[Foundation-l] Movement Roles: my suggestion of "Language Contact Persons"

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Let me start by saying that Ziko's "Tell us about your Wikipedia"
project was wonderful and i really expect its second edition. If Ziko
or someone else doesn't beat me to it, i'll probably just create one
myself, with additional questions that interest me ;)

I support the idea of language contact persons, or ambassadors, but
their appointment shouldn't be as rigidly regulated as the appointment
of administrators. (The appointment of administrators also shouldn't
be regulated half as rigidly as it is now, but that's a different
topic.)

Instead of "appointing" contact persons by forced discussion,
something else can be done: The Foundation can publish a call to the
different language communities to become more active on Meta and
mailing lists. I am a de-facto contact person for Hebrew, but i joined
this mailing list years ago simply because it seemed the natural thing
to do, because i came from the software world. It may not seem as
natural to plenty of other people who can be excellent language
contact persons.

At first such call can be published in the village pumps of different
languages. A few new people will probably join the global discussions
as proud representatives of their respective language communities as a
result of it, but many communities will definitely remain
unrepresented. After some time the Foundation should check which
language communities are still not represented and think what should
be done differently to bring them along.

As in foreign relations between countries in general, it's just
impossible to have the same kind of relationship and communication
channel with every project.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬



2011/8/14 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com>:
> Dear friends,
>
> One element of the discussions on "Movement Roles" was about other /
> new entities within our movement, aside the already existing
> Foundation and the Chapters, which I prefer to call "national
> Wikimedia organizations". I would like to present to you here my idea
> of "Language Contact Persons" who form a link between the Foundation
> and the Wikipedia language versions.
>
> == New entities?==
> James Forrester and his group (sorry, I don't remember who was the
> official primus inter pares) presented in/before Haifa a list of new
> kinds of Wikimedia entities:
> * Chapters not based on national boundaries, but subjects such as
> railways, art, ethnic cultures, mathematics etc.
> * informal groups
> * Official partners, e.g. a museum we (the Foundation? a national
> Wikimedia organization?) that already exists outside our movement
>
> ==Scepticism==
> I myself, and also some people I have talked to, are very sceptical
> about such new entities. I believe that in theory it is possible to
> create and maintain them, but in practice there can come up a lot of
> problems. Imagine that a group wants to join that is occupied with
> Marxism, or Zionism, or other potentially controversial subjects. And
> then groups with antimarxism, antizionism etc.  What subjects exactly
> (and what kind of behavior) do we want to allow? And what actual
> problem we would try to solve with such new entities?
>
> One particular question is the organization of ethnic or linguistic
> groups which cannot have a national Wikimedia organization (chapter),
> but which also cannot or don't want to integrate into existing
> national Wikimedia organizations. The best known example are the
> Catalans together with the Scottish Wikipedians (or just some of
> them?).
>
> == A concrete problem to be solved ==
> I must mention here my personal interests. I am an editor of Wikipedia
> in Esperanto, a small, transnational language that never can have a
> national Wikimedia organization. We Esperanto-Wikipedians can also not
> easily integrate into existing national Wikimedia organizations
> because we live in many different countries, where other (national)
> languages are dominant. So, as an Esperantist I would like it very
> much to see a Esperanto "chapter" of Wikimedia, but as a Wikimedian in
> general I am afraid that it would open a box of Pandora.
>
> Thinking of practical problems, I remember that we small language
> Wikipedians often don't have good connections with the Wikimedia
> organizations. We don't know well how to make use of the existing
> material and other ressources. And the Foundation and the national
> Wikimedia organizations know little of us. When I go to the Foundation
> and ask whether we are allowed to use the logos for a flyer in my
> small language, then the Foundation might ask itself: *Who is this
> Ziko, can we trust him, does he speak for more people than only
> himself?*
>
> == Language Contact Person (LCP) ==
> I would like to suggest a small solution to solve a part of the
> problems. Every language version of Wikipedia should designate a
> "Language Contact Person" for relations with the Foundation (and
> national Wikimedia organizations). This LCP is to be elected by a poll
>  with the same requirements as for admins.
>
> A deputy LCP is also to be elected, in order to replace a LCP when
> necessary. If one of both is no longer active, it will be the task of
> the remaining one to take care of a new election of that other
> position.
>
> You know, originally it is often an admin who represents a language
> version in one way or other. But that is not really the task of an
> admin, and other people might be a suitable LCP but are not
> interesting in becoming an admin. The LCP would be only a liaison
> officer, he won't "officially represent" the language version. Like
> adminship it will be less a position of honour but of work.
>
> The LCP has to report to the Foundation about the language version and
> its community and outreach, monthly or at least once a year. (Think of
> my "Tell us about your Wikipedia" project on Meta.) And when the
> Foundation wishes to contact that language version, for example when
> it needs a translation or wants the whole movement to know about
> something important, the LCP is the best way to take care of that. The
> LCP knows the village pumps and mailing lists etc. of his language.
> So, in future, Casey Brown does not have to search and contact all
> those language versions and their activists, but will simply post to a
> common mailing list of all LCPs and they will do the rest.
>
> On the other hand, when the Wikipedians of a particular language
> version have a specific problem and seek for help from the Foundation,
> they can do that most efficiently via their LCP.
>
> Of course, a LCP is not only useful for small languages. Think of
> Spanish, a global language. Some Spanish speaking countries have a
> national Wikimedia organization, others have not. A Spanish Wikipedia
> LCP can be the coordinator of a flyer in Spanish for all of the
> Spanish speaking countries.
>
> == Experimental phase ==
> My suggestion is that the Foundation asks the Wikipedia language
> versions to elect LCPs (and their deputies). After a year, the
> Foundation evaluates the experiences with the LCPs, whether  they
> really make communication more efficient or not. Then,
> * the LCP system can remain the same as it is,
> * or has to be abolished because it caused more work than it helped,
> * or the system will be given a more formal basis, with the LCP
> getting a higher status or more tasks, or even becoming the nucleus of
> language based formal Wikimedia organizations.
> Maybe the LCP experiences can be of value with regard to Wikimedia
> projects such as Wikisource, Wikibooks etc.
>
> Please let me know what you think about the possibility and potential
> usefulness of Language Contact Persons.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> The Netherlands
> http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>