top of page

Market Research Group

Public·77 members
Maverick Wright
Maverick Wright

Microsoft Office 2010 32 Bit Crack 21


Session Start: Thu Oct 14 13:08 2010Session Ident: #wikimedia-office[13:08] Good evening from me[13:08] It's true! Someone is always awake :-)[13:08] Why was he banned? I didn't think he was being obtuse.[13:09] good morning sgardner![13:09] He actually came in to #wikimedia asking if that was okay to ask, and a few people thought it was okay.[13:09] Hi[13:09] Hey Theo[13:09] Hi Katie, Theo :-)[13:09] Dakdadaah :-)[13:10] Killiondude: There is a list of exactly two people that the WMF feels obliged never to engage with.[13:10] Steven's going to answer killiondude's question about Greg Kohs.[13:10] ooh, he is answering.[13:10] killiondude: his question isn't intrinsically bad, but it's not helpful[13:10] Kohs and an IRL stalker that the office has had.[13:10] Are these office hours ever helpful, Nihiltres?[13:11] killiondude: I like to think so[13:11] While Steven is typing, maybe I will say some other stuff also.[13:11] We didn't answer him on the mailing list for that reason, and IRC is no different.[13:11] He was told to use IRC.[13:11] oh, but was kicked off?[13:12] the IRC discussion was meant for the mailing list as a whole[13:12] what's the topic for today's office hours, please? Thank you.[13:12] Killiondude: We were responding to John Vandenberg IIRC. Who is obviously a good faith Wikimedian who deserves to be answered.[13:12] w/e, i don't care too much. I just find it disappointing. :-)[13:12] * Theo10011 waves at dgultekin[13:12] So. The board met over the weekend, and SJ has published four resolutions from the meeting: one on Movement Roles II, one on trustee term length, one on fundraising principles and one on the five-year-targets. So I am happy to talk about that, or about any other topic associated with the board meeting.[13:13] And, I am happy to talk about any other topic as well, and I'm happy to answer the Greg Kohs question if you folks want me to.[13:13] sgardner: what other topics were discussed at the board meeting?[13:13] Sure.[13:13] waves @StevenW &Dgultekin[13:13] Hi Abbasjnr :)[13:13] Hi Abbas![13:13] Hi[13:13] hi Abbas :)[13:14] The controversial content study was discussed for three hours; there was a governance committee update; there was a discussion of chapters, financial controls and movement-wide transparency; there was a strategy update and review, and some other general discussion.[13:14] In addition to the topics I already mentioned that had resolutions associated with them.[13:14] Oh, so the Deputy ED is here too! Wonderful:-)[13:14] lol[13:14] Actually, I don't think Erik is here -- oh, he is :-)[13:14] LOL.[13:14] Erik I thought you were in a meeting next door :-)[13:15] sgardner: I am - still waiting for danese[13:15] Ah. Okay -- you may as well stay with us, then, until she gets here.[13:15] * Sky2042_afk is now known as Sky2042[13:15] So we'll be grilling both the ED and her Deputy!![13:15] Grill away, Abbas![13:15] Published Board resolutions ( )[13:15] Thanks James.[13:16] sgardner, please talk about five-year targets[13:16] Sure Nemo_bis, I'd be happy to.[13:16] Do you want me to give a recap of how they were developed, or talk about how they will be used?[13:17] Or something else?[13:17] Do you want to talk about them yourself -- your reactions?[13:17] Please see -l/2010-October/061563.html for some Q&A on the targets[13:17] I would like to know how this document was prepared.[13:17] a quick recap would be welcome as I can't access the .ods on this computer[13:17] Sure, no problem.[13:17] For example (let me dig strategywiki)...[13:18] (I only have LibreOffice at home :( )[13:18] lol, Nihiltres, I thought LibreOffice was an OO fork? it should handle ODS just fine[13:18] Nihiltres> would a PDF output be useful to you?[13:18] probably not addressed directly in the strategy, but how would you see something like the Ambassadors program working in 5 years?[13:18] * Nemo_bis looks for a document on strategywiki which was supposed to be approved by the board...[13:18] Dereckson: that would be useful[13:18] Okay, I'm preparing it.[13:19] Eloquence: I am not at home ATM[13:19] Essentially: there was a lot of discussion on the strategy wiki about goals, targets, measurements. Some of which happened on a page that I think was called Movement Priorities. That was the first starting point for the targets. I made the spreadsheet --did SJ post the spreadsheet?-- based on the Movement Priorities conversations on the strategy wiki, and conversations I had with senior staff here in the office, and with the Bridgespan[13:19] people.[13:19] (still typing)[13:19] Nihiltres: I see :)[13:19] perhaps _Plan/Role_of_the_WMF : is it going to be adiscussed/pproved by the board?[13:20] ++Nemo_bis[13:20] After I made the spreadsheet, I ran a couple of simple little surveys, of community members, board members and staff members, to surface people's general attitudes towards target-setting, as well as their specific views on the things we were --at that point- considering measuring. I used that input to refine the targets, then I floated them with the board and got some further feedback which resulted in a few additional modifications...[13:20] then they were given to the board for a vote.[13:20] That was the process.[13:20] (Yes, SJ published the spreadsheet: _Five-Year_Targets.ods )[13:21] I want to say one thing about how they should be interpreted. But first, does anyone have any questions about the process itself?[13:21] Oh and I should also say, Erik and Barry were particularly helpful through the target development process :-)[13:22] the process itself seems relatively straightforward[13:22] Nihiltres > dereckson/wikimedia/Wikimedia_Five-Year_Targets.pdf[13:22] Dereckson: thanks muchly :)[13:22] thank you Dereckson[13:23] thanks. I have no idea who uses .ods files. :-)[13:23] I know who :)[13:23] I do :-)[13:23] it's nothing[13:23] Not the general public. I know that![13:24] hey even MS Office opens them now it isn't that bad![13:24] though of course everyone should use OO :)[13:24] eww, everyone should use abiword :P[13:25] all right, I did have a question that Dereckson's PDF helped me remember[13:25] What proportion of Wikimedia's funds are going to be directed differently as a result of these targets?[13:25] sgardner: can you talk about how WMF might support GLAM outreach (as mentioned in target #3)[13:26] ++aude[13:26] So one thing I would add about the targets, then. I think it's important that they be understood, and known to be, primarily _indicators_, rather than direct measurements of everything we care about. We needed a small number of targets that were easy to measure and easy to talk about / understand. Which inherently means they're going to be a little simplistic.. a little over-simplified. We know, for example, that the number of articles[13:26] in Wikipedia is not the only significant measurement of "the amount of information" we provide for people. But it's a useful indicator of the amount of information we provide. So it's in that spirit that the targets should be understood. Or rather, it's in that spirit that the targets are intended.[13:26] Lots of questions being thrown out, we're going to try and answer them in order.[13:27] I'll answer Werespielchqrs's question first, then aude. Let me know if I'm missing anyone.[13:27] I'll ask mine once aude's is answered[13:27] I think thats it for now[13:27] mine's in the lineup too, Jamesofur[13:28] Chaoticfluffy: Aye but different topic :) Holding it for you though[13:28] Werespielchqrs: none. The targets themselves don't have a direct downstream impact on anything. Ideally of course we're measuring stuff we care about, and so the kinds of things we're measuring will likely also turn up as priorities elsewhere, in addition to just being targets. But the fact that they are targets has no implications for spending.[13:28] hi flipzagging :)[13:28] Does that make sense?[13:28] It felt a little over-written :-)[13:29] O_O[13:29] in other words, the spending isn't *planned* around the targets but will be affected by them?[13:31] Sgardner> So you have no idea how much it will cost to achieve the strategies?[13:31] No -- there's no direct relationship between the targets and the spending.[13:31] No, Abbasjnr, that's a different question with a different answer.[13:31] ok[13:31] question: In the pdf, one of the measures is # of people served, but they don't give it as per unit time. Is that per month, year, all time?[13:32] OK[13:32] Okay -- should I go to Aude's question, then?[13:32] please[13:33] sure[13:33] bawolff, I think it's unique vistors per month according to comScore[13:33] + some other things[13:33] So essentially, the Wikimedia Foundation will support GLAM activities and events via grants (money).[13:33] In 2009-10, the Wikimedia Foundation gave out 120K in grants to chapter and volunteer activities. In 2010-11, we will give out a minimum of 250K: by July 2011.[13:34] That's the primary way that we're going to support that work. It's also true that individual Wikimedia Foundation staff people will support GLAM events and people who are staging them -- e.g., I am speaking at a GLAM event being staged by Liam Wyatt in the UK in I think November.[13:34] But our primary form of support will be funding.[13:34] sgardner: what about through the fellowship program? is that in the scope?[13:35] Yeah. Aude, if your question is, will some fellows be dedicated to GLAM-type work, I think it's fairly likely that would be the case.[13:35] Yes Sue will be at the UK GLAM event on Saturday, November 27[13:35] Thanks James.[13:35] i'm concerned the "Wikipedian in residence" sort of effort, some sort of stipend or something would be good (maybe through chapters)[13:35] or something to make outreach efforts more sustainable[13:36] ++aude[13:36] Oh I see what you're saying. Like, 'could the fellowship program be expanded to subsidize Wikimedians in residence at places like the British Museum.' Is that what you mean?[13:36] that is an interesting idea[13:36] sgardner: possibly... i'm sure others will think of different ideas, but leave the door open for such possibilities[13:37] though I think that ought to be done on more of a grant basis[13:37] in case, where there is a chapter, the effort can be channeled through the chapter with a grant, perhaps[13:37] Yeah --- I think Nihiltres is correct, that would happen through the grant program. And aude, the grant program is now also open to individuals, not just chapters.[13:38] sgardner: thanks. i'll let you get to the next question :)[13:38] K, thanks. I actually want to go back to bawolff for a second, on the "number of people served."[13:38] (I just noticed the back-and-forth about it, so I'd like to return there for a second.)[13:39] So bawolff: the "number of people served" is intended to aggregate together all readers of the projects.[13:39] Currently, it includes comScore global unique visitors monthly, which is currently sitting at about 400 million global UVs monthly.[13:40] QUESTION: The recently completed 2010 Donor Survey, by Q2 Consulting... was a competitive bid put out for that work, and if not, why not? If so, by what criteria were Q2 Consulting selected? How much did the project cost the Foundation?[13:40] But we also want it to include visitors to the mobile gateway.... and also people who consume offline versions.[13:40] Whenever you get to it is fine, just wanted to but myself in line.[13:40] *put[13:41] (Sure killiondude, no problem.)[13:41] My question is also about #3: are there initial ideas for improving/initializing expert assessment? Or is that merely a general direction to look at?[13:41] sgardner: thanks[13:41] So -- on "people served" -- the trick is to aggregate together the total number of readers of the projects, while not counting people twice.[13:42] My assumption is that measurement services (eg comScore) will get more sophisticated about this over time. That is partly why the targets are so high-level, to allow for better methodologies that'll be developed over the coming years.[13:42] we have a couple questions in the queue before Killiondudes if possible (Nihiltres and Nemo_bis on this topic and one from Chaoticfluffy on the controversal content study)[13:42] You're welcome bawolff; I just wanted to make sure there was a little more clarity around that measure.[13:43] Okay: Jamesofur -- which is next: Nihiltres?[13:43] aye NIhiltres is next :)[13:43] My question is also about #3: are there initial ideas for improving/initializing expert assessment? Or is that merely a general direction to look at?[13:43] Okay --- thanks![13:43] Yes, expert assessment.[13:43] This is such a tough one.[13:43] agreed :)[13:44] We are talking a lot about it in the office, and there are pretty divergent views on it.[13:44] question for the queue: about serving people, I have been talking w/ accessibility folks... wikipedia does fairly well, but improvements can be made. is this something WMF is interested in? if so how might improved accessibility be supported?[13:44] this is, making wikipedia easily accessible with screen readers and such[13:45] thanks aude[13:45] When I was at CBC News, we commissioned a panel of experts to listen to subsets of our coverage (for example, coverage of election night) and assess its quality, reliability, neutrality and so forth, for us. We also did surveys of the general population. The idea was that surveys of gen-pop would give us quantifiable data that would help us track trends-over-time, but that would need to be supplemented by expert assessment. So our basi[13:45] c view here is similar: we want quantitative data, but we also need deep qualitative assessments as well.[13:45] So the question is, how to do that.[13:47] I believe the PPI will be experimenting with soliciting expert assessment, although I don't know the details about how they're going to do it. I believe they're using a modified version of the article assessment process that we use internally in the projects, and asking public policy experts to assess public policy articles using it.[13:47] Re: expert assessment, there a trial of that going on right now in the Public Policy Initiative. Amy Roth has been recruiting a number of public policy experts to use rate articles using the detailed assessment system we came up with, and she'll be comparing expert rating with Wikipedians' ratings.[13:47] So from that, we will likely learn something about experts' willingness and capabilities to engage directly with us.[13:47] yep, Sue has it right.[13:47] Ah, Sage!'[13:47] Relevant link is the Assessment tab of WP:USPP[13:47] yeah, I looked over that a while back[13:47] Sage should talk about this, not me.[13:47] You can see the basics here: :WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment[13:47] (Go ahead, Sage, if you want.)[13:48] (And I will talk a little more broadly.)[13:48] basically, we wanted to find a system that was easier for non-Wikipedians to understand and use that the standard Wikipedia 1.0 class system, but still compatible with it.[13:49] And now, Amy is testing it experimentally, assigning a group of Wikipedians and a group of experts to rate specific articles at several different points in time.[13:49] Basically: the conversation we're having in the office at the moment, probably parallels all the other conversations that have been had on this same topic inside the community. How to extract maximum value from experts' high-level view (they can see the forest, not just the tree) .... which means getting qualitative input. While still ideally enabling LOTS of input, e.g., mechanisms that scale. It's a hard problem. I know we all know t[13:49] hat :-)[13:49] (Also: Phoebe has offered to dedicate some energy towards this, which I think is good and will be helpful.)[13:50] Yep.[13:50] Sue about the new CTCO[13:51] is there an office hour scheduled with Ms. Skyberg?[13:51] Cyn Skyberg?[13:51] (And also: I have found it really interesting that in the 'rate-this-article' beta, Wikimedia editors turn out to be much harder markers than typical readers. That suggests a bunch of things to me, including that we likely have internal credible experts ourselves, and we may want to look at explicitly surfacing them and treating their input in some kind of special way.)[13:51] And once he have a more quantitative idea of how systematically expert ratings differ from our editor ratings (which differ again from reader ratings, which we're also getting for these articles through the Article Feedback Tool pilot) we'll hopefully be in a better place for the next stage of figuring out how experts might help us understand the quality of our content.[13:51] (okay, I'm done now)[13:51] Thanks Sage :-)[13:51] thanks ragesoss :)[13:52] Where do I go now, Jamesofur?[13:52] aye We have a quick one from Nemo bis[13:52] Question: would the number of entries on all WMF projects be less easy to measure and easy to talk about / understand?[13:52] Theo10011: There's one scheduled with Cyn on Friday, October 22.[13:52] Hasn't been announced yet on the lists, though.[13:52] Thanks steven[13:52] np[13:53] (Less than the number of Wikipedia articles.)[13:54] well, tall the wiktionaries would pretty seriously inflate it[13:54] Ah, Nemo_bis. I hate to say this, because I may just be muddying waters ... but I think that target may have been changed from "number of Wikipedia articles" to "number of all Wikimedia 'articles.'" In other words, your implicit criticism may have been addressed. I got a mail to that effect from SJ this morning, but haven't gone back yet to check it myself.[13:54] I think that it would be useful.[13:54] You could set it to 100 or 150 millions.[13:55] And Wiktionary, Commons etc. etc. users would feel more involved in the plan.[13:55] Basically though: the purpose of measuring "number of Wikipedia articles" was to have a simple stand-in indicator for "amount of information." If it were just as easy to measure "number of 'articles or article-like objects' on all projects," then there'd be no reason not to measure that. But I cannot remember which we actually ended up doing :-)[13:55] I have a question on queue. Let me know when your done[13:56] Ask it and it'll be added.[13:56] Yep, I'm done -- I know we're starting to run out of time.[13:56] sgardner: I think one of the Wikipedia stats pages used "gigabytes of article text" as a measure[13:56] What are the remaining questions, and I'll try to burn through them pretty fast :-)[13:56] we have a quick one from aude on this topic as well[13:56] question for the queue: about serving people, I have been talking w/ accessibility folks... wikipedia does fairly well, but improvements can be made. is this something WMF is interested in? if so how might improved accessibility be supported?[13:56] [13:44] this is, making wikipedia easily accessible with screen readers and such[13:56] Than


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page