Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Austin Hair wrote:
Every chapter has unique considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter.
Speaking only for myself as one board member among many, I agree with Austin completely. There can be "subnational chapters" - meaning that the chapter is concentrated on a region smaller than a nation-state, but they are not 'sub-chapters'.
The New York City metropolitan area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area
has 18.8 million people.
This is slightly larger than the Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
at 16.4 million.
The world is not necessarily carved up geopolitically in a manner that would make it at all make sense to declare one nation/one chapter.
Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was very tiny having two chapters?
It's a subtle matter with many factors that have to be thoughtfully balanced.
--Jimbo
This has to be correct, but I really wonder... can they be.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was very tiny having two chapters?
If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups found that they absolutely could not work together and that it would be far easier for them to organize separately, then yes that would be okay. The size of the region isn't nearly so important as other factors like activity level. We also cannot pretend that we know how people in country X should organize better then those people do themselves. Organizers will tell us what's right for them, we do not tell them what is right for them (although we can always make thoughtful suggestions).
--Andrew Whitworth
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was very tiny having two chapters?
If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups found that they absolutely could not work together and that it would be far easier for them to organize separately, then yes that would be okay.
To clarify, I'm not sure that "absolutely could not work together" is the best description of the criteria. Our culture is built on collaboration and cooperation, and I expect that all chapters should be able to work together when the occasion calls for it. So the question is to me is whether there's value in having two different organizations, enough to justify the overhead of building the second one.
Suppose we had a Wikimedia Istanbul, and hypothetically its members on either side of the Bosporus don't want to work together, that wouldn't be a reason to allow a separate chapter. But if it somehow actually mattered whether people were in Europe or in Asia, then that might be a reason to have two chapters there.
--Michael Snow
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
To clarify, I'm not sure that "absolutely could not work together" is the best description of the criteria. Our culture is built on collaboration and cooperation, and I expect that all chapters should be able to work together when the occasion calls for it. So the question is to me is whether there's value in having two different organizations, enough to justify the overhead of building the second one.
I agree with you on this point, but I don't think it's for us (board, chapcom, etc) to decide whether the additional overhead is called for. Obviously we should make all the information and caveats known to all applicant groups before they are approved to become a chapter, but they really have to be relied upon to make the final decisions concerning themselves.
Suppose we had a Wikimedia Istanbul, and hypothetically its members on either side of the Bosporus don't want to work together, that wouldn't be a reason to allow a separate chapter. But if it somehow actually mattered whether people were in Europe or in Asia, then that might be a reason to have two chapters there.
Chapters may want to focus on local works. The Istanbul chapter may want to focus it's attention on activities that happen in and around Istanbul only. People from Ankara could join the chapter but would be excluded from it's activities because of distance. As much as we might like the Istanbul chapter to expand it's focus to cover the entire country, they might find themselves unwilling or unable to do so. Do we then keep the people of Ankara from forming a second chapter in Turkey because of it?
WMNYC has focused it's energy towards on-the-ground and in-person activities like "Wikipedia Loves Art", or "Wikis Take Manhattan". People who are too far away will not be able to participate in these activities. You could say that they could be a national group and organize other events in other cities. But then you would have separate groups within the chapter organizing and participating in separate activities with no meaningful interaction between them. If a smaller regional chapter can pay more attention to it's members, foster better cooperation, and support more outreach activities by virtue of being able to focus on a smaller geographical area, I think that's a major benefit to consider.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 14:49, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Wow!, just wow. Would you be okay with one country that was very tiny having two chapters?
If the very tiny country had enough active wikimedians to create critical mass for two chapters, and if those two groups found that they absolutely could not work together and that it would be far easier for them to organize separately, then yes that would be okay. The size of the region isn't nearly so important as other factors like activity level. We also cannot pretend that we know how people in country X should organize better then those people do themselves. Organizers will tell us what's right for them, we do not tell them what is right for them (although we can always make thoughtful suggestions).
I completely disagree with your analysis here.
No, if a very tiny country had enough wikimedians to create critical mass to create two chapters, _and if those two groups found that they absolutely could not work together_ (even if it's easier), then no, the Wikimedia Foundation should never ever agree to recognize both chapters. Chapters _must_ make sense. Actually, this is true of tiny or big countries.
A NYC chapter makes sense, because today, there is no other "chapter" that will not go and act in New York without consulting with the chapter. And the WMF operates on a different level. Two, three, twenty groups (however active) that potentially have the exact same interlocutors should not be allowed to be called "Wikimedia" and be given the name of chapter.
This is where we might want to have national chapters precluding sub-national chapters "that make sense". Belgium in that regard is an interesting example. If you let a Wikimedia Belgie-only-dutch-speaking chapter happen, or a Wikimedia Belgique-only-French-speaking chapter happen (as was proposed a looong time ago), you are stuck with the fact that Wikimedia Belgium is in one language and not in the other. However, setting aside all cultural and linguistic aspects of the country, which are real, and even legal aspects which might be different depending the "region", the "national institutions" are _national_. As such, they should have one interlocutor and one only. This said, in Belgium, it might make perfect sense to have two sections of the same chapter, one that will focus on one language and/or regional institutions, the other on the other.
And in my opinion, it also would be ok if one group of people focused on one language was to start the chapter, with little involvement from the other language(s), as long as the bylaws would reflect this diversity and allow for other to join.
Delphine
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I completely disagree with your analysis here.
No, if a very tiny country had enough wikimedians to create critical mass to create two chapters, _and if those two groups found that they absolutely could not work together_ (even if it's easier), then no, the Wikimedia Foundation should never ever agree to recognize both chapters. Chapters _must_ make sense. Actually, this is true of tiny or big countries.
A NYC chapter makes sense, because today, there is no other "chapter" that will not go and act in New York without consulting with the chapter. And the WMF operates on a different level. Two, three, twenty groups (however active) that potentially have the exact same interlocutors should not be allowed to be called "Wikimedia" and be given the name of chapter.
Disagreement is fine! We're obviously dealing with a lot of hypotheticals here. I guess maybe I should have stipulated that the two chapters in the tiny country be mutually-exclusive and non-overlapping. We don't have two chapters operating in New York City simultaneously, but we could definitely have two regional chapters operating in the country simultaneously.
What we want is for Wikimedians to be able to join _A_ chapter if they are interested, but we don't want them to have to choose between multiple options. There either is a chapter in your area that you can join, or your area is free for the creation of a new chapter. If we have critical mass to support two chapters in a given country (no matter how tiny), and if they don't overlap and if they don't interfere with each other, I think they should be allowed to organize themselves in that way.
Now, realistically I think this whole issue is a non-starter. I don't suspect we are going to see places that are both sufficiently "tiny" _and_ have the critical mass needed to support two chapters. I think you and I have both seen, Delphine, that creating a new chapter takes a lot of work and there are precious few people willing and able to make it happen. Chapters don't just spring to life out of thin air, and they don't multiply like rabbits. I think it may be quite a long time until we see a second US chapter, much less before we get two applications from Luxembourg. While I don't think we should draw a line and say all countries smaller then a certain size can't qualify for subnational chapters, I also don't forsee that countries below a certain size threshold are going to be interested in it anyway.
This is where we might want to have national chapters precluding sub-national chapters "that make sense". Belgium in that regard is an interesting example. If you let a Wikimedia Belgie-only-dutch-speaking chapter happen, or a Wikimedia Belgique-only-French-speaking chapter happen (as was proposed a looong time ago), you are stuck with the fact that Wikimedia Belgium is in one language and not in the other. However, setting aside all cultural and linguistic aspects of the country, which are real, and even legal aspects which might be different depending the "region", the "national institutions" are _national_. As such, they should have one interlocutor and one only. This said, in Belgium, it might make perfect sense to have two sections of the same chapter, one that will focus on one language and/or regional institutions, the other on the other.
Right, every country is going to pose different situations, and Belgium might not make sense to separate into two chapters if there aren't clear geographic boundaries between the two. Creating new chapters isn't an excuse to avoid working and collaborating with people who are different from yourself, but it should instead be a vehicle for overcoming barriers and getting people involved. If language barriers are accompanied by clear geographic barriers, that is a good use case for separate chapters.
And in my opinion, it also would be ok if one group of people focused on one language was to start the chapter, with little involvement from the other language(s), as long as the bylaws would reflect this diversity and allow for other to join.
This is similar to what had been happening with the Canadian group, where most of their organizing was being done in english but they were trying to get more french-speakers involved as well. Our projects are multilingual, and I think in most cases we should expect our chapters to support that as well. However, if language is one of several barriers that prevent Wikimedians from getting involved, then separate chapters should be created to help get more people to participate.
--Andrew Whitworth
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org