--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Yes, I think that having chapters in countries in the EU is worthwhile for two reasons - firstly, it helps with donations by providing a tax-relieved method of donating (at least, in some countries), and secondly, it helps foster a sense of community and belonging in the members.
Thirdly, tax deductions. Fourthly, tax deductions ;-)
Having robust datacenters around the world - each supported by the national chapter in the nation it is in - also helps to ensure uninterrupted service and longterm viability of what we are doing. That would make us practically immune to technical *and* legal issues that would otherwise really set us back if we had all our eggs in one basket (well, at least until a world government is established - but the Vulcans won't be landing in Montana for at least a hundred years :).
So while having all the live master databases in Florida makes great sense now, I'd like to see us have the capability - if needed for whatever reason - to turn another datacenter into the the live master. That will almost certainly have to be done for short periods in the future for technical failures and major upgrades but may conceivably happen due to legal issues (if the foundation were to lose a lawsuit and had to surrender its assets, for example). Same goes for every chapter.
Similarly protecting our trademarks and domains (which are also assets and worth much more money than all our servers combined) is a more difficult issue that I'd not like to go into much now (a completely separate trust may be needed to act as an owner for that; we need to ask lawyers about this).
Currently just France and Germany have chapters set up, but we are looking at setting one up for the UK soon-ish. Eventually we may want to form a Wikimedia Europe organisation to liase and so on at a larger level, but for now this will suffice.
Just leave out the word 'foundation' from the UK chapter name, and I'll be happy (it would be needlessly confusing). 'Wikimedia UK' sounds like a great name to me. :)
I recently registered wikimedia.us for a future Wikimedia U.S. (or Wikimedia USA) chapter and saw that the .org.uk was available - now it is not. I hope somebody we know and who likes us registered it...
One this that you may want to look out for is what exactly you can do whilst retaining the special tax status - for example, a UK chapter will not be able to merely blindly collect money for the main Foundation, but instead have charitable aims in and of itself (which might in practice not make a great deal of difference, of course - collecting money for international Internet-based education and learning projects vs. collecting money for the Wikimedia Foundation).
I envision four major core areas that national chapters would be well-suited to tackle:
1) Supporting a local datacenter (just a squid farm first, but later a full datacenter with database slaves receiving updates from the live master in Florida but fully capable of becoming their own master if needed for whatever reason).
2) Directing social energy into improving Wikimedia projects. A club system would be set-up under each chapter where a club would cover a metro area. Club members and different clubs would periodically gather and have WikiJam sessions at libraries, museums, national parks, universities, places of historical interest, etc.
Imagine a small army of Wikimedians with digital cameras and PDAs descending into one of these places to extract each available bit of information. Impromptu WikiJams to cover events in the club's metro area would be very useful for Wikinews. I think the fun we have from collaborating online will also manifest itself as we gather data together in the real world.
3) Distribution and popularization of Wikimedia projects within that nation.
4) Also important would be helping the Wikimedia Foundation gather the resources and help it needs to further the goal of bringing free knowledge to the world. National chapters would be better-suited to work with their nation's governments and large companies to help make this happen.
This would allow the Wikimedia Foundation to concentrate on international issues and coordination - esp getting free content in the hands of people who do not have access to the Internet. Under this system, grants (including those from and through chapters - see point 4) will likely one day supplant direct donations as the major source of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation since most donation money from readers will go to national chapters (yes, including Wikimedia U.S.).
This bottom up approach appeals to be greatly.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Having robust datacenters around the world - each supported by the national chapter in the nation it is in - also helps to ensure uninterrupted service and longterm viability of what we are doing.
It should take a lot less of a server to serve in read-only mode. I hope.
Just leave out the word 'foundation' from the UK chapter name, and I'll be happy (it would be needlessly confusing). 'Wikimedia UK' sounds like a great name to me. :)
Ah, OK!
I recently registered wikimedia.us for a future Wikimedia U.S. (or Wikimedia USA) chapter and saw that the .org.uk was available - now it is not. I hope somebody we know and who likes us registered it...
It appears to be registered to one "James Forrester". <s>Looks a bit dodgy to me ...</s>
I envision four major core areas that national chapters would be well-suited to tackle:
- Supporting a local datacenter (just a squid farm first, but later a full
datacenter with database slaves receiving updates from the live master in Florida but fully capable of becoming their own master if needed for whatever reason).
A good reason to accumulate money in the short term.
- Directing social energy into improving Wikimedia projects. A club system
would be set-up under each chapter where a club would cover a metro area. Club members and different clubs would periodically gather and have WikiJam sessions at libraries, museums, national parks, universities, places of historical interest, etc.
Yep.
Imagine a small army of Wikimedians with digital cameras and PDAs descending into one of these places to extract each available bit of information.
Imagine every notable object in the middle of London being photographed, uploaded and written about.
Impromptu WikiJams to cover events in the club's metro area would be very useful for Wikinews. I think the fun we have from collaborating online will also manifest itself as we gather data together in the real world.
Oh, very good!
- Distribution and popularization of Wikimedia projects within that nation.
- Also important would be helping the Wikimedia Foundation gather the
resources and help it needs to further the goal of bringing free knowledge to the world. National chapters would be better-suited to work with their nation's governments and large companies to help make this happen.
Yep.
This would allow the Wikimedia Foundation to concentrate on international issues and coordination - esp getting free content in the hands of people who do not have access to the Internet. Under this system, grants (including those from and through chapters - see point 4) will likely one day supplant direct donations as the major source of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation since most donation money from readers will go to national chapters (yes, including Wikimedia U.S.). This bottom up approach appeals to be greatly.
It will also give people a greater sense of ownership of the project.
Things to watch out for: local foundations being used for nationalist POV-pushing.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Things to watch out for: local foundations being used for nationalist POV-pushing.
This is one of the reasons it is so important to work very hard from the start to make sure that chapter organizers understand that they are not taking control of a particular language wikipedia.
Chapters are going to be a major part of what we're doing going forward, and we have to be *extremely* careful *now* to make wise decisions that lead to global harmony rather than nationalist rivalry.
For example, support *through* local chapters for servers is a great idea, but it is *not* a great idea if we get into a situation where we are supporting different languages differently based on the political situation internally due to some chapters raising more money than others, etc.
All chapters are expected to support the *global* goals of the foundation.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050329 02:15]:
David Gerard wrote:
Things to watch out for: local foundations being used for nationalist POV-pushing.
This is one of the reasons it is so important to work very hard from the start to make sure that chapter organizers understand that they are not taking control of a particular language wikipedia.
One that springs to mind: ownership of essential servers would need to stay with the central Foundation, not with local chapters.
Chapters are going to be a major part of what we're doing going forward, and we have to be *extremely* careful *now* to make wise decisions that lead to global harmony rather than nationalist rivalry.
Why are sr:, hr: and bs: still separate wikis, despite the languages being barely different than British and American? (And Cantonese still hasn't got a wiki ...)
(I can guess the answers: they're called separate languages for obvious local political reasons, and the participants have no interest in merging them.)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Why are sr:, hr: and bs: still separate wikis, despite the languages being barely different than British and American? (And Cantonese still hasn't got a wiki ...)
(I can guess the answers: they're called separate languages for obvious local political reasons, and the participants have no interest in merging them.)
I think it's a bit worse than that on our part. I think it just happened by accident historically, and they have all continued forward in a state of general neglect. I would strongly support a merger of these to whatever extent is practical. (There is a problem of script for 2 of the 3, as I recall, and I don't know how if there's a simple machine solution.)
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050329 05:21]:
David Gerard wrote:
Why are sr:, hr: and bs: still separate wikis, despite the languages being barely different than British and American? (And Cantonese still hasn't got a wiki ...) (I can guess the answers: they're called separate languages for obvious local political reasons, and the participants have no interest in merging them.)
I think it's a bit worse than that on our part. I think it just happened by accident historically, and they have all continued forward in a state of general neglect. I would strongly support a merger of these to whatever extent is practical. (There is a problem of script for 2 of the 3, as I recall, and I don't know how if there's a simple machine solution.)
Worse than that even - sh: was Serbo-Croatian, then they were separated at some stage. Anyone know the history?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Worse than that even - sh: was Serbo-Croatian, then they were separated at some stage. Anyone know the history?
The ISO 639 language code 'sh' for Serbo-Croatian was officially deprecated over five years ago: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html
While I'm sure a happy world in which the violent breakup of Yugoslavia never happened would be great, the fact is that it did happen, and the resulting nations are heavily invested in playing up nationalistic ethnic and linguistic differences.
I don't particularly care whether someone attempts to re-merge them or not, but you're going to run into very annoyed people either way.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber (brion@pobox.com) [050329 09:22]:
David Gerard wrote:
Worse than that even - sh: was Serbo-Croatian, then they were separated at some stage. Anyone know the history?
The ISO 639 language code 'sh' for Serbo-Croatian was officially deprecated over five years ago: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html
yay w00t!
While I'm sure a happy world in which the violent breakup of Yugoslavia never happened would be great, the fact is that it did happen, and the resulting nations are heavily invested in playing up nationalistic ethnic and linguistic differences. I don't particularly care whether someone attempts to re-merge them or not, but you're going to run into very annoyed people either way.
Possibly not a great place for an officially affiliated Foundation chapter as yet.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Brion Vibber (brion@pobox.com) [050329 09:22]:
David Gerard wrote:
Worse than that even - sh: was Serbo-Croatian, then they were separated at some stage. Anyone know the history?
The ISO 639 language code 'sh' for Serbo-Croatian was officially deprecated over five years ago: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html
yay w00t!
While I'm sure a happy world in which the violent breakup of Yugoslavia never happened would be great, the fact is that it did happen, and the resulting nations are heavily invested in playing up nationalistic ethnic and linguistic differences. I don't particularly care whether someone attempts to re-merge them or not, but you're going to run into very annoyed people either way.
Possibly not a great place for an officially affiliated Foundation chapter as yet.
That varies with the country. The political fault lines are already clearer than they might be in Belgium. A Croatian foundation might work more easily than one in Serbia or Bosnia.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050329 02:15]:
David Gerard wrote:
Things to watch out for: local foundations being used for nationalist POV-pushing.
This is one of the reasons it is so important to work very hard from the start to make sure that chapter organizers understand that they are not taking control of a particular language wikipedia.
One that springs to mind: ownership of essential servers would need to stay with the central Foundation, not with local chapters.
The key thing in that is what we mean by "essential". The argument for servers and organizations in other countries has nothing to language. I do not support for a moment the idea that Canada, or Belgium or Switzerland ahould have separate legal organizations. Tax relief and risk management are certainly more important issues.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org