Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC/March 2008

We should participate in this local unconference on April 25-26

Check out PodCamp NYC, a local New Media unconference. It's free and open to everyone, to attend or to speak at. I think quite a few of our group could make good presentations, and this is probably the closest thing we're likely to get to a Wikimania in this city.--Pharos (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

6th NYC meetup tentative date in March 2008

Shouldn't we start firming up this date, since it's now February? Does March 16th work? It's in the middle :-) The Sunday dates in March 2008 are: March 2, 9, 16, 23, 30 — Becksguy (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

March 16 is Palm Sunday (and March 23 is Easter). I'm not that familiar with Catholic practice, but I think Palm Sunday is big enough of a holiday that we would want to avoid it.--Pharos (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I was not aware enough of the movable feast days to have known that Easter will fall very early this year, since it tends to fall more often in April. I'm not that sure about Palm Sunday either. That kinda leaves the 9th as the closest to a mid-March date, I think. Or maybe schedule for the 30th, since the 2nd is only a month from now. However, what ever works best for the most attendees. And especially for you, since you are the Prez. — Becksguy (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Palm Sunday is a celebration that takes place only in the morning. There are no afternoon issues. The only big issue is that many colleges have spring break that week, so, for example, many students of Columbia simply will not be around. Even so, I still say that the 16 is probably the best. Yes, I can get the library for that date (or any of the others listed). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking St. Patty's day was going to be a bigger issue than Palm Sunday. I'm good with the 9th or the 16th. I get the impression that Pupin worked out pretty well, and that the restaurant choice was also successful. BusterD (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

March 9th is SXSW, which quite a few folks who might be interested will be at, myself included. 16th is great for me though. --Jamiew (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The 16th sounds perfect for me unless I spend my birthday party with friends that day. ^Mitch32^contribs 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The 16th sounds good to me also, so I vote for that. A Catholic friend also didn't think that Palm Sunday would be an issue. And yes, I think Pupin did work out well, as did the restaurant. — Becksguy (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the 16th. So do all my sockpuppets. (Say 'yes', sockpuppets. (Yes, Yea!, Yippie! Right on.)) Take care from all of us. Gosgood (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the sockpuppets have spoken! The 16th it is, then.--Pharos (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Library is reserved from 2 pm to 5:30 pm. Let's plan on starting at 2:30 pm as last time. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Our meetings, now more frequent, could do with a bit of Roberts Rules of Order. I propose something like this:

1. Call to order by the person running the meeting (say, Richard, for example)
2. Roll call (introduction of people present)
3. Reading of the minutes of the previous meeting.
4. Old business
   1. Chapter formation
   2. Yiddish encyclopedia
   3. Flyers/outreach/education
   4. ???
5. New business
   1. Schedule next meeting
   2. ???
6. Adjourn

We don't have to be ridiculous with motions to proceed made and seconded and voted on, but we should have it in the back of our mind that this is our structure. In other words, if someone wants the group to do something (say, Make Richard Head Honcho), they make a motion. Someone then seconds the motion, a vote is taken, that's that. One thing that we can do, since there are a lot of people at the meetings that love to wax eloquent, is allow for people to table discussions by a majority vote. That may give us more time to discuss things that are of interest to the entire group assembled.

I think that this will make things easier and perhaps allow for more fruitful discussions.

Thoughts, comments, concerns?

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Keep it productive first, as well as reasonably relaxed and fun second. — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually read pretty carefully over the relevant parts of Roberts Rules of Order before the November Meetup, trying to glean the most essential principles. I agree that organizing the discussion a bit more could lead to something more fruitful. In terms of something really simple that we could look toward, these Four Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure look useful.--Pharos (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those distilled rules seem to be very common sense driven (not that common sense is all that common). At the last meeting in January, everyone was well behaved about waiting their turn and cross talking, so I don't see that as a major issue, rather it's drawing out the less verbal attendees, I think. Looks good. — Becksguy (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put down some ideas at meta:Wikimedia New York City/Meeting guidelines. It seems like a very common sense middle-way approach, but I couldn't find any existing guidelines that would quite follow what we're after; perhaps we're setting a bit of a precedent.--Pharos (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we may want to separate out more the business affairs from the general discussion. given the proposals from expanding the scope of this group, I think we need to take account that many people will be mainly interested in the traditional purposes of a meetup: general discussion and WP friendships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 February 2008 {UTC}

I agree with David (User:DGG), maybe split the meeting. The more formal business before the break, general discussion after the break. The presentations prolly should come after the business stuff, either right before or right after the break, depending on timing and interest, since they tend to engender discussion anyway. At the last meeting in January, there were considerable one-on-one and small group discussions during the break. The later general discussions and friendship connections will segue into the dinner very nicely, I think. In other words, start formal, end informal (followed by a mad frat house party... JK). If the meetings don't provide something—including interesting and fun stuff, as well as productive stuff—for everyone, people will be less likely to attend. I find all of it interesting, but I'm still new at this. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in a slightly Robertian mood when I wrote that bit. I'd been meaning to tone it down and clarify the context; i.e. that totally social activities are also what we do.--Pharos (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good group facilitators adjust the timing and tone depending on the dynamics of the group, while also still steering the group toward remaining productive. So agendas do get modified on the fly, even more so when the agenda rises from the group. Balance and timing. And yes, the social activities are the glue that hold these kinds of volunteer groups together, since it's not a classroom or company training session where attendance is (more or less) required. The social relations are really important to me and helps me remind myself why I'm working on Wikipedia when it gets stressful. And I think we all pick up useful experiences, viewpoints, and encouragements from others. — Becksguy (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with splitting the meeting between a 'business' session before and salon-type discussions after, and a break in between. It worked pretty well last time. That said, I still think it will be helpful to have an agenda (which of course is open to change), even for the salon-type discussions.--Pharos (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. And yes, I agree, no agenda for the after break salon session will just mean it will devolve into a general chit chat (and maybe complaint) session. My point was mostly that the second part should not be as formal. That is, have some topics to discuss, but not as structured as the first business part, so that more social interaction can occur then. And I agree, the overall structure worked rather well in January, much of it thanks to you. Have we beaten this to death yet? Unless someone else wants to jump in with suggestions. — Becksguy (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitations

I just received an invitation to this event via Wikipedia, and was wondering how I would go about distributing invitations in the same fashion as I received mine. As I was browsing, an alert came up on a page telling me I was invited to this event, and provided a link to this page. Also, I received no message on my user page or talk page.

--HockeyInJune (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all done through the magic of Wikipedia:Geonotice. I'll send out the talk page invitations in a couple of weeks.--Pharos (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:D That is very clever, I like it. --HockeyInJune (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sad

I wish I could be there :-( ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll put you on the invite list for the next one (should be in May).--Pharos (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Will there be any girls there?

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BYOG. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. She might not understand if she ever knew I spend so much time editing Wikipedia, let alone that I'm attending a Wikipedia meetup. Besides, what if she runs off with Newyorkbrad or David Shankbone?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the complaints about the last meetup. The only female attendee was at the dinner afterwards. — Becksguy (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite; there was also (different) female attendance at the museum event in the morning.--Pharos (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you are right. I forgot about the museum tour. <goes and hides in the corner for a moment of reflection and self recrimination> — Becksguy (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a girl! (With a username like mine, I'd make a pretty lousy guy, I think.) I'll try my hardest to make it. I couldn't last time. - Moonstone (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Girls, huh? Hmmm, I'm not a girl -- I'm a woman, and may be attending. nycdi (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiWomen are welcome!--Pharos (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Join the mailing list!

You're invited to join the Wikimedia NYC mailing list!

I hope this can be a forum for more free-ranging and detailed discussions than are possible on-wiki, and also a place to send out timely notices about upcoming events.

The Free Culture Columbia people are really enthusiastic about holding a big Wikipedia Academy event this semester, and we'll need volunteers. There will probably be speakers, an article-writing drive, and a scavenger hunt across the city by students snapping requested photographs. The mailing list will be a great place to coordinate this type of stuff.

Go to:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia_nyc

to sign up.

This is an open mailing list, and the posts will be viewable to the public.--Pharos (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

News Media at the New York Meet-Up

I just wanted to make everyone aware that a reporter may come to our meeting. Just a heads up. --David Shankbone 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tribeca Film Festival

Is anyone interested in attending with a press pass to cover for Wikinews? Over 16 with an edit history, please. --David Shankbone 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Academy discussions

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Neglected subject area needed for Wikipedia:Academy content drive by novice Wikipedians and User talk:Pharos#Wikipedia Academy, and feel free to chime in.--Pharos (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just curious about the location

I saw some talk about the location on the main page, and I was wondering how we always manage to get the library in Pupin Hall. Who's responsible for this? :D I should be able to make this next one, but I've never attended a Meetup in the past. Enigma ^msg! 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We have User:ScienceApologist to thank for this. I look forward to you joining us March 16.--Pharos (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking forward to it as well. Enigma ^msg! 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Big event scheduled for March 28

Check it out: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan.--Pharos (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm new

Hi I'm new to wikipediea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgutsch123 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Hello i am kinda new to all the meetings.i had a few quick question what will be actually taking place at this meetings and what would we be doing when we arrive.

Thank you Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of organizing the meeting, so I'd be glad to answer all your questions. Basically, we're going to meet in a room with a big table. Everyone's going to introduces themselves, what their main interests are at Wikipedia, and their favorite ways to contribute. Then, we can discuss some of the local chapter issues like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and maybe after a break where we mill around and socialize in small groups, we can have one or two group salon-type talks on specific subjects (see the agenda). There will probably be a few non-Wikipedians there, and we can also field some questions and discussions from them.

And later, we can go on to the restaurant, and if we're lucky, the observatory.--Pharos (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Meeting this Sunday

The meeting is this Sunday. We should have a few non-Wikipedian guests this time (and preparations for our Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event), which should be interesting. I hope everyone can make it. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A little late...

But will anyone have a laptop I could borrow for a few minutes at the end of the meeting? Thanks. Enigma ^msg! 15:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a laptop, but in the past there has always been at least one person (usually more) bringing one.--Pharos (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I used a public computer on the first floor until Columbia security kicked me out. Heh. Enigma ^msg! 01:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good meeting

It was good to see everyone yesterday - good meeting. I hung my barnstar over my door. --David Shankbone 12:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reports on the meeting

Can someone please give a summary of what happened at the meeting? Also this article needs to be updated to past tense everywhere. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling pages

So how many of us have started patrolling the new pages, like Gmaxwell was telling us? Ha. I actually started last night. Enigma ^msg! 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

teaching the use of wikipedia

See User:Jbmurray/Madness. DGG (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Video

So...is the video not going to happen? --David Shankbone 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yiddish Wikipedia

Hi everyone. Sorry I couldn't make the meeting but I was <insert excuse here>. Anyway I was wondering if there is still a need for funds of the scanning of the Yiddish encyclopedia b/c I might have an acquaintance that can help with that. Thanks. user:volt4ire Volt4ire 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This project, and what exactly we will need, is at a bit of an impasse; the situation should be clearer next week.--Pharos (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan postponed to Friday April 4th

All other details remain the same. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Names in photo captions

This was a discussion that was raised elsewhere, on the appropriateness of adding people's usernames to the photo captions. I am of two minds on this.

1. We shouldn't label anyone who doesn't want to be labeled.
2. If we wait for people to label themselves, it's never going to get done, even though most people probably wouldn't object.

As a middle way, I think we should ask people (preferably by e-mail) beforehand if it's OK to include their name in the photo caption. Thoughts?--Pharos (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this model. While my real life identity is easily guessable and there are dozens of pictures of me online, and I wouldn't mind someone tagging me, I know there are editors who do guard their personal identity, as well as minors in our chapter, so we should avoid accidentally WP:OUTING someone. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the risk is eliminated if people are tagged using their usernames rather than RL names, unless they choose to use their full names. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had never planned on using RL names.--Pharos (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe this can jump-start the process... Sign up if it's OK with you to be on a photo caption (and this list will be saved for future meetups). Then I can go through and add the captions.--Pharos (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think we need to get extra permission from people who already have photos on their userpages.--Pharos (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course :) If they've outed themselves, then its really not an issue. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't tweak to what this was about at first. I thought it was whether the pictures we upload should give credit in the caption, a notion so dumb I ignored it. Instead it is, do I want my name on the group pictures taken at picnics, etc? Sure; tell the world I was there, and I hope to get to about half the meetings. My enemies are smarter than my friends and will find me anyway, while nice people need all the help they can get to find me. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

List of people who don't mind if their username is mentioned in photo captions

(Just put an asterisk followed by four tildes, and your username will be added and linked automatically.)

• Pharos (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• ragesoss (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• David Shankbone 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Mblumber (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• UtherSRG (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Jim.henderson (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Volt4ire (talk • contribs)
• DGG (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Nbauman (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Final notice for Wikipedia Takes Manhattan Friday

You MUST MUST MUST register here by Thursday 8 PM EST, if there is any possibility you plan on participating or coming to the party that night. By the way, the party has been moved to 11:30 PM instead of 11:00 PM.--Pharos (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

People from other states

Hello! I am a wikipedian from Connecticut. Since NYC is the closest city I know of that has a meetup, would I be welcomed with open arms? ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Enigma ^message Review 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, User:Elipongo is from Hartford, and I'm sure he wasn't the only non-New Yorker. Enigma ^message Review 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if you bring cookies (JK). Yes, absolutely, you are more than welcome. And, seriously, no need to bring cookies. And if you have any questions, please ask. — Becksguy (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is "officially" a New York metropolitan area meetup anyway, which would include Connecticut. But even if you were from further afield, we've welcomed people from Philadelphia, Washington D.C., even Missouri, several times. If you can make it, we'd be glad to have you.--Pharos (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)