Talk:Volunteering strategy

Hi, please leave any comments you have or suggested rewording here for discussion. Thanks -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of waffle in this; it would benefit from being cut down to concise, bullet-point style recommendations, but I'm not seeing anything in this that hasn't come up in every previous discussion that went nowhere. Perhaps it will gain some traction now you're in-post, Katie... Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Harry - I don't want to step on Katie's toes with this page, but it's probably useful if I explain some of the context from my own point of view. (This might be mainly familiar stuff for you but it's also aimed at other people reading this page!)

Wikimedia UK is in an interesting position in that we want to do remain close to the volunteer ethos that drives the Wikimedia projects (perhaps closer than the only two organisations in the Wikimedia movement that are larger in terms of budget and staffing levels - WMF and WMDE). Why do we want to do that? As well as our values as an organisation, there are several practical reasons, which have never really been enumerated, but let's give it a go - to stay in touch with the editor community and avoid some pitfalls that come in staff-led outreach projects; to retain a flow of ideas and perspectives from the community; because volunteers are more cost-effective; because any Wikipedian with the right confidence and support is quite capable of setting up an outreach project if they are willing to make the time and effort to do it.

This means that we have a unique challenge of finding a way of handling the relationship between Board, staff and volunteers that works for us. Over the last 2 years we have gone from having 0 staff to 9 and 1 Wikimedian in Residence to 5ish (I ought to know the figure really ;) ). We've employed staff to co-ordinate our outreach programmes for GLAM and Education not because we don't want volunteers to do these things but because the number of leads and inquiries was far greater than the volunteer time we had; also because we had volunteers who had ambitious goals for projects and could kick them off but then found they couldn't make the time to follow them through (I'll offer myself and the WWI project as an example here though there are many others).

I think - and I think this view is widely shared on the Board (it certainly doesn't originate with me!) - that we need to think carefully about how this relationship is working and how it can work out over the next few years to result in having lots of passionate, inspired volunteers taking part. The Volunteer Organiser role is certainly key in that but this is something we need to work out as an organisation, not make it one staff member's job to deal with.

Thanks for your contribution to the page, by the way. And if there are previous discussions that have covered similar ground would you mind linking to them, as there might be more useful insights in them... The Land (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Thanks for the background; I've heard most of it before, but it's good to have these things written down somewhere so that people can refer to them. The previous discussions that come to mind are the board meeting I attended where we had a Midas-facilitated discussion that came to many of the same conclusions, which were reinforced by the volunteering discussions at the open day. I'm sure write-ups of both exist somewhere, but I'm not sure where offhand. Best, Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the power of this page is that it summarises a whole lot of discussions that have been happening in various places.

With that in mind, it might actually be worth adding in what The Land has just said about why this whole thing is important.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Knowing what volunteers are interested in doing

This gets a mention at "Prioritisation by volunteers" but I want to emphasise it. It was also alluded to in session run by Katherine Bavage at WikiConference UK 2013.

It is important to know what people are interested in doing so that the charity can direct them towards the most relevant stuff. This helps to avoid an approach of "Here is a massive choice of things you could do" which could be off putting.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Feedback so far

Thanks For the feedback so far. It is a longish document but hey this is the wikiworld where knowledge and information is king! I want this to cover as many bases as possible!Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Some more thoughts

This document conflates members with volunteers. There is an overlap in that most volunteers are members and we can see the membership as a recruiting pool for volunteers, but they are different. People who pay their fiver a year or want to get involved in the inner workings of the charity don't necessarily want to organise events or deliver training sessions, and you can't have a proper volunteering strategy until you distinguish between the two roles.

Some thoughts on specific points:

• The proposed "How to volunteer page" doesn't distinguish between editing the projects (which is not strictly a chapter activity) and activities that fall more directly under WMUK's remit; if we're to have such a page, it should make that distinction.
• There's the seed of a good idea in the volunteer handbook (as there was the first time I heard it suggested), but it needs serious refinement. When somebody asks "how do I get involved?" the answer is not "read this pile of paperwork" (virtual or otherwise). Having how-to guides on things like setting up partnerships or organising events is a brilliant idea, and I think a lot of people would appreciate something that distils all our experience into one document that they can follow line by line until they gain confidence, but it needs to be concise and easy to follow. But this document misses some fundamental points: potential volunteers will (in my experience) often need a gentle push to get them to take the initiative; many people will find it easier to learn how to do something by working closely with someone more experienced; and a lot of people don't have the confidence or don't feel empowered to take the initiative. This is where the chapter can make a real difference but WMUK currently relies too much on (potential) volunteers being sufficiently familiar with the chapter to take the initiative. The chapter needs to be approaching them (not the other way around), finding out what they want to do, and helping them to make it happen. Until that changes, I don't think we're likely to see rapid growth in the number of volunteers or the number of projects they're undertaking.
• I'd like to see "Prioritisation by volunteers" explicitly encourage volunteers in suggesting partners and developing the relationship themselves (if they want to and with staff support), and as above, we need to do better at empowering them.
• "Dedicated office space" and "Office open days" are excellent, innovative ideas and do a lot of good. Of course, their reach will be limited because London is a very long, very expensive journey. That's not to say that these aren't wonderful ideas or that London is not the best place for the office, just that we need to work harder for the same impact in "the provinces". The same pros and cons apply to "Equipment for volunteers" and "Outreach merchandise", though this might be more easily solved by having stocks outside London. Perhaps we could have a page on this wiki where volunteers and staff can suggest and discuss merchandise when the thought occurs rather than only when something is being reviewed?
• "Recognition of volunteers" is extremely thin. Who would be recognised? How, when, for what, and by whom?
• The "Volunteer database" is again the seed of an excellent idea. Some of those things are things people will be perfectly happy to talk about and won't mind being tracked in a database so they can be contacted when something comes up that they might be interested in. This would go a long way towards getting people more involved and involved in things that are near them or of interest to them, and it could help in deciding what sort of events we organise and with which partners. The caveat is that that's not enough on its own (but it's a great start, an don't for a minute let my caveat put you off of doing it). Some of these things can be tracked and monitored in databases, but volunteers are more complicated than data points; each volunteer will have their own reasons for getting involved and will have their own hopes and dreams, ambitions, fears and their own interests or pet projects. The only way to find these things out is to get to know people and gain their confidence.

More generally, I'm disappointed that volunteer development and the committees get such little attention in this document. Volunteer development (which, at its simplest level, is how we get people from meeting for a pint once a month to actively participating in the work of WMUK) is one of the most important challenges facing the charity at the minute; this document seems to recognise that it's something we need to do, but there's no analysis. The committees are arguably tools for volunteer development, which is why it's disappointing that they get just two passing mentions here. This strategy is good as far as it goes—it recognises most of the key issues and attempts to find ways of addressing them—but it lacks a lot that can only be done by legwork.

Apologies for the length, but I think these are important issues that merit significant discussion. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Harry - thanks for this. I enjoyed reading it, mostly because a lot of it accords with themes I've been developing for a while (We need to differentiate between roles/experience, we need to offer tailored resources) and it goes beyond that to think more deeply about things I've not really focussed on (because it's not really a part of my role) but I agree are important and welcome you raising (volunteer development path).

You might recall my post to the mailing list about needing help with designing a 'portal' template for a 'Volunteering Portal' which will aim to deliver what you're identifying as needed. I'm working today on writing the sections of content relevant to my role (membership as a TYPE of volunteer - not conflating the two as you identify, that's wrong, but accepting it is a type of volunteer) and as always I'd welcome your feedback/help drafting. I'm sure Katie will have further thoughts to add, but I'll re-iterate my thank yous :) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kat. Thanks for your comments. My expertise is in more in hands-on support of volunteers than in higher-level strategy, but I do think there's a very important distinction between members and volunteers. Members are people who have paid their fiver, get a newsletter, and some of them might get involved to a greater or lesser extent in the running of the charity. Volunteers (to me) are people who directly do things under WMUK's auspices that advance our charitable objects. While all members are potential volunteers and most volunteers are members, the two roles are distinct and the way you persuade someone to pay a fiver, vote at general meetings, and get involved with the internal business of the charity is not the same as getting somebody to give their time and organise events or deliver training. I'm not trying to denigrate either group, but they are distinct in my opinion. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Two more thoughts on these issues:

• We should be careful with defining volunteers. There are differing definitions, but there are dangers in drawing a definition that's too narrow or to broad. In principle, a volunteer (in this context) who does something for WMUK because they're passionate about its aims and objectives, rather than strictly because they have some sort of obligation. I'd like to see this document note that the distinction is more subtle than just money.
• It's all very well repeating the Volunteer Policy, but a document like this should go further: volunteers should be at the heart of everything WMUK does. Staff are supposed to support volunteers (that can be broadly construed to mean a lot of things, and there are a lot of things staff can do that make a difference but wouldn't fit in to a narrow interpretation the phrase), and do only those things that volunteers can't or don't want to do. Sometimes stepping back and letting volunteers take control is inefficient, but if WMUK is to grow, it needs a deeper pool of people to carry out is work; it could do that either by hiring more-and-more staff (which would be expensive and out of line with movement values) or by developing volunteers (which is important in itself) with a core of experienced volunteers and paid staff supporting the less experienced. We need to do better at givinggetting volunteers to actually do things, not jut participate in things that have already bee set up by a member of staff (and I say this with the greatest respect and affection for the staff and their work), otherwise the notion that WMUK is a volunteer-led organisation will be gone entirely. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these points Harry. I don't have too many comments on the overall picture at the moment but I do want to get a bit of clarity on one point, and that's giving volunteers things to do. How do you envisage that working? At the moment, we have very much an open policy whereby if volunteers have anything they would like to do, any projects they would like to either deliver or work on, any suggestions they would like to take forward, the staff are here to support them. I hope it's clear that I work this way and I'm pretty sure my colleagues do, too. I think we can do better at making this very clear, though. Do you think there's an appetite among volunteers for staff to get in touch with them and say: "Hey, Mr / Ms Volunteer. I have this task that needs doing. Fancy taking it on?" I think that could work among the most motivated volunteers but wonder what you think? In some ways it runs a bit of a risk of volunteer burnout. I think we would need to offer those opportunities to as many people as possible for the most part but if we were selective about who we approached too frequently the staff could be viewed as indulging in favouritism. I think this is a really important question for us to get to the bottom off in order to make real progress here, and I hope my take on it proves useful. Thanks for reading what has been a bit of a ramble! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stevie, don't worry about rambling—I'm always happy to have an intelligent conversation about these things. "Giving" above was actually a typo, but you raise a valid point so I'll respond with an example. One of the things the staff are doing (especially now we have a dedicated GLAM Organiser) is approaching cultural institutions and setting up partnerships with them, which lead to content donations and events and all sorts of other wonderful things. But if Jonathan (and I stress I'm just using him as an example) decided to approach the Huddersfield Kneecap Museum, where are the opportunities for volunteers to get involved? There might be a volunteer in Huddersfield who would really want to get involved, or someone with a lifelong fascination with kneecaps who knows exactly what resources the museum has that would be useful on Wikipedia, but neither of them would have any clue that something was in the works, much less an opportunity to say "I'd like to help you with that" or "can you support me in building a relationship with this museum". There is no opportunity for volunteers to help decide what sort of events we hold at the Kneecap Museum or what sort of content we ask them to release; and if they turned up at an event, they would likely have no idea how to get involved in the partnership going forward, so we will have failed to get them involved when they might like to have been. Now some might dismiss this as being silly, or might point out that the outcome is the same or suggest that it's more efficient to use staff to achieve these things. Those are all fair points, but this movement is about passionate people doing things because they enjoy it, not hundreds of staff taking their place. There will come a time when we have enough partnerships that no individual can give each the time it deserves; the answer to that is to have volunteers managing individual partnerships and staff keeping an overview and supporting as necessary. And that (in my opinion) is what we should be doing anyway.

That's an example, which I hope answers your question. My more general point is that most people (take the person from Huddersfield in my example above for instance) aren't familiar enough with WMUK to even know who to approach with an idea, much less who to ask for support and what sort of support the chapter and its staff can offer. We're far too reactive in my opinion, waiting for would-be volunteers to get in touch with us and then the board and staff wonder why the volunteer base is growing so slowly (or worse focus on statistics); what we should be doing is getting out into the community and making volunteers (existing and potential) feel empowered to do things that interest them. I fully understand that this won't change things overnight—I've been trying to do it for a year or two, but with limited time and finances, it's been sporadic. These communities have huge potential, but they need some quite intensive support to get them off the ground. Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of volunteers

It says on this page that "82 volunteers support the chapter and its mission (beyond simply editing on Wikimedia projects) on either a weekly or monthly basis". This is a figure that I find hard to believe. That would mean that on an average day, at least two different people would "organise, lead or assist in Wikimedia UK events", or take a significant part in such programs.

I wonder if we are either being too liberal in what we would count as supporting "the chapter and its mission (beyond simply editing on Wikimedia projects)", or we are simply counting more people than fairly fit this definition.

I would be interested to know how this figure was calculated. Thanks in advance, Rock drum (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

We keep a log of active volunteers. Looking at it we have 12 people listed who we think do something every week and 60 who do something about once a month.

So what does 'do something' mean? This is as a rough rule of thumb 'something beyond editing' i.e. taking part in discussions on lists, watercooler, coming to wikimeets, editathons, other events etc.

Hope this helps Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)