Dear everyone,
First, we want to thank everyone who contributed in this discussion.
We want to start with the first conflict, which is the name. If you read
carefully Affcon's email above, and you check the info online as claimed by
Affcon, you will see that actually Affcon itself has confused both UG
names, crediting events to the other UG, that actually are done by our UG (
WoALUG
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group>)
and vice versa.
After the new UG was recognized and people started raising questions in
this thread, we received an email by Affcon to explain to them what we
thought was the overlapping. We did send our activities and explained why
we thought there was overlapping. Reading Camelias and Sami email above,
clearly that email was ignored.
Exactly during the time that the new UG was applying, the old one (WoALUG)
was applying for the annual simple grant, which btw took us at least 4
months to complete, all our activities in Albania were clearly stated, and
GLAM and EDUCATION were our main goals. There are also institutions
mentioned and details of what we wanted to do in Albania. So, claiming that
theres no overlapping of activities is not valid.
WoALUG goes beyond Albania or Kosovo, because some Albanian contributors
who don't live in Albania created it at the first place, so we wish we can
help Albanian speakers in diaspora to continue to contribute, and if they
need information, sources or whatever, our team present in Albania, Kosova,
Macedonia, or Arberesh in Italy, will use our resources to make that
happen. Our UG means to be inclusive of what is a small Wikimedia language
community anyways.
GLAM and Education institutions are depended on public institutions. To
collaborate with an institution, let's say Historic Museum of Albania, you
need to get permission from the Ministry of Culture. Think about the
scenario (which is currently happening): one UG requests to collaborate
with Museum of Elbasan and the other UG want to collaborate with Museum of
Tirana, both should sent the request to Ministry of Culture. Wikipedia is a
new thing (still) in Albania, considering that is already hard to establish
collaborations with public institutions, confusing the UGs will result in
bad outcome for both UGs.
And of course, for the other private institutions, it is a competition who
is going to contact them first.
Splitting institutions is also not an option because for sure we will aim
the same ones, since there's not that many of them.
We were confused, we still are and none of our members have the time to
follow this even after a year.
on behalf of Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Albanian_Language_User_Group>
.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:30 PM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
frhd(a)yandex.com> wrote:
Dear Kiril and Paulo,
Thank you for explanations.
You have my deepest respect for showing your concern for our fellow
colleagues from Albania, so they avoid repeating the mistakes that have
been made previously elsewhere. Just like you, I certainly hope that our
volunteer-colleagues serving in AffCom did their best to assess and
minimize possible risks that might come in case of competition. As for
Albanian language & Albania centered multilingual UGs, let's hope they are
getting along well and work hand in hand on the aspects in which they can
help advancing each other's missions.
Our current situation is actually encouraging us to consider developing
Russian-speaking UGs in all regions of Russia, and my home Republic might
be one of the first ones where this will be useful. Our chapter consist of
representatives of various Wikimedia projects, languages & ethnic groups,
but our weakness is rather low regional representation and empowerment,
which we hope to balance through UGs. The world is in constant flux, so
eventually we might also witness similar competition for attention that you
are talking about. We currently don't seem to have reasons for conflict
between Wikimedia Russia chapter and Russian & other language or
territorial UGs because:
* UGs have representatives in the national chapter
* National chapter meetings are broadcast live on YouTube,
* Chapter leadership prioritizes country-wide tasks of importance for
growing the movement,
* Wikimedia projects in Russian and other languages are not that famous
yet,
* neither affiliates, nor individuals in Russia get their grant requests
approved by WMF (there are reasons for that), and
* Russian language is teaching us to be anarchic inside (affiliate
structures are nothing more than just legal tools), whilst locals have
centuries-old history of living together in Hunnic Empire, Cumania,
Mongolic Empire, Golden Horde, Russian Empire, Soviet Union & now Russian
Federation (something we remember despite the fact that Golden Horde and
earlier ones don't get much coverage in high-school history courses).
regards,
farhad
--
Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин
http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
15.02.2019, 17:37, "Paulo Santos Perneta" <paulosperneta(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi Farhad,
It is very easily understood by the so called Brazilian scenario:
Step 1 - AffCom recognizes a chapter style UG, with geographic focus
Step 2 - Dissidents from first group start warring first UG while
attempting to form a second UG, clone of the first UG
Step 3 - AffCom recognizes second UG
Step 4 - Conflict between UGs dramatically increases with time, spreading
into the Wikimedia projects
Step 5 - AffCom dissolves both UGs
Current status: No recognized Wikimedia community in the country
My opinion: Terrible disservice by AffCom to the Wikimedia Movement.
Best,
Paulo
Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <frhd(a)yandex.com> escreveu no dia
sexta, 15/02/2019 à(s) 10:59:
> Dear Kiril, Philip and colleagues,
>
> Please explain the nature of reasons that cause trouble in having
multiple
> Wikimedia affiliates in the area, as this
seems to be context specific.
> It's possible that our context in Russia is very different, which is
why
> we are actually welcoming creation of new
UGs throughout the country,
both
> territorially and thematically oriented ones
(on top of the Wikimedia
> Russia national chapter).
> Should you give more reasons why this seems causing conflict, I might.
>
> Over here we are quite happy with existing collaboration at all levels
and
> are even looking forward to developing a
mechanism to speed up their
> formation throughout the country - namely
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Languages_of_Russia_Community_Use…
> Myself and other representatives of
Wikimedia Russia discussed this in
> detail and welcomed by AffCom secretary during Wikimania 2017
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Frhdkazan/Wikimania2017#Aug.12 And
> in the framework of
https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
> initiative, I will eventually proceed to registering a
Tatarstan-oriented
> thematic multilingual UG, on top of recently
registered
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_of_Tatar_language_User_…
> & Wikimedia Russia, in both of which I
am currently a member.
>
> regards,
> farhad
>
> --
> Farkhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин
http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 /
> skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan
>
> 14.02.2019, 03:25, "Kiril Simeonovski"
<kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com>om>:
> > Hi Paulo,
> >
> > Camelia's paragraph that you referred to tells a story that is
exactly
> the
> > opposite of what the Affiliations Committee is doing in practice. The
> > so-called 'Brazilian scenario' emerged in Macedonia when, in 2016,
the
> > committee decided to recognise a second
user group on the same
territory
> > without consulting the existing one.
This has eventually developed
into a
> > problem regarding the overlap in the
scope of the two user groups
and the
> > resolution was normally sought from the
people (more importantly
> > volunteers) who were not willing this to happen. It should be also
noted
> > that Macedonia is a country with only 2
million inhabitants unlike
> Brazil's
> > over 200 million and this has been mentioned numerous times by
different
> > people in the movement to refer to the
severity of the problem.
> >
> > My opinion is that the Affiliations Committee has no vision on the
future
> > of the Wikimedia movement and their
main efficiency indicator is the
> number
> > of user groups they recognise with no care about the consequencies
of
the
> > apparent wrongdoing. They managed to
bring the tally to over 100 user
> > groups and the Wikimedia Foundation even got engaged to celebrate
this
> > achievement, while they did not give a
damn about the problems that
they
> > have posed with their light-minded
routine. Moreover, when you
approach
> > them with some relevant questions, they
simply brush off and respond
> with a
> > months-long delay.
> >
> > In conclusion, the Affiliations Committee is artificially creating
> problems
> > as a result of their recognition policy and is seeking resolution
from
> > volunteers that were not consulted at
all about the potential
> > consequencies. This is a waste of volunteer time and efforts for
> something
> > that could have easily been prevented. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia
> > Foundation and some other voices in the movement contribute to this
> misery
> > and it is highly unprobable that any complaint to any one in the
movement
> > would pay off.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kiril
> >
> > On сре., 13 фев. 2019 г. at 16:13 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> camelia boban <camelia.boban(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia terça,
> 12/02/2019
> >> à(s) 11:18:
> >>
> >> > (...)
> >> > In line with the philosophy of the inclusion of the movement,
AffCom
> has
> >> > acted as it always does when it receives affiliation requests: it
> >> assesses
> >> > the territorial overlap and the declared purpose of the requests
with
> >> > others affiliates present in
the territory, contacting the already
> >> > recognized affiliates to hear from them about any concerns, using
the
> >> > experience and knowledge on
the territory of each of its members.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I suppose this was not in effect back in 2015, when Wiki Education
> Brazil
> >> was approved, as neither the existing affiliate in Brazil - UG
> Wikimedia
> >> in Brazil -, nor Wikimedia Portugal, have been consulted about it,
even
> >> when it totally overlapped with the
territory of the existing
> affiliate in
> >> Brazil, and was announced by AffCom as having a Lusophone target,
> therefore
> >> interfering in Portugal as well. Furthermore, at the date it was
> approved,
> >> Wiki Education Brazil was already in open conflict with the existing
> >> affiliate in Brazil, which makes the approval decision by AffCom
> absolutely
> >> incomprehensible.
> >>
> >> Actually, I really fail to understand why the candidatures to AffCom
> >> continue allowed to be proposed in absolute secrecy, leaving any
> problems
> >> caused by their approvals to be dealt with by the community after
the
> >> problem is already installed. Does
not seem a very clever way of
> acting.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Paulo - DarwIn
> >> Wikimedia Portugal
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> 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 and
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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>