my personal oppinion the numbers of actual content generation (supported images uploades/articles created) is far more important, than the number of supported individuals, even though you can´t separate those questions totally. you know what wiki loves monuments is? more than one million pictures added to commons, from i don´t know how many thousand contributors. go google the numbers. that project was organized by the chapters and only chapters are capable of doing so again in the future, for several reasons. enough said, from my point of view... --Kulac (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's up to the chapter to show the effectiveness of their programs, using whatever numbers they think best represent their situation, but there have to be some numbers. This is, after all, about $100,000+ grants which add up to millions of dollars. We shouldn't give such grants with just nice words and phrases behind them. Try getting a $50,000 loan without some serious numbers behind your application - it's just not going to happen. It's even more important here, where the WMF's money was given for charitable purposes, and they, in turn, give the money, not loan it, to the chapters. Clearly, if you are asking for this money, you should be able to justify it beyond mere words. A statement that in effect says "Only the chapters can represent nationals in their home country, not the WMF" certainly needs to be justified.

As far as Wiki Loves Monuments, I am very well aware of it and its accomplishments. I coordinated WLM-US last year (2012). The project resulted in 20,000+ new photos at Commons, from about 5,000 contributors (mostly new to Commons - I should check that number), with over 5,000 of the photos illustrating historic sites that had not previously been illustrated on Wikipedia. I don't have numbers for continued contributions from new contributors, but I do know of one case where a new contributor has uploaded about 3,000 photos since WLM 2012, with about half of those being previously non-illustrated sites. The DC chapter committed to $1,500 for prize money, and I think that was a great investment on their part, and as far as I know that was the only monetary cost to the Wikipedia movement. None of this would have been possible without the international Wiki Loves Monuments, of course. I see no reason that the chapters have to support WLM, rather it could be organized as a "thematic organization" which can now get funded by the FDC. I'm sure that they could justify any reasonable request with real, hard numbers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

sorry, to ask, but you read the regarding FDC-pages, on what and how the chapters had and have to show, why and how they spend the money, before you ask your questions here? sure you will question the process, if you don´t know even the basics. regarding WLM: good to heare from your achievments. with the organizing of my chapter, we managed to cover more than 90% of the monuments in our country within 3 years. other than in the US, where every government-data is PD (great!), that wasn´t the case in Austria. my chapter cooperated with the federal monument agency, to even get those lists of monuments and far more than that. believe me or not, a bunch of more or less organized wikipedians couldn´t have managed that. the bureaucracy solely, whould have made that impossible, without an well known organisation as a project partner. if you would have read one or another project report of a chapter, you could look at dozends of other examples, like this. --Kulac (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I just asked if the chapters have any numbers to justify a statement that in effect said "Only chapters can represent local individual editors, not the WMF." There was just one response with numbers, the rest have argued that they don't need numbers, we should just accept their verbal arguments that they need money. I strongly disagree. As far as your suggestion that I don't know how the FDC process works, I'll just say that it is even more incorrect than your suggestion that I don't know anything about Wiki Loves Monuments. Enough said. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I should add here that Kulac is talking about WMAT, whose numbers I have given above. So you should put his responses in the right context. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 08:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment—one of the problems with Sue's reasoning here is that it is actually the foundation itself that imposed many of the extra costs for chapters. For example, the new reporting requirements by the WMF and FDC require most chapters to have a full-time employee dealing just with metrics and specific requests, the WMF's new legal guidelines require most active chapters to pay legal fees to a lawyer, etc. I estimate that for some small chapters the running cost went up by more than 100% because of these relatively new requirements, and even for large chapters this is not negligible by any means. I understand why most of these new requirements exist, but the WMF shouldn't be surprised that existing volunteers have neither the time nor the expertise to handle the extra load and have to hire employees to do it.

In terms of value to the movement, chapters are responsible for most of the useful innovations in the movement, both in terms of projects and even in terms of engineering which the chapters weren't intended for (the Toolserver and WikiData both come from Germany). The chapters are responsible for getting millions of high-quality images to Commons, many of them from archives that would otherwise be inaccessible. The chapters are responsible for convincing government agencies to release free content. They are responsible for holding community events and letting people around the world know that Wikipedia is not just a website, but a resource that anyone can edit that has a community of real people behind it that can provide all kinds of support for all kinds of projects. Disproportionate funding for the value that they create? Maybe disproportionately low.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Very useful information in the report this week. Thanks Tony1, Crisco 1492 and The ed17. --Pine^✉ 07:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Cheers! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Informative, and useful coverage guys. Good job. Theo10011 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I note this:

• "Single-session, general-audience outreach has negligible impact everywhere (for example, just giving a single talk about Wikipedia to whoever shows up—the conversion rate to editors is tiny, and yet we keep doing it". This, he said, is distinct from multi-session programs, or very carefully selected audiences, which yield slightly better results.

In my experience, this is correct. I would be surprised if most general programs have a conversion rate of more than a few percent. (This shouldn't entirely surprise us - we know that the online conversion rate is also very small). However, it also presupposes that getting new active editors is the sole purpose of outreach programs, and is that really true? We have half a billion readers, many of whom simply want to know more about the project; want to feel engaged and comfortable with it; want to learn more about how the information they're consuming is produced. The information literacy role of general outreach is critically important to making information usefully available to people, especially in academic contexts. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Community building is turning out to be one of the most important functions of our chapter. It's what gets people out to events, and helps us create the conditions where GLAMs feel comfortable adding content. There's no substitute for solid working relationships between people who know each other in real life.

I'd also like to emphasize the importance of outreach events in improving information literacy. I have met a fair number of people at events geared towards the general public who didn't fully understand what it means to collaborate on building an encyclopedia. These attendees showed up out of curiosity, or because they were interested in doing original research, or because they wanted a place to host promotional materials for themselves or their organization. Several of these individuals, who left with a positive attitude about building the encyclopedia, indicated afterwards that they intend to become ongoing financial donors to Wikipedia.

One of the more gratifying tasks at outreach events is assisting individuals who attend because they are concerned about what appears in their Wikipedia biography. You can see that a little coaching on how to create a civilized and accurate biography can make a difference in their personal and professional lives.

If we want to be around long term, we need to keep growing positive, in-person interactions with our readers and supporters, even if they don't sign up as chapter members or editors. Djembayz (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing I am missing is any kind of analysis in the chapters as to which content areas of the Wikimedia projects are objectively in need of improvement, and targeted spending plans geared to address those areas.

Such an analysis would look at things like the following:

• Readers' information needs, as measured for example by page views for various topic areas, as well as additional criteria,
• How much improvement potential there is in these topic areas (e.g. assessment of the current quality level by an independent subject matter expert),
• How central the topic area is to the Foundation's educational mission (educational core areas vs. niche content, fan cruft, curiosities etc.).

I see little evidence of a customer (i.e. reader) focus in chapters' spending decisions. My impression is that spending often happens along the following lines: 1. We have money to spend. 2. What could we do with that money? Is there a GLAM organisation (even if it's just a local or regional museum) that would host a Wikipedian in Residence if we were to finance the position? Do we have someone in our membership who would like to do a job like that? Is there someone who might be interested in hosting or running an awareness workshop somewhere? Can anyone think of a gap in our coverage that could be filled if we throw a bit of money at it?

As far as I can see, the main question asked is whether the planned activity would fundamentally be in line with the Foundation's mission. But I see little interest in quantifying cost-benefit ratios, or assessing whether the activities engaged in really address those areas that are in most need of improvement (based on metrics such as number of readers reached, or importance of the information to readers' lives). Yet we promise donors that their funds will be used "wisely". When Sue says, "I am not sure that the additional value created by movement entities such as chapters justifies the financial cost" and "there is currently not much evidence suggesting this spending is significantly helping us to achieve the Wikimedia mission: I believe we're spending a lot of money, more than is warranted by the results we've been seeing", I read that as an admission that funds are not in fact used wisely, but quite haphazardly.

Spending must be far more metric-based and grounded in a rational and traceable analysis of priorities. For example, donors' money could be used to finance Wikipedians in Residence in universities, professional associations, academic bodies, government-funded agencies providing information and advice on legal, medical or social matters etc., with a view to having highly qualified subject matter experts –

• assess the current quality level of information on offer in a content area,
• identify improvement priorities,
• create, edit and monitor Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise, as identified and proven subject matter experts with a known Wikimedia partner affiliation (though still generally subject to the same editing rules as any other real-life expert editing Wikipedia).

In my view, if we are spending millions and millions of donated dollars (bearing in mind that Wikimedia Foundation revenue and spending has increased about tenfold over the past five years – see graphic), then this is the sort of way we must spend them in order to live up to the promise that donors' money will be spent "wisely". Andreas JN466 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose one of the most difficult challenges for chapters is to demonstrate why the work of their few individual chapter members who actively participate in projects can't be done through individual engagement grants and the projects and events scheme (GAC-reviewed). In that respect, what value to the WMF sites is added by bankrolling all of the paraphernalia and bureaucracy of a chapter? I'm not asserting that this is always the scenario (and certainly good work is done by some chapters), but I see too little justification in funding bids to discount the prospect of partial or total redundancy compared with direct relationships between individuals and the WMF's team of professionals; that team now appears to me to be well equipped to provide advice, support, and guidance.

A related issue is the system of reportage on the progress and results of funded activities back to the grantmaking body; I'm disappointed that the WMF board's priority of disseminating "lessons learned" is not gaining much traction in this reportage. Do chapters genuinely want to share with each other their accumulating knowledge of what does and doesn't work? Tony (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a long-term fan of Sue, an ex-employee and current contractor of WMUK, and otherwise full-time Wikimedian. I think I have the background to understand the issues here: I've opened letters with cheques from donors during a fundraiser, and read the comments, and that was a privilege. There is actually no need to beat ourselves up in order to benefit from Sue's astringency. Just remind chapters their use of the Wikimedia brand is not to put themselves on the map, as an end in itself. I protested in early 2010 when WMUK reduced the role of membership to (effectively) a franchise, and had to bite my lip in early 2011 when it cancelled a membership newsletter after one issue. I think that was a complete clanger, and much more to do with the conference obsession that has become apparent over the years. So, for perspective, can we worry at the issue of "metrics that would apply to conferences", instead of targeting training? I doubt there are such metrics, which would be my point here. Let's get smarter about outreach generally, and if necessary make the point that Wikimedia is not on this planet on a purely attention-seeking mission. The point is to get the "oh look" reaction from the "encyclopedic demographic". Charles Matthews (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tony1: I will try to explain why "all of the paraphernalia and bureaucracy of a chapter" is justified from this volunteer's perspective. I was a active volunteer back when WMUK had no employees: to do a big event, I had to sort out venue, publicity, design, printing, expenses, and so on myself. Some of that was rewarding, most was demotivating hassle. From my perspective there was a lot of "paraphernalia and bureaucracy" that got in the way of the interesting stuff of changing experts' minds about the potential of Wikimedia. Now that there are professionals I can rely on to support me—in communications, event organisation, in making finance happen, in building opportunities to do outreach—I'm many times more effective as a volunteer, and volunteering for WMUK is something I can more credibly recommend to other people. It's the simple principle of the division of labour, which has an honourable history in making organisations more productive. In addition, I have a part-time job, created by WMUK and a partner body, that allows me to do many times more outreach work than I would fit in as a volunteer.

A group of people who aren't even in the same country, however talented, aren't going to be able to help in the same way, for reasons which ought to be obvious. Plus, culturally, the sort of organisations that we need to work with in the UK are usually charities and are going to expect to work with a recognised, accredited UK charitable body, not a "bunch of amateurs" and rightly or wrongly they're less likely to trust a US corporation, even a non-profit. There's also the co-ordination problem: WMUK used to have lots of volunteers "doing something about education" but in different directions. It wasn't really possible to be strategic and to make sure different efforts built on each other.

So I want WMUK to be (in due course) much bigger than it presently is. This isn't because I somehow love bureaucracy and paperwork: I hate it! It's because of the huge scale of the work that needs to be done to give free, global accessibility to the knowledge and culture bound up in UK institutions. By comparison "pure volunteers" and "volunteers supported by an expanded Foundation in another country" are inefficient ways to get this job done. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Andreas: You criticise the way money is being spent at the moment, but in all seriousness you propose directly paying experts, which would require, huge sums and huge bureaucracy, even to monitor or improve a tiny proportion of Wikipedia articles. Far better use of donor money to make use of processes that are in place already, such as the UK science funders' agenda for public engagement. You're proposing something very, very much more financially inefficient than what the Wikimedia organisations are doing. It's hard to know what credibility to give your proposals, which on the surface are just not well thought through, IMHO. I don't know what your professional background is: maybe you've directed some large-scale national programme along the lines you describe. If so, share with Wikimedia how you made it a success. If not, you may have unrealistic ideas about how easy these possibilities are. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Just to give an example, Wikimedia Germany recently spent $110,000+ on personnel costs and hotel/travel expenses so that Wikimedians could visit Germany's regional parliaments and take photographs of German regional politicians (such photographs are abundantly available online). Another project spent $25,000 of donations to buy photo equipment for Wikimedians and have them attend pop concerts as accredited photographers. The same money would have enabled full-time employment of two well-qualified subject matter experts for a year, to have them assess and improve two high-traffic topic areas with known failings. In my opinion, that would have been a better way to spend $135,000. Andreas JN466 22:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I take Sue's main point to be the "cuckoo" argument: growth in the chapters' budget and activity is not proof that the chapters aren't growing at the expense of other possibilities (hence the worries about the FDC governance, if the perspective is uncritical of chapters). The detail of chapter budgets is another matter; and what could be done to spend money in other sectors a third matter. There are "cuckoo" areas within the budgets of individual chapters, surely (certainly in my experience). The WMF fundraising total is lower than it could be, if every effort were made to maximise it. Trying to read this all together: routing funds to areas that could most benefit the overall mission is not a simple matter of replying positively to those who think they have a good business case. People generally are very impressed by Wikimedia content. That still mostly reflects volunteer efforts, and how to target the auxiliary spending is in no sense a solved problem.

My own view is that we should be more concerned with the grassroots, and, as here, they are not necessarily the ones making most of the noise. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• If I understand the WMF right one of our main priorities, maybe the main priority is to get more voluntary contributors. More contributors produce more articles, more proofreading, better quality etc. From what I see here in Norway we are however going in the opposite direction as some of our best people are tied up in the local chapter. I checked some of them (their contributions) prior to writing this and seems they mostly have given up contributing. And honestly, after running dozens of courses trying to attract new contributors with nothing to show for so far, I am as clueless as anyone where to find them - seems they find us, but it would be nice not to kill the few we have with papers and reports as we wait for the newcomers... Ulflarsen (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been told I have been cryptic with my metaphors. Here's an attempt in different language (see growth-share matrix). A WMF criticism I have heard, though it is not Sue's main point, is that chapters tend to have too diverse a portfolio of activities, so there is a fairly good reason to translate into that language.

There the point would be the predominance of "stars" and the lack of identification of, and support for, "cash cows". If Andreas is mainly talking about the presence of "dogs", well, you'd expect some in any business context. Here of course "cash cow" is something that steadily builds the Wikimedia community, if in unspectacular manner (e.g. the sort of claim made for WLM, once you strip out the stats). Why "stars" have to be treated with some suspicion is standard stuff: they hog the limelight, are greedy for resources, and management can get obsessed with them. In our context, as Asaf points out rightly, GLAM activities really depend on having a local community in good shape. (GLAM = "star" is pretty much implicit in the acronym.) Charles Matthews (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to explain a bit more about how the "rates of growth in movement resources" mentioned in the Signpost article were determined in the annual plan grant proposals to the FDC. The amounts in US dollars used to calculate movement resources allocated in 2013 for FDC entities come from the allocations in US dollars presented in the FDC recommendations; they may differ from actual amounts received in local currencies. Therefore, the percentage growth in movement resources (grants received and funds retained through payment processing) may also differ when calculating in local currency.

The amounts in US dollars used to calculate movement resources allocated in 2013 and requested growth rates for entities new to the FDC process (Amical, Wikimedia India, and Wikimedia Serbia) were a bit more complex. Figures for the movement resources allocated in 2013 are based on a pro-rated amount of Project and Event grant funds allocated by dividing the equivalent in US dollars of the total grant amount listed in the approved grant submission by the number of days in the grant’s term listed in the approved grant submission and multiplying that amount by the number of days of each grant term in the calendar year 2013. Therefore, please note that these figures, along with the associated requested growth rate percentages, are only estimations used to create a sense of comparison with the FDC entities and do not reflect exactly the amount of grant funds that may have been expended in each calendar year. See the Project and Event Grants page for more information about approved Project and Event grants.

If anyone has further questions about these figures, you are welcome to contact me and the FDC support team at [email protected].

Thanks! KLove (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S., patients have a clear right to physically possess their medical records including images. I've always assumed that these records are a work for hire, so if anybody owns the copyright, it is the patient. If the US copyright office say that the images are not copyrightable, then who on Commons has the standing to say they are wrong? In either case, it looks like the patient in the US has a clear right to upload them and claim that they are his or her "own work." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In the US, patients pay for their imaging, don't they? Or their health insurance does, which patients pay for. Tony (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Paying for something is very different from employing a person to do it. Work for hire applies only to the latter. (In the US, it also applies to certain specific types of works performed under contract, where the contract so specifies, but these do not generally include radiological images.) --Avenue (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This article needs an illustration - preferably of one of the images proposed for deletion... they are still ok to use :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Added Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but re: "Will we need to delete the tens of thousands of ECGs on Commons?", why do we have tens of thousands of ECGs on Commons? Is there really that much variation among ECGs that a couple of hundred isn't enough? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I organized the donation of 3000 or so ECGs here [1]. There may only be thousands not 10,000 thus changed. ThanksDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the Signpost have any guidelines they follow for providing balanced views on a subject, especially while it's the focus of an ongoing RFC? One-sided calls to arms like the above don't seem terribly helpful. --Avenue (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sure they would be happy to have you publish an op-ed next week. We could have a whole series of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As marked on the top, this is an opinion piece and therefore not beholden to the traditions of journalistic balance. We can publish a rebuttal, but that's something to discuss off-wiki. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a complex issue and one cannot invent a legal argument based on common sense and analogies with other laws. The law doesn't work that way. The medics (including those who have published such images in articles in journals) are generally surprised that such images may be copyright or have mixed opinions over who owns them. There are a number of "rights" involved. The rights requiring patient consent for publishing images are quite different to copyright (and anyway, most radiographic images don't require patient consent as they are anonymous). A common-sense argument about the artistic or originality of medical x-rays would seem to indicate they are not copyrightable. However, some countries (like the UK) have a ridiculously low threshold of originality. And other countries have "related rights" that provide similar protection for "photographs and images similar to photographs" even if purely mechanically generated (such as a passport photo machine, or CT scanner). Ownership of one's patient notes or the sense of ownership a physician (including a radiologist) may have over the images they have requested for their patients is irrelevant. The image is taken by a radiographer who is the equivalent of the photographer. In some circumstances and countries that may mean the radiographer is really the copyright owner. In most countries, however, work-for-hire rules mean copyright goes to the employer: the hospital. What is interesting is that we have as yet found nobody at a hospital who appreciates they own these assets or who has ever signed a document transferring such ownership to a medical journal for publication.

The publishers certainly believe these images are copyright and many of them believe they have the copyright for the images they have published. How they have achieved this is as yet unclear: they ask the authors of a medical paper for all relevant permissions, but these author's don't then appear to follow through and so sign as though they have the permission or own the rights themselves. This convenient situation has gone on happily and unchallenged for years without anyone minding. After all, if the owners of the images don't care, then they'll never sue. But now users at Commons have started to question it. Rather than come to some pragmatic solution, we have a situation where potentially thousands of images representing hundreds of hours of work by medical professionals could be deleted. Commons' "precautionary principle" is a hazard here because it tends towards deletion where there is any doubt.

I think the discussion on Commons could well do without more amateur lawyers piling on their opinions. Nor does it need people !voting. The WMF have said now that they are investigating this. That is essential IMO. But also Commons needs people to consider whether their policies are working for them or against them. Commons is in the same boat as Open Access publishers. We require images to have the same licence terms as them. I think there is a problem with their procedures just as there is with ours. I hope perhaps together Commons and the Open Access publishers can work out the legal situation and a practical solution to getting permissions where required. -- Colin°^Talk 08:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is sort of my reading of the situation. Thanks Colin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Colin. There's much I agree with there. --Avenue (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, if the images are copyrightable, they are decidedly not so for the technician who took them. Any copyright, at most, would devolve to the employer of the technician only, just as a movie cameraman does not have copyright to a film. That publishers assert copyright on their own suggests that the hospital did not assert copyright, so we have that as a pretty clear precedent. I would note that a publisher asserting copyright to a book does not mean the copyright properly applies to every image in such a book, so that argument is quite weak, and the fact that authors of a paper waive copyright does not mean they actually ever held a copyright on the material themselves. Thus - if a specific patient is in possession of the images, and waives their own copyright to such images, that should be more than sufficient. If Open Access attests that the authors of articles obtained such waivers from patients (providing the patient is alive) or their assigns, then that also is sufficient. Most of the rest is counting angels on a pin. The fact that the US law does not appear to treat the images as copyrightable may well be salient, as if they are not copyrightable, then they can not be subject to copyright provided they were obtained lawfully. Collect (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This sort of amateur lawyering is really unhelpful. It doesn't reflect the law (or scholarly legal opinion) in any country let alone considers that there are other laws that matter beyond the US. The image that started this recent debate was taken in Sweden. -- Colin°^Talk 16:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I Just noticed the "amateur lawyering" barb -- as I had to be aware and cognizant of copyright law for two decades per contract, and I had earlier taken courses regarding patent and copyright law, and I also participated in discussions about the Internet and copyright with such total amateurs as Jonathan Zittrain, I appreciate that you are absolutely aware that I am an "amateur" LOL! Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The speculation of editors counts for nothing on Wikipedia. Please cite reliable sources that confirm your interpretation of copyright law wrt medical radiographic imaging. That's all that matters and what I'd expect a professional would do. -- Colin°^Talk 21:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)\

Huh? You made a claim which I refuted, now you say that anyone with decades of work in the trenches of the Internet and Copyright issues from the early 1980s is "just an editor" whilst you are clearly the one who knows the facts. Perhaps you should doubt your own infallibility here? Collect (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You haven't refuted the claim at all. That doesn't make you a lawyer with specialism in international image copyright any more than an paramedic can claim to be cardiologist. If you haven't got some reliable source to cite on the issue then please -- we need this sort of speculation like a hole in the head. It doesn't help our uploaders and it doesn't help our re-users. It is time for WMF to get their wallet out and pay for some proper consulting on the issue. Or else forget having any radiology images because the folk on Commons have already started deleting them. Colin°^Talk 07:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)\

First of all -- this is not an article hence your requirement for reliable sources is sans valeur. Second, I worked in the field for a good number of years, and had to read up on the law, had to discuss this with legal counsel, had lengthy discussions with peers on a private forum which dealt substantially with such sues, and I was contractually obligated thereof. I find your suggestion that this discussion is like a "hole in the head" quite ill suited here, and suggest that the overwhelming consensus here is clear, even if you know everyone else is wrong. I also suggest you read Zittrain's works on the Internet and copyright law, and suggest that he does, indeed, have the credentials you seem to assert that you alone have here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The only rational position is to presume that X-rays are in the public domain unless and until someone wins a law-suit by claiming that he owns the rights. If that happens, then there would be a legal precedent which we could use to formulate a standard for licensing the images. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a complex area with no simple solutions. In the UK some of us have been worrying about the educational use of patient images (including Xrays, CT scans etc) for some time and a couple of years ago a project was set up to clarify the myriad guidance, presenting it in an understandable form. The results can be seen on the website Making and using clinical and healthcare recordings for learning and teaching which may be useful for those trying to get their heads around the issues.— Rod ^talk 20:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• The stance that the "copyright for the scan belongs with the X-ray technician" is incorrect. The licensed technician is an employee performing a service for which they are usually compensated. The CT scan,CAT scan etc is in theory the patients only in that they have a right to copies, which have identifying information on them. Patients have a right to copies of all medical records but in the US but the physical records actually belong to the medical provider or medical institution. [2]. --Theda 23:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC).

• When a photographer wishes to take photographs that are to be placed in a portfolio meant to be displayed in a public forum such as a museum, said photographer must first have his subjects sign a waiver stating their permission for their image to be used, even when the name of the subject is not used.

The argument that the employer owns the copyright to these MRI photos cannot be correct, as the patient does not sign a waiver for his or her images to be used. Only a liability form explaining the procedure and any possible side effects or possible damage the patient may incur or sustain is signed by the patient. If a study is being conducted on patients that have a certain disease, a patient must first sign a waiver giving the study group permission to use his or her data, even when the data is used anonymously.

This is part of HIPPA, and is meant to keep a person's information within the control of that person. In the course of individually authoring a paper which uses patient data, the doctor must inform a patient that he/she is researching a subject, and must have the patient sign a release form in order to include that person's data even if the person's name is not used in the research paper. Also, if a doctor is shadowing another doctor to fulfill educational requirements, the patient must give verbal consent to both doctors before the student doctor is allowed to view patient background or observe the examination of said patient.

As the above are already covered by Federal law (which I have read), even though I am not a lawyer, I know that HIPPA guarantees that a patient's files belong to him or her, and may not be used for any purpose without explicit legal consent from said patient.

Again, even though I am not a lawyer, I would suggest that the person who gave those images to be used open-source is well within their right to do so. I would also suggest that the person sue the facility that has brought that copyright claim, asking that the consent form giving specific access to use their images (thereby waivering their copyright) to said facility be produced. If this specific form cannot be produced, I would further suggest that the facility be sued for attempted theft of copyright and for attempted violation of HIPPA.

Additionally, as an author, I know that in order to include images I myself have not produced in any article or book that I have written, I must first ask for explicit written permission to use these images, pictures, or photographs. If I fail to do so, I may be sued by the person or persons who first published these images, pictures, or photographs. Even if said items have not been registered with the Bureau of Copyrights and Patents, the ownership of said items lies with the individual(s) that produced these items, even if these items have not yet been published. The copyright mark [(c)] does not have to be used, as copyright law attaches copyright to the above referenced person(s), even without the mark being used, if that person or persons can provide proof of ownership prior to my usage.

This is why sealing a manuscript in an envelope and sending it to yourself via registered mail is referred to as "the poor man's copyright". As long as that envelope bears the "registered" form or stamp and remains unopened, the Court will allow that unopened envelope to be entered into the Court records as an exhibit of proof of copyright. Lakewolf Whitecrow (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you do this, send it registered mail and use a tamper-evident envelope. I like the Armorite Security Bags from PolyPak America. They have a security closure that leave a “VOID” pattern on the tape surface when opened, frozen, or heated, and they are designed to be tamper-evident if you try to get in from the sides or bottom. You wouldn't want some lawyer to be able to claim that you steamed the envelope open and switched documents. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing several rights. The copyright is an automatic thing and is assigned to the photographer (or their employer if work-for-hire is applicable) whether they are taking a picture (or x-ray) of a person or a cat or a museum exhibit. It most certainly does not belong to the subject, the patient. The patient has personality rights for which consent to use the photographs in certain circumstances will be required. However, it is generally agreed that radiographic images do not need patient consent provided any identifying details are removed (such as patient details). I don't know about US HIPPA legislation but this would be in addition to and quite separate from any copyright issues. In addition, I think your description of how copyright works is out of date, but I'm not a lawyer. In our situation, nobody is bringing any copyright claims or suing anybody. This is theoretical amateur lawyering by some editors on Commons. Now if the WMF want to do some theoretical professional lawyering and state clearly what their requirements-to-host are, then that would be a great help. So far, their advice on such images has not be useful, but they are now re-investigating the issue. Colin°^Talk 07:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great report this week. Thanks to Mabeenot, Melicans, Pjoef, and Miss Bono for your work. I like U2. --Pine^✉ 06:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Also a big thank you to Miss Bono for the wonderful mention in her interview. Great Project. Glad I was able to help!--Mark Miller (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)