I see it a bit both ways. I would hope that the designation "chapter" and
"user group" reflect at least something about the capacity of the
organization in question. And organizations change over time so why should
not their designation? I also agree that not all that matters can be
measured / quantified. We still need to do what matters even if a nice
little number cannot be attached to it. The question is how do we balance
these two.
Jaes
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Carlos Colina (Maor_X) <
maorx(a)wikimedia.org.ve> wrote:
> Hi Pine,
>
> You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff at a
> hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn South Sudan is
> way bigger than those working for a state-of-the art hospital in Portland,
> Zurich or Singapore, so you think they shouldn't be considered "good
> hospitals" or not even "hospitals" because they don't meet the quantitative
> and set on stone criteria you suggest?
>
> I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the least. Every
> chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely quantitative would be
> unfair and damaging to the movement and the efforts of many wikimedians who
> cannot contribute in the ideal conditions, yet they go the extra mile where
> others living in a paradise wouldn't do that.
>
> *hat on*
>
> Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the community to
> refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet. But that's the general
> idea and the AffCom is there to assist as much as possible to those groups
> who wish to meet the criteria.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
> "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <
> affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" <chapters(a)wikimedia.ch>
> Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and
> thematic organisation criteria
> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also
> apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result
> of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the
> occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time,
> it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they
> re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new
> criteria.
>
> Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to
> be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of
> "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of
> the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing
> reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that
> lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has
> suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital
> whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
>
> To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with
> subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in
> the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a
> nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a
> particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of
> ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
>
> While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to
> meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be
> met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the
> criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily
> quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be
> chapters.
>
> I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be
> included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for
> chapters and thematic organizations.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
>
>
> El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
>
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
> In general, I like the new criteria.
>
>
>
> I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
>
> there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
>
> these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
>
> the status of affiliates.
>
>
>
>
> The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
> context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
> cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the
> situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the
> same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a
> loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery
> operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across
> the country except for the capital.
>
>
>
> If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another
> story.
>
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su
> titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro.
> Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
>
> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
Hello Ben,
If there are chapters that are not meeting the criteria proposed, in those cases the AffCom may reach out to them to help fix the issue, stimulate the organization of activities, fix governance issues, whatever that may be. Of course, failing to meet the criteria doesn't mean immediate derecognition, that could only happen if a chapter fails repetitively to meet the criteria and does not take measures suggested within a timeframe established and agreed between all parts. Then the AffCom would recommend the change of the status, which we hope not to need to do. It should never be like pushing a "delete button"!
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Ben Creasy" <ben(a)bencreasy.com>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 11:22 PM
Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do
not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense for
that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to
meeting standards or losing their status.
What's the harm in letting chapters which can't meet the proposed high
standards drop into user group status? This will also force the committee
and board to figure out reasonable requirements. I realize that chapters
have special privileges and the process would be something like a probation
period followed by a graceful revocation of privileges.
I'm not super knowledgeable about this topic, but I've heard that chapters
becoming inactive is a problem. The solution is to anticipate that and
create a process for handling chapter inactivity non-disruptively. What's
the current process?
On Aug 20, 2016 9:50 PM, "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > What harm is avoided by eliminating the ambiguity you refer to, Pine?
>
> One of the harms is that aspiring chapters don't know what standards we
> should be aiming to meet, because the standards are vague. Another
> harm is that the Affiliations Committee doesn't have clear criteria to
> apply,
> which means that decisions are likely to be more subjective and
> inconsistent than the decisions would be if there was a more specific
> set of criteria.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous email, I feel that it's okay to have some
> flexibility in the requirements, such as by saying "a chapter must meet
> four of
> the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in
> one
> or more of the following ways". But those flexible criteria should be
> clearly
> defined.
>
> > How is that damage ameliorated by, as you suggest, re-classifying
> > a chapter as a user group?
>
> I feel that this is a separate issue. There should be no privilege attached
> to
> already being a chapter. It is unfair to apply one set of criteria to
> existing
> chapters, and a much tighter set of criteria to aspiring chapters. Chapter
> status should be linked with a substantial level of current or recent
> activity
> in Wikimedia.
>
> Chapter activity levels may decrease for many reasons, some of which
> are beyond their control, such as if a fire breaks out in their office, or
> if an
> especially strong community organizer leaves the country. If such things
> happen and the activity level or membership level of the organization
> decrease, it is reasonable (if not desirable) to have the organization,
> which
> now would resemble a user group rather than a chapter, actually be
> categorized as a user group until the organization recovers. I would call
> this
> "truth in advertising". It's not comfortable, but it is the reality, and it
> would give the group a strong incentive to re-energize itself and return
> its
> levels of membership and activity to the levels that it once had, rather
> than
> allowing it to keep the privileges of chapter status with few of the
> responsibilities and expectations.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
Hi Pine,
You seem to forget that the effort the doctors, nurses and staff at a hospital either in after-the-hurricane Louisiana or war-torn South Sudan is way bigger than those working for a state-of-the art hospital in Portland, Zurich or Singapore, so you think they shouldn't be considered "good hospitals" or not even "hospitals" because they don't meet the quantitative and set on stone criteria you suggest?
I find that divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the least. Every chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely quantitative would be unfair and damaging to the movement and the efforts of many wikimedians who cannot contribute in the ideal conditions, yet they go the extra mile where others living in a paradise wouldn't do that.
*hat on*
Again, the idea is to collect all valuable input from the community to refine the criteria, so nothing is set in stone yet. But that's the general idea and the AffCom is there to assist as much as possible to those groups who wish to meet the criteria.
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Pine W" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list" <affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Wikimedia Chapters general discussions" <chapters(a)wikimedia.ch>
Subject: [Affiliates] [Wikimedia-l] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 4:20 AM
Hi Carlos,
As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time, it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new criteria.
Regarding the uniformity of standards, it seems to me that there needs to be a common baseline throughout the world. Otherwise, the definition of "chapter" becomes highly subjective and is effectively at the discretion of the Affiliations Committee. To use an analogy: a hospital that is providing reasonably good care for its patients would be considered a good hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines. Likewise, a hospital that lacks essential supplies, has a shortage of health professionals, and has suffered hurricane damage to its surgery rooms, is a troubled hospital whether it is in Louisiana or the Philippines.
To use another analogy, this time demonstrating the problems with subjective and varying standards: the criteria for high school diplomas in the United States vary so widely that by itself a high school diploma is a nearly useless credential without knowing which high school granted a particular diploma. It seems to me that we should avoid this kind of ambiguity in the Wikimedia community.
While there could be a variety of ways in which a group could be deemed to meet the standards for a chapter, such as by saying "a chapter must meet four of the following six criteria" or "this particular requirement may be met in one or more of the following ways", it still seems to me that the criteria for chapter status should be transparent, objective (primarily quantitative), and easily understood by all affiliates that wish to be chapters.
I realize that this is a complex issue, and I hope that this input will be included for consideration as AffCom continues to discuss the criteria for chapters and thematic organizations.
Pine
El 19/08/2016 a las 06:28 p.m., Pine W escribió:
Hi Carlos,
In general, I like the new criteria.
I would like to suggest making the criteria entirely quantitative, so that
there is minimal subjectivity about whether or not affiliates are meeting
these standards and therefore there is likely to be less controversy about
the status of affiliates.
The problem of making the criteria entirely quantitative is that the
context where affiliates operate is not the same across the world. We
cannot apply a rigid, based in fixed numbers criteria because the
situation of Estonia or The Netherlands, to give an example, is not the
same of Venezuela, where people need to queue for hours just to buy a
loaf of bread, if they happen to be lucky enough to find a bakery
operating, or where scheduled 4-hour daily blackouts are the norm across
the country except for the capital.
If all affiliates operated in the same conditions, that would be another story.
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
Dear all,
I am honestly delighted to announce the results of the public call for
Board Governance committee volunteer and Advisory members, announced on
July 15, 2016 [1]. We received nine applications, and after discussing
them with BGC and reviewing the committee's needs and interviewing a short
list of candidates,I have chosen five volunteer advisory members for the
committee. I'd like to extend my thanks to everyone who offered to serve on
the committee.
Please find below a short introduction for our new volunteer advisory
members. They are all quite well known in the movement and I think their
insights would be helpful. They join the Committee once they sign the
documents that Stephen LaPorte, our Interim Secretary, sent to them (the
same ones as the Board members sign - the confidentiality agreement
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_of_the_Board…>
, code of conduct
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_of_the_Board_of_Truste…>
, conflict of interest disclosure
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy>).
=== Gayle Karen Young ===
Gayle Karen Young is a WMF's former Chief Talent and Culture office. In her
time at Wikimedia, she was accountable for building the current HR team and
had an active hand in board development and staffed the board HR committee.
She brings experience with the Wikimedia movement, with the workings of the
Foundation, and through her own consulting work in leadership and board
development with organizations in both the for-profit and non-profit space,
and in technology and human rights.
=== Kat Walsh ===
Kat Walsh is a former member of Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
12/2006-8/2013 (Chair, 2012-2013; Executive Secretary, 2009-2010). Now she
works as an attorney specializing in copyright, Internet law, and free and
open source software.
=== Tim Moritz Hector ===
Tim Moritz Hector is Chair of the Board of Wikimedia Deutschland since
2014. Tim has been an active Wikimedian for more than eight years and was
engaged in several positions on national and international level. His most
recent engagement (with Frans Grijzenhout from WMNL) is focussed on
building the capacities of board members in all Wikimedia-organizations. He
is going to finish his B.A. in politics and german philology this month and
shall work as an advisor to the ED at the "Academy for volunteerism" in
Berlin beginning in September.
=== Ido Ivry ===
Ido Ivry is a board member of Wikimedia Israel. He has extensive NGO
experience, as well as business understanding, both in large corporates,
NGOs, GLAM institution (National Library of Israel), and is currently a CTO
in his own startup, developing open data solutions for city governments.
Ido has been active on the Grants Advisory Committee and as part of the
Simple APG Committee, working with many organizations in our movement on
carrying out their missions successfully and effectively.
=== Ira B. Matetsky (User:Newyorkbrad) ===
Ira Brad Matetsky (User:Newyorkbrad) is a long-time editor, administrator,
and former arbitrator on English Wikipedia as well as a board member of
Wikimedia New York City. Professionally, he has been a litigation attorney
in New York City since 1987. He has broad experience with board and
community governance issues, best practices, and legal requirements from
serving with and representing a number of organizations.
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-July/084756.html
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
WikiConference North America 2016
7-10 October 2016, San Diego, CA, USA
SCHOLARSHIP DEADLINE: August 23!
WikiConference North America (formerly WikiConference USA) is the third
annual conference on the North American continent devoted to Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. The weekend will feature both academic and casual
presentations on Wikimedia-related outreach activities, workshops to
improve the skills of grassroots organizers, and discussions on the past,
present, and future of the Wikimedia projects. The conference features
offerings about community outreach, online activity, partnerships with
institutions of knowledge, and technology.
Keynote speakers are scheduled to include Katherine Maher, Executive
Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Merrilee Proffitt, Senior Program
Officer of OCLC Research. The last day of the conference will feature
programming coinciding with Indigenous Peoples' Day.
Registration for the conference is now open. You can register at https://
wikiconference.org.
Scholarships partially covering costs of travel and attendance are
available for active contributors to Wikimedia projects. Apply by August
23rd for scholarships at https://wikiconference.org/wiki/2016/Scholarships.
This is a volunteer run conference and volunteers are needed for any number
of tasks. If you are attending, please consider volunteering for at
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Volunteers.
We seek presentations addressing topics related to Wikipedia or open access
and culture. Presentations may be from any discipline regarding any
relevant topic. Please submit a description of your proposed presentation
using our online submission process at https://wikiconference.org/wiki
/Submissions. If you are interested in participating in the peer-reviewed
academic track, see our call for academic submissions at https://
wikiconference.org/wiki/Call_for_Academic_Presentations.
- Sydney Poore (User:FloNight) and Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
(User:Rosiestep), conference organizers
Dear all,
On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I am pleased to announce the
recognition of the newest Wikimedia User Group: Wikimedians of Iowa User
Group [1]
The group is composed of wikimedians from Iowa, who seek to organize
activities all over the state, like editathons and meetups, reaching out
to local educational institutions, libraries, and holding competitions.
They can trace the idea for the creation of the group during a Wikimedia
DC editathon this year ;-)
Welcome, Iowan colleagues!
1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Iowa_User_Group
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos relacionados son marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación Wikimedia, Inc., una organización sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus respectivos propietarios.
Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.: J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
Just one small point, "and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months" reads like a rule set by Americans who deliberately or otherwise don't want too much emphasis on the education program.
Most western countries have remuneration packages that put more emphasis on holiday time than the USA, and in some countries there is a month of the year when only an expat would try to organise things. In such countries the two month rule imposes an unnatural focus on the fortnights adjacent to the shutdown.
I suspect any chapter that took a strategy of mostly focussing events on the education sector would also have difficulties melding that two month limitation with the academic year.
There is also the issue that not all events are of equal value to the movement, and I say that a one of the de facto hosts of the London meetup ( If we were a chapter Wikimedia London would have no problem with that particular rule as our meetups are monthly).
Regards
WereSpielChequers
> On 20 Aug 2016, at 13:00, wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic
> organisation criteria (Pine W)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:05:37 -0700
> From: Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
> Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list
> <affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: Wikimedia Chapters general discussions <chapters(a)wikimedia.ch>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and
> thematic organisation criteria
> Message-ID:
> <CAF=dyJhKg3PpVwXLM1s=NEQxacx6++Pgao+KnsSWYCKoVLN37g(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I might suggest distinguishing the resourcing issue from the chapter status
> criteria.
>
> I am of the view that expecting volunteers to be available for the same
> kind and quantity of work as paid part-time or full-time staff is
> unrealistic, that WMF should provide a smoother glide slope from
> all-volunteer affiliate to affiliate with first time paid staff, and that
> WMF should rethink their one-size-fits-all approach of requiring
> substantial programmatic activity before agreeing to fund any part-time
> paid staff even for as little as ten hours per month. It seems to me that
> WMF is limiting its own effectiveness with its current approach of setting
> such a high bar before agreeing to fund part-time paid staff. But those are
> issues for WMF staff, not for the Affiliations Committee.
>
> On a slightly different subject, I think that your email helps to
> illustrate how quantitative rather than qualitative criteria would be
> helpful in understanding where the thresholds are. To illustrate further:
>
> "Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected
> to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and events." Does "a
> variety" mean three, five, or ten?
>
> "to balance online and offline projects": are chapters now required to have
> at least one online and one offline project? Are online and offline
> projects supposed to be even in number, meaning that if there are three
> online projects then there must be three offline projects?
>
> "to strive for continuous activity": what is "continuous activity", and is
> it a goal or a requirement?
>
> "and to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.": this
> seems straightforward.
>
> "Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected
> to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects, and events before
> executing them; to measure the results of programs, projects, and events
> against those targets; and to report on those results to the Wikimedia
> Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.": I like this requirement,
> keeping in mind that goals and targets may be difficult to set,
> particularly where a program, project, or event is new to an affiliate or a
> particular audience.
>
> "External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are expected to
> engage in programmatic partnerships with external groups and organizations
> (for example, cultural, academic, or government institutions, and so on) to
> promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve content on Wikimedia
> projects.": how many partnerships are required? How often must partners be
> engaged in programs?
>
> I like the general approach of the criteria, but quantitative specificity
> would be helpful.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilllyle(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Lane.
>>
>> Setting higher criteria is all well and good -- as is expecting boards to
>> be cognizant of these expectations.
>>
>> But we are dealing with volunteers doing a significant amount of free
>> digital labor and organizing. To set a bar super high in that structure is
>> a lot to expect of people contributing their T&E.
>>
>> Both Lane and I are part of Wikimedia NYC, a very active chapter that
>> somehow (I believe) manages to meet these criteria amidst almost
>> exponential growth of activities. The administrative burden on both our
>> leadership and membership is heavy, and I am grateful for everyone's pitch
>> in / can do approach and willingness to contribute.
>>
>> And no, the answer is not to do less events and have less support to
>> institutional partners and various initiatives. That's not practical or
>> good for anyone.
>>
>> But it brings to mind a recent trip I made where I visited the Wikimedia
>> Deutschland offices. Where there was a whole room (!) of 6 fully set up
>> computers with I am assuming the same number of staff for Event planning
>> alone -- all which I assume are paid positions. That really made me pause
>> in shock. And feel like a bit of an idiot that our chapter does so much
>> without that type of structural support.
>>
>> So while I understand the idea of these criteria, to have the balance beam
>> heavily weighted on requirements without attendant support is not a
>> workable model.
>>
>> - Erika
>> Secretary, Wikimedia NYC -- but not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself
>>
>> *Erika Herzog*
>> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The criteria are for those groups who want to apply for an official
>> status
>>> at WMF. In general I think all chapters should try to meet with these
>>> criteria. If a chapter is not able to structurally full-fill these
>>> criteria, a different board is the solution to revive the chapter.
>>>
>>> I personally think the criteria are a balanced set of guidelines to be
>>> followed.
>>>
>>> It is important for the movement to share the experiences and the
>> results.
>>> Much more should be shared through best practices, how to's, reports and
>>> newsletters, like https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
>> for
>>> collaborations with various partner organisations.
>>>
>>> Romaine
>>>
>>> 2016-08-19 16:51 GMT+02:00 Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Do these criteria apply to existing groups? Maybe I misunderstand, but
>>>> from this proposal it sounds like new groups will be held to
>>> significantly
>>>> higher standards than any currently recognized organizations. Is that
>> the
>>>> case?
>>>>
>>>> yours,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Carlos M. Colina <
>>> maorx(a)wikimedia.org.ve>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to present some
>>>>> changes to the current chapter and thematic organisation criteria,
>>> which we
>>>>> will begin piloting as we officially reopen applications for chapter
>> and
>>>>> thematic organization status. Until now, the criteria had not clearly
>>>>> defined what constitutes sufficient programmatic activity to justify
>>>>> chapter or thematic organisation status. To address this issue, we
>> have
>>> set
>>>>> out three new criteria:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Diversity of Activities: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>>>> expected to plan and conduct a variety of different programs and
>>> events; to
>>>>> balance online and offline projects; to strive for continuous
>>> activity; and
>>>>> to conduct programs and events at least once every two months.
>>>>> 2. Planning and Evaluation: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>>>> expected to set specific goals and targets for programs, projects,
>>> and
>>>>> events before executing them; to measure the results of programs,
>>> projects,
>>>>> and events against those targets; and to report on those results to
>>> the
>>>>> Wikimedia Foundation and the wider Wikimedia movement.
>>>>> 3. External Partnerships: Chapters and thematic organisations are
>>>>> expected to engage in programmatic partnerships with external
>> groups
>>> and
>>>>> organizations (for example, cultural, academic, or government
>>> institutions,
>>>>> and so on) to promote the Wikimedia movement and to add and improve
>>> content
>>>>> on Wikimedia projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to officially reopen the chapter and thematic organization
>>>>> recognition process, the Board of Trustees has instructed the
>>> Affiliations
>>>>> Committee to provisionally use these three new criteria for all new
>>>>> applicants. In addition, potential chapters and thematic organisations
>>> will
>>>>> continue to be assessed against the existing legal, governance, and
>>>>> viability criteria; more details, including the benefits and
>>> limitations of
>>>>> these affiliation models, are available on Meta.[1] [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that the use of these three new criteria is a pilot; there
>>>>> will be opportunities to share feedback about the criteria, as well as
>>>>> other ways to help define the chapter and thematic organisation
>>> affiliate
>>>>> models, during the upcoming strategy consultation. The Affiliations
>>>>> Committee and the Board of Trustees will continue to evaluate results
>>> and
>>>>> feedback during the initial pilot period and consider potential
>>> revisions
>>>>> to the criteria before they are finalized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> M.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Chapt
>>>>> er_Summary_Matrix
>>>>> 2: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Thema
>>>>> tic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
>>>>> --
>>>>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
>> wayuukanairua
>>>>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
>> junain."
>>>>> Carlos M. Colina
>>>>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
>>> www.wikimedia.org.ve
>>>>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
>>>>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>>>>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>>>>> Twitter: @maor_x
>>>>>
>>>>> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
>>>>> <http://wikimedia.org.ve/wiki/P%C3%A1gina_principal>, Wikipedia,
>>>>> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
>>>>> relacionados <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_Projects> son
>>>>> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la
>>> Fundación
>>>>> Wikimedia, Inc. <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>, una
>> organización
>>>>> sin fines de lucro. Otros nombres y marcas pertenecen a sus
>> respectivos
>>>>> propietarios.
>>>>>
>>>>> Asociación Civil Wikimedia Venezuela (Wikimedia Venezuela) | RIF.:
>>>>> J-40129321-2 | Los Teques, Estado Miranda. Venezuela
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Affiliates mailing list
>>>>> Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lane Rasberry
>>>> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>>>> 206.801.0814
>>>> lane(a)bluerasberry.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Affiliates mailing list
>>>> Affiliates(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 149, Issue 29
> ********************************************
Hi,
I usually don't recommend these things, but this interview with Schrep [1]
[2] is interesting and insightful. I recommend listening to it instead of
reading. He discusses FB's ten year plan, AI, VR, Internet access for
all, mentions Wikipedia several times, confirms their insatiable hunger for
structured data, and reveals several details on their innovation approach.
Trigger Warning: Corporate Speak
Make no mistake, I've nothing but contempt and spite for Facebook, but
having worked with Mike I also know he demonstrates formidable intellect
and is a decent person. He's incredibly capable in building amazing teams
and predicting (more like sniffing out) the future of tech. I watch his
moves closely to stay sharp.
He's right about how papers are coming out constantly which augment current
AI tech in interesting new ways. I believe we're living in interesting
times for computer science and mathematics--computational linguistics and
probabilistic search in particular. A person can't read the CS and math
papers fast enough in order to keep up with the innovation. A lot of it is
trivial, sure, but some is quite startling in impact as they combine a few
smaller things which seemed previously innocuous yet when used together
they solve key problems.
When looking into tech and strategy for WMF and the engineers it supports,
I'd be very interested in the direction Facebook is going and the
technologies they plan on investing in, so passing it along.
Yours faithfully,
Damon
[1] http://www.metisstrategy.com/interview/mike-schroepfer/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Schroepfer
Damon Sicore
512 963 5126
https://damon.sicore.com
6E98 FBFB
D192 D325
B85D D4FF
FD2A 20ED
DC1D 3975
Dear all,
We are proud to announce that the first ever French-speaking Wikimedia
projects editors gathering will take place on August 19-20-21 in Paris,
France. Supported by WikiFranca and organized locally by Wikimedia France,
it's a "dream come true" as the first idea of this event goes back to 2012.
The 1st Francophone WikiConvention will take place in an eco-friendly
rehabilitated place called the Halle Pajol in the 18th arrondissement of
Paris.
Nearly 140 participants from 15 countries will be present. More than 40
proposals were made by the participants to create the program of this 2,5
day convention: gender-inclusive language on Wikipedia, paid contributions,
enriching articles about francophone Paralympic athletes, accessibility and
contribution in Africa ... A variety of themes that reflect the issues of
the francophone part of the Wikimedia movement.
This event was made possible by the support of the International
Organization of the Francophonie, the General Delegation for the French
language and the languages of France, L'Oréal Foundation for Women in
Science, Google France and of course the support of Wikimedia Wikimedia
France and Wikimedia Switzerland, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation. The
event is coordinated by WikiFranca, the organization of chapters,
francophone user groups and contributors of the Wikimedia movement.
It is meant to be then organized annually, if it proves to be successful !
Thank you to all Wikimedians who supported this event. And now, let's do it
!
Pyb