[Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation - Wikimedia-l

Samuel Klein

13 Jul 13 Jul

2:55 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

We're discussing setting up an "Affiliation committee" to oversee simple, low-overhead wikimedia affiliates and associations. These could be organizations 'under the umbrella' of free knowledge -- requiring just basic review of their work and standards to confirm they are in line with our basic principles. [1] Wikimedia Associations could be individual wikiprojects, clubs, or meetups run by one or more people that want to establish a lasting identity as part of the movement. Third-party wikis and larger groups could be Wikimedia Affiliates. Both could use web-badges and icons to identify them with the movement (derived from the WM community logo?). SJ [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/New_group_models On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question-- ;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part of' Wikimedia? One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia Movement". (alternate text welcome ) Later, a self-identified affiliate could be formally designated as "part of the Wikimedia Movement" by the global community or the foundation or both. Such recognition would have lots of benefits for the new projects that share our values-- other WM projects would know to visibly link to them whenever they have relevant content (as we currently do across WMF projects). We could permit access to the unified login, we could allow template-sharing or image-sharing. We could set up interwiki-linking, and other interoperability functions. Such recognition would have even bigger benefits for us. We could get an affiliation with an established, successful project that shares our values. The kinds of project that we would build ourselves if someone else hadn't already built it. Their userbases and readership would see get to Wikimedia as something larger than just WP, and it would help cement public understanding that Wikimedia is a Movement, very big, very diverse, and very special. ; 2-- We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative, that they are "part of" something. That something should be a something that is connected to us. But self-identified affiliation has no gatekeeper, so whatever it is new projects can be "part of", there could be lots that we don't approve of. I'm the founder of a project and I want signal my ideological affiliation to WM. I think my own project's values match the Wikimedia's values, in my opinion anyway. Recognizing that I may or may not be right-- what should I say I am a "part of"? We could just tell projects in this situation to say they are "Part of the Wikimedia Movement", but perhaps that name is one we want to reserve just for officially recognized projects. If so, what name should such projects use instead? Note that they need to be saying something different than just "I like Wikipedia, here's a link". They need to be _identifying_ their own efforts as _under the umbrella_ of what we do. They need to be "investing" in us and our mission, saying "This project is our attempt to help share the world's information". Right now, I think we can craft any statement, logo, or button we want and like-minded projects would use it if prompted. We just have to be thoughtful about what we want those things to look like. We will no longer have total control over whichever name or logos we recommend projects use for self-identified affiliation. So that's my question -- what should third-party wikis say they are "part of", if they want to express a connection to us? Alec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

Reply

Ziko van Dijk

11:03 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

Hello, If I understand Alec right he wants a model wherein a project like WikiSomething can declare itself affiliated with Wikimedia: "We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative, that they are "part of" something." Of course, WikiSomething can say on its website "We like Wikimedia and share its goals", but the wording must not give the impression that there is an official link between both. The problem is that we don't want that anybody can decorate himself with the Wikimedia trademark and maybe abuse it. There must be an official recognition anyway from Wikimedia Foundation. Kind regards Ziko van Dijk 2011/7/13 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>rg>:

...

I am not sure if this is about the same thing. I read Alec's questions as being about content projects that want to affiliate themselves with Wikimedia - want to become the new Wikimedia project. I know that in the past this question has lived for example with OmegaWiki/WiktionaryZ . SJ, would you consider this to be similar to Wikimedian groups who want to have a slightly more formal relationship with the Movement? Lodewijk 2011/7/13 Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>

We're discussing setting up an "Affiliation committee" to oversee simple, low-overhead wikimedia affiliates and associations. These could be organizations 'under the umbrella' of free knowledge -- requiring just basic review of their work and standards to confirm they are in line with our basic principles. [1] Wikimedia Associations could be individual wikiprojects, clubs, or meetups run by one or more people that want to establish a lasting identity as part of the movement. Third-party wikis and larger groups could be Wikimedia Affiliates. Both could use web-badges and icons to identify them with the movement (derived from the WM community logo?). SJ [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/New_group_models On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question-- ;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part of' Wikimedia? One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia Movement". (alternate text welcome ) Later, a self-identified affiliate could be formally designated as "part of the Wikimedia Movement" by the global community or the foundation or both. Such recognition would have lots of benefits for the new projects that share our values-- other WM projects would know to visibly link to them whenever they have relevant content (as we currently do across WMF projects). We could permit access to the unified login, we could allow template-sharing or image-sharing. We could set up interwiki-linking, and other interoperability functions. Such recognition would have even bigger benefits for us. We could get an affiliation with an established, successful project that shares our values. The kinds of project that we would build ourselves if someone else hadn't already built it. Their userbases and readership would see get to Wikimedia as something larger than just WP, and it would help cement public understanding that Wikimedia is a Movement, very big, very diverse, and very special. ; 2-- We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative, that they are "part of" something. That something should be a something that is connected to us. But self-identified affiliation has no gatekeeper, so whatever it is new projects can be "part of", there could be lots that we don't approve of. I'm the founder of a project and I want signal my ideological affiliation to WM. I think my own project's values match the Wikimedia's values, in my opinion anyway. Recognizing that I may or may not be right-- what should I say I am a "part of"? We could just tell projects in this situation to say they are "Part of the Wikimedia Movement", but perhaps that name is one we want to reserve just for officially recognized projects. If so, what name should such projects use instead? Note that they need to be saying something different than just "I like Wikipedia, here's a link". They need to be _identifying_ their own efforts as _under the umbrella_ of what we do. They need to be "investing" in us and our mission, saying "This project is our attempt to help share the world's information". Right now, I think we can craft any statement, logo, or button we want and like-minded projects would use it if prompted. We just have to be thoughtful about what we want those things to look like. We will no longer have total control over whichever name or logos we recommend projects use for self-identified affiliation. So that's my question -- what should third-party wikis say they are "part of", if they want to express a connection to us? Alec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

Reply

Pharos

6:41 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free culture wiki sites as part of a broader "Wiki Knowledge" movement. Of course, this is not meant to be an exclusivist or trademarked term :P Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I had the same interpretation as Ziko. Affiliate sites, in Alec's language, want to indicate they share Wikimedian ideals. Few such sites would want to become a Wikimedia-hosted project. SJ On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

Hello, If I understand Alec right he wants a model wherein a project like WikiSomething can declare itself affiliated with Wikimedia: "We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative, that they are "part of" something." Of course, WikiSomething can say on its website "We like Wikimedia and share its goals", but the wording must not give the impression that there is an official link between both. The problem is that we don't want that anybody can decorate himself with the Wikimedia trademark and maybe abuse it. There must be an official recognition anyway from Wikimedia Foundation. Kind regards Ziko van Dijk 2011/7/13 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>rg>:

I am not sure if this is about the same thing. I read Alec's questions as being about content projects that want to affiliate themselves with Wikimedia - want to become the new Wikimedia project. I know that in the past this question has lived for example with OmegaWiki/WiktionaryZ . SJ, would you consider this to be similar to Wikimedian groups who want to have a slightly more formal relationship with the Movement? Lodewijk 2011/7/13 Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>

We're discussing setting up an "Affiliation committee" to oversee simple, low-overhead wikimedia affiliates and associations. These could be organizations 'under the umbrella' of free knowledge -- requiring just basic review of their work and standards to confirm they are in line with our basic principles. [1] Wikimedia Associations could be individual wikiprojects, clubs, or meetups run by one or more people that want to establish a lasting identity as part of the movement. Third-party wikis and larger groups could be Wikimedia Affiliates. Both could use web-badges and icons to identify them with the movement (derived from the WM community logo?). SJ [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_project/New_group_models On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question-- > > ;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation > > How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part > of' Wikimedia? > > One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their > website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia > Movement". (alternate text welcome ) > > Later, a self-identified affiliate could be formally designated as > "part of the Wikimedia Movement" by the global community or the > foundation or both. > > Such recognition would have lots of benefits for the new projects that > share our values-- other WM projects would know to visibly link to > them whenever they have relevant content (as we currently do across > WMF projects). We could permit access to the unified login, we could > allow template-sharing or image-sharing. We could set up > interwiki-linking, and other interoperability functions. > > Such recognition would have even bigger benefits for us. We could > get an affiliation with an established, successful project that shares > our values. The kinds of project that we would build ourselves if > someone else hadn't already built it. Their userbases and readership > would see get to Wikimedia as something larger than just WP, and it > would help cement public understanding that Wikimedia is a Movement, > very big, very diverse, and very special. > > ; 2-- We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. > > External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative, > that they are "part of" something. That something should be a > something that is connected to us. > > But self-identified affiliation has no gatekeeper, so whatever it is > new projects can be "part of", there could be lots that we don't > approve of. > > I'm the founder of a project and I want signal my ideological > affiliation to WM. I think my own project's values match the > Wikimedia's values, in my opinion anyway. > > Recognizing that I may or may not be right-- what should I say I am a > "part of"? > > We could just tell projects in this situation to say they are "Part of > the Wikimedia Movement", but perhaps that name is one we want to > reserve just for officially recognized projects. If so, what name > should such projects use instead? > > Note that they need to be saying something different than just "I like > Wikipedia, here's a link". They need to be _identifying_ their own > efforts as _under the umbrella_ of what we do. They need to be > "investing" in us and our mission, saying "This project is our attempt > to help share the world's information". > > Right now, I think we can craft any statement, logo, or button we want > and like-minded projects would use it if prompted. We just have to > be thoughtful about what we want those things to look like. We will > no longer have total control over whichever name or logos we recommend > projects use for self-identified affiliation. > > So that's my question -- what should third-party wikis say they are > "part of", if they want to express a connection to us? > > Alec > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Alec Conroy

14 Jul 14 Jul

2:27 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 20:41, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free culture wiki sites as part of a broader "Wiki Knowledge" movement. Of course, this is not meant to be an exclusivist or trademarked term :P

Wiki is just a tool for creating content. Wikimedia is a movement and people want to be a part of the movement.

Good point and good point. There are lot of alternate terms running around. Wiki Knowledge Movement is certainly a plausible one that would fit the bill. In my own mind, I use "Free Culture Movement". Emotionally, I think my brain still lumps it all under the concept "Public Library"-- everything got really dang fancy, but it's the same spirit. But the 'sacredness' I feel about WM is the same exact kind of 'sacredness' I felt about walking in a public library in childhood-- both are "a benevolent force for universal enlightenment." The problem with using Wiki in the movement is that we definitely are bigger than just wikis either. If a project uses some other software, but shares our values, they're still in the movement. Wiki, formally, refers just to the software tool, although in the wider world it's conflated with being "Wikipedia-like" in some way. Some parts of the movement may not be projects that use wikis. They might be at the fringe, but we don't want to exclude them if they share our basic values. Alec

Reply

Alec Conroy

14 Jul 14 Jul

2:16 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

Hello, If I understand Alec right he wants a model wherein a project like WikiSomething can declare itself affiliated with Wikimedia: "We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative, that they are "part of" something." Of course, WikiSomething can say on its website "We like Wikimedia and share its goals", but the wording must not give the impression that there is an official link between both.

...

The problem is that we don't want that anybody can decorate himself with the Wikimedia trademark and maybe abuse it. There must be an official recognition anyway from Wikimedia Foundation.

This! We want the "first-class citizenship" provided by "We're Part of The Wikimedia Movement", but without trademark issues AND without stepping on toes. But it has to be "equal footing" and "membership"y. An "I <3 The Wikimedia Movement" bumper sticker just isn't the same effect. Alec

Reply

Alec Conroy

14 Jul 14 Jul

2:32 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

...

One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia Movement". (alternate text welcome )

That would be a trademark violation. We should protect our trademarks. We don't want them associated with just any project. The Foundation, or its delegate, needs to approve any affiliations. Letting anyone call themselves part of the movement could cause us significant harm since an affiliation doesn't just say that the project supports us, but that we support the project. We don't want people claiming we support them unless we actually do.

Precisely. So what do we want them saying instead when they're in that situation? We can write the text, we can design the badges, we just need to let them know what we want that text and badge to be. And, of course, we need to have it reflect something ABOUT them that they would put it up-- it can't just be a link or a banner, it needs to be about movement identity.

Reply