Some random musings:
It seems to me that supporting the creation a single chapter for these independent countries and cultures, solely on the basis of them having once been part of a single state, might be considered offensive to the people involved. No one is proposing that Austria and Hungary merge their potential chapters, nor is anyone suggesting that the UK, Canada, and Australia set up a single chapter, though the cultural differences there may be even less distinct and they still share a single crown, language, etc.
If Yugoslavia was a fiction that the constituent peoples rejected, let's respect that, rather than suggesting that they "join together" again, for the purposes of Wikimedia. I am sure that differing legal and tax requirements in each country would support such a distinction. As for bringing the peoples of different countries involved in Wikimedia together, that would be the role of the Foundation umbrella. Right now, I think the Chapters Committee is doing an excellent job at that.
Danny
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It seems to me that supporting the creation a single chapter for these independent countries and cultures, solely on the basis of them having once been part of a single state, might be considered offensive to the people involved.
It might be, to some, but to many others it would not be. Each location around the globe will involve different circumstances.
No one is proposing that Austria and Hungary merge their potential chapters,
Right, but Austria and Hungary do not even share the same language.
nor is anyone suggesting that the UK, Canada, and Australia set up a single chapter, though the cultural differences there may be even less distinct and they still share a single crown, language, etc.
Right, but UK, Canada, and Australia do not even share the same geographical location.
These matters are for the local people to decide, of course. But I believe based on my experience in talking to people in this region, there is a strong sentiment from a lot of people that the ideas of radically different language, culture, etc., is hardly a settled matter for most ordinary people.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It seems to me that supporting the creation a single chapter for these independent countries and cultures, solely on the basis of them having once been part of a single state, might be considered offensive to the people involved.
It might be, to some, but to many others it would not be. Each location around the globe will involve different circumstances.
No one is proposing that Austria and Hungary merge their potential chapters,
Right, but Austria and Hungary do not even share the same language.
France, Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco share the same language.
nor is anyone suggesting that the UK, Canada, and Australia set up a single chapter, though the cultural differences there may be even less distinct and they still share a single crown, language, etc.
Right, but UK, Canada, and Australia do not even share the same geographical location.
France, Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are located in the same area.
These matters are for the local people to decide, of course. But I believe based on my experience in talking to people in this region, there is a strong sentiment from a lot of people that the ideas of radically different language, culture, etc., is hardly a settled matter for most ordinary people.
--Jimbo
But France, Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are independant countries. With different laws. Different tax considerations.
And different chapters.
Yes, but Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are so small that a coordination among different chapters with the same language could be helpful.
Ilario
But France, Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are independant countries. With different laws. Different tax considerations.
And different chapters.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
? It would never have come to my mind to qualify Swiss and Belgium of *small* countries :-) (I would agree Luxembourg and Monaco are small though ;-))
Of course, coordination is very much necessary. I just could not figure telling Swiss editors "you do not need a chapter, just join the France one" :-)
In any cases, the question about Serbia and Montenegro has been answered...
ant
valdelli@bluemail.ch wrote:
Yes, but Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are so small that a coordination among different chapters with the same language could be helpful.
Ilario
But France, Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are independant countries. With different laws. Different tax considerations.
And different chapters.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/25/06, valdelli@bluemail.ch valdelli@bluemail.ch wrote:
Yes, but Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are so small that a coordination among different chapters with the same language could be helpful.
Do explain why Dutch and French are suddenly the same language, or Italian and Dutch?
Finne/henna
Ilario
But France, Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are independant countries. With different laws. Different tax considerations.
And different chapters.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Do you mean about Belgium? Because a chapter is nation-based and not language-based, as you can see in Wikimedia CH (German, French, Italian, Romansh and Alemmanisch former Wikipedians in same chapter).
Ilario
-- Messaggio originale -- Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:16:01 +0200 From: "Finne Boonen" finne@cassia.be To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org
On 5/25/06, valdelli@bluemail.ch valdelli@bluemail.ch wrote:
Yes, but Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are so small that a coordination among different chapters with the same language could be helpful.
Do explain why Dutch and French are suddenly the same language, or Italian and Dutch?
Finne/henna
On 26/05/06, valdelli@bluemail.ch valdelli@bluemail.ch wrote:
Do you mean about Belgium? Because a chapter is nation-based and not language-based, as you can see in Wikimedia CH (German, French, Italian, Romansh and Alemmanisch former Wikipedians in same chapter).
Ilario
Well since our projects are language and not country based it surely makes some sense to base our bureaucracy on a language basis no?
paz y amor, -rjs.
Robin Shannon a écrit :
On 26/05/06, valdelli@bluemail.ch valdelli@bluemail.ch wrote:
Do you mean about Belgium? Because a chapter is nation-based and not language-based, as you can see in Wikimedia CH (German, French, Italian, Romansh and Alemmanisch former Wikipedians in same chapter).
Ilario
Well since our projects are language and not country based it surely makes some sense to base our bureaucracy on a language basis no?
A pragmatic issue is that associations/foundations follow national laws, not international guidelines as in P2P or distributed project. The same prevails for local parterniship and so on.
On 5/25/06, Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com wrote:
Well since our projects are language and not country based it surely makes some sense to base our bureaucracy on a language basis no?
Chapters exist to facilitate Wikimedia efforts in geographically local areas, and have nothing at all to do with projects in languages their members may happen to speak. They're independent entities with no place in the "bureaucracy" of actually running the Wikimedia projects.
The organization of a chapter is closely tied to its legal status in its respective country—its ability to raise funds, organize events, and generally act as an incorporated entity is based wholly on that status. There's no way a transnational organization could operate as efficiently (if at all) in in carrying out the duties that define a "local chapter"; that's why they exist in the first place.
Austin
Robin Shannon wrote:
Well since our projects are language and not country based it surely makes some sense to base our bureaucracy on a language basis no?
Not necessarily. Local chapters serve local needs, and therefore need to be in tune with local matters, local laws, etc.
In some cases, I think we will have some chapters which cover more than one nation. I think that Serbia/Croatia should go this route, but acknowledge that there are significant counter-arguments, but in any event all of the people commenting, including me, I think we all agree that it should be left up to those local communities to figure out what makes the most sense for them.
In other cases, we will have chapters which cover only parts of some nations. For example, a 'U.S. local chapter' makes no sense because the US is much much too big and diverse for that to be sensible. I can easily imagine an "eastern seaboard" chapter, a "california" chapter, etc. How to draw those lines, and why, well.... too early to speculate since no one has really tried to form one yet. :)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
In other cases, we will have chapters which cover only parts of some nations. For example, a 'U.S. local chapter' makes no sense because the US is much much too big and diverse for that to be sensible. I can easily imagine an "eastern seaboard" chapter, a "california" chapter, etc. How to draw those lines, and why, well.... too early to speculate since no one has really tried to form one yet. :)
The U.S. is also somewhat unique in that it doesn't have a need for a separate "Wikimedia U.S." to fill legal beaurocratic roles, because the global Wikimedia Foundation is already headquartered in the U.S. and subject to U.S. law, so can fill any of those roles itself (tax-exempt donations, applying for U.S. grants, etc.).
I suppose for consistency's sake we could have the same setup in the U.S., but from a pragmatic perspective it seems that as long as U.S. Wikimedians trust the Wikimedia Foundation to handle the accounts and legal aspects, the same effect could be accomplished just by having non-incorporated/informal associations of U.S. Wikimedians do everything a local foundation would normally do except for the legal aspects, thereby avoiding legal and beaurocratic duplication.
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The U.S. is also somewhat unique in that it doesn't have a need for a separate "Wikimedia U.S." to fill legal beaurocratic roles, because the global Wikimedia Foundation is already headquartered in the U.S. and subject to U.S. law, so can fill any of those roles itself (tax-exempt donations, applying for U.S. grants, etc.).
I see the role of the foundation to be outward looking/global and the role of a U.S. chapter to be focused on establishing connections within the U.S. and providing a club framework. A club in a particular area, for example, would organize meet-ups whereby members would collect photos and information from particular areas and for particular events. They would also be points of contact between Wikimedia and local academic, civic, and non-profit persons and groups.
Wikimedia U.S. would also be a membership organization whereas membership in the parent organization is hampered by the fact that it only legally exists in one nation.
I suppose for consistency's sake we could have the same setup in the U.S., but from a pragmatic perspective it seems that as long as U.S. Wikimedians trust the Wikimedia Foundation to handle the accounts and legal aspects, the same effect could be accomplished just by having non-incorporated/informal associations of U.S. Wikimedians do everything a local foundation would normally do except for the legal aspects, thereby avoiding legal and beaurocratic duplication.
There are many areas where the two organizations will not overlap. Making sure to minimize any unnecessary duplication will be a significant challenge *and* opportunity (each organization can then focus on their respective strengths). The little bit of duplicated overhead will not pose a problem once the Wikimedia Foundation hires a proper Executive Director and a couple other directors to run things (thus giving volunteers like me more time to devote to forming a U.S. chapter).
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
… but in any event all of the people commenting, including me, I think we all agree that it should be left up to those local communities to figure out what makes the most sense for them.
I believe this is documented (somewhere) as Wikimedia policy, but even if not, it's the undisputed consensus of those involved with such decisions. It's certainly not for us to object if the Serbs get together with the Croat community and decide to form a broader organization, or if individual Bosnians simply want to join the Serbian chapter (which they can, even now).
In other cases, we will have chapters which cover only parts of some nations. For example, a 'U.S. local chapter' makes no sense because the US is much much too big and diverse for that to be sensible. I can easily imagine an "eastern seaboard" chapter, a "california" chapter, etc. How to draw those lines, and why, well.... too early to speculate since no one has really tried to form one yet. :)
I could personally see, at least initially, something along the lines of the Writers Guild of America—but as you say, so far it's only been discussed in passing. I've long had this plan to get interested parties together at Wikimania for some preliminary talk, but I've been preoccupied with other chapters and organizing the conference itself, to say nothing of my day job, so it's remained something of a secret plan.
Now that I've mentioned it, I suppose I actually have to do something about it.
Austin
On 5/25/06, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
… but in any event all of the people commenting, including me, I think we all agree that it should be left up to those local communities to figure out what makes the most sense for them.
I believe this is documented (somewhere) as Wikimedia policy, but even if not, it's the undisputed consensus of those involved with such decisions. It's certainly not for us to object if the Serbs get together with the Croat community and decide to form a broader organization, or if individual Bosnians simply want to join the Serbian chapter (which they can, even now).
Just in case this wasn't clear (and I was just told it wasn't), I still think the whole thing is an insanely bad idea, for reasons I cover elsewhere in this thread. I'll continue to do everything I can to personally discourage it, but as a matter of policy it's not our place to make demands either way.
Austin
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In other cases, we will have chapters which cover only parts of some nations. For example, a 'U.S. local chapter' makes no sense because the US is much much too big and diverse for that to be sensible. I can easily imagine an "eastern seaboard" chapter, a "california" chapter, etc. How to draw those lines, and why, well.... too early to speculate since no one has really tried to form one yet. :)
I don't agree with that at all. What we need is a single Wikimedia U.S. chapter that is divided into semi-autonomous regions. No need at all to duplicate all the incorporation and other issues.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
<valdelli@...> writes:
Do you mean about Belgium? Because a chapter is nation-based and not language-
based,
as you can see in Wikimedia CH (German, French, Italian, Romansh and
Alemmanisch
former Wikipedians in same chapter).
Ilario
Actually; if there comes a Wikimedia chapter for Belgium it is relative likely that it will be "Wikimedia Flanders" and "Wikimedia Wallonia". Or that a "Wikimedia Belgium" ends up after some time in those.
Greetings, Walter
[[meta:user:Walter]]
On 5/25/06, Finne Boonen finne@cassia.be wrote:
Yes, but Luxembourg, Swiss, Belgium, Monaco are so small that a coordination among different chapters with the same language could be helpful.
Do explain why Dutch and French are suddenly the same language, or Italian and Dutch?
I believe you misunderstood Florence here.
"different chapters *with* the same language" never meant that the chapters have *only* one language." What she meant is that some different chapters already/will/can have languages in common, not that the Belgian or the Swiss *should* be French-speaking only.
Delphine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org