Wikipedia talk:Meetup/London 21

Apologies

• Gordo (talk)
• PeterSymonds (talk) (last-minute apology). I had intended to go but an unexpected errand this morning took up most of my time. As I'm still at home and there's only an hour left until it starts, it just won't be possible. Sorry to miss it. Shall put myself down for next time. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Date change

Any chance of poking it a week later? I arrive in London on the 14th to live for a year or two, and it'd be nice to have a wikimeetup soon after I arrive to meet the local Wikipedians. :) — Werdna • talk 08:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Werdna and welcome to London. I'm sorry but I doubt if we can get consensus to move this month as the second Sunday has acquired a certain inertia that has in the past proved difficult to shift - after great debate April wound up on Easter Sunday... But It would be nice to see you in June. ϢereSpielChequers 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a move for once; it is the only way I can attend. Assuming that nobody else has a problem with the new date I don't see any reason why we can't shift it just for one month, especially for a chance to see a highly respected user who hasn't previously attended. I'm pretty sure User:WilliamH will be coming down as well, along with Geni; I'll give them a poke and see what they think. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK well I think I can make either date, so if you two are wiling to consult the regulars just tell me which day it is. ϢereSpielChequers 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can quite be called a regular, but either date is good for me. the wub "?!" 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with either date. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would not be a good idea to change the date.Harrypotter (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you got stuff going on that weekend, or..? Ironholds (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Iron, thanks for letting me know about discussion. Can't make the weekend 16th/17th, but think you should go for 17th given current availability, absolutely not a problem. Tom B (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Hope to see you in June, then. Ironholds (talk)

As you recognised in your response, I was raising issues beyond my own convenience. As mentioned above, one of the issues which was discussed at the last meeting was the wisdom of retaining the second Sunday of the month as a regular event, even when it fell on the Easter Holiday. As you may recall there was some discussion about this last month, it might help if you look at how the issue was posed. I feel that if you wish to make this a matter of voting, then you should take care to specify when your proposed ballot should close. Some of us expend some effort in organising our lives so that we can attend these events, and it is not necessarily some thing which can be done at the drop of hat. By making a deadline clear, it means that people know how long they have to see if they can rearrange their affairs, to ensure their attendance.

Furthermore, as Werdna, will be around for a year or two, there will be plenty of opportunity for wikipedians to meet up with him in June.

However, I also feel that it's all very well for us to pat ourselves on the back for being the most long running wikipedia meetup in the known universe, if we fail to be welcoming to newcomers to London. I would suggest, therefore, that we stick to the second Sunday of the month - which is the date I always suggest to people - for the Meet Up, and as Ironholds can commit to being in the Penderels' Oak the following Sunday, that those who are able to attend turn up to help make Werdna feel welcome.

Some people, Geni for example, can't run to the expense of two meets a month. I would suggest, therefore, that sticking to one meetup this month would be best to get a high level of attendance. The discussions last month didn't really end in any firm conclusion; we ended up keeping the same date because it just so happened that that was the day most people could make it on. Ironholds (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think two meets is a sensible option. We should choose one or the other. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there anyone here who can't make it if the meeting was on the 17th? Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the following lines to show how this can be presented.

10th Wikipedia:Meetup/London 21

Please add name to project page

17th Welcome Andy

• Ironholds (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• — Werdna • talk 12:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Skinny87 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• the wub "?!" 21:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Majorly talk 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't care

• Either date is fine by me.I would like to meet Werdna so if forced to give a preference I's say the 17th. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Makes no differnce to be. Would plan to be their either date.Geni 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The ayes have it?

We've got three people for the 17th, one who'd go for the 17th at a push, one who doesn't mind and one who'd prefer two seperate meets. Could this be interpreted as consensus for moving it to the 17th? Holding two meets in one month really won't work; some people can't afford to come down twice and some people can only make it to the later date, so we'd have shitty turnout for both. Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. I would prefer to see what James has to say though as he truly is a regular. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I left him a talkpage message; it may have got lost, he gets a lot of pokes there. I'll probably try IRC and if that doesn't work go for (gasp!) off-wiki communication (not that we associate, there is no cabal, insert relevant message here, etc etc). Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The poke on IRC worked; more than happy to move it to the 17th for this time 'round. :-)

James F. (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! 17th it is, then. Ironholds (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

London Loves Wikipedia

As was noted here, following the last London Wikipedia Meet Up, there has been a breakdown of communication between the Wikimedia UK chapter and the London Wikipedia meet ups. I was expecting someone from UK Chapter 2.0 to turn and give us an update of what they are doing. Bearing in mind that our February meet Up was a wash out because we allowed it to be relocated to the Victoria and Albert Museum, but discovered that no provision was made for people to actually meet there, then I think we should be cautious about assuming everything will go swimingly. I found it a bid odd that a group based in Manchester would feel it necessary to push their London Loves Wikipedia programme without troubling themselves to see what our views are. Unfortunately, St Valentine's Day falls on a Sunday next year, which means the National Art Library would normally be closed that day. If it were possible to arrange special opening that day, then it might be possible to use this amazing resource, stacked with secondary published sources, to develop stronger articles on important topics covered by some of the unique resources available there. Of course this would involve a certain amount of effort on behalf of the V&A, but I think it would be worth trying considering:

1. They are getting an enormous amount of free publicity from the event
2. They treated wikipedians somewhat shoddily this year
3. It would give a real boost to the NAL's figures as regards getting their resource used by people who otherwise would not normally use it.

I am also concerned that the philistine approach shown as regards Wikipedia Art last St Valentine's Day should be challenged. Whilst I can see the reasoning behind axing the page at the time, I feel that reviewing the situation one year later would be a good way of assessing whether the endeavour is/will be notable. As someone engaged in a number of art projects, and who engages in art theory, I feel it may well prove to be significant (I had not heard of any of the people involved before seeing the page, however I am familiar with the issues they are dealing with).

If it is matter of raising funds for the V&A to staff the library, then perhaps we could discover if this is in principle possible, and then seek sources for funding. I believe that a format which would help a broader public understand issues of contemporary Art Theory - particularly in relation to electronic media such as wikipedia - could very well prove appealing to the Arts Council, or Awards for All.

I would feel a lot more confident about dealing with the issue through wikipedia meetups, rather than have the matter organised remotely by people from further afield who have shown scant attention us.

It is also worth noting that User talk:Werdna/Archive 1#Deletion review for Wikipedia Art, shows that User talk:Werdna's involvement in the matter was cause for comment.

I would be interested to know other people's opinion on this.Harrypotter (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance, if any, "Wikipedia Art" has to London meetups. That page was deleted because no reliable secondary sources were available to produce a balanced article, not because I hate art. The community consensus was overwhelmingly that the decision made was the correct one. — Werdna • talk 03:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how relevant this is (or how it relates to the meetup). I wouldn't describe it as a "breakdown" following the last meetup; contact has never been particularly good, and that isn't something that changed as a result of London 20. If you wish to suggest that the meetups would be a good way for the WMUK people to interact with actual users that is something to submit to them, not us; their lack of interest in these meets (or indeed, the manchester one) means that they are hardly likely to be watching this page. Ironholds (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sure what each of us regard as likely arises from our subjective standpoint, however if you look at the talk page of the last London Meet Up you will see two items relating to WMUK, one relating to membership forms and the other to Wikipedia Loves Art. Certainly I have allowed these facts to sway my view, although it is also quite likely that the WMUK are busy concentratring on their first AGM on Sunday 26th April at the moment.

Of course, no-one would expect Werdna to have a good grasp of London Wikipedia Meet Ups yet - as this is a pleasure which at the moment only beckons from the future. However we live in a changing world. I am not so much disputing whether the deletion of "Wikipedia Art" was a correct decision, but whether the situation will have changed by 14 February 2010, when I am suggesting it could be reviewed with the option of creating an opportunity for joint work on material in the National Art Library as part of the proposed London Loves Art project proposed by WMUK. It might be helpful for interested parties to review recent Wikipedia London Meet Up pages and talk pages, to get get a better handle on what issues are being raised here.Harrypotter (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WMUK discussion has been a fixture on the "things to discuss" list for at least three months before London 20. Members of the WMUK board are under no obligation to come down to London and discuss this sort of thing with us, and with their locations it would be physically difficult to do so. There is already an opportunity for UK citizens interested in Wikimedia UK and its various projects to express their views; it is called an AGM. It would be nice for a rep to turn up, certainly, but it isn't required. If you want a board member or rep to turn up I suggest you contact them directly. Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but your advice is misplaced. However I do feel that if people - whether from wMuK or elsewhere - want to propose a project such as London Loves Wikipedia, then there proposal should be raised at a London Wikipedia Meet Up. In fact, at the last meeting we did discuss the Wikipedia Loves Art impact on the "diffused" February Meet Up. Those attending found themselves at an "impossible meeting" where although several people turned up none of them appears to have met any of the others. Of course this maybe some trendy kind of happening, but somehow I think not.

I find it regrettable that we allowed our pleasurable Sunday meet up to be swept aside in this fashion. Therefore I have put this up to discuss whether any others are interested in looking at how we can participate in the planning of the event, particularly so that we don't miss out on the sociability of our meet-up, and perhaps even open up our happy throng to others. Perhaps you could address this issue?Harrypotter (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; as said, then, the obvious ways to get involved in the planning of this event are attending the AGM and/or directly contacting the Board members; perhaps the mailing list as well, although I can't stand the things myself. It is rather difficult for people to bring such things up at London meetups when they live in Nottingham or Manchester; if you/we are going to contact individual users about this sort of thing I'd advise giving Tom Holden a poke, since he's the nearest (Cambridge). Ironholds (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Change of picture

I've changed the picture if people don't like it they are free to change it back.Geni 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OSM

I see the open streetmaps people are haveing a meetup a couple of days after we are:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London/Summer_2009_Mapping_Party_Marathon

Geni 20:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want a lift?

I'm contemplating driving down from Manchester, as sadly it's price-comparable with catching a train (and thetrainline.com doesn't want to sell me tickets, saying that it's too busy...). Does anyone want a lift / want to share petrol costs? I'll be passing by Birmingham on my way down, plus various other cities along the M6/M1. Also, can anyone suggest a good place to park? Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks to everyone that turned up! A very good turnout I thought, though as it was my first one, I've nothing to judge it against. Anyway, I had good fun, and it was nice to put faces to names! --GedUK  21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a very good turn out. Normally there's about 10 or so people at most. It was nice to see everyone, and also some new faces. Majorly talk 21:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add my huge thanks to everyone who was there yesterday. I've certainly had enough all-you-can-eat satirical banter for another month, even though my knowledge bank of both on- and off-wiki affairs appears to be the smallest of all those present! I'll try my best to conceal that fact better next time... On that subject, next month's meetup is looking good for me, despite being slap bang in the middle of my exam season, so I hope to see a few of you back there. Santé! haz (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)